WRT the novel and movies about Frankenstein, many people seem to think that “Frankenstein” refers to the monster himself, instead of the scientist who created him. My questions are: [ul][]Why and how did this start to happen,[]Has it happened with other literary characters, and is there a standard term for this used in literary criticism[/ul]
For question one, I’d say it happened from the movie. IIRC, the monster appeared as “The Creature” in the credits. However the movie was called “Frankenstein”, yet was centered around the monster, so the mistake is natural. The book was narrated from the perspective of Dr. Frankenstein, so it was clear the title referred to him.
For the second question, the best I can up with is the city of Los Angeles. Its actually name translates to “City of Our Lady, Queen of the Angels”. In other words, it’s named after the Virgin Mary. Because it’s commonly shortened to Los Angeles though, it’s sometimes called the City of the Angels. That’s sort of, kind of, the same thing, isn’t it?
For the third question, I have no idea. There is a word for referring to a person or concept by some aspect of related to it. (e.g. calling a king “the crown”.) I can’t quite remember the word though.
my guess would be that ‘frankenstein’s monster’ doesn’t roll off the tounge nearly so well (and ‘the modern promethius’ is downright tedious) and people got sick of saying the whole thing. add a century and a half and now people think the shortened version is the monster’s name instead of the creator’s. maybe we should refer to him as ‘the monster formerly known as frankenstein’.
-b
I think it probably came about when the term “Frankenstien’s Monster” got collectively misinterpreted as “THEFrankenstien monster”. I remember seeing that a lot in Silver Screen monster magazines and Aurora Classic Monster Models.
Incidentally, the monsters name was “Adam”. Pleased me no end when I was a kid to share that name with him.
That word is metonymy. Another example would be “The White House released a statement…” I don’t think this term refers to the Frankenstein phenomenon. There probably isn’t a word for this (other than “the Frankenstein phenomenon”). I can’t recall any other occurrences.
Good think. Think of the ramifications of a cereal named “Frankenberry’s Monster.” It would have gone the way of “Fruit Brute,” “Boo Berry,” and “Yummy Mummy.”
Several years ago, I began to read Mary Shelley’s book that spawned dozens of movies. Much of the story is written from the monster’s viewpoint, and it is terribly, terribly sad. I got quite depressed, and I had to set the book aside. When Mel Brooks’s “Young Frankenstein” came out, I watched it. I laughed and cried and laughed again. Then I could go back and finish the book. Shelley’s story ends differently, of course. You gotta respect the big guy. Woo, what a story! It must have been a shocker before it was done to death on film.
Whew! I actually did my thesis on Frankenstein for my literary crit. class. Chose it because I’ve never really liked the book and thought it would do me good to tear it apart and figure out why.
My personal take on the transferrance of name between doctor and monster is that we have Hollywood to thank. Easier to say, easier to remember–since it’s the title of the film, etc. But I find it interesting because the doctor was really a monster of sorts (in the book anyway). My conclusion was that he was just as bad, if not worse, than the creature on many levels, so when you say ‘Frankenstein’ and think of a monster–couldn’t it be either person? In the second film, ‘Bride of Frankenstein,’ the doctor gets married too. Maybe old Whale was trying to make a connection?
Nah. That’s just me.
I think that Frankenstein is intentionally ambiguous. You can take the view that the creature is a monster. But you can also take the view that the creature in a victim and the scientist is the monster. And in every movie that I have seen based on Frankenstein, the creature is treated with some sympathy while the scientist varied from flawed to outright evil.
Now I know that javaman meant “why is the creature often called Frankenstein?”. But I think this ambiguity has a lot to do what it.
Also consider that we sometimes speak of, for example, a “Van Gogh painting” and then this gets shortened to just a “Van Gogh”. In the same sense we start with “Frankenstein creature” which gets shortened to just “Frankenstein”.
Not to pick nits, but I don’t think calling the creature “the Frankenstein monster” is a misinterpretation. Since there is only one monster, and it was created by Frankenstein, then that title would indeed be appropriate. Sort of like referring to the neighbor’s kids as “The Morgan twins.”
Maybe it was the cartoon show Frankenstein Jr. and the Impossibles, where Frankenstein Jr. was a robot that looked like the monster in the Frankenstein movies. :D:D
In The Thin Man films, the Thin Man was actually the murder suspect being chased in the first film. However, with the sequel (and every subsequent film), it came to be associated with Nick Charles, the detective. I haven’t read the Hammett novel, but all the other films gave him story credit without saying they were adapted from a literary source, so I’m assuming that this re-defining of the title role was the studio’s doing.
In the same vain there was the PInk Panther movies. The Pink Panther was a diamond in the original but in the *Return / Revenge etc * it was just a name given to the series of movies.