Tyler Adams

Reading Literature: Science Fiction

Dr. Schroeder
11/11/15
The True Monster of Society
Art is both a product and a commentary of the time in which it has been created. It is the
bastard child of the economic, governmental, and societal changes that control its time. In the
end, however, it is birthed only to turn around and spit poison back at its creators. Arguably,
literature is the monster of society. It rarely just goes along with the mainstream ideals and hiveminded acceptance that plague us all. Rather, it questions them. It picks apart these blindly
accepted truths and exposes them for what they are. It is up to readers to discern the fact from the
fiction, and come away with a message. In the case of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, that
message is: who is the true monster of society the product, or the creator? When presented
with a disfigured, violent, and dangerous creature it is easy to look only at the surface and label
that being as the monster. What, then, if such a beast was not made with monstrous
predispositions? What if the being came into the world as a benevolent and pure creature only to
be corrupted by society? If such a thing were the case, then this would not be a question of
nature, but rather of nurture. Arguably, one of the greatest commentaries of both classical and
modern literature is that the monsters of society are created by society itself, and, like in
Frankenstein, modern pieces such as Sweeney Todd, and Edward Scissorhands expand upon this
idea and present it to audiences in the form of entertainment, delivering a message covertly, to be
picked apart by those diligent enough to seek it out.

For this argument, two things must be determined for each piece: who is the monster, and
what represents society? The first part of this question is easy to establish. The narratives of
Sweeney Todd and Edward Scissorhands both follow the monsters almost entirely, whereas the
driving point of the plot of Frankenstein is due to the literal (not metaphorical) creation of its
monster. Now, then, all that is to be determined is the representatives of society:
Consider first the novel Frankenstein: given the time in which it was written, and the
prominence of the French Revolution, feudalism can be argued as a prominent form of
government and economics at the time (although its strength is clearly waning). Therefore, the
character that most represents feudalistic ideals can be seen as a character that most represents
the upper society the sect of society that is argued to be seen as the more important over the
masses. For this, Victor Frankenstein himself seems to be the most clear choice due to his initial
desire to create a subservient race of beings that will know him as their sole lord and king, and
the fact that he alone defended Captain Waltons right to rule over his crew. Victor is a proponent
for the lord and serf lifestyle, and the entirety of the novel is spent with the lower classes
represented in the monster warring against the upper class represented in Victor, mirroring the
struggle of the French Revolution, and making Victor Frankenstein a metaphor for society.
Now, looking toward the Sweeney Todd movie that was directed by Tim Burton, one can
see that the setting for society at this time period (London in the late 1800s) has largely moved
into a more capitalistic form of society. However, there is evidence that would suggest that there
are certain feudalistic elements that still hold fast, making the decision of a societal
representative more subjective. It can be argued that the character of Judge Turpin has a hold
over society that resembles a monarch of sorts. Characters or people who disagree with him are
snuffed out, creating a rift where the lower masses are afraid to question the Judge out of fear for

their own safety. Therefore, like Victor, Judge Turpin is a representative of the feudalistic society,
and can be seen as a personification of the overall corruption that plagues London.
Unlike the other two pieces, Edward Scissorhands poses more of a challenge when it
comes to finding that key character. Instead of having one specific person act as the swaying
point, the movie (also directed by Tim Burton) shows a largely hive-minded society that seems to
move as one. Therefore, the whole of society cannot be placed into one character, it would seem,
but rather into the small collection of the wives that control the ins and outs of the pastel
neighborhood. Due to the largely communistic nature of the closed-off neighborhood
represented through the cookie-cutter houses, and identical living conditions that are provided to
all of the families it can be argued that there is no single representative, but rather that society
is like one unified entity. The fact that this movie came out around the end of the Cold War
strengthens this argument.
Now that the specifics surrounding society and monsters have been established, what can
be said about these facts? Well, circling back to the original argument, it is clear to see where the
authors and directors are commenting upon the debate about the monsters of society. In the literal
sense, Mary Shelley writes the character of Victor Frankenstein actually creating his monster.
Therefore, Victor, as a metaphor for upper-feudalistic society, has birthed his creation into
existence. From the point of its conception, the monster, who showed nothing but innocent and
infant-like tendencies, was then shaped by its creator until it became a violent and horrible
creature a creature who, through the narrative that came from its point of view, can be seen as
a blank slate that was scribbled upon by society, and forced to fit the mould of a monster. Even
after listening to the tale of the monster, Victor maintained his biases and continued to treat his
creation as a beast rather than a brother. It is because of the biases that the monster even became

a monster at all, and thanks to the fact that society was unable to look more than skin-deep, the
monster became a self-fulfilling prophecy eventually turning into the monster that society
expected it to be all along.
Such a thing can be seen in an even more pronounced way when looking at Edward
Scissorhands. The character of Edward proves himself early on to be an innocent, happy, and
talented creature. He sets out and helps the neighborhood and all of the people in it, and can be
seen with nothing but good intentions at heart. It is only after the women of the neighborhood
turn against him through various circumstances that he begins to turn into a monster. Aside from
the few times that his temper fluctuates due to the mistreatment he is receiving, Edward is caught
by the bias of society as a whole and, in spite of having done next to nothing wrong, he is still
chased out of town as if he were a monster to begin with, rather than an innocent creature that
was shaped by his surroundings. Even in the end Edward shows a strong inclination to see the
good in others, and often does his best to protect the ones he loves, even when that ends up
landing him a label of aggressor. From the point of view of Edward, he has done nothing wrong
and is only being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, but through the eyes of the people
of the neighborhood, Edward is violent and homicidal.
What then, of the Demon Barber of Fleet Street, Sweeney Todd? In both the musical and
the movie, the only reason Sweeney Todd even exists is because the person he formerly was
Benjamin Barker was sent to Australia on false charges to Judge Turpin would have a chance
with his young and beautiful wife. In this sense, the character that has been determined to
represent the whole of society, Judge Turpin, shaped Benjamin Barker and sparked the birth of
Sweeney Todd, a character that would become the monster of society. Not only, however, has
society created him, but it has also created the creature that would ultimately bring them down.

Sweeney ends up using his business as a barber to kill all of those who crossed him. Whats
more, is their bodies are disposed of by cooking them into pies for the populace to eat. As a
monster of society, Sweeney Todd is removing the true corruption and feeding it back to
everyone, thereby damning them all to hell for cannibalism. In such a case, the monster of
society is able to turn around and spit back at its creator in the most effective way possible.
In the end, who is the true monster? The creator or the creation. By these arguments it
would seem that the only reason any of these monsters exist in the first place is because of the
greed, corruption, and malice that existed initially to create them. Therefore, the monsters only
exist because of other monsters.