Character types are the moulds which a great deal of characters in fiction are made from, from the mad scientist type featured in countless science fiction and horror novels, to the strong, silent type present in almost every single action movie ever made. They can be traced back to ancient Greek theatre, where stock characters would be used in order to quickly provide the audience with personalities and action derived from those personalities which would be immediately familiar and recognizable to the audience. Many of those first stock characters have carried onto the present day- the buffoon, the wise old man and of course the Hero remains popular to this day. The widespread use of character types can be traced to three main points:
1-Character types can tap into the emotions and ideas innate in all human beings, as proposed by Swiss psychiatrist Carl Young, who outlined several recurring types: The Child, The Hero, The Wise Old Man, The Great Mother, The Trickster, The Devil, in addition to several other. The advantage to using types with these ideas in mind is that, if used properly, a story can become universal and easily understood among all humans in terms of its themes and message and, if used in conjunction with exceptional writing and plausible motivation for its characters, a story can become forever etched into human culture.
2-Character types can, as mentioned previously, quickly establish characters without the need for the author to write a great deal of character establishing moments, or go through the bother of writing up a completely original character.
3-Similar to the above, character types can be used to quickly establish characters without the author needing to write any character establishing moments whatsoever. The result of this is often a character with no plausible motivation, depth or development, which ends up as merely a vastly inferior copy of the type that spawned it.
Nineteenth century author Mary Shelly has often had the third point levelled at her Gothic Horror novel Frankenstein, the tale of a brilliant scientist, the titular Victor Frankenstein. The first half of the novel details Frankensteins quest to imbue the dead with the spark of life, to bring the dead back to life, and hopefully in the process creating a creature of superhuman strength and durability. Frankenstein succeeds, but only after his creation is complete does he realize that it is something that no mortal could bear the horror of. This wretch, Frankensteins Monster is then abandoned by his creature. The Monster responds in turn throughout the second half, destroying all Frankenstein has-his friends, his family and his reputation, until all Frankenstein can do is chase the Monster to the icy north of the globe, where he then killed by the Monster, who then, with its quest done, promises to destroy itself.
To a degree the novel does use familiar types in order to create its characters; Frankenstein is represented by the mad scientist, the irresponsible or absentee father types equally well, and his Monster is quite obviously one of those misunderstood outsiders only turned evil due to the revulsion he is met with based on his appearance. Robert Walton, captain of the ship that Frankenstein with to the Arctic easily slots into the role of the (perhaps overly) ambitious explorer. Frankensteins wife-to-be, Elizabeth has little character revealed to the reader beyond her constant concern over Frankenstein and few other characters beyond the blind old man, Mr. DeLacey, actually have any character to speak of.
So, is the argument warranted that Frankensteins characters are merely types without sort of plausible motivation for their behaviour or depth to their development?
Frankenstein begins with a series of letters sent from Walton to his sister. My first task was to assure my dear sister of my welfare he writes .From the opening paragraph we see that Walton cares deeply about his beloved sister, and as he goes on to describe his environment we see his absolute reverence for it; Here, the sun is ever visible, its broad disk just skirting the horizon, and diffusing its perpetual splendour. He reiterates for his sister how he was from a young age enamoured with the tales of explorers and the diaries of adventurers. His quest to know the unknown is established immediately on the first page:
There (the Arctic) I may discover the wondrous power that attracts the needle...I may regulate a thousand celestial observations...I shall satiate my ardent curiosity with the sight of a part of the world never visited.
Only a man driven by an unquenchable thirst for the unknown would feel the need to know what causes the needle of a compass to point north, or make a thousand celestial observations as he proposes. His sense of adventure and curiosity in the face of the unknown unfolds beneath us-Mary Shelley doesnt immediately make Walton say Im an explorer. I like exploring as a lesser writer would. Instead she gives him a history, a background. He has great insecurities about his education, or lack thereof-he was self taught: It is a greater evil to me that I am self taught. Now I am twenty eight and in reality more illiterate than many schoolboys of fifteen. She gives him a reason to want to explore:-I imagine I will find a niche in the temple where the names of Homer and Shakespeare are etched-he wants to be remembered, he wants glory. She makes him an original and three dimensional character, setting him apart from other explorers in fiction.
Waltons written section ends with his transcribing of Frankensteins lengthy monologue, going into even greater detail about his own life, beginning with a description of his heritage:
I am by birth a Genevese, and my family is one of the most distinguished of that republic. My ancestors had been for many years councillors and syndics, and my father had filled several public situations with honour and reputation.
Its obvious even at this point that Frankenstein is of good stock, with his grandparents holding positions of high power and his father a man of great reputation. All have very large bank accounts.
Frankenstein continues with stories of his fathers charity, to his own travels around Europe, his betrothal to his cousin Elizabeth and to his first and perhaps only-love, natural science. Frankenstein tells of what drove him to it. At a young age father Frankenstein finds Victor reading through a positively ancient book on biology, dismissing the book and its contents:
If...my father had taken the pains to explain to me...that a modern system of science had been introduced...I certainly would have thrown Agrippa aside and have contented my imagination...
Here we are shown precisely what drove Frankenstein to his chosen field, as well a wonderful illustration of his-like Waltons-curiosity regarding the unknown. After being confronted by professor at his school, he is told that all of teachers of the natural sciences are either useless, wrong, or both, and that philosophers are the only ones to make important discoveries. Frankenstein appears to take this as a challenge, as from that moment on, we see his dedication change from the sciences in general, to focussing solely on natural science. The readers are not merely told these vital things in quick, exposition laden sentences designed to quickly move the plot forward, but instead through entire paragraphs and sometimes even pages dedicated to getting across single ideas.
Through his narration the reader is shown Frankensteins descent into madness; the previously rational man for whom graveyards were merely receptacles for bodies deprived of life, to the man who eventually builds the Monster, whose possessions are kept in places with emotionally charge names, the dissection chamber and the slaughterhouse, the man who deprives himself of all that is not central to finishing his creation. The reader sees this all happen gradually over the course of a few dozen pages, as opposed to having the character either remain static or quickly jump from perfectly sane and rational to the madman completely consumed my his work. Yes, he does eventually come to embody the mad scientist type, but only after we see his long and arduous journey there. Frankenstein is not a two dimensional creation, but a man of as great a depth and breadth as any other.
Frankensteins Monster, the hideous wretch, has probably taken more criticism for its apparently strict adherence to the archetype of the abandoned creation that seeks vengeance against its creator. The Golem from Jewish folk tales springs to mind immediately-particularly the versions of the tales wherein the creature is created as a show of hubris by its creator-as well as Satan from Miltons Paradise Lost, which pits the creation against the ultimate creator-the Christian God. The parallels between Satans quest in Paradise Lost and the Monsters in Frankenstein are even noted in-story in the latter, with the Monster gaining much of its outlook on morality from that text.
The Monster starts out as a blank slate, devoid of any personality, remembering only its abandonment. Sometime later he confronts Frankenstein and tells him what he has done in the intervening time. The Monster lays out his logic in his monologue, explaining how and why he came to think the way he does. He tells of his abandonment by his creator, of his reading of Paradise Lost, and of his rejection by the DeLaceys. The reader is forced to understand and to sympathise with the creature. When one is abandoned and rejected by everything including its creator and the text one is brought up on is perhaps ultimate battle between creator and creation, what else can one do besides seethe and rage and loathe and hate and try to destroy the creator? The Monster, like he who created him, is a living, breathing character that has since eclipsed all other characters like it.
When criticising a text almost two centuries old, one must also consider similar literature of the time-nothing was like Frankenstein at that point. It was new, terrifying and a beautiful sight to behold. The critics of today that say that the characters are merely stereotypes that stick to the formula do not realize that Frankenstein itself is responsible for creating and popularizing many those tropes and stereotypes. Theres hardly a person today that goes into Frankenstein for the first time without knowing how it will eventually end, but the audiences of the early nineteenth century had no idea what they were in for.
Already have an account? Log In Now
6560