Time for a Rewrite?

In most societies, it has been easier to be punitive and binary when judging individuals. Racism, sexism, mistreatment of people with either birth defects or mental illness in older times (and still throughout the developing world) were atrocious and philosophy in regards to judging peoples’ worth and treatment were far more simplistic and punitive. In our more liberalized society today, it seems very natural that we would revisit monsters like Frankenstein’s monster and King Kong in the more nuanced, less adversarial perspective that the writers originally intended. That would have been very financially risky in a time where people wanted simple “good guys” who were like them and “bad guys” who weren’t. This is why the image of the Frankenstein monster became a mindless thing to shock and excite people, rather than the morally complicated creature trying to adapt to a society that fears him. With time, as our culture became more nuanced in how we viewed morality, as did depictions of many creatures while, at the same time, we were also beginning to be more understanding of outgroups such racial minorities and sexual minorities. 

Our media today is far less binary and adversarial than our old media was. Strangely, Van Helsing, out of all movies, actually has a representation of Frankenstein’s monster that is closer to Shelley’s in personality and sophistication, even referring to him as “Frankenstein’s monster” as oppose to “Frankenstein.” With representations like this, and even movies starring once-feared monsters, such as ogres in the case with Shrek. In the Underworld series, the hero of the story is a vampire – a monster that was once feared and probably would have only been marketable as a simplistic killing machine. There even appears to be a decline in “good guy, bad guy” shows that dominated in the 1970’s-early 1980’s. While we are seeing these shifts, we are also seeing the decline of homophobia and, perhaps more slowly, the decline of other punitive, binary social constructs, such as “slut-shaming,” that are designed to suppress individuals with unusual lifestyles, or lifestyles and/or traits that have been traditionally seen as deviant.


While the comparisons to minorities and lifestyles may be obvious, another good comparison could be to people who have had irresponsible parents that have raised them disadvantageously and abused them, causing later problems in their lives. One of Victor Frankenstein's responses to his monster when he returns to Victor is "Begone! I do not break my promise; never will I again create another like yourself, equal in deformity and wickedness!" (Shelley, 120). This was not just to spite the monster's request for a partner, but also an attack on his very existence and a means to drown out a plea of help for a person that Victor Frankenstein should be completely responsible for. Frankenstein's monster was placed into the world in a disadvantaged state and was created through the choices of Victor. Victor Frankenstein could have possibly had the ability to help his creation find some level of happiness and fulfillment; however, Victor spends much of his time demeaning and attempting to rid himself of a person who he created, despite being one of the few people in his creature's life. Abuse in the real world is something that transcends all statuses, and in the "nature vs. nurture" debate, people generally attributed the lack of meeting expectations to nature. When moral philosophy was less developed in our culture, assuming that nature was by far the most dominant factor made morality simpler. It has always been  easier to assume that someone cannot change and must be punished, that to exert the energy that might be necessary to help a disadvantaged person succeed in society.