Shelley and Wilde and their two lonely monsters

K. Cronick

Monsters are supposed to scare us. But in two different stories, one written by Mary Shelley and the other by Oscar Wilde, the authors created outwardly terrifying creatures that, in the end, make us sorry for them. In her novel Shelley described how her main character, Dr. Victor Frankenstein, constructed his unnamed Monster[1], and how “it” dies alone and rejected. But Oscar Wilde’s evil phantom, Sir Simon, finally finds peace after centuries of terrorizing his victims.

They are both XIX century creations[2], interestingly imagined in an age when scientific doubt was finally energized by new technologies. Shelley and Wilde use their creatures to focus this doubt on two age-old problems: what is life? and, what is evil? In Shelley’s imagination, life is generated by a simple bolt of electricity in the hands of a forensic scientist. Wilde, on the other hand, examines the ancient question of eternal, evil spirits who are denied the luxury of dying as a punishment for their foul deeds. But, Wilde, instead of beheading his monster, Sir Simon (as St. George or St. Margaret of Antioch would have done[3]), saves him from his dark destiny.

Frankenstein’s creature is, indeed, created by scientific technology, and while Wilde’s Sir Simon is a traditional chateau spook, the attitude of those he tries to haunt is humorously enlightened by technological skepticism.

Indeed, scientific awareness and technological savvy play roles in both stories. In Shelley’s novel Dr. Frankenstein is able to create a living “human” being in his laboratory out of biological discards. He gets a face from here, hands from somewhere else, all scavenged from dissecting rooms and slaughterhouses. Once put together, he brings his creation to life with some sort electrical shock. The final living-being looks stitched together, ugly, and much too big at eight feet in height. He terrifies people, including Dr. Frankenstein himself. It is a tragic story of scientific excess and dubious experimental ethics. He abandons his creation in horror. But the “monster” has feelings. He feels rejected and vengeful, and kills several people who were close to his originator. Frankenstein ends up chasing his monster into the Arctic where they both die.

In an entirely different approach Oscar Wilde imagines a minister, Hiram B. Otis from the United States, who buys an old mansion in Canterville in England. The mansion includes a malevolent ghost that has haunted it for 300 years. Lord Canterville, the aristocrat who sells him the property warns him of all the horrific crimes the ghost has committed. But Hiram Otis and his family have come from a materialistic country where everything can be solved by over-the-counter domestic cleaning products[4] and pluck. It is a hilarious satire, but in the end, it is compassion that solves everything. Otis’ fifteen-year-old daughter Virginia approaches Sir Simon and offers him companionship in his efforts to be forgiven for his crimes, and then accompanies him in his quest for a final, serene death.

The XIX century marked a surge in technologically possible science, but much of the culture of the time was frequented by mythical creatures and legends that many people still believed in. Some were benevolent, even sweet little beings like the brownies, elves, dwarves, and hobgoblins. The Loche Ness Monster still attracted attention, but not dread. Some spirits were more fearsome, and took the form of big, aggressive dogs on the highways. Castles -even Edinburgh- were full of them.

But what interests us here is the monster seen as a victim. In both Shelley’s novel and Wilde’s short story, they are seen as beings needing empathy. These authors understand that the monsters can be the result of cultural cruelty and personal rejection. The idea of an inherent evil that must be combated comes to us from very ancient times. The Christian and Hebrew Bibles are very graphic in this respect (Schwartz, 2024).  In the stories we have reviewed here, Frankenstein’s monster is driven to evil only after being shunned and abandoned. And Wilde’s monster was, in fact, a criminal when he lived 300 years ago, but at the time of the story, he desired reconciliation and peace.

Footnotes

[1] Dr. Frankenstein’s monster has no real name, but he referred to himself as Adam.

[2] There were, of course other XIX c. literary monsters born of the new technology available at the time. Robert Luis Stevenson created a story about doctor Henry Jekyll, who wanted to separate the duality of good and evil. He created and consumed a potion that separated his personality into its good and evil components, and in this way the virtuous Dr. Jekyll created the evil Edward Hyde. Mr. Hyde commits horrible crimes. This story is almost pre-psychoanalytic.

[3] In the center of the city of Quito in Ecuador, there is a statue of the Virgin that dominates demons by dancing on them.

[4] Like a commercial spot-remover, useful for getting rid of centuries-old, horrific blood spots on the mansion’s floor. 

References

Ethan Schwartz (2024, December 4). God’s Monsters: Vengeful Spirits, Deadly Angels, Hybrid Creatures, and Divine Hitmen of the Bible. ANCIENT JEW REVIEW https://www.ancientjewreview.com/read/godsmonsters

Mary Shelley (1818/19982003). Frankenstein o el moderno Prometeo. Oxford.

Robert Luia Stevenson (1886/n.d.). El extraño caso del Dr. Jekyll y Mr. Hyde. Feedbooks.  https://www.secst.cl/upfiles/documentos/07042016_1116am_570695e0a7eec.pdf

Oscar Wilde (1887/2007). El fantasma de Canterville y otros cuentos. Buenos Aires: Alfagura

---