I Cannot Believe The Common Consensus Around Here Is That Walton Is Boring And Less Deserving Of Interest

(in response to @mrbrainrot’s post here)

it feels incorrect, to me, to claim that victor views elizabeth as an accessory: while it’s tempting, i think, to view his portrayal of elizabeth as reductive (casting her as a saint, an ideal of feminine domesticity, the “angel in the house”), we must acknowledge that victor’s narration also recounts her standing in front of the corrupt court system to defend justine, speaking against the injustice of the system and attempting to fight against its verdict, critiquing the state of female social status that prevented her from visiting victor at ingolstadt, subverting traditional gender roles by offering victor an out to their arranged marriage as opposed to the other way around, taking part in determining ernest’s career and education in direct opposition to alphonse, etc. she is, within his own account, thoughtful, courageous, and politically aware. 

while i’m open to being proved wrong, to me, most of the “victor views elizabeth as a possession” viewpoints hinge primarily on one specific line, where victor says the following: 

“'I have a pretty present for my Victor—tomorrow he shall have it.' And when, on the morrow, she presented Elizabeth to me as her promised gift, I, with childish seriousness, interpreted her words literally and looked upon Elizabeth as mine—mine to protect, love, and cherish. All praises bestowed on her I received as made to a possession of my own... till death she was to be mine only."

i am hesitant to call his relationship with elizabeth straightforwardly objectifying, at least not in the flat, dehumanizing way that this quote and this interpretation often implies. the keyword here, to me, is that victor explicitly names this mindset as “childish.” he is not presenting this possessiveness as justified. it is clearly marked by the text (and victor himself) as something immature, shaped by how caroline frames elizabeth’s role rather than how victor sees her. in that sense, this passage become less a declaration of elizabeth’s status as an object to victor and more an origin for victor’s warped understanding of intimacy with elizabeth. victor also seems to outgrow this view, as the rest of the novel doesn’t support the idea that he views elizabeth merely as an object.

beyond that, my stance on whether or not there was genuine romantic sentiment between victor and elizabeth becomes a lot more muddied. i've already analyzed the way that they were groomed and the psuedo-incestuous implications of their relationship in depth (here), but this in itself does not denote a lack of romance between them. the conclusion that there could have been some sort of romantic love there even despite them seeing each other as siblings is a disturbing one, but it's one i'd argue is to an extent supported by the text, even if it is inseparable from the preordained nature of their relationship. but at the same time, i'd also argue that victor is aware of this on a subconscious level and is simultaneously repulsed by it: the only kiss in the entire book is in victor's infamous dream where elizabeth decays into caroline in his arms, which feels like a very deliberate piece of subtext.

in regard to clerval i may have to articulate my thoughts on him in a separate post as this is already long enough as it is lol.

"As the memory of past misfortunes pressed upon me, I began to reflect upon their cause—the monster whom I had created, the miserable daemon whom I had sent abroad into the world...."

Flowers:

Honeysuckle: "devoted affection/bonds of love"

Black rose: Death, hatred, rebirth

Chestnut blossoms: "do me justice"

Pear blossoms: "lasting friendship"

Daisy: innocence and purity

proposition: boy valentine

ok but walton if you look at the letters in the beginning, while i wouldnt go so far as to say he's a neglected child (we dont get nearly enough insight into his background to make those kind of assumptions) his parents were definitely, at the very least, not very present in walton's life or influential to him growing up. from my memory his mother is literally never mentioned, and the sole mentions of his father are fleeting. simply: 1) he didnt support waltons childhood dreams and interests in sailing and expeditions/discovery 2) he died, leaving walton an orphan to be raised by his older sister margaret 3) his fathers literal dying wish was for walton to never be a mariner. so while i am in no way suggesting his childhood was near as bad as the creature's, or even victor's, i think its incorrect to suggest that walton was completely blind and ignorant to neglect and parental conflict

"victor's creature would kinda be justified in not feeling bad" but he DID feel bad and therein, to me, is where his fault lies. i feel as if the creature would have felt no empathy, no care at all for victor or those lives he was taking, then i would actually blame him for his actions less -- because what creature did was murder innocent people, and destroy victors life, all while understanding and FEELING that it was bad. he did it anyways, while actively going against his own morality

creature "doesnt really like humans and kills them" is incorrect, his reason for killing them was NEVER because he didnt like them, its because he chose to murder for revenge while simultaneously wishing he could be part of the humanity he was destroying, which is why he was so distraught and upset when he was ostracized and met with their fear and hatred every time. because he LIKED THEM, he in his sort of parasocial way LOVED them and wanted to be loved and accepted by them

and walton sees this! which is what his whole speech and their interaction at the end is about! he sees the creatures humanity, he knows creatures life stories and feels for his misfortunes and is moved by his words and expressions of sadness, and even sympathizes with him in a way literally no one else in the book does, yet he also recognizes that creature actively chose to turn away from his innate humanity and goodness and consciously choose violence and revenge instead, while knowing and feeling what he was doing was wrong, and That is why walton condemns creature

"do you think he had enough for a conscience for morality when he was neglected by his own fucking creator???" this line is just funny to me. Because thats. Thats the point of the whole book. That he had a conscience for morality despite his horrific situation

im not going to get into the whole victor-abandoned-creature and the bride-situation because ive talked about it a Lot in the past and this post is already too long. sorry for dumping this all on you months after you made this post its all for the sake of literary analysis and walton is my babygirl i had to jump to his defense 🙏 🙏

walton = big dumb stupid head

it is so weird to me that despite hearing the same tale from victor that we have, when walton hears of victor's creature wailing over victor's death he's basically like:

"erm actually maybe if you listened to your concisnece nothing would have happened l + ratio + bozo!!"

like c'monnNn walton,, do you think he had enough for a conscience for morality when he was neglected by his own fucking creator??? and even then tbh victor's creature would kinda be justified in not feeling bad since again victor ran immediately and has been very against giving his creation a second chance, permanently at least with his bride and all.

and its like gee maybe the guy who lived on his own forever and who humans treated HORRIBLY doesn't really like humans and kills them? :0 woaaa walton crazy shit right there. Idk i just-like i like victor and all but c'mon man you don't neglect ur kid but if u do don't be surprised at the consequences and walton, walton just shut the fuck up

all the anti-abortion votes are crazy when victor literally has the metaphor for an abortion within the book. put some respect on his name

more Frankenstein.

zoom + additional sketches under the cut

@lesamis’s tags

for some reason people seem to think that mary somehow stumbled into writing a commentary on marriage/incest accidentally, and that the themes of frankenstein are all about her trauma due to her experiences as a victim of the patriarchy, as a woman and a mother surrounded by men - as if she wasnt the child of radical liberals who publicly renounced marriage, as if she herself as well as percy shelley had similar politics on marriage, as if she would not go on to write a novel where the central theme is explicitly that of father/daughter incest years later…

the most obvious and frequent critique of victor i see is of his attempt to create life - the creature - without female presence. it’s taught in schools, wrote about by academics, talked about in fandom spaces - mary shelley was a feminist who wrote about feminism by making victor a misogynist. he’s misogynistic because he invented a method of procreation without involving women purely out of male entitlement and masculine arrogance and superiority, and shelley demonstrates the consequences of subverting women in the creation process/and by extension the patriarchy because this method fails terribly - his son in a monster, and victor is punished for his arrogance via the murder of his entire family; thus there is no place for procreation without the presence of women, right?

while this interpretation – though far from my favorite – is not without merit, i see it thrown around as The interpretation, which i feel does a great disservice to the other themes surrounding victor, the creature, the relationship between mother and child, parenthood, marriage, etc.

this argument also, ironically, tends to undermine the agency and power of frankenstein’s female characters, because it often relies on interpreting them as being solely passive, demure archetypes to establish their distinction from the 3 male narrators, who in contrast are performing violent and/or reprehensible actions while all the woman stay home (i.e., shelley paradoxically critiques the patriarchy by making all her female characters the reductive stereotypes that were enforced during her time period, so the flaws of our male narrators arise due to this social inequality).

in doing so it completely strips elizabeth (and caroline and justine to a lesser extent) of the power of the actions that she DID take — standing up in front of a corrupt court, speaking against the injustice of the system and attempting to fight against its verdict, lamenting the state of female social status that prevented her from visiting victor at ingolstadt, subverting traditional gender roles by offering victor an out to their arranged marriage as opposed to the other way around, taking part in determining ernest’s career and education in direct opposition to alphonse, etc. it also comes off as a very “i could fix him,” vibe, that is, it suggests if women were given equal social standing to men then elizabeth would have been able to rein victor in so to speak and prevent the events of the book from happening. which is a demeaning expectation/obligation in of itself and only reinforces the reductive passive, motherly archetypes that these same people are speaking against

it is also not very well supported: most of the argument rests on ignoring female character’s actual characterization and focusing one specific quote, often taken out of context (“a new species would bless me as its creator and source…no father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as i should deserve theirs”) which “proves” victor’s sense of male superiority, and on victors treatment/perception of elizabeth, primarily from a line of thinking he had at five years old, where he objectified her by thinking of her (or rather — being told so by caroline) as a gift to him. again, the morality of victor’s character is being determined by thoughts he had at five years old.

obviously this is not at all to say i think their relationship was a healthy one - i dont think victor and elizabeth’s marriage was ever intended to be perceived as good, but more importantly, writing their relationship this way was a deliberate critique of marriage culture.

(for your desire to frankenyap-) what is your favorite Henry Clerval Moment™ in the novel?

henry clerval!!!!! my one true love

my favorite moment of his that i cannot believe people don't talk about is him diverting the subject when theyre talking to waldman abt victor's "progress in the sciences." he is so ridiculously thoughtful it's absolutely adorable. ive written out how i think that particular conversation went for a writing exercise and i fell so in love w henry. victor i get it so divinely wrought and beaming with beauty fr

this um. turned into a super long analysis somehow 😭 under the cut

i have a lot more to say about my least favorite henry moment though; i know we all clown on the 1831 turning henry into a colonizer thing, and i absolutely love to make fun of it as well because is was A Choice, but henry's character assassination in the 1831 edition fills me with genuine and outstanding rage. to what extent he just serves as a love letter to percy shelley (i think the idea has merit that clerval was based on percy but i also think it kinda follows the general trend of people attributing mary's genius and independent work to percy at every conceivable opportunity) (if anything i'd argue walton is more like percy) can be debated, but it is so infuriating to me how henry goes from a character that seems to have been written with genuine affection and enthusiasm, hence why he's so charming, to being a glorified plot device in the 1831 edition. having henry go from a sensual capital r Romantic whose only goals are to worship nature and discover all the beautiful corners of the earth, learning eastern languages and going to england just for the sake of living out a worldly life, to some businessman whose actions are spurred on by some manly commitment to "enterprise" is so annoying to me. i really really do hate what she did to him in the 1831 edition but i get why. this is a trend with the 1831 edition: making the male characters' more sensitive and emotionally demonstrative behaviors less obvious and making the female characters' more headstrong personalities milder show how mary had to nuke the subtleties of the novel to make it more palatable and interpretable for victorian society. ofc she was older when she wrote the 1831 edition so much of it could've been her own shifting perspective but i maintain that 1831 is decidedly much more conservative and seems to tread on eggshells on the subjects mary used to be so bold discussing in frankenstein. i don't think that one edition is better than the other, there are things i like and disliked about both, but i do think you need to know the differences between the two and their exigence to get a holistic understanding of the novel.

jesus christ i lost the plot. anyway henry come home the husband and kids miss you <3

if victor is the creature's literal father, then by extension the female creature would have been the creature's literal sister. by choosing to break his promise and destroy the bride, victor is breaking the cycle of abuse by refusing to comply to the demand that he dictate a marriage between siblings, like his mother did to him and elizabeth.

victor and elizabeth were not the first grooming case nor the first pseudo-incest relationship in frankenstein: that would be alphonse and caroline.

alphonse was a friend of caroline’s father, beaufort. this is how they met, and so there was a significant difference in their ages. after beaufort dies, alphonse and caroline marry. take a look at how beaufort’s passing is described:

Her father grew worse; her time was more entirely occupied in attending him; her means of subsistence decreased; and in the tenth month her father died in her arms, leaving her an orphan and a beggar. This last blow overcame her; and she knelt by Beaufort’s coffin, weeping bitterly, when my father entered the chamber. He came like a protecting spirit to the poor girl, who committed herself to his care, and after the interment of his friend he conducted her to Geneva, and placed her under the protection of a relation. Two years after this event Caroline became his wife.

while "orphan" does not strictly mean the person is a minor, orphan still is most commonly used to describe a minor whose parents are both dead. if we interpret orphan in that sense, then caroline would have been a child when alphonse first took her in. the fact that he waits two years after this event to marry her also hints towards this, almost as if he was waiting for her to become legal and the age of consent. this is further supported by the diminutive language of “poor girl” used to describe her, who is in juxtaposition to the paternal “protecting spirit” of alphonse whom she commits herself into the care of.

even if caroline was not a minor, there was a large enough gap in their ages - and the fact that alphonse “saved” caroline from poverty, creating an economical reliance on him - that there was an unhealthy power balance in their relationship. because of this dynamic, it really does read like grooming: alphonse houses caroline till she is (supposedly) old enough to marry, and by that time she would have been pushed into consenting to the marriage because she relied on him for money and housing, and could have some sort of emotional obligation to him as well for supporting her in a time of need and grief, and he is a significant link to her deceased father. this difference in their ages is highlighted again when victor notes that alphonse was in the decline of his life by the time he and caroline were having children together, and by the time victor is 19 alphonse is old enough that he is physically incapable of traveling to ingolstadt.

in this way their relationship is pseudo-incestous, because alphonse (her father’s age) swoops in to support caroline (a child) after her father dies. this makes himself the father figure replacement, and caroline his daughter. once she is of age she transitions from the role of daughter to wife, and during her marriage caroline will go on to repeat this cycle of abuse, and recreate this same dynamic - except this time, it is in a situation that she can control: through victor and elizabeth.

from the beginning caroline deliberately sets up parallels between herself and elizabeth. she wants a daughter, and adopts elizabeth specifically because elizabeth reminds her of herself, but grander: like she was, elizabeth is also a beggar and an orphan and homeless, but her story is more tragic, she is more beautiful, her debt to her caretakers more extreme, and her romantic relationship will go on to be more explicitly incestous. caroline calls elizabeth her favorite and grooms her into becoming a second version of herself, so that she can recreate the traumatic event of her marriage with her two children.

so, as caroline dictates the marriage between victor and elizabeth, victor becomes to elizabeth what alphonse was to caroline: a man, who is also a familial figure, that she must marry in order to have a stable social and economic life. the frankensteins have provided elizabeth with everything she has, and the threat is there that they can also take it away if she does not comply (through marrying victor), which is the same kind of looming, unspoken threat that hung over caroline and alphonse’s marriage.