This is blog tells the story of a how a single paragraph from a book written in 1818 by Mary Shelley turned into an intertextual monster with life on its own.
It's been said over and over that we are what we eat, we are what we see, and we are what we listen to, among many similar advertising pseudo-aphorisms. They are constantly and widely used in media today to illustrate our construction of the self as a linear narrative of repetitive events. Francis Bacon once said: Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus, published in1818, is by far one those few books Bacon refers to. The characters of the story are not only captivating and exciting but the power of its narrative has spawned hundreds--if not thousands--of intertextual and hypertextual interpretations and reinterpretations ever since the novel was released to the public. According to University of California's Professor Porter Abbot the characters in any novel are constructed upon the experiences we have stored throughout the years, the events we live on a daily basis, and we consider these experiences important and relevant because they are meaningful to us as individuals and also as species living in a shared reality.
The same principle applies to our imagination. The capacity to create and to be creative are forms of coping with the same reality in an attempt to explain existing myths that have been recorded to help construct a meta-narrative we agree to call History. More importantly, the events that we cannot explain, either because they are so fresh and recent that our comprehension lacks of the tools to apprehend them, or because they are too strange and foreign to our limited sensorium, we label as myths. It could be argued that the genre of fiction is a form of narrative construction that stimulates the imagination of the people authoring this intellectual process. These elements help us eat, digest, and ultimately assimilate fiction. According to Professor Porter Abbot we construct fiction by: drawing from pre-existing types that we have absorbed from our culture and out of which, guided by narrative, we mentally synthesize, if not the characters, something that stands for the character. (The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative 2008)
However, this form of narrative construction is possible thanks to the more rigid narrative imposed upon us that we agree to call Reality. Moreover, traditionally we perceive reality and fiction as two separate entities, two sides of the same mirror that coexist to inform each other about this shared experience but that could never be on the same surface. That was before technology came into the human plot and, making the best use of intertext and hypertext, new forms of expression intertwined in an intellectual feast to spawn innumerable forms of expression and ultimately, of "real" life made using computers.
In this blog I will introduce Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and analyze the narrative structure of a single paragraph of the novel. Evidently, this is not "any paragraph" at all but the most important paragraph in the narrative of the novel. This paragraph constitutes the seed that made possible new forms of media monsters in different times. The lines of text correspond to the exact moment of creation, the minute when the monster came to be, the group of words that injected life into the motionless creature. This text will then be compared another relevant form of intertextual construction in a different medium, film. Finally, this analysis will emphasize Kenneth Branagh's film interpretation of Mary Shelly's story. This analysis will conclude with the introduction of a scientific presentation about the real possibility of creating life using new media technology today, arguing that new media is allowing the creation of real monsters whose life will depend upon hypertext and electronic impulses of information. A real monster is in the making.
Foundation:
In 1818 British novelist Mary W. Shelley conceived one of the most important works of English literature in history: "Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus."
Download Frankenstein_ebook_project_gutemberg
Any attempt to describe her novel in detail would be ludicrous given the extensive scholarly research developed on it over a period period of time stretching almost two hundred years. However, a few notes may bring fruits and vegetables into the discourse that introduced the concept of digestion as means of intellectual growth.
Mary Shelley began writing her novel when she was eighteen years old and finished it only a year later. According to University of Michigan's English Literature professor Eric S. Rabkin, the motivation that sparked life into the novel took place during a famous social gathering when Mary Shelley and her lover Percy Bysshe Shelley, were engaged in a discussion with Lord Byron and her half sister Claire Clairmont, among other romantics, all whom challenged each other to write ghost stories. Here is an audio quote on Professor Rabkin's lecture on the subject of Frankenstein:
Download Frankenstein_ghost_story_challenge_audio_quote
Mary Shelly's story became relevant as one of the most meaningful metaphors attempting to encompass the fear of technology in nineteenth century. The man-made machines became characters in the construction of the cultural discourse that brought major changes in society at large as they began to rapidly intertwine with people's daily events. This unstoppable progress would incite the creation of innumerable modes of expression to purge these newly found fears to the unknown. Writing fiction became a way to subconsciously escape from the powerful arms and hands of these new invasive characters. The prevalence of machines in society help to reinforce reality by means of their physical presence in the environment. Size, weight, and other physical criteria were used to describe the existence of these objects in the everyday scape. However, regardless of how powerful these new creatures could be perceived, they all lacked of a natural flow of energy, they were dead bodies after all, lifeless matter waiting to be brought to life by human interaction and human intellect.
In this regard, Shelley's novel also reflects upon the subject of the invention of electricity that began with Luigi Galvani in 1791, with his discovery about bio-electricity and its affect on the human body, and ended with the invention of the motor by Michael Faraday in 1821. It could be argued that Shelley's novel became even more important as electricity began to be recognized as a fundamental component of the human experience and its power over societies.
This rapid technological progress promoted a dismemberment between Fiction and Nonfiction and ultimately the emergence of a complex paradox in terms of narratology and humanity. Professor H. Porter Abbot suggests this idea when he indicates that fiction is a process that: moves a story into discourse without compromising reality or committing to it; where as nonfiction narrative always requires a referent to be validated. In the case of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the paradox lies in the fact that the story, in spite of being fictional, demands a reference to reality to be validated as such, hence the birth of Science Fiction occurred. Science Fiction is a type of narrative that requires a layer of nonfiction to it in order to be successful. The required cross-checking between narratives assisted gracefully in the construction of what today is decoded as the signifier pertaining this analysis: Frankenstein.
Frankenstein, as we understand it today, is not the graduate student whose immense talent rendered him capable of creating life but the nameless creature, the fiend, the wretch, the monster that he immediately rejected as a product of his intellect and he so obsessively tried to terminate. It could be argued that Frankenstein stands for the scientific community that once realized of the power of their creation, could not take it back, and had to observe growth and evolution without much of a say about the process.
Mary Shelley's plot became--without intending to do it--an uncontrollable monster itself. Her keen observations allowed her text to become an intertextual interpretation of the historical moments that were taking place during 1818. This intertextuality was then picked up by emerging new media. Such was the case of film making. One of the very early reinterpretations of Shelley's work in the 1910 film made by Edison Studios, written and directed by J. Searle Dawley. It was the first motion picture adaptation of the Shelley's novel.
This artistic interpretation of the original plot is reduced to fifteen minutes of silent film. This technology constraint forced the artists to extract and compact the entire plot to adapt to what technology was capable of delivering in those times. It could be argued that the decision of stepping away from the original text to adapt to technology nurtured the emergence of intertextuality. It is important to note the outstanding achievement in terms of special effects that this movie delivers. Additionally, in terms of conceptual development, this movie made a powerful statement in the scene that shows a monster that, in a pure Lacanian way, discovers its image reflected in the mirror and reacts in awe and complete fear to it, demonstrating through it the real transcendental discovery of consciousness. The monster's reaction does not talk only about technology's incapacity of self-awareness but summarizes the emotion of the times, a humanity equally incapable of realizing the full impact of machines brought to life to flood society with dependence and needs unheard of before. Take a look at the 1910 silent version of Frankenstein:
It took more than two decades before the world would see a new interpretation of the same text. This new interpretation would be, however, transcendental in the construction of global popular culture. In 1931's James Whale produced: "Frankenstein," a movie funded as a commercial venture by Universal Pictures that would change popular culture and reality forever.
Whale's work introduced a new monster to the screen. A monster of giant stature--thanks to industrial working boots "enhanced" by platforms to increase the monster's height, and more importantly, green skin. The skin color is a very interesting decision that may seem innocuous and theatrical, however, considering that the film is in black and white the green color speaks volumes about the meaningful decisions made to attract the attention of the audience back in those times.
More importantly, the central promotional phrase of the movie poster shows a drastic change in terms of the construction of character. It reads: the man who made a monster whereas in the original novel Frankenstein's intention concentrates in the creation of life itself. The vision of a united word with no barriers generated a strong sense of fear to the other, xenophobia was becoming a prevalent issue in society that increased to a major turning point a decade later with the Nazi Holocaust. At the same time technology has progressed to a point where new machines were being introduced to the market with prices intended to reach larger audiences. Such is the case of the photographic camera and the early version of film cameras. One could argue that Whale's film was also speaking about the fear to the unknown, once again, a fear to technology, electricity, and the resources being still in a few hands.
As said earlier, a green monster made by an European white doctor from Geneva made total sense in that particular time in history when the elements of xenophobia would give birth to the second World War. At this point, once again, the differences between fiction and nonfiction began to intertwine and create an unknown territory that prevails to this day, thanks to media working as a filter between the two worlds. This form of intertext was possible as a form of dialog between brains and machines. The anchorage to a particular setting, as professor Michael Toolan suggests, is key to understand the success of a fictive story of a monster that was much more rational and intellectual than his maker. We can observe yet another metaphor of the human dilemma, the creature who questions its creator to the point of denying its life source. A hybrid between fiction and nonfiction allows the myth making process to thrive and inform the public about how to construct reality. However, interxtextual reading allow an even more important development: expressive and experimental reinterpretations. The results, far from being independent, claim individuality and a voice of their own. In the case of Frankenstein the reinterpreted work slowly took over and became more important than the source itself.
-------MARGINAL NOTE---------------------------------------------------------------------------- James Whale's gigantic leap away from Shelley's text, along with the performative interpretation of a monster that has almost no reference to its textual counterpart, allowed the proliferation of innumerable intertextual exchanges with other forms of expression, and several other media. Many years later, these enriching exchange of texts among texts evolved to become a hypertextual re-interpreted narrative in the work entitled Patchwork Girl by Shelley Jackson whose latest work, interestingly enough, involves thousands of human beings, skin, and text: Skin: a mortal work of art
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, it is important to note that the most remarkable aspect of this re-interpreted narrative is twofold. First, the moment of creation introduced the concept of lightning as the means to inject life in inert body parts sewn together. This new idea changed Shelley's concept of life making from chemistry to physics. This seemingly benign switch was of great symbolic importance considering that Dr. Frankenstein's attempt to create life was based in his ability to manipulate chemical compounds, therefore the control of nature through intellectual knowledge, to the control of physics and nature--hence god--to create life and ultimately to mimic god.
Second, the negotiation between narratives was a key component of this silent dialog between media. Whereas Shelley's text talked about the fear towards technology and the machine embodied in a hybrid being, Whale's "text" talked about the society's fears about a possible lack of communication, of societal labeling, and of solitude in a new society where people are being packed in small tribes incapable of direct communication. Whale's Frankenstein was never intellectual but a pure monster from the very beginning. His ultimate expression of some human consciousness was expressed through two basic human emotions: love and hate.
Whales constructed this character in the movie by transforming the monster from a noble, nameless, and intellectually gifted persona--as it was constructed by Shelley--into a growling, hideous, and intellectually retarded being. Frankenstein is now the creature, a new form of human-machine of the grotesque . The creature represents a new society perplexed by excessive "technification" and acceleration of everything. This transformation gives birth to the contemporary iconic character that abounds halloween commemorations, cartoons, toy stores, and costume parties all over the world. In this version of the story the moment of creation depicts a not-so-mad scientist harnessing the power of nature to give birth to his creation. The process in this version is conducted with the assistance of "Fritz," his loyal servant and an audience of important people. The observers of this moment are trapped between two worlds: one of fiction triggered by the creature and all the equipment constructing the scenario, and two, the people observing the event who represent society and what is consider as normal, formal, and legal. The famous phrase: It's alive, it's alive epitomizes the moment of creation providing the structure for the plot of the story and its coda.
More importantly, Whales's character solidly constructed, in terms of popular culture, an icon that would take several years to be fully implemented in society at large but successfully accomplishing its task. That character was portrayed by actor Boris Karloff.
When the original story moved through different media it evolved in different forms creating a concert of intertextuality that help with the creation of endless forms of commercial products that are still prevalent today. However, it could be argued that most of these products were based in the 1931 Boris Karloff's Frankenstein. Take a look at the moment of creation as it is constructed in Whales Film:
In terms of narratology, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is not only the grandmother of Science Fiction novels but also an early construction of a post modern novel nearly 170 years before postmodernism was a major trend in the art world. The narrative presents the last section first and using several narrative voices, beginning almost as a epistolary novel to first person objective, to third person omniscient. There are multiple voices switching back and forth to assist the story in creating tensions picks from time to time.
The previous brief introduction into the intertextual nature of Shelley's work lead us to the pivoting component of this analysis: one paragraph. The "seed" that created the evolving structure of the narrative and the characters in the story is comprised of six lines of a paragraph that opens chapter five. This paragraph has suffered the most imaginable transformation to become today's iconic image of a tall, sometimes brutal, other times gentle monster, yet never human. The paragraph that this analysis refers to is copied verbatim here:
The voice of the narrator for this particular paragraph that encapsulates the intensity of the plot is described in third voice omniscient and it is replenished with symbolic terminology that create contrasts to increase the symbolism and relevance of this particular section to the story. "Life" is opposed to "lifeless;" "spark" is opposed to "burnt out," and "half-extinguished" is opposed to "breathed hard." These contrasts help create an aura of mystery and anxiety in the reader that constructs a remarkable sense of accomplishment in spite of the situation. The description of the environment helps summarize years of experimentation and learning described in the preceding paragraphs. However, it is not a storm but a sense of discomfort assisted by the dying light of a candle that opposes to electricity and talks about the use of changing use of time and a new form of life that was reserved to a few after the sun set.
As a sign of dawn--to create more tension with the candle light--the creature opens an eye to reveal the culmination of enormous amounts of research and dedication. It is important to note that the creature opens one eye, not both eyes. This seemingly insignificant detail refers to technology as the spectacle of society and photography as an emerging form of means to record "objective" historic events. Frankenstein describes the infusion of the energy of life in the previously inert body. The extinguishing of the candle light also refers to the dying technologies creating space for the new ones. The single opening eye also refers to the control that machines began to impose into people. Machines made out of parts and pieces began to gradually take over control of society and the nameless monster is a great way to exemplify the impossibility of assigning one term to all machinery that began to populate society. The collection of "instruments of life" is charged with meaning as it says almost too much without saying anything at all. The instruments of life could be surgical instruments, machines, even bibles. The beauty of the structure of this paragraph relies precisely in the symbolic openness of the semiotic construction of it. When Frankensteins describes the "lifeless thing" he points to it being at his feet. That description is crucial to create the environment where this amazing event is to occur. He is not constructing a scientific scenario surrounded by machines, "high-tech" equipments, and waiting for a lightning bolt to strike.
When the narrator's voice becomes a reality, tangible through the senses, it adds a very important layer of meaning to the narrative of the story. The tones of voice that the author attempts to capture with adjectives, nouns, and punctuation are re-interpreted in a different form. To experience the difference described here please click below to take a listen to an excerpt of Shelly's novel narrated by Simon Templeman published in February 2008, available as an audio book:
Download Audio_excerpt_creation_moment_frankenstein
In this audio version of the paragraph the narrator creates the tension and emotion that in a regular reading might or might not be present. When this real voice--although digitized--is narrating the story for the audience a new layer is incorporated into the complex structure of a plot.
-------MARGINAL NOTE----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to note that audiobooks are yet to be consider valid forms of scholarly research. They are perceived as forms of entertainment rather than formal structures capable of narratology analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63 years later, Kenneth Branagh directed a film described by its promotional title as: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein starring Robert De Niro. It claims to be an adaptation of the original text by Shelley. Even though Branagh's work follows the novel more closely than other film adaptations, it deviates conceptually and literally from the original plot. The claim made in its title is a clever marketing tool to attract people to the theaters.
The moment of creation in this interpretation of the original text is comprised of several opposing symbols creating a mishmash of meanings that are described through several screen shots. Please take a look at the full scene here:
The moment of creation is evidently a re-interpretation of the 1931's Whales film version. Using a generous budget that incorporated academy award winner Robert De Niro as the monster, the analyzed scene begins with Frankenstein deciding to complete the process in spite of the environment of disease and decay around him. His bride-to-be and friend from childhood comes to check upon him, she tries to bring him back to reason and to take him away from the village struck by disease. However, Frankenstein is so obssessed about his work that it dismisses the strong feelings he has for her, as the audience had been told during previous segments of the film.
The camera takes the audience into a close up of Leonardo Da Vinci's famous Vitruvian Man in order to establish credibility. Additionally, this image is charged with meaning as the signifier Da Vinci is associated with the ultimate achievement of excellence in interdisciplinarity and scholarship. By establishing this association Frankenstein's attempt to make life--and transcend history--is perceived as an acceptable and possible deed deserving all attention and public interest. His creation is expected to be a perfect marriage between art and science. Frankenstein's character, in conjunction with the setting, prepares the audience to the moment of creation, the coda of this scene.
In around five minutes viewers are crammed with symbols of all natures. There are some of particular importance such as the image narrating the descent of the human-made creature, it/he is laying naked on the metal grid covered by a piece of canvas. The body is clearly posing as a crucified Jesus going into the light, making direct reference to symbols of power in the Catholic church: a circle denotes the perfect form with no sharp ends or sides, the creature is slowly lifted into it to begging for a heartbeat. This scene's construction is of particular importance, for it mimics Whales' method of bringing the creature to life. However, life would not be made up in the air but down inside the metallic chamber, or mechanical womb, filled with--according to the narrative--amniotic fluid that is being heated by fire. The copper chamber represents the maternal womb and it is surrounded by the elements of alchemists and, it could be argued, of witchery too. All the four elements are present: earth, water, air, and fire, to consecrate the ultimate challenge of science and knowledge: to make life. A powerful light source has been placed on top of the laying corpse to represent the threshold towards the afterlife. Going towards light but somewhat repenting midway to devote more attention and trust to technology by lowering the body into the liquid.
The third voice omniscient, turned into a film camera, takes the viewers into the performance of a young scholar on top of its own creation: a sailor in full command of his constructed ship surrounded by knowledge; a captain in control of the situation; a man commanding his actions; a confident person who is in charge; the man, the creator, being dangerously close to turning into a self-proclaimed deity. Sparks of energy in the form of lightning bolts appear from time to time to signal the immense power harnessed by the machines. It is also making references to the power of the constructed image. The man, the creator-to-be, is not only in control of the machine, fire, and energy, but more importantly, he is in control of himself.
The combination of symbols continues in crescendo. Inside the tank we can find a dead body immersed in fluids that once were feeding a living creature, yet not any living creature, but the most important living creature to us all: ourselves. The tank is filled with amniotic fluid collected from the mothers of many children who would be contemporary of the fully developed creature. Abruptly the camera shows Frankenstein in frantic motion reaching out the space to inject several needles in points or energetic sources, or chakras, described in Asian meditation. This semantic construction manages to combine yoga, acupuncture, and techniques of natural birth in a frantic attempt to provide a possibility to relate to the situation with every possible market share out there in society. A single movie for them all, this is a money-making medium after all, in the same fashion that the novel was two hundred years ago.
Leading the scene with a commanding voice Frankenstein demands nature and science to take over. "Live, live!" He shouts while he releases electric eels through a tube, both symbols, it could be argued, define masculinity through the form of a phallic symbol. The eels then, proceed to bite, to plant, an electric seed in the creature's sensorium finalizing their task by bitting directly in the brain.
After a prolonged short silence to create suspense where the sound track and the camera are a single--and silent--narrator, we are shown that life is bestowed upon the creature as it begins to drown. Frankenstein promptly opens the tank, not without mimicking what could almost be described as a plagiarism of the famous 1931's phrase: 'it's alive, it's alive."
Right after setting the creature free from its mechanical cage, the young scholar gives the creature a second, more humane form of life. He saves him from choking in the fluids that have replenished the lungs. This symbolic re-birth presents a closer reading of contemporary medicine and modern methods of giving birth used today. The second saving scene is followed by the assistance of the creator to raise his own creature. Both struggle to maintain an upward position. This scene refers to humanity as a whole and the eternal debate of divine creation or evolution. All the appropriate elements for such reference are present: the water, the father, the son, the struggle of both. It also talks about fatherhood and the impossibility of assisting the child during labor and birth. An important level of frustration is depicted in this scene.
While struggling to accomplish this process the narrator reminds the viewers about the warning of the scientist--of science that is--making sure no lines are stepped beyond the limits. The composed image depicts a dream state purposefully achieved with the combination of symbols and sounds.
This moment of self-doubt is stressed by shot where the creature rejects its creator by pushing his face away. The "baby" rejects the father but has no mother. This moment is important, for it creates a particular tension between the characters and provides the right atmosphere for Frankenstein to fully realize the scope and extension of his achievement.
When Frankenstein finally manages to have the creature on his feet he finds assistance on the chains that surround the scene, he imprisons his creation between the chains to avoid his falling to the ground but also his movement. The chains in this scene also represent discontinued technologies that are still struggling for survival in today's flow of events.All the progress he achieves in terms of knowledge and wisdom through scholarly research must be given away to the chains of technology enslavement.
However, as soon as he is able to secure the creature between the chains, he loses control of them, technology once again flees from the power of knowledge. In spite of being old technologies, they are still in command. Gravity takes control from here on raising the creature above its creator. The jerk of the gravity pull that control the chains and keeps them tightly secured to the ground, to reality, forces the creature to depart from its father and in the way the creature gets a big hit in the head that renders him unconscious, presumably dead.
The image makes religious references again. There is Frankenstein looking up to the chained creature in a clear reference to Jesus' crucifixion. The dead man is being watched by his creator who stands in awe at ground level. Omnipotent but completely helpless.
To finalize the construction of this moment a very interesting scene is put together. In this scene we can observe Frankenstein writing in his scholarly journal about the events. In the background a dead body hangs from the ceiling with chains, naked, vulnerable, apparently dead, releasing him from any harm. The great advantage of scholarly research would had been accomplished had the movie ended here, but this is only a scene interpreted for a single paragraph. The film would move on in the the story line narrating more and more events. These events would be sometimes close to the original text but most of the times they would be reinterpretations that had been constructed to suit the entertainment needs of the masses.
Even though the differences are evident between the original text and how it became Karloff's monster and later on Robert de Niro, the intertexual exchange of information among every text demonstrates how new media technologies are making the emergence of new forms of life possible. Whose text is the original? we may ask ourselves. Is it Mary Shelley's text? Is it Boris Karloff's interpretation? Where does De Niro's interpretation become a text? I think Karloff's Frankenstein surpassed Shelley's text by far, promoting by the emerging power of mass media communication and entertainment. What is important, nonetheless, is that the fear towards technology prevails. To create life continues to be a human predicament that spawns all forms of Frankensteins monsters in all media. An innumerable forms of nameless monsters will emerge, evolve, and ultimately will really live. The "it's alive, it's alive" famous expression will soon become an open source code, or the name of a piece of software that simulates life, reality, and eventually human consciousness.
To conclude this analysis, the final quest still continues after two hundred years, life must be created using technology as the means. Would it be possible? Every day we are getting closer allowing fiction and reality to collide and produce a single hybrid medium, scientists are getting closer, new monsters will emerge, this time fully named but equally misunderstood.
Please take a look at how close science is to achieve it using the same components of Shelley's novel: pieces, parts, research, and technology.
Comments