• RSS
Comments


This was a subject that was only mentioned in passing in one of our class discussions, but it's something that has intrigued me ever since.  I believe we concluded that Frankenstein's monster is not a zombie, but perhaps diving into what might make him not a zombie will tell us a little more about what zombies are, as well as what separates us from the creatures.

Frankenstein's monster in Mary Shelley's novel may be considered a zombie, because he is, after all, composed of the dead.  However, Dr. Frankenstein created this monster from body parts taken from several corpses, stitched together to form a different being altogether.  That is, Frankenstein's monster was never a human, and so he is not a reanimated corpse in the sense of being undead as zombies are.  The monster even has a heartbeat.  

Additionally, Frankenstein's monster seems to have agency.  He helps people out of compassion and desire to be loved, and he actively seeks revenge on his creator when he realizes that his failure to be accepted in society is due to his grotesque appearance.

Lastly, Frankenstein's monster does not carry around a contagion, and so he does not spread infection.  Being bit by the monster will not turn you into a creature like the monster.

Being a reanimated, mindless corpse who shambles around eating brains and spreading infections seem to be the core characteristics of zombies, so the monster's lack of these features distinguish him from them.  But what if we're wrong about what makes a zombie a zombie?  There are several categories of zombies as it is: the voodoo zombie, the Romero zombie, and the somewhat more intelligent zombies capable of basic speech and plotting.  What if Frankenstein's monster is the next step of advanced zombies?

Even if we conclude that the monster is not a zombie, the monster is, however, still an outcast, because we see him as not human.  This is due to the fact that, like zombies, Frankenstein's monster challenges our understandings of being - specifically coming into and out of being, entertaining speculations about what would happen if people don't stay dead when they die.

Categories:

5 Responses so far.

  1. Anonymous says:

    Further Evidence!
    To start, super great post. Frankenstein's monster is one of the most confounding characters in literature. If you're interested in some of the critical literature written on Frankenstein, here's a directory:http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Articles/index.html .

    For me, there are a few things that certainly separate the creature from the realm of zombies:
    1. (A bit crass) He can read, he reads through Paradise Lost, Plutarch, and Goethe. Through this reading the monster conceptualizes his own being, he sees himself inside of the ordered structure that exists in Milton: 'I should have been thy Adam, instead I am thy fallen angel.' (paraphrase) This conception of self is important, as it outlines what it is the monster can do in the world. If he didn't have this idea of self, he could be bent on destruction of the human race, instead of being confined to destroying his creator (through those close to Victor). Had the novel gone in this direction, the creature would fit more easily into the zombie box. For what is a zombie besides a destroying machine?

    2. On the idea of structure, the monster respects that he will not be accepted into the human order, which you point out. But, instead of wrecking that order, as zombies seek to do, he seeks to establish his own race. This is why he asks Victor to create for him a female, so that he and she may exist apart from human kind. Zombies exist within humanity, the creature seeks to exist without it... (in the wild uninhabited South America!)

    3. (This one's tricky) The monster feels pain, something as basic as the sun's glare when he first comes into existence makes him cry out... he's also later hit with stones and sticks, and then eventually shot. I'm interested in this topic because we are not really sure that zombies can't feel pain. What if the zombie simply hadn't been exposed to the eloquence of Milton, and therefore had no way to explain that he was, in fact, in pain.

    This having been said, we spoke in class about zombies essentially being animals: 'tigers gotta eat'. But the monster himself sets his own being "beneath the meanest animal" (last speech with Walton). The monster is conclusively not a zombie, for he had the capacity and conception of honor and goodness, but chose for one reason or another to do evil instead.

  2. Unknown says:

    Another important (although less important when concerning voodoo zombies) point is that Frankenstein doesn't eat human flesh. Well, I guess he could. Any human could. He just doesn't seem to crave it. Although some zombies definitely exist in modern times that don't try to eat people, it is a main indicator of a zombie.

  3. Interesting historical question: do we think that Mary Shelley would have known about the Haitian zombie? (I, honestly, don't know.) Victorian scholars -- what do you think?

    Voodoo zombies do not (canonically) eat human flesh. They don't eat at all. Imagine an eternity never getting to enjoy food again! That reminds me of Cypher in the Matrix here and his desire to enjoy a steak in the matrix, even though he knows it won't be "real."

    From a Voodoo standpoint, the worst thing about the Monster is that he *doesn't* obey his master/raiser. That's just wrong.

  4. Unknown says:

    I agree that Frankenstein's monster does not fit into any particular category in zombie lore, but I do think that he is in fact a zombie. This does very much depend on the definition: What is a zombie? And with the answer: The undead then Frankenstein's monster is in fact a zombie. He certainly is not a contagion based brains eating type, but his flesh and organs are made from dead corpses. He rather closely resembles a Haitian voodoo zombie in that he is a force with a creator.

  5. Unknown says:

    frankenstein`s monstere is a human being composed (or decomposed) of human body parts

    he / it is also a zombie in the classic undead definition of the word

    smart alec opinions don`t change that fact

Leave a Reply