Since there were only 2 posts, each about wildly different things, this summary won’t be as comprehensive as the last one. However, I noticed a contradiction about the status of the creature in these blog posts as opposed to in my previous blog posts, my initial reading, and my term paper. These last two posts have shown the creature in a much more negative light than before.

The last two posts have seemed to point out the creature’s inhumanity or negative traits much more than I had emphasized them earlier. Upon completing Frankenstein, I was very sympathetic to the creature and its struggles with its own humanity. But the last two blog posts focus on both the creature as an unavoidably uncanny being and as a model of neocolonialism. Due to class discussions about feminist interpretations of the creature, I’ve also made an effort to try and refer to the creature with the neutral pronoun “it” rather than “he.” This is because the monster does not have a distinct gender (we do not even know the creature’s genitals). But have my own interpretations sucked the humanity away from the monster? With some refinement, not quite.

Namely, if I refine the argument from the last blog post (“The First Step to Neocolonialism”) to respond to some of the feedback. This was by far my most popular post from a feedback perspective, and the comments have forced me to revise some aspects of my argument. The creature may not ever be pure subaltern or pure colonizer: that would be an essentialist viewpoint that Spivak would despise. Rather, the creature’s composition mirrors the composition of postcolonial society. The collection of different parts that make up culture (colonizers and colonized) is similar to the collection of different body parts which make up the creature. But it is this hybridity in the creature that leads to something similar to neocolonialism. It still contains parts of the subaltern, but because of the colonial discourse it has absorbed, its future role as a subjugating force is more apparent. I should have been more clear about the creature as a mimic, leading to the titular “first step to neocolonialism.”

However, this may still seem like a negative interpretation of the creature, for how can one sympathize with a neocolonial subjucator? Well, it’s important to note that this is only part of the creature. The creature’s hybridity allows for both subaltern and colonial power to exist in the same being. His struggle to pull out of a subaltern role is complicated by the colonial discourse. This ends up perverting his assertion of empowerment, much like how he struggles to find his humanity as an uncanny being. We sympathize with the creature’s struggle, not the creature’s actions or symbolic status. He is not rigidly something to be feared as a neocolonialist presence or uncanny creature or revolutionary commodity, but something to be sympathized with as it tries to break out of these traps. ¬†Because of this, different theoretical interpretations of the text can reveal one basic truth in the construction and effect of the novel. How wonderful to see the universality of a sympathetic creature.

Advertisements