Is Frankenstein’s Monster a Zombie?

by Jesse Stommel

I would argue that the philosophical precursor for the zombie is the monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. While there are significant differences between her monster and subsequent incarnations of the walking dead, Shelley’s novel sets up many of the theoretical and philosophical questions of our contemporary zombie: What makes us human? How have we evolved as a species and how will we continue to evolve? How are notions of identity being transformed in the wake of technological advancement? In our incessant push toward invention, what sorts of monstrous havoc are we wreaking upon ourselves and the world around us? And, conversely, what sorts of wonders and miracles do evolution and invention beget?

Shelley’s Frankenstein is about the capacities of flesh. The opening words explore many of the questions central to the remainder of the work: “I am by birth . . .” (29), she begins the first chapter. These four words raise a question that gets explored throughout Shelley’s novel: Are we, as individuals, made or are we born? Victor’s opening words suggest that existence is only possible through a natural birth (that we are only because we are born). Nevertheless, the monster (who is decidedly made and not born, a literal assemblage of chunks of human flesh) is set in opposition to Victor and ultimately seems the more lively of the two. And, like Frankenstein’s monster, we are (as humans) at a moment in our history where we face monstrous transformation and rebirth with a similar set of moral and ethical consequences.

The zombie similarly disrupts conventional notions of how we come into (or out of) being. As you continue to read Frankenstein, offer some tentative connections between the novel’s themes and the themes you expect us to explore throughout the rest of this course. Does it make sense, to you, for us to begin a course about zombies with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein? You don’t have to take a side; feel free to give thoughts both in support and defense of this choice.

About this entry

You’re currently reading “Is Frankenstein’s Monster a Zombie?,” an entry on The Dead and the Undead

Published:: January 21, 2011 / 3:55 pm

Category:: Monsters, Philosophy

Tags:

98 Comments

Jump to comment form | comment rss [?] | trackback uri [?]

Bennett A 1.22.11 / 9pm

I think that Frankenstein’s creature is not a zombie. To me, zombies are always portrayed as diseased humans that have come back from the dead and want to eat flesh. They are mindless, eating machines that turn all other humans to zombies. Frankenstein’s creature does not align with any of those qualities. It is not mindless and he has a brain and learns and feels like man would. He also is not a killing machine like zombies. Yes, he goes on a killing rampage, but only after being shown constant and unnecessary hostility. He was also never human, and is not diseased. He was created and abandoned, which is partly why he grows so hostile towards Frankenstein and man in general.
I think the themes parallel some zombie topics we will talk about. Specifically, whether or not zombies are human. Clearly, Frankenstein’s creature isn’t human, but why not? And, why are zombies not human either?

Reply
1. juanfgers 1.23.11 / 8pm
  
  I totally agree with you on the first sentence and the continuing ones. Frankenstein is not a zombie, but like you said, a monster. He was not “born” (never a human), but created by a person. Though he was never a human, I like how you say that he has a brain and feels like a human, thus contrasting zombies in the way that though they were ones humans, when they transformed into the walking dead they became totally inhuman. He is not a killer and apparently doesn’t like to eat human flesh, and has feelings. He cannot be called a human because he was never born, only created by a person, but more human qualities than the zombies, which are just creatures of the dead.
  
  Reply
2. KBus 1.24.11 / 12am
  
  I agree with you. On the one hand, we have these creatures that go around with nothing but killing and eating in mind. On the other we have this creature capable of thought and intelligence. Comparing the two is like comparing a monkey to a person. It’s just not the same.
  
  Reply
3. Brent H. 1.24.11 / 5am
  
  I completely disagree with you here, and everyone else saying that Frankenstein’s monster doesn’t qualify as a zombie – not for your view point, but for your justification. The key idea that everyone seems to be pointing out is that he doesn’t fit the bill of your stereotypical, present-day Romero zombie, but the introduction of the concept of a zombie had nothing to do with flesh-eating un-dead creatures contagiously spreading their condition, but with voodoo “zombis”, normal humans made into slaves through the use of what is essentially magic so as to do their master’s bidding.
  
  Reply
  1. Matt Welch 1.24.11 / 4pm
    
    How then, does Frankenstein’s monster, fit into the idea of a Caribbean voodoo zombie? Sure, he was created by what we could call “magic” since it isn’t made clear how the monster is created, but he is by no means a slave. The monster is able to think on a much higher level which is what makes him not a zombie to me. A voodoo zombie only thoughts are to be obedient to its master’s wishes, and a Romero style zombie only acts on instincts to eat flesh. Both are only able to think and act based on one mindset, while Frankenstein’s monster mind is much more expanded than that.
4. Joseph Singh 1.24.11 / 3pm
  
  I agree that Frankenstein does not fit the bill of the classic zombie as we know today, “birthed” by Romero and the original Living Dead series. The monster is not a diseased human reanimated into a mindless flesh eating machine. Instead, Shelley might have been ahead of her time in bringing her audience the enlightened zombie. This zombie does have feelings and emotions on some level and the audience is supposed to feel some amount of empathy towards him and a connection with him. Instead of a mindless rampage of the stereotypical zombie, Frankenstein’s monster is driven to violence by society around him and this creates what some may consider to be a more complex version of the zombie.
  
  Reply
  1. Brian K. 1.24.11 / 8pm
    
    I agree with your notion that the monster may be considered a more complex version of the zombie. To me, the modern zombie is too simple-minded; it lacks the sophistication of Frankenstein’s monster. The educated monster sounds almost like a philosopher, while zombies–at least in my mind–are mindless “things” that roam around maybe with or without purpose.
5. Michael Trebbi 1.24.11 / 4pm
  
  I agree 100% with your argument. When asked the question, ‘What is a zombie?’, I think of the typical mindless flesh eating beings whose sole purpose in “death” is to feast on the living. Frankenstein is not the slightest form of zombie in my opinion. Like Bennett says, the monster has a brain and uses it. He can speak, understand emotions, and feel emotions. Three things zombies, in most cases, aren’t capable of. I would argue that the monster is not human, and also not zombie. He is made up of the dead but he shares humanistic features that we are all born with. The monster, as I see fit, should be categorized as subhuman or a humanoid. Categorizing him as human would be preposterous to say the least. I don’t believe that I could say someone made up of my great uncle, your great grandfather and the neighbors great great aunt, is human, but since the monster does share humanistic traits I also cannot call him a zombie. When I read about the monster, the only thing that seems monstrous is that he was made from dead people. If that key fact was left out of the book, he would be as human as you and I.
  
  Reply
pdemercurio 1.23.11 / 5pm

In my opinion, especially if we take the modern horror movie zombie to be the epitome of said creature, the Frankenstein monster is not a zombie. This is because of a few discrepancies not only in the way he came to be but also in his sentience. First off almost every zombie movie that has come out in the last ten to fifteen years has had some catastrophic disease, military experiment, mutagenic bacterias, or some type of dark magic as the reanimating factor for the corpses. This process occurring in a chaotic fashion and eventually spiraling out of control. On the complete other end of the spectrum is the Frankenstein creature. He was created and unleashed not by some government biotoxin spill but with the noble purpose of trying to eliminate death from the human equation. Dr. Frankenstein took great care to try and reanimate the creature in such a way that it would be “human” and not a flesh tearing beast. Another large difference is in that the Frankenstein monster though not an incredible intelligence is smart enough to make simple instinctual decisions while zombies do not ever deviate from their one directive of eating brains, flesh etc… This I believe sets him apart even more than the creation aspect as people today expect zombies to be unthinking beasts. Lastly the Frankenstein monster does not eat flesh nor does he infect or create others like him by his actions, all classic zombie traits that cannot be applied. In my mind Frankenstein is from a completely different mold than a modern zombie.

Reply
1. Bennett A 1.23.11 / 6pm
  
  I completely agree with the formation thing you said. The creature was intended to end human death, and to bring reanimation. Zombies are reanimated, but not by choice, and not as the same being they were at death.
  Do you think that the creature has any other differing features? I think the key one would be feeling and emotion. He is not instinctively evil (like zombies), but grows that way due to how he is treated.
  
  Reply
  1. Scott Nguyen 1.23.11 / 9pm
    
    Was the creature actually intended to end human death? In my opinion the creature’s creation did not have any purpose other than to satisfy the scientific curiosity of an up and coming genius scientist. It was if he had this uncontrollable urge to discover new frontiers in the field of natural physiology, and by chance he was able to create life if you were to label Frankenstein that.
    
    In addition to your later comment, Bennett, I agree that emotion is of the key factors to separating Frankenstein from zombies. Because of those emotions that he possesses like any normal human, he feels betrayed by society in general and specifically against his creator or father, the one person that should have an obligation to love the creature. Through these feelings of hatred and loneliness, and lack of belonging, I think it would be a normal response for any human to exact revenge on those around him.
2. josephrsingh 1.31.11 / 5pm
  
  The discrepancies you cite actually seem to coincide quite comfortably with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein monster. His creation was a rather chaotic affair. Frankenstein was immediately horrified and ran after the monster’s creation, even though he labored over the very same work for so long. The monster also most definitely spiraled out control as he killed everyone who was close to Frankenstein. Frankenstein took great care to make the monster without malicious intent, but many contemporary zombie outbreaks are accidental as well. Regardless, the most common contemporary zombie should not be the standard for the zombie genre. Different zombies can serve different literary purposes, mindless masses can represent very strong ideas while the equally valid intelligent zombie can convey other messages.
  
  Reply
juanfgers 1.23.11 / 8pm

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is, as it is proven in the novel when he was created and throughout the book, a monster. Never is the monster born, thus never does he retain the word of human. Thus, he never dies like zombies do. This all proves that he is never a zombie, and just a horrible creature. But there are two contrasting ideas that make him a strange type of creature. Though he is never born from another human being, he is created by one. After a time of his creation, Victor talks to the monster, a quality zombies do not have. First, they don’t speak, and if Victor had approached a zombie, he would have most likely been attacked and even devoured. Another trait that marks a gigantic difference between Frankenstein and the walking dead is his ability to portray feelings, feel excluded from society, feel like a real person. Zombies not only do not care about society, they want to eat it completely, while the scary monster wants to learn people’s ways, their language, and even help them like he started doing with the cottage people in Germany.
It is great to start a class about zombies with Frankenstein, because it depicts the idea of scary creatures that have similarities with humans, but it is not right to say the monster is a zombie. In fact, Frankenstein proves to be more of a living human than a walking dead.

Reply
1. keremyjim 1.23.11 / 11pm
  
  I like the way you pinpointed out the fact that the monster is made by a human and not born from another human being. I am guessing that “born from another human being” doesn’t mean actual birth but the human becoming a zombie.
  
  Implying that statement above, can humans ever create a zombie? If it is a creation of a man, then does it serves to be a close resemblance of a man more than a zombie?
  
  Reply
  1. meredithgreene 1.24.11 / 12am
    
    I would argue that a human cannot create a zombie, aside from something like an experiment gone wrong that releases toxic chemicals that reawaken the dead. The hours Victor spent toiling over the monster’s creation were too personal to not leave a lasting mark. The same thing can be seen in consumerist America’s love for mass production. A lot of products made on assembly lines lose whatever deep appeal they had to impersonal manufacturing and become utilitarian or kitsch. A truly handmade object has a life of its own, and is imbued with the spirit of the maker.
    
    The same thing can be said of Frankenstein’s monster.
  2. johngray5 1.24.11 / 6am
    
    Aside from zombies reanimated due to supernatural causes, I would have to say most zombies are created by humans. In most movies, the zombie is reanimated by some chemical or toxin that causes the body to become “living” again. Even in movies where the disease is not created by humans, it is due to a strain of a virus that has become mutated in order to combat our ever advancing arsenal of antibiotics. To me, it seems that zombies are more “of the people, by the people, and for the people” than any existing government.
2. Ryan Youngblood 1.24.11 / 5pm
  
  I would agree with Juan in this case. The monster is neither a human nor a zombie. And this brings about many controversial ideas about the name to give such a creature. Physically a zombie, but mentally a human,
  
  Reply
Scott Nguyen 1.23.11 / 8pm

When I first discovered that we were required to read Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” (did not know how to underline or italicize), I was actually a bit confused. This was because I never associated Frankenstein with any features fitting of a zombie. Besides the notion that the two must fend for themselves and survive to continue living via eating, I did not find much in common. Zombies tend to be thought of as beings that were once alive and now considered lifeless, relentless, merciless, flesh eating undead creatures. However after reading from Frankenstein’s perspective, the reader learns that he is actually a normal human being. He is curious, hungry, sleepy, cold, hot, sad, happy, and most intriguingly has a yearning to belong and to be loved. I believe, these characteristics are a universal indication of what it means to be human which zombies lack. Emotions are what set apart Frankenstein and zombies. Zombies seem to only want to satisfy their unending hunger which is not the case of Frankenstein.

Reply
1. Scott Nguyen 1.23.11 / 8pm
  
  Oops whenever I mentioned Frankenstein, I meant Victor Frankenstein’s creation/monster and not the scientist.
  
  Reply
2. GrahamM1 1.24.11 / 2am
  
  So you are saying that because of the way that the monster displays human-like feelings and characteristics then he is therefore a human? I actually agree with this statement. Not only is he physically composed of human DNA, but he also shows that he can learn, think, and function (eat, sleep). It is kind-of sad that the monster gets treated so badly. He is just trying to fit in to society and find out who he is and what is his purpose. Overall, I think that he is not a zombie and is instead, human.
  
  Reply
  1. Paul Kern 1.24.11 / 3pm
    
    I agree with you both in that I woul consider the creation a human due to his genetic makeup and the fact that he learna and has emotions. He is simply a victim of his circumstances, such as being abandoned by his creator.
    Even though we may feel it that Frankenstein’s creation is a human, it is important to realize that Frankenstein himself does not feel the same way. After he learns of the death of his brother and sees his creation, Victor knows that “every human being was guiltless of this murder.” clearly he makes the distinction of humanity based on his own creation and the science that went into the repurposing of old flesh into new life. It is in this sense that the monster is inhuman as well as the precursor of the modern zombie.
  2. Brett W 1.24.11 / 4pm
    
    I’m going to have to disagree. I believe that Frankenstein’s monster fits the definition of a zombie: a lifeless corpse that has been reanimated (well parts of many lifeless corpses to be exact). Despite the noticeable lack of the desire to nom humans, he does have emotion and intelligence, but zombies can be capable of possessing both of those as well.
    
    Zombies roam in packs which is indicative of a social element that precludes some sort of compassion or at the very least a fear of being alone.
    
    As far as intelligence goes, the gambit of intelligence levels of zombies in horror movies has gone from mind numb killing machines to zombies intelligent enough for guerrilla warfare so they are capable of being intelligent.
    
    If it is a question of efficiency, Frankenstein’s monster is undoubtedly one of the best zombies as far as emotion and intelligence goes, but if the question is form and function, he’s a zombie.
keremyjim 1.23.11 / 11pm

I consider the monster not a zombie, but I see how it can set as a precursor to zombies. This notion also depends on how we define zombies; where one defines it as the risen dead, the monster is certainly a zombie but if one defines it as the walking dead that devours human flesh, no. Frankenstein’s monster is far more intellectual and self-preserving being that acts according to humanly needs like hunger, thirst, comfort, and belonging. The sense of belonging is the prime counterexample of why I believe the monster is not a zombie. Zombies, for the most part, only care to attack and eat humans, whereas the monster desires to interact and become a human. The goals of a zombie and the monster is completely the opposite direction.

Starting off this course about zombies with Frankenstein is a superb idea because if anything, the monster is the bridge between human and the dead. We discussed in class how zombies represent the mindless aspect of our age of technology. Yet the monster is a “zombie” with a mind. He shows our fleshly desires as I mentioned above. The thirst, hunger, comfort and sense of belonging are all of the things which we seek everyday and treasure.
I also notice that the monster does not rot like zombies, but rather heal, which is another reason why Frankenstein is such a good starting material for this course. Before we get into the rotting flesh and gore, we get to experience the full body that still has the mind like humans.

Reply
1. kshah45 1.24.11 / 7am
  
  You pointed out good contrast here between Frankenstein’s creation and zombies. Frankenstein’s monster tries to fit in with society, whereas zombies don’t care about social structure and just want more flesh. Without sentience, the zombies persevere with no regard for their health or safety, but Frankenstein’s monster does show concern. The classic case of this being his interaction with fire. I agree with the notion of how he could be a precursor instead.
  
  Reply
  1. Michael Trebbi 5.2.11 / 7pm
    
    i also agree. frakenstein is trying to be like everyone else. trying to become a person. zombies just want to eat us.
2. The Retarded Penguin 1.25.11 / 3am
  
  I like your idea of the monster being an antique zombie, if you will. The monster fulfills some of the modern zombie requirements and as we progress with the class we will go deeper into what is the modern zombie of today.
  
  Reply
KBus 1.23.11 / 11pm

In my opinion, Frankenstein, the monster, is not a zombie. He is more a freakish creation of a scientist rather than a zombie. To me a zombie is a, or was, a person, a whole one, that was resurrected from the dead. By this definition, one would think that I would recognize Frankenstein as a zombie, but for some reason I just don’t. For one, Frankenstein doesn’t walk around eating people with an insatiable hunger. Another thing is, and this might just be me, that Frankenstein was deliberately created, pieced together from different parts. Zombies just have this feeling that they are an accident, a bad one. They go around running on base instincts, while Frankenstein has the capability of intelligence.

Reply
meredithgreene 1.24.11 / 12am

Frankenstein’s monster, like a zombie, is a creature of re-animated flesh. He has experienced rebirth and will now live on Earth with from a totally new perspective. I believe the similarities stop there. The monster is not a shambling corpse who clawed his way out of the earth one night after a dousing of cosmic rays. He has a “father”, and holds the power of cognition. He is introspective, thoughtful, emotional, articulate, and intelligent. He is essentially a normal person with daddy issues, a sharp contrast to a hungry bag-of-bones.

With the above in mind, I propose that the actual “monster”/zombie of “Frankenstein” is Victor Frankenstein himself. His creation of the monster coupled with the ensuing fugue marks the descent of his life (perhaps serving as his metaphorical death?). He goes on living, but not with the same gusto as before due to a series of unfortunate events (parallel to the rambling of a zombie?). Frankenstein’s monster keeps appearing in the wrong place at the wrong time, and causes Frankenstein to vow to hunt him down to the death. Is this equivalent to a traditional zombie’s perpetual hunger for flesh, only Frankenstein’s hunger is more discriminate (like the trope of zombies who only eat brains).

Also, it makes perfect sense to start with this book; it contains nearly all elements necessary for a good zombie tale.

Reply
cWacht 1.24.11 / 12am

I believe it’s difficult to really label Frankenstein’s monster as a precursor to the zombie. Frankenstein’s monster represents what it means to be human (he reflects human ambitions and emotions in an absurd conflict with isolation) whereas zombies lack any human substance. You could possibly argue that there are a few special cases of zombies with human characteristics (such as in George Romero’s zombie films where zombies start to develop human behaviors), but the typical zombie has no moral obstacles in bringing death or infection to its victims. It represents imminent doom as it spreads chaos. There are even those survivors who, although they aren’t bitten, lose what differentiates us from animals. However, Frankenstein’s monster (at least up to our readings) does not display these characteristics. At one of Victor’s confrontations with the monster, the monster accuses Victor of having responsibility over him. Furthermore, he alludes to his relationship with Victor as God’s creation and dismissal of Satan (rather than Adam). The scene then concludes with the monster demanding that Victor bring him happiness. So, rather than seeking to terrorize humans, the monster almost seems to have a reliance on Victor in his pursuit of happiness after being shunned by the humans he has tried so hard to fit in with.

Reply
wbennett6 1.24.11 / 12am

I don’t believe that the Frankenstein monster is a zombie. The word birth in the first sentence is extremely interesting to me in that, by Christian standards, the first humans, Adam and Eve, are “made” and not born. According to the Christian belief God made man out of dirt and breathed life into him. The parallelism between the creation of man and the creation of Frankenstein leads me to believe that Frankenstein is a sort of Human 0.5. He is a different type of human and is the first of his kind and therefore much different than a zombie. In addition to that, Frankenstein has human emotions and is not a mindless shell of a human like zombies are. So is Frankenstein just a new type of human?

Reply
1. Kyler 1.24.11 / 12am
  
  I think it’s an interesting point that your bringing up, paralleing this with the creation of man. This is why I think it’s so hard to classify the monster. I don’t know if I would say that Victor has Godly powers in that he can create life but because he creates a creature that feels and learns and so closely resembles a real human, it’s hard not to say that the monster isn’t at least some type of human. Sub-human maybe? I guess it’s an opionated thing. But I like the human 0.5 idea.
  
  Reply
2. akim2 1.24.11 / 3am
  
  I think your point of man being made in the Christian belief is very interesting. I don’t think that Frankenstein is a zombie and I’m not so sure if I would call him a human, but I do believe that humans can be made into monsters according to their deeds. Even though Frankenstein was not born into this world, maybe he can live a human life depending on his actions and thoughts.
  
  Reply
3. Dillon B 1.24.11 / 4am
  
  I do not think the monster is a zombie either, but I don’t think it’s necessarily human either. While the monster does possess some human qualities like emotions and feelings, I still do not think it can be classified as a human.
  
  Reply
  1. Michael Trebbi 5.2.11 / 7pm
    
    but what if the monster isn’t a zombie on the outside. his nature is just hidden by his more human-like attributes? he could easily revert to such zombie-like ways in a snap.
4. Matt Carlson 1.24.11 / 7pm
  
  I agree with you in saying that Frankenstein is a new type of human. He is not truly human in that he was not born, but was created from other (once-human) materials. However, he shares almost every other aspect with humans except for his creation and his grotesque shape. He is indeed a different type of human, but for no reason should that mean that he is inferior to humans. Human 0.5 sounds kind of degrading, why not just human 1.1?
  
  Reply
Kyler 1.24.11 / 12am

I don’t believe that I would classify the Frankenstein monster as a zombie. Zombies are type of step-down from a normal human. The monster is a step up because he is composed of body parts collected from the deceased. Also, the monster has the ability to learn, whereas zombies seem to lose their intelligence once they are transformed from their human selves.

One of the largest issues I’m noticing in the novel is who to blame and who to feel sorry for. Victor is losing all who he cares about, but it is his creation that has caused some of his losses. And the monster is killing, but he was created and abandoned with no knowledge of the world that he was brought into. He does not understand right from wrong. I’m curious who everyone else feels is to blame for the tragedies occurring in the novel.

Reply
Kevin H 1.24.11 / 12am

I believe that Frankenstein’s monster is the precursor to the modern-day zombie, similar to how ancient homo-erectus or Neanderthal is related to the modern human. Similar to the modern day zombie, Frankenstein’s monster originates from dead flesh, yet somehow gains sentience (in this case through technology). It then begins to hunger, except not for human flesh, but for human emotions. To me, it exhibits numerous zombie-like characteristics: a ghoulish appearance, a mindless quest for something, creation from the deceased, and most of all, a hatred for humanity (similar to the zombies’ “jealously” of humans being able to live).

It also parallels with the idea that technology is degrading humanity. Frankenstein’s monster is the perfect living metaphor for the degraded human from the use of technology; it has no sense of “self” because it was thrown into a chaotic and confusing world.

Frankenstein is a great way to open up a class that not only talks about the dead, but how we are slowly, through our advancing technology, are also becoming dead.

Reply
1. gauthamkr 1.24.11 / 5am
  
  I agree with your opinion, Frankenstein seems to be an early version of the modern zombie, like a prototype. I also agree that like zombies, Frankenstein is driven by the need to be part of society and not be lonely. I would not go as far as to say that it is a metaphor of the degraded human because i believe that technology pushes us towards a conforming society that is absolute and perfect. I would agree that we are losing what makes us human and that we becoming more “dead” in the sense of losing our body to technological advancements.
  
  Reply
  1. Kelly Evanish 1.24.11 / 10am
    
    Like gauthemkr, I also wouldn’t say technology is degrading humanity. I used to be more idealistic, thinking that life without technology is what should be, but I don’t think anyone can easily deny the fact that technology has pushed people into exploring their capabilities and allowing us to use our creativity to its fullest extent, not to mention globalizing the world. Not after I went a couple of weeks without a mobile phone did I fully realize how much technology actually benefits us. I do agree, however, that there is a certain point where it does more bad than good.. but hopefully, humanity as a whole will stop itself from going too far.
GrahamM1 1.24.11 / 2am

When I read Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, I think about two things in particular. First, I think about whether or not I think of this book as fitting to the “zombie genre” and why it is being taught in this class under the classification of zombie literature. Secondly, I tell myself that this is like the Adam and Eve of zombie works, then, with that thought in mind, as I read I try to find themes and ideas that mimic the gory, flesh-eating zombie that we see in today’s media. I want to know what inspired its readers to create films and literature pieces based on it. Thus far, the passages that I believe have to most relevance to today’s genre are the ones that describe the theme of technology eventually leading us to despair. Maybe I am not looking hard enough, but in actuality, I think that I am going too far off track trying to pick up this book and tell myself that it is a zombie book… However, it isn’t.

Reply
1. GrahamM1 1.24.11 / 2am
  
  Maybe the question I am trying to find an answer to should not be: What themes make this book a zombie story? but it should be: What developments have been made from this story to create the later zombie classics?
  
  Reply
  1. Brandon O 1.24.11 / 5am
    
    I would say that one of the themes that make this book a zombie story is what does it mean to be human. I think the main development that has been made to this story to create the more recent zombie classics is in providing for a sharper contrast to human beings in that of the zombies.
  2. bfrericks3 1.24.11 / 5pm
    
    definitely agree that one of the themes of this book is being human but i think that is one of the only things i think it shares with a traditional zombie story. I feel that this story is more about the coming of science and how it changes the role and definition of humanity amongst its environment. I think the book is asking: If humans can play god by making life then what else can they do and what are the dangerous consequences of that. However I can see how this story eventually inspired other authors to create zombie material.
zombiesfosho 1.24.11 / 2am

Frankenstein’s monster is not a zombie, at a first glance. When people think of zombies, they usually portray them as dead creatures scavenging around for human flesh. When zombies are depicted in that manner, Frankenstein’s monster is no zombie. Frankenstein is more of a gentle giant looking for meaning in his life. He is a lonely creature looking for companionship in his life. Like he states at the end of pg 124, “’What was I.’” His search for companionship and identity will probably never be satisfied. Zombies are similar; they are always searching for human flesh. No matter how many they kill they are never satisfied and they keep on searching, just like Frankenstein. In most ways Frankenstein’s monster is not a zombie, but in the sense of its search for fulfillment, it is.

Reply
1. Andrew Kim 1.24.11 / 4am
  
  I would say that even in the sense that Frankenstein’s monster’s search for a fulfillment is more of a human than a zombie. Though some people seek emotional and intellectual fulfillment, zombies never do. So I think that Frankenstein’s monster resembles the zombies even less.
  
  Reply
Natasha 1.24.11 / 2am

Starting off the semester with Frankenstein was a good approach. It introduces us to something beyond humans and from there we are able to progress into discussing zombies. In my opinion, Frankenstein’s creation is not a zombie because zombies are not capable of the kinds of emotions the monster presents. Zombies are perceived to be lifeless and gruesome; however the monster in the book appears full of life and wanting to interact and belong with humans. He is not seen as the undead and shows more human-like features than a zombie. As the monster strives to reach a social norm and blend in with society, zombies tend to defy the social norm.

Reply
1. allisonoesterle 1.26.11 / 2am
  
  I definitely agree with you that because the monster is able to have feelings, interact and learn from society, and wants to get along with humans, that he would not to be able to be considered a zombie!
  
  Reply
Dillon B 1.24.11 / 2am

I was also surprised that our first book to be discussed in class was Frankenstein. We studied it last year at my high school and from what I could remember, there were no zombies in the story. I do not consider the monster in Frankenstein to be a zombie. The monster has the emotional and psychological qualities of a normal human being. He has thoughts, wants, wishes, feelings, and emotions, whereas zombies don’t think. Zombies just act on their undying hunger for flesh. We talked a little bit in class about zombies and their search for satiation. With zombies they appear to never be satisfied. They hunt down humans to feed on them, but it seems like they never become fully satisfied. I think that if the monster were to get what it wants that it would be satisfied and just be happy with it.

Reply
akim2 1.24.11 / 3am

In my opinion, Frankenstein is not a monster. Even before the flesh eating zombie phase started, the first zombies that appeared in movies were a mindless creature that followed the orders of a vampire or a higher being. As I read Frankenstein, I can see that the monster Frankenstein has emotions and thoughts other than the motivation to eat human flesh, and also he is not a mindless creature that just wanders around. The monster has a need for a companion which sets him apart from the zombies that we see today.

When it comes to what makes us human, I believe that even though we are born human, there is always a possibility that some of us can turn into monsters. Even though we may not turn physically into a monstrous creature, I think our actions and thoughts can determine how human we are.

Reply
1. keeganhill 1.24.11 / 5am
  
  Frankenstein’s monster may not have been a monster in the way he acted, but I still think he was created a monster. Like you said, he acted human and through his actions became less a monster and more a person. At his creation he was a monster and treated as one by most. Then the monster rose above his monster status and worked to become as human as everyone else. Unfortunately the townspeople and even Dr. Frankenstein still viewed the monster as what he was born as, not what he became.
  
  Reply
2. Jesse Stommel 1.24.11 / 1pm
  
  Have you played the video game *Fable*? In the game, as you commit good or evil actions, those actions get reflected on your body. Evil actions lead to your character sprouting horns and amassing a swarm of flies. Good actions lead to your character sporting a halo and a divine heavenly glow. The last part of your comment here makes me wonder if we do actually wear our actions on our skin/flesh in some way? As we become less and less human, do we also look less and less human?
  
  Reply
gauthamkr 1.24.11 / 4am

I personally believe that Frankenstein is an early concept of zombies and the physical complications involved with the topic. Much like a zombie, Frankenstein is reanimated from a dead body, only difference being that this “dead body” is made of multiple different parts. Also, Frankenstein has a conscience which is different from the one track mind of most zombies. However Frankenstein is an earlier version of the present zombie so the idea of flesh eating evolved later. Also, both Frankenstein and zombies are not accepted by society either by failure or lack of interest to join the norm.

Reply
Bryan Levy 1.24.11 / 4am

Frankenstein’s monster is its own class of being in my opinion as it has qualities that separate it from any other genre of monster. At the same time this monster ambiguity gives it the ability to almost float into and back out of other genres with similarities that can be drawn. To start with, what is Frankenstein’s monster’s relation to the zombie genre? Well, the fact the the monster is of human flesh and was brought to life from the dead suggests that this monster is a zombie. However, I feel that the manner in which the monster came into being separates it from zombies in that it was pieced together and was brought here with technology after death versus medicine/virus during life or voodoo. The monster’s conscious presence takes him away from the zombie classification and relates him to a more distinguished class of monster’s as in Dracula. Frankenstein’s monster in this way is his own classification of monster.
However, this book is a great introductory book for this course in two ways. For one, the book is a good transition from last semester’s course on technology as this is the reason why the monster comes into being. The monster can also be seen as a zombie of sorts so it brings the class to a start from the beginning of the zombie’s in culture.

Reply
1. Seth H. 1.24.11 / 4am
  
  I completely agree. I always imagine zombies as almost lifeless beings who just wander in search of brains until there are no more humans left. The speech that the monster uses in explaining how he lived during the two years between seeing Victor again was very humanly, unlike that of any zombie I have ever witnessed. Come to think of it, I don’t think I have ever heard of zombies who can communicate more than the occasional grunt. Frankenstein’s creation starts off as innocent as William or Justine did, unlike other zombies who start off as violent killers.
  As for beginning the course with Frankenstein, I believe it is a good choice. Frankenstein is both a classic and a predecessor to many horror books and movies to come, and it can easily transition more into the zombie genre.
  
  Reply
2. Trav 1.24.11 / 5am
  
  I agree with the majority of what you say here. Of how he is partialy a zombie, in the sense that he has been brought back to life, but also his own grouping because he is an intelligent creature. But is he in agrouping of his own? Or does he fit into the same one as Dracula and other creatures with intellect and abnormal life?
  
  Reply
StyleMethod 1.24.11 / 4am

I don’t believe that Frankenstein’s monster is any more of a precursor to the modern day zombies as we are. I would argue that Frankenstein’s monster is a full human with few distinguished physical features, which in my opinion are superficial. Not only is he composed of human body parts, he possesses one of the most remarkable human feature, the mind. In my definition, the sole difference between the humans and the zombies is the presence and the absence of mind. Whether one was reanimated or not is irrelevant because we too are, in a way, reanimated every morning.

Starting out the course with Frankenstein was a great idea. It is the perfect novel to bridge last semester’s topic, the posthuman, and this semester’s topic, the undead. Frankenstein’s monster resembles an undead but he is more of a posthuman created by technology.

Reply
1. Jesse Stommel 1.24.11 / 1pm
  
  For me, the monster is less a literal precursor and more a philosophical one. Even though most of us recognize that Frankenstein’s monster is much different physically than the contemporary zombie, both figures raise many of the same topics for discussion. Nice point here also about the connection between this class and the last one. Technology, in some way or other, ends up being an issue in most contemporary zombie narratives, so this book will help put that topic at the forefront of our minds as we continue the course.
  
  Reply
Catherine 1.24.11 / 4am

I don’t know whether to think of Frankenstein’s monster as a zombie or not, mainly because I don’t know how to define what exactly a zombie is. Saying Frankenstein’s monster isn’t a zombie merely because he has emotions and feelings and doesn’t want to rip the flesh off of our bones doesn’t seem to be a concrete enough argument. I feel like that’s too narrow of a definition.

I agree with Kevin H’s opinion. He said that the monster “begins to hunger, …not for human flesh, but for human emotions.” This makes me see Frankenstein’s monster as a zombie, but a more sophisticated zombie than the zombies we see in today’s films. Also, as Kevin said, modern zombie’s qualities of having a “ghoulish appearance” and “a mindless quest for something” can also be observed in Frankenstein’s monster.

Reply
1. keeganhill 1.24.11 / 4pm
  
  I view a zombie as a human corpse that has been reanimated, but lacks any will and is driven by simple primitive urges. The monster in Frankenstein may be a reanimated corpse and zombie like in that manner, but as you said he is not driven by what most consider “primitive urges”. Instead he appears to be attracted to human emotions and posses his own will. The monster is less a zombie and more a misunderstood creature to me. It seems that his classification as a zombie relies more on a persons personal definition of what constitutes a zombie.
  
  Reply
Brandon O 1.24.11 / 4am

I am inclined to say that the monster is not a zombie. Frankenstein’s monster has thoughts and emotions not typically seen in zombies. The monster is a free thinker, whereas zombies tend to be consumed by a mob mentality. Zombies have an uncontrollable hunger for human flesh while the monster only desires to be treated like a human being. On the other hand, the monster is not quite like a human. It’s body is physically dead in the same way that a zombie’s is. The monster’s body is not entirely made of one person’s DNA but is the composite of multiple human beings. The monster is ultimately like a zombie on the outside but a human being on the inside. The only question is what matters the inside or the outside?

Reply
Trav 1.24.11 / 5am

Frankenstein’s monster may resemble a zombie in the physical form. The resurrection of the body and its humanoid form contribute to its resemblance of a monster. So the monster could be considered a zombie, but I think it deserves its own genre because it becomes an intelligent creature, by obtaining vocabulary, emotions, and being able to control its emotions and realize its desires. This sets it apart from the “zombie” archetype, because of its intelligence and pursuit to fulfill desires that aren’t only to satiate its appetite. This monster should have its own grouping, similar to Dracula, because of its intellect and strategic mindset.

Reply
johngray5 1.24.11 / 5am

I definitely believe that the monster is a precursor to the zombie, and I would say that it is in fact a zombie. Zombies are just projection of society’s fears; back in the 19th century, death was very taboo. It was believed that the soul of someone who had been dissected could not go to heaven. For this reason executed criminals were used for medical research (or what little was done, since the dissecting of any cadavers was severely frowned upon), and the grave robbers provided bodies when criminals were in short supply. Just like our ancestors fear of science drove their zombie to take the form of something like Frankenstein’s monster, so does our society’s fear of modern chemistry, biology, and medicine drive our zombies to take the form of humans who have been infected with some type of virus.

Reply
Julie Champion 1.24.11 / 6am

I read this novel in high school and I was also a little surprised that we would be reading it in this zombie class. However, now I can see some of the connections. In my opinion, both the creature and zombies are shadows of humanity because neither are able to fully immerse themselves in the human culture. I would argue that the creature is closer to being human than zombies on the humanity spectrum because he is capable of critical thinking skills, communication, and problem solving. He is also motivated by more than one thing unlike zombies that are only interested in human flesh.

On the other hand, both the creature and zombies experience extreme isolation and hatred from society because of their differences. The creature is capable of feeling the shame and loneliness due to this isolation unlike the zombies. I also think that both the creature and zombies are representations of societal fears such as exclusion for being different and fear of the unknown.

Reply
1. Catherine Hale 1.24.11 / 5pm
  
  You make a very good point about the monster’s shared traits with zombies. While it is true that Frankenstein’s monster was isolated and hated by humans, he lives in eternal misery, knowing that he will not ever be able to become part of any society. His human qualities give him the ability to communicate eloquently, as you said, but also to feel the hatred that is cast on him. I can also see the connections that you see, but even though he does share these qualities with zombies, he is much more human than I think even some humans could be.
  
  Reply
AlexGN 1.24.11 / 8am

I personally feel that it is perfectly acceptable to consider Frankenstein’s monster as a “zombie”. It is difficult to define a zombie. The modern zombie is a reanimated corpse, typically feeding on flesh and spreading a severe contagion. Although, I like to keep things in perspective by keeping in mind that zombies were originally just mind slaves; walking, brainwashed corpses under another’s control. The modern zombie is actually more based off of vampires like those from the book I Am Legend. Keeping this in mind, it seems everyone has their own idea of what zombies are. Zombies are something that have spread through culture without any set guidelines or restrictions as to what makes something a zombie. There are zombies caused by infectious disease, there are those who are raised from the dead by magic, there are old zombies who are experiencing decay, there are new zombies who can run and have super human strength, and in some fiction there are even zombies who mutate into other creatures. When looking at things from this perspective, what’s to say we can’t consider Frankenstein’s monster a classic precursor to what is now known as the zombie?

Reply
1. Michelle 1.24.11 / 4pm
  
  But what’s to say we can’t consider the creature a more human like being? There’s nothing besides the fact that he is composed of undead flesh to say he is. If that’s the qualifier for being a zombie, then aren’t all vampires zombies as well? What if a person dies on the table in surgery or something then they manage to revive them, is that person a zombie? I don’t think that undead flesh is enough of a qualification to say that they are a zombie. There is more than just that to the definition of a zombie. I would suggest that a zombie lacks consciousness as well.
  
  Reply
Kelly Evanish 1.24.11 / 11am

I stumble upon the very question “What makes us human?”, and I’m sure this question depends a lot on one’s religious beliefs. I don’t intend on spurring religious debates, but as theists may particularly associate ourselves being “made”, those who are nonreligious may consider ourselves being “born”.. although the nonreligious may argue that we actually were “made” as well, but just in the will of our parents, through sexual intercourse. I was initially going to state that being human means to use our abilities to our fullest potential and to achieve whatever purpose we were given/make for ourselves, but I’m starting to think that one can easily be “human” from simply being able to breathe, because one’s own purpose (again, whether “given” by an upper being, or self-constructed) could be to just exist long enough to watch moments pass by, while others’ may be to take advantage of every resource available that is thought-provoking and “live life to its fullest”. Whether caged up all your life or paralyzed, I personally believe that being “dead” only comes from once the heart starts beating; once the being is physically irresponsive. We are conditioned as we live, as the “monster” in the novel had learned to stay away from humans, and I believe that every action, reaction, or viewpoint are influenced by whatever we happen to experience in life. This is why I believe that it wasn’t Victor’s fault for “creating a monster”; it wasn’t like he planned to come across natural philosophy or the professors who fired up his passion for science. He just happened to come across events that would naturally lead human beings to react accordingly.

Reply
1. rtang8 1.24.11 / 5pm
  
  So would you consider Victor’s creation a human with the notion on how it is conditioned to live? Victor’s creation came to being in a non-traditional sense with augmented abilities. It seems that it can learn quicker than a normal human can as well based on how many seasons passed in the novel. So could you argue that he is a cyborg?
  
  Reply
Chris 1.24.11 / 3pm

Although the monster in Frankenstein may be a precursor for the zombie in regards to philosophical questions, but the monster cannot be considered a zombie due to the fact that zombies require human flesh in order to survive, and this act of cannibalism is what makes the zombie unique and more horrific. As well, the monster in Frankenstein has been created by man after figuring out the secret to life, while on the other hand, zombies tend to be “created” due to disease, and not until recently have contemporary zombies been created due to human error. Also, although there exists the idea of isolation (isolation for the monster/Victor & isolation for survivors of a zombie apocalypse), the monster possesses no way of transferring his condition directly to others.
I feel that there is also a difference between how we would identify with a monster versus a zombie. Any person has the potential to become a zombie once an infection spreads, therefore the fact that the monster can be living inside of us is more destructive than a single creature that only represents the capabilities of mankind. This makes the monster, in my opinion, the 19th century equivalent to the atomic bomb because they both represent the consequences of technology that is too great for any man to have.

Reply
Matt Welch 1.24.11 / 4pm

To me, what defines a zombie is its brain. Zombies behave purely on reaction of their basic instinct to survive. They possess no emotions, no conscience and no thoughts other than eating flesh. This idea of a zombie’s brain is why Frankenstein’s monster is not a zombie. There are similarities though. The monster is a reanimated corpse (albeit parts of multiple corpses put together) and is similar aesthetically to a zombie. However, a higher level of thought is possessed by the monster, pretty much at the same level as a human. The monster feels guilt and just desires to be accepted by other people. Thoughts like these are very un-zombie-like, putting Frankenstein’s monster in a different class than zombies, perhaps one all its own.

Reply
Michelle 1.24.11 / 4pm

I think it is important to define the word zombie, before attempting to decide if Frankenstein’s creation is one. A zombie in modern contexts is generally accepted as a flesh (or specifically brain) eating undead creature, that was made from the transformation of a body as it died. However the creature in the book Frankenstein has none of these traits. He is not flesh eating. He didn’t die and then become reanimated, but instead he was an assemblage of parts of other diseased humans. So I would definitely say he is not a zombie.
An interesting thought to consider is getting organ transplants, if you have an organ from someone else does that make you any less human? What if you died on the operating table but they were able to bring you back in time after getting the new parts in? Does that make you less human? I would say it does not make you less human and for the creature that was formed from old human parts he is just as human as the parts that created him.
I think this is still a great book to begin the class with because it questions life after death, and it is a historical pretext that we can examine to understand what the common ideals were about life after death, and how an abnormal creature might have been treated. I took a class a while back on science fiction, and Frankenstein was also the introductory book for that. It doesn’t quite fit in the science fiction genre either, but for both genres it is an excellent historical text to read and understand where the roots of each came from.

Reply
rtang8 1.24.11 / 4pm

I do not believe that Frankenstein’s monster should be considered a zombie in the contemporary sense. As we see it today zombies are mindless beings whose single purpose is to eat human flesh. The second volume of the book explains in detail the experiences that Frankenstein’s monsters has. If it were not for the exterior it can almost be imagined as a person experiencing amnesia and looking at the world for the first time.

I agree that zombies disrupt conventional notions of how we come into or out of being but in the case of Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein it is a different. Zombies come about usually by infection. Any person living a normal life can be effected. Frankenstein’s monster was a creation of life, no life was taken away due to the creation of Frankenstein’s monster. (Of course this is about contemporary zombies)

I believe that from other interpretations of Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, as seen in films, create some of the beginnings of what we consider a zombie today.

Reply
bfrericks3 1.24.11 / 4pm

No, Frankenstein’s monster is not a zombie in the traditional contemporary definition. Frankenstein’s monster was created from many different pieces with the express purpose of being a conscious being. Zombies in the traditional sense are also almost always able to spread their disease with a bite or other form of infection. The monster in Frankenstein cannot do this.
Also, zombies are supposed to be mindless and exist merely to consume flesh. They have no feelings and no sense of true pleasure or suffering. They are creatures of instinct with no intelligence. Frankenstein’s monster on the other hand has the capacity to learn language and feel true suffering. He spends the book seeking revenge on his creator not out of an instinctual hunger for flesh like a traditional zombie, but out of a genuine human felling of hatred. He even destroys himself at the end after discovering that he will never find fulfillment with acts of revenge.

Reply
1. wkelly8 1.24.11 / 6pm
  
  Bfrericks3, is there a “traditional contemporary” definition of a zombie? And if so who defines the zombie? Could it be that Victor simply took a zombie and gave it a brain? I think the monster is definitely a zombie. It may not fit your classic idea of the walking dead, but isn’t that exactly what we are working with? The monster, “reborn” of pity-poor, decaying flesh, is a walking mass of death. Victor infected it with life and now it is forever cursed to walk the earth, searching for something he can not find. Therefore this zombie also has a hunger which can’t be satiated. He wants revenge on Victor. He wants to infect him with death just as the monster is surrounded by it.
  PS. Thanks for the spoiler alert!
  
  Reply
2. rcmalloy 1.24.11 / 7pm
  
  I totally agree with you blog. I wrote a lot of similar comments. I talked about how zombies carry some sort of infection and Frankenstein’s monster had nothing to do with infection or disease. Also the monster shows feelings and like you state “the capacity to learn a language.” I believe that Shelly tries to develop a monster instead of a zombie in order to show the audience the lack of fulfillment the monster has.
  
  Reply
3. Alex Schrage 1.24.11 / 10pm
  
  I understand what your saying, but I feel like it to some degree, it is a zombie. If you look at the what it means to be human, most people would say intelligence, tool use, and walking upright makes us human. If this is the definition, then what are babies, physically impaired, or even just drunks? A baby obviously can’t communicate, the physically impaired can’t stand upright, and a drunk can’t do any of these things (all he/she wants to do is be friendly and shake your hand). I feel like there is too much gray area to just absolutely rule out that he is not a zombie.
  
  Reply
Catherine Hale 1.24.11 / 5pm

Zombies, as they have been portrayed by media so far, are soulless creatures with no real purpose except to wander aimlessly, in search of brains. In my opinion, Frankenstein’s monster is far from a zombie. He may be classified as “undead”, but he has feelings, intelligence, and a drive to find out what he was created to do and who he really is. He lives in misery. While he is an intelligent creature, he is misunderstood by society. Even his creator thinks that he is a brutal monster. In a sense, the creature is a neglected child, but hardly a zombie.

Reply
Ryan Youngblood 1.24.11 / 5pm

A great thought for minds that are known for picking something apart until it is at it’s bare minimum. The monster has many aspects that place him in both the human and the zombie categories, but which is more predominant? Or, shall I say, is it a decipherable subject? Did Mary Shelley want this question to be graced with a solid answer? I don’t believe so. I believe that the monster is quite literally, a mixed breed: a combination of numerous formerly dead human bodies with the mind and personality of a living, breathing, never-dead human. This never-ending thought process of, “Which characteristics are more predominant,” could, in a way, itself be the true enigma: a chasm devouring all thoughts thrown it’s way.

Reply
1. Bryan Levy 1.25.11 / 1am
  
  The way that you say Mary Shelley may not of wanted Victor’s monster to be classified or “graced with a solid answer brings up an interesting point. I agree that she may not have desired the monster to be classified which is why she gave it emotions and makes the reader almost sympathize with it. However, I don’t think that this was to keep him from being called a zombie as they weren’t really invented to say, at that point in time.
  
  Reply
Matt Carlson 1.24.11 / 7pm

I personally do not see Frankenstein’s monster as a zombie, but rather a living creature. Though he was created from deceased flesh, Frankenstein’s monster does not exhibit any of the other aspects of a zombie. He does not have a one-track mind to devour flesh, but is instead a living creature with a conscience and emotions. He is intelligent and well-versed in literature despite his short life. True zombies do not have thoughts or emotions and rely only on instinct instead. Frankenstein’s monster, on the other hand, relies on his thought process, which eventually leads him to seek revenge against his creator. In my opinion, the creature is far closer to being human than he is to being a zombie, though, because he was created and not truly born, he is actually in a class of his own.

Reply
1. Matt Tymchuk 1.30.11 / 6pm
  
  You seem to be implying that Zombies are not living creatures. My question is this- if they have needs such as food and have the ability to fight and eat, are they not just as much alive as humans?
  
  Reply
rcmalloy 1.24.11 / 7pm

I also agree with your statement. I believe that Frankenstein’s monster is not a zombie. It was literally pieced together by human flesh, making it a monster or machine (which ever way you want to look at it). Zombies almost always seem to be associated with infection or disease. Frankenstein’s monster was made by a human and neither by an infection or disease. I see it more as a monster because of the feelings and expressions the monster shows. Zombies tend to show no emotion and and only walk around with the purpose of consuming human flesh. As the book continues I believe Shelly is also trying to convey a monster instead of a zombie.

Reply
1. mcmill73 1.24.11 / 9pm
  
  I think your take on the Monster as a machine is very interesting. When I think of a machine I think of something created to to do something or make something easier and something that needs to be repaired. What do you think the machine was created to do? I do agree with your notion that the monster is not a zombie because the monster shows emotion. He also shows the ability to learn and adapt to his surroundings. Another reason i believe the Monster to be a monster and not a zombie is because Shelley always refers to it as a monster.
  
  Reply
Brian K. 1.24.11 / 8pm

Victor Frankenstein’s monster is far different from what I think of as the modern zombie. The uneducated monster is almost like a clueless child. It is unaware of its deformities and does not understand why normal humans are belligerent against it. Unlike zombies, however, the monster has the mental capacity and willingness to learn–it becomes a philosopher in a remarkable time frame. The educated monster is able to ruminate and internally debate on topics such as religion, human conflict, etc. Unlike zombies, the monster is always yearning for family and attempts to find family in humans.

It makes sense to me for us to begin a course about zombies with Mary Shelley’s classic. It’s a stark contrast to Zombieland and adds more flavor to the class. Although there are many differences between a zombie and Victor’s monster, the two disrupt conventional notion of how we come into being.

Reply
1. fsharkar 1.24.11 / 8pm
  
  Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a bad way to start our class on zombies. I felt that even though it is a classic, it is very different from what we consider as the modern zombie, from films such as Dawn of the Dead and Zombieland. Frankenstein’s monster is not what we perceive as the modern zombie. The monster in Frankenstein can think for itself, unlike modern zombies. Frankenstein also does not have traits of the infection that modern zombies have. In modern zombie movies, people can be turned into zombies. This does not seem to be the case in Frankenstein. Although Frankenstein would be a good choice for another English class, it was not the optimal choice for a class about zombies.
  
  Reply
2. ayuc1819 1.24.11 / 8pm
  
  I disagree with you on the subject of whether or not Frankie’s monster. To me, Franky’s monster is just another type of zombie, think of it as an early prototype. It doesn’t take a genius to see the connection. They are definitely different, for sure, but they possess similar qualities like rotting bodies, and simple beginnings.
  
  Reply
  1. oscarargueta 1.25.11 / 7am
    
    i believe that the human itself(identity,personality,intellectual abilities) gives life to the body, but the body does not make the human. the monster possessed a rotten body like a zombie but he possessed human like characteristics that gave that rotten body a real identity beyond first impression something that zombies dont have
ayuc1819 1.24.11 / 8pm

I think it is definitely the right choice to begin this class with Frankenstein’s monster. To me there are many different types of zombies, and Frankenstein embodies one of the types. I personally believe zombies to be anything that comes about unnaturally, and act unnaturally. To me Frankenstein and your classic infectious zombie are in the same family.
So it only makes sense that we start this class with a classic work that probably embodies the first ever zombie.

Reply
mcmill73 1.24.11 / 8pm

I would say that the Monster in Frankenstein is a close relative of the monster, but not entirely the same thing. Like a zombie, the Monster is of the undead being pieced together with by limbs from the dead. Also he is feared by all of normal society like zombies. However, the creature has the ability to learn and adapt to his surroundings. He learns to speak and communicate with other people. He learns to show emotion. These are all things that the traditional definition of the zombie can’t do. Traditionally zombies are said to be mindless beings wandering the earth searching for human flesh. Based on this definition, I would say the Monster is a step above the traditional zombie.

Reply
Chris L 1.24.11 / 9pm

I think Frankenstein’s monster is definitely not contained within the zombie label. While he is made of reanimated human corpses, a key aspect of zombies, he is not made from a single body come back to life. This physical difference is reflected in the monster’s mentality, how he acts, and what he represents. By explaining how he learned language and human manners, he portrays an extensive ability to learn and adapt, in addition to his superhuman physical prowess.
He initially is not evil, but becomes evil based on the negligence and hatred of his creator. When Frankenstein abandons him, then attempts to kill him, the monster learns that he is not wanted in the world, that even the one being who might understand him holds no sympathy for him.
Mobs of traditional zombies portray the danger of the mob mentality, the overwhelming urges that overcome individuality and turn rational human beings into ravenous monsters, eating brains and destroying intelligence and uniqueness. Frankenstein’s monster, in contrast, shows the danger of a prodigy turned evil. He has great potential initially, both as a larger-than-life physical figure and later as the possessor of human intelligence. When the world abandons him, he turns to murder as a method of getting what he wants. In his ability to learn and evade capture, Frankenstein’s monster represents not the danger of the mob consuming intelligence, but the danger of any individual to society, when rejected by the world.

Reply
Alex Schrage 1.24.11 / 10pm

In the Zombie genre, there are multiple types of zombies. They can range from slow-pieces of flesh to quick and enraged bodies. Typical zombie characteristics include undead, unintelligent, and unaffectionate. Frankenstein’s monster however does seem to be in some grey area. Since it reveals that it is intelligent through its capabilities of learning and communicating, can it be a zombie? In films like 28 Days Later, the zombies are not even dead. Zombies can be (if not more) diverse as much as humans are.

Many people believe that in order to be human, we must display a higher form of intelligence and communication. However, this does not hold true with small children and the mentally impaired. There are so many qualities for humans but few actually can define the whole spectrum of humanity. When we see this, zombies can be just as loosely defined. So in this case, I believe Frankenstein has to be a part of the Zombie genre.

Reply
The Retarded Penguin 1.25.11 / 3am

According to the modern definition of the specimen known as the “zombie”. It’s basically a reanimated corpse through some means mainly a virus. It’s also a mindless being that obeys its instinct to consume human flesh. It has no feelings and no thought. Instantly we see that the Frankenstein monster does not obey most of these requirement. The only thing that it obeys is that it’s a reanimated body, but everything else, the monster is the opposite, it had feelings and it has thoughts.
In my opinion I think the monster resembles more a lonely human being than a zombie.

Reply
1. Luis H. 1.25.11 / 4am
  
  Penguin, I completely agree with you. When I read through work, I felt compelled to side with both Victor and the monster. I felt sorry for the horrible fates that had been bestowed upon creator and creation, such lonely beings, seeking happiness.
  
  Reply
Luis H. 1.25.11 / 4am

Frankenstein’s monster is not a zombie. It has never been a zombie, and will never be a zombie. Why so, you may ask? The monster, the wretch, desires not what a flesh eating ghoul desires. Its desires are centered in something relatively human. The monster is driven by the longing to achieve affection, love, to belong, just like any of us. We all try to find a place where we belong, a niche in which we will brilliantly fit in. Being so, the monster could be considered a social being, ruled by the tenants of social rigidity. He becomes a killer, not because William’s flesh became a temptation, but because of humanity’s rejection. Any person will react with anger and fear when rejected. He, or it, is a monster, but certainly not a zombie.

Reply
oscarargueta 1.25.11 / 4am

Although Frankenstein like zombies are reanimated creatures, Frankenstein shows human like characteristics like emotions such as misery and hatred, and even the ability to learn. In class we established that when someone dies the body loses its symbolism, as the identity that embodied it is lost. So when you are born technically you are just a body as you hadn’t developed identity, which is nowadays is the essence of the human being. As the newborn grows it develops its identity. Frankenstein was not physically born, but in a way he is human because like a newborn he grew and developed a human identity, which was overshadowed by his inhuman looks.

Reply
1. oscarargueta 1.25.11 / 7am
  
  by frankenstein i mean the monster
  
  Reply
Matt Tymchuk 1.30.11 / 6pm

I think that whether or not the Monster is considered a “zombie” or more of a human depends solely on one’s definition of what a human is. Our modern idea of the zombie generally includes a flesh seeking, mindless, undead beast, whereas our idea of a human consists of a creature who is more than an animal. Humans are capable of emotion and metacognition. All of the things that describe zombies are rather unhuman and do not seem to describe Frankenstein’s monster. Frankenstein seems to have the emotional needs and features of a human and the physiological needs and features of a zombie-like creature.

Reply
Duncan Murphy 4.30.11 / 12am

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein completely set up the idea of the zombie. Both the monster and the zombie are made of dead body parts. Both are reanimated by strange happenings. Both are extremely strong and cannot die easily. And both seem to be stronger than humans, an evolution of them. The zombie represents everything that is earthly and wild about humans. It is practically the antithesis of what we assume we are as humans.

Reply

About

This blog is for ENGL 1102: The Dead and the Undead. Students will be writing occasional posts for this blog and responding to each other’s posts at least once each week. Don’t just throw your ideas into a vacuum. Ask questions and use the other comments as a jumping off point by answering questions, amplifying or complicating ideas, etc. You can also find this blog embedded at the site for our course: www.zombieclass.com.

The Dead and the Undead

Is Frankenstein’s Monster a Zombie?

About this entry

98 Comments

Leave a reply to oscarargueta Cancel reply

About

Recently

Categories

The Dead and the Undead

Is Frankenstein’s Monster a Zombie?

Share this:

Related

About this entry

98 Comments

Leave a reply to oscarargueta Cancel reply

About

Share this:

Related

Recently

Categories