The Composite Frankenstein: the Man, the Monster, the Myth A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Faculty of Arts and Science TRENT UNIVERSITY Peterborough, Ontario, Canada © Copyright by Sarah Milner 2018 English (Public Texts) M.A. Graduate Program September 2018 ABSTRACT The Composite Frankenstein: the Man, the Monster, the Myth By Sarah Milner This thesis explores Frankenstein’s popular culture narrative, contrasting recent Frankenstein texts with the content of Mary Shelley’s classic novel and James Whale’s iconic films Frankenstein (1931) and The Bride of Frankenstein (1935). The research investigates how Frankenstein’s legacy of adaptations function intertextually to influence both the production and the consumption of Frankenstein texts, referring to this complicated and contradictory intertextual web as “the Composite Frankenstein.” This thesis present the Composite Frankenstein as a hermeneutic by which to view Frankenstein’s collaborative and cumulative identity in popular culture, drawing on the work of other scholars on adaptation and intertextuality. Sarah Milner investigates the context of the key Frankenstein texts, the novel and the 1931 film; this research’s goal is to destabilize the perception of authorship as an individual’s mode of production and to investigate the various social processes that influence text creation and consumption. Keywords: Frankenstein, Mary Shelley, James Whale, intertextuality, adaptations, popular culture, film, authorship. ii Acknowledgements This thesis argues that authorship is a social process involving various parties; certainly this is true of the thesis itself, which was only made possible by the generous contributions of various family, friends, and advisors. I would like to thank my peers in the Public Texts program who helped me develop my ideas during the early stages of my research. I would also like to thank the department faculty at Catharine Parr Traill College for their assistance, support and in general, patience. I am especially grateful to the wonderful Beth Popham PhD, who encouraged me to pursue opportunities outside of the university, leading to my first journal publication. I would like to thank my peer, and now friend, Derek Newman-Stille, who provided me with advice, opportunities, and much-needed assurance over the last couple years. I would also like to thank Jude Wright PhD for sharing his research on Frankenstein, as well as my friends Jamie Campbell-Obrien, Paul Cleveland, Colleen Humbert PhD, and Lisa Murray, who regularly shared Frankenstein texts they encountered. I am extremely grateful to my supervisor, Sally Chivers PhD, who has been a tremendous supporter of my research. Sally demonstrated unparalleled patience, wisdom, and kindness during this long process. Her painstaking reviews of several drafts allowed me to develop my ideas and writing abilities organically, and I am now a better researcher, theorist, and writer because of it. I would also like to thank my committee members, especially Suzanne Bailey PhD, who directed my research, leant me materials, and made time to assist me despite her incredibly busy schedule. Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their constant support, especially my partner James Kerr, who spent much of the last few years listening to my ideas and offering his advice. iii Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii List of Figures v Introduction 1 Chapter 1 Whose Frankenstein Is It? Exploring the Author Function in Multiple Media 24 Chapter 2 “It was on a dreary night in November”: Frankenstein’s (complicated) Origins, and Mary Shelley’s Role as Author 41 Chapter 3 Fathering Frankenstein: the Creation of James Whale’s Classic Film Monster(s) 78 Chapter 4 Beyond Adaptation: Unpacking the Composite Frankenstein in Popular Culture 119 Conclusion 160 Appendix A 186 Appendix B 192 iv List of Figures Figure 1: Basic Halloween decoration 191 Figure 2: Broken Skull Bar village piece by Lemax 191 Figure 3: Frankie Stein from Monster High 191 Figure 4: Special Edition Fender guitar 192 Figure 5: Frankenstein cover 192 Figure 6: Danielle Steel novels 192 Figure 7: The Original Frankenstein cover 193 Figure 8: Universal’s Monsters logo 193 Figure 9: Le monstre et le magicien lithograph 194 Figure 10: The Burger King Frankenstein 195 Figure 11: Cover of Famous Monsters of Filmland 195 Figure 12: “The Great Mutato” 195 Figure 13: Still from “The Post-Modern Prometheus” 196 v 1 Introduction Everyone knows “Frankenstein”—that is to say, it is safe to assume that the majority of the population, at least in the Western world, has at least heard the name “Frankenstein” and has seen some form of the reanimated, probably square-headed, Frankenstein’s monster. The image of Frankenstein’s monster is ubiquitous, particularly around Halloween, when it appears in countless forms of visual media, from decorations to children’s cartoons. It is a familiar icon, and it is a familiar story; however, this “familiar” story has a long history of popular adaptations that redefine the narrative and the “familiar” icons associated with Frankenstein today are predominantly informed by adaptations, rather than the original novel. The popularization of Frankenstein adaptations such as the 1823 play Presumption; or the Fate of Frankenstein and the 1931 film Frankenstein (1931) have complicated and expanded the term “Frankenstein” to signify ideas and images far beyond the content of Mary Shelley’s 19th-century novel. Popular culture references to “Frankenstein” that do not refer to content from Shelley’s novel are evidence of adaptations expanding Frankenstein in the popular imagination: for example, the creature possessing neck bolts or the “birth” of a female monster. The contemporary popular culture that surrounds “Frankenstein” informs how Dr. Frankenstein and his creation(s) are conceived of—both as general icons and as characters encountered in any given text. The almost 200-year legacy of Frankenstein adaptations has shaped the public’s understanding of what “Frankenstein” is, far beyond what could be attributed to one single text. While it is tempting to argue Shelley’s novel is the “true” Frankenstein story, to do so ignores how the term “Frankenstein” functions as a signifier—the narrative implied by “Frankenstein” is not the plot of Shelley’s novel. Rather, the story signified by “Frankenstein” is 2 a complex and contradictory set of expectations within the public’s memory, built on a foundation of countless popular culture references. Mary Shelley’s novel has the unique characteristic of being frequently referenced as a concept (i.e. “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein”) while the references themselves use content originating from adaptations. Contemporary popular culture typically references the version of Frankenstein popularized by James Whale’s 1931 film Frankenstein (1931): the film that introduced a mute square-headed monster, brought to life via the power of lightning, with electrodes jutting out of his neck. Halloween decorations, children’s cartoons, and even guitar designs, are typically based on this version of the story, and this conceptualization of the Creature (Appendix A: figures 1-4). Shelley’s novel was one of the source materials used for Whale’s film; however, Whale’s film—which popularized Frankenstein more than any other adaptation (at least from a contemporary perspective)— possesses various creative divergences from Shelley’s original text that collectively contradict and override the content of her story. Despite its significant contribution to the popular conception of “Frankenstein,” Whale’s film Frankenstein (1931) does not possess all the iconic “Frankenstein” story elements as understood in 21st-century popular culture; for example, there is no character named “Igor” in this film, nor does the creature walk with his arms outstretched. Contemporary conceptions of Frankenstein include ideas introduced in later adaptations that build on Whale’s original film, particularly the Universal sequels released between 1935 and 1948. For example, the Frankenstein (1931) sequel The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942) introduced the iconic Frankenstein’s monster walk—the Creature walks in this manner in the film after becoming blind. Later Universal monster films repeat this behaviour, despite the character regaining his sight. This is one of several examples of Frankenstein’s intertextual “accumulation”: a new idea 3 is introduced by an adaptation and is subsequently reinforced and developed by later adaptations. In some cases, the underlying explanation or motivation is lost: for example, the creature walking with his arms outstretched because he’s blind, or Dr. Frankenstein’s derangement resulting from an unhealthy obsession with scientific pursuit. Frankenstein texts disagree on even basic questions such as “does the creature speak?” or even “who is Frankenstein?” Not every Frankenstein text is a direct adaptation of Shelley’s novel; yet, because these texts present as a “Frankenstein” story, they contribute to the public’s understanding of the “Frankenstein” story. This web of Frankenstein stories presents a unique opportunity to observe the intertextual links among legacy texts—the spectrum of adaptations that share a common root source—and examine how these links inform a general narrative within popular culture. This thesis frames authorship as a social process by examining Frankenstein as popular culture. Frankenstein’s