Mark Shoat

A Level English Literature

Long Essay

“The idea of ‘the monster’ threatens man's concept of himself and his ‘normal’ world, and must be destroyed in order to preserve man's sense of his own moral superiority.” Discuss with reference to at least two texts.

Word count (not counting quotations) : 2,420

“We fear death and dismemberment, we fear pain, insanity and loss, we even fear sexuality, and it is only by addressing these fears that we avoid living in a state of constant trepidation.”

- Clive Barker

When Mary Shelley had the idea for “Frankenstein” two hundred years ago, it was purely an attempt to frighten her friends, just as we do now when we tell ghost stories at night or around a campfire. But it became much more than that as Shelley's Creature, like Stoker's Dracula and Blatty's demon-possessed Regan MacNeil, would never die. The memories that readers have of these characters haunt us, in our nightmares, for an inexplicable reason.

All of the ‘monsters’ in the novels I am writing on have one thing in common - they all began as humans. Frankenstein's Creature is made up of dead body parts re-animated, Count Dracula is a human who has been bitten by a vampire and Regan MacNeil is a demon-possessed (or mentally ill - I will go into this later) young girl.

While in “Dracula” and “The Exorcist”, we know from the start who the ‘monster’ is – Count Dracula and Regan MacNeil respectively – in “Frankenstein” the real monster is only truly acknowledged at the end.

“Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay

To mould Me man? Did I solicit thee

From darkness to promote me?”

- Milton, “Paradise Lost”, X, 743 - 5

The epigraph of “Frankenstein”, taken from “Paradise Lost”, implies that it is a story about man's resentment towards God. In this way, as I take it, Frankenstein represents God and the Creature represents man. So it follows that the ‘monster’, the character we should be against, is really Frankenstein himself. But the narrator for most of the story, Frankenstein, forces us to love this monster and hate his creation instead.

“How can I describe the emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavoured to form?”

- Frankenstein, “Frankenstein”

Perhaps by using this point of view throughout the main section of the novel, Shelley is trying to say that we should look at our situation from God's point of view from time to time. Perhaps we are monsters, malfunctioned creations like Frankenstein's creation, who have no right to feel resentment.

But the Creature, at the end of the novel makes the point.

“Blasted as thou wert, my agony was still superior to thine.”

- The Creature, “Frankenstein”

‘Are our pains worse than God's?’ Shelley asks us. Victor Frankenstein makes a mistake. His thirst for knowledge results in the loss of all that he loves. He deserts his creation, throws it into the world without any idea of what is right and wrong, and without a single other being in the world like him. William Godwin, Mary Shelley's father, believed that ‘people are born virtuous and only become vicious if the circumstances which they are forced to endure distort their inherent nature’ (John Mepham, ‘Introduction to Frankenstein’). But can the behaviour of our ‘monsters’, particularly the Creature’s, be excused in this manner? Although our personalities are shaped by our surroundings, I think in order to be ‘personalities’, there has to be some new material there. But is evil passed down, or acquired?

Neither Victor nor his Creature will pain upon themselves and others in “Frankenstein”. They both have reasons for what they do, and have no desire to do wrong. Frankenstein has a thirst for knowledge - to find out if a human can be created. He never knows his creation will become what it does, just as the Creature never knows that what it is doing is wrong. The Creature kills Victor's family and Victor himself because he has nobody else to blame for the way he is. It is the same reaction as when today people turn away from God when close relatives die - because there is nobody else to blame.

“Wealth was an inferior object; but what glory would attend the discovery, if I could banish disease from the human frame, and render man invulnerable to any but a violent death!”

- Frankenstein, “Frankenstein”

Apart from the above statement appearing slightly selfish (Frankenstein hopeful for “glory”), we can see that he does have mostly good intentions for his scientific work. He is not a bad man, and cannot be treated as one. Perhaps this is why we are given his side of the story as told by him, so he can argue his case. At the time “Frankenstein” was written, Science appeared to many a great threat, especially the Church. Science was beginning to explain religion's ‘miracles’. Victor Frankenstein, a scientist piecing together deceased body parts, was not an appealing character.

But, indeed, Frankenstein's darker passions are not entirely discouraged by his parents:

“My father looked carelessly at the title page of my book, and said, ‘Ah! Cornelius Agrippa! My dear Victor, do not waste your time upon this; it is sad trash.’ If . . . my father had taken pains to explain to me that the principles of Agrippa had been entirely exploded . . . I should certainly have thrown Agrippa aside . . . It is even possible that the train of ideas would never have reached the fatal impulse that led to my ruin.”

- Frankenstein, “Frankenstein”

Even Frankenstein's father's attempts to set him on the right path resulted in failure. We do not see a lot of Frankenstein's family, but we know that it is ‘good’. Victor's father is certainly not trying to send his son to hell, and neither is Victor knowledgeable of his deeds. Robert Walton, too, another scientist, has no idea that he will meet Frankenstein and his creature in the North. He does not know what he will find, but his journey may be a success, even historical. Discovery is risky - Frankenstein fails, but some people succeed - people will always seek to understand:

“What can stop the determined heart and resolved will of man?”

- Walton, “Frankenstein”

The desire to discover is a very strong theme in “Frankenstein”, as is its potential and great danger. Its godliness, too, is questioned. For if we continue to discover, explaining away the mysteries of life, what purpose will God have? Is, therefore, discovery an act of evil, and are we, as humans, supposed to realise that we are doing is wrong? The question of the origins of evil is addressed in “Frankenstein”. Who are we to blame for the bad things which happen in life, and that evil within ourselves? This is a question that is asked by all three of the novels I have studied.

Bram Stoker's "Dracula" is a story about vampires, another unexplained phenomena, which, at the time of the novel’s writing, was a very popular subject of fiction. Count Dracula a vampire, who lives off the blood of humans and will live forever. He, too, like Victor Frankenstein and Robert Walton, has an inquisitive mind, and he goes to England endangering the lives of many. But, like Frankenstein and his Creature, his evil is questionable. Vampires are created by being bitten by vampires:

“. . . for all that die from the preying of the Un-Dead become themselves Un-Dead . . .”

- Van Helsing, “Dracula

So, the chances are that Dracula was created against his will. His killing to get blood is a way of surviving.

“At least God's mercy is better than that of these monsters, and the precipice is steep and high. At its foot a man may sleep - as a man.”

- Jonathan Harker, “Dracula”

Of course, we, like Harker and the other humans in the novel, see Dracula as a ‘monster’. There are people dying in this novel, and the only person we can blame is Count Dracula and his vampire women. The vampires represent evil, just like Frankenstein's Creature and Pazuzu, the demon inside Regan MacNeil. We are given even less background knowledge for Dracula - we know that Frankenstein created the Creature, we know that Pazuzu's ‘father’ is Satan - but it is easy to overlook the clues we are given as to the Count's past.

“What devil or what witch was ever so great as Attila, whose blood is in these veins?”

- Count Dracula, “Dracula”

Dracula is evil; he is a threat to our ‘normal’ world. But what we are really afraid of is the evil inside Dracula, for Count Dracula himself was once human, as Van Helsing finds out:

“As I learned from the researches of my friend Armenius of Budapest, he was in life a most wonderful man. Soldier, statesman, and alchemist . . . He had a mighty brain . . . and a heart that knew no fear and no remorse."

- Van Helsing, “Dracula”

Van Helsing sees this greatness in life as a further reason to destroy him now his mind has been corrupted by evil. The monsters, however good they have been in the past, are evil, and must be destroyed. We know that Dracula was not always a monster, as Harker witnesses,

“Yes, I too can love; you yourselves can tell it from the past.”

- Count Dracula, “Dracula”

Yet Dracula is destroyed. The “wonderful man” Van Helsing found out about died long ago, and this creature, however wonderful the spirit inside it used to be, is now evil and is a threat to mankind. Dracula is destroyed because he is evil, and we perceive ourselves to be responsible for destroying anything which is not, as we are, good.

It is not necessary to destroy the monster – in fact, for dramatic effect, some writers leave their monsters to roam the earth, making the reader finish the novel a little on edge – but, as Clive Barker said, we must confront the evil or the fear. “Frankenstein” was written nearly two hundred years ago and the fear it dealt with was Science and discovery. When “Dracula” was written, there were new fears – essentially, Stoker wrote a vampire story because they were popular – but “Dracula” deals with much deeper fears such as sexuality and death (this was obviously touched on in “Frankenstein”). “Dracula” was written one hundred years ago. Fears change over time. And while in the first two of my novels the monsters die, in my third, “The Exorcist”, the author chose not to destroy his ‘monster’.

William Peter Blatty wrote "The Exorcist" in 1971. He chose not to kill his monsters' physical presence. The true character of Regan MacNeil is dealt with in very few pages at the start and end of the book, and in brief flashes throughout. But, from what we see of her, we know - she is not even aware of the existence of evil.

“A blush-red rose. Regan. That angel. Many a morning, when Chris was working, Regan would quietly slip out of bed, come down to the kitchen and place a flower, then grope her way crusty-eyed back to her sleep.”

- Blatty, “The Exorcist”

Our interpretation of the events in “The Exorcist” will depend very much on our own beliefs – since the novel itself is never completely specific. If one is very religious, one may believe in demons, and when Regan is possessed, and she says and does the things she does, we do not for one second think it is Regan doing them. We know that it is Pazuzu, the demon within her. If we won’t believe in demons, if we are not remotely religious, then we will agree with Father Karras and the doctors who say it is psychological. But still, the novel never even suggests that Regan is just ‘fooling around’.

The psychological aspect of “The Exorcist”, I think, enhances the horror of it. The story in “The Exorcist”, as a psychological disease, could really happen in our world – and it would be a young girl like Regan MacNeil, who has a troubled childhood and imaginary friends (and some would say it could only happen to the daughter of a Hollywood actress). If it did happen, our reaction would be the same as Father Karras’ - we would believe it to be psychological. ‘Demons don't exist in the real world’, we think, but in a novel we can be persuaded to believe it. Of course, there would be those who would wholeheartedly support the idea that the young girl was possessed by a demon – but they would not be taken seriously.

Whether psychological or satanic, Regan's behaviour is not ‘normal’ and can be described as ‘evil’. If the Creature and Count Dracula are to be called monsters, then for most of “The Exorcist”, Regan MacNeil must be too - for hers is the only physical presence that could possibly be blamed. Perhaps if Father Karras was sent to Castle Dracula or Geneva, he would try imposing psychology on the characters of “Frankenstein” and “Dracula” too. Most people do not believe in demons or telekinesis, but most readers of “The Exorcist” would not see Regan as the ‘monster’. They will take the demon explanation - perhaps because they are reading a fiction, perhaps because that is what they believe. One wonders if the ‘true story’ account of the 1949 exorcism that “The Exorcist” was based on, “Possessed”, would be taken the same way. William Peter Blatty would hope so:

“ . . . if all of the evil in the world makes you think there might be a devil, then how do you account for all the good in the world?”

- Father Dyer, “The Exorcist”

Although it is one of Blatty's characters that says this in the novel, this is the idea that he was trying to put across when writing the novel. It is, perhaps, the object of many horror novels - the idea was certainly not far from Shelley or Stoker's minds.

“The Exorcist”, as I have said, was written at the start of the 70s. It was around this time (and still, to some extent, today) that there was a strong feeling of ‘God is dead’. This is very much a feeling associated with the twentieth century. Like Frankenstein's Creature, people feel that their Creator has deserted them. Evil is all around - for Americans in the seventies (and Blatty is American), the war in Vietnam was foremost in their thoughts, and Richard Nixon’s status as a ‘good’ president was getting more and more dubious. Today, we have almost exactly the same situation with Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton. Good things just don’t seem to happen any more - at least, when they do, they’re never noticed, because evil is so overpowering.

“The Exorcist” challenges everything that could possibly be seen as good - the Church, the family, the home and the child. Blatty is saying ‘Look at all of these good things you have left - what if they were destroyed too?’

“ . . . I think the demon's target is not the possessed, it is us . . . the observers . . . every person in this house. And I think - I think the point is to make us despair; to reject out own humanity, Damien: to see ourselves as ultimately bestial; as ultimately vile and putrescent; without dignity; ugly; unworthy. And there lies the heart of it, perhaps: in unworthiness. For I think belief in God is not a matter of reason at all; I think it finally is a matter of love; of accepting the possibility that God could love us . . .”

- Father Merrin, “The Exorcist”

Evil creates disorder among us by destroying the people we love - this is a theme common to the three novels I have studied. Frankenstein loves his Creature while he is making it, but when it comes to life and is ugly, he hates it and rejects it as ‘evil’ – and thus the Creature becomes ‘evil'. When the Creature starts to kill Frankenstein's family, its behaviour, indeed its very existence, creates disorder in relationships. When Dracula comes to England and Lucy starts to die and become a vampire, the newspaper stories of ‘the bloofer lady’ make the world seem unsafe. When Pazuzu enters Regan, the seemingly ordered world is torn apart as the demon reveals secrets such as Karl and Willie's daughter, and nearly destroys the relationship between Chris and her daughter, when Chris is forced to watch as her ‘daughter’ abuses herself and insults her. However, Chris never gives in:

“Father, you show me Regan's identical twin: same face, same voice, same smell, same everything down to the way she dots her i’s, and still I'd know in a second that it wasn't really her! I'd know it! I'd know it in my gut and I'm telling you I know that thing upstairs is not my daughter!”

- Chris MacNeil, “The Exorcist”

Because of the problems associated with the origins of evil, and the problem I have discovered in defining ‘monsters’, to bring these novels together using the ‘monsters’ in them would be extremely difficult. In “Frankenstein”, I am still certain that both Frankenstein and his Creature are two parts of the monster – but there is more evil in, for example, the villagers who beat the Creature. In “Dracula”, we have the same problem of the origins of evil. Even if we take “the great Attila” as the main source, how are we to know who came before him? And in “The Exorcist”, if we believe in demons, we are unsure whether to blame Pazuzu or Satan, or even God (who “flung [Lucifer] headlong from the heights of heaven”). If we read “The Exorcist” as psychological, then we can say that Regan does the evil things - but as humans, we cannot possibly call this innocent child evil.

There is a problem with evil that has been dealt with in countless books. To bring these books together, one must accept evil. The point made by Blatty truly brings the aim of the ‘monster’ stories together. If we read about evil creatures, or monsters, we are reading about the opposite of what we see ourselves to be. In order to perceive ourselves as ‘good’, we must first have an idea of what ‘evil’ is. In order to acknowledge good, it is first necessary to acknowledge evil – unfortunately, we do the latter more frequently than the former.

Bibliography

“Frankenstein” Mary Shelley

(introduction by John Mepham)

“Dracula” Bram Stoker

(introduction by David Rogers)

“The Exorcist” William Peter Blatty

“Clive Barker's A-Z of Horror” compiled by Stephen Jones

“BFI Modern Classics: The Exorcist” Mark Kermode

(incorporating extracts from

“William Peter Blatty on The Exorcist: From Novel to Film”

and various newspaper and magazine articles.)