Elizabeth Denlinger on Picturing Frankenstein's Creature

On July 7 2018, Dr Elizabeth Denlinger (New York Public Library) gave a talk at Keats House, Hampstead, on Frankenstein’s monster’s 'looks', from 1818 to 2018. In her lecture entitled ‘Too Horrible for Human Eyes: Picturing Frankenstein’s Creature’, Denlinger traced the history of the creature’s appearance, from Mary Shelley’s ‘demoniacal corpse’ to Boris Karloff’s leaden-eyed portrayal, to the theatrical, cinematic, and artistic avatars that continue to proliferate. Today on the K-SAA Blog we present an interview with Denlinger as she reflects on her talk and tells us more about the upcoming Frankenstein exhibition at the Morgan Library and Museum. For more talks on the Romantics, and other events, such as free poetry readings and family days at Keats House, please visit their Eventbrite page.As always, don't forget to keep following the K-SAA on Twitter and Facebook for more updates on Frankenreads and other initiatives.A Q&A with Elizabeth DenlingerIn your talk, 'Too Horrible for Human Eyes: Picturing Frankenstein’s Creature’, you traced the origins and impact of the Creature through the numerous reinterpretations of Mary Shelley's 'hideous progeny'. Do you find that people are often surprised by how quickly the Creature was interpreted and reimagined - long before Boris Karloff and film? What might that tell us about the novel's contemporary and Victorian reception/influence?People are often surprised. I think their ignorance of the novel's and the creature's popularity during the early nineteenth century and Victorian period tells us that there isn't much theatre history taught in schools. The 1823 production of Presumption! or the Fate of Frankenstein gave a jolt of interest to the novel, and the multiple theatrical productions in both the UK and France inspired reworkings (or: ripoffs, fan fiction, recyclings) in prose. One of the fascinating things about the novel's history is the way its success has been spurred by its enactments, both theatrical and cinematic. (There have also been musicals, operas, and at least one ballet.)Your talk displayed the many, many different depictions of the Creature through time: which modern interpretation do you think is most interesting in light of its correspondence to the aims and scope of Mary Shelley's novel, and/or the reaction it may elicit from its audience?I have a soft spot for the television series Penny Dreadful, in which Rory Kinnear plays the creature (well ... one of them), who is murderous in a similar way to Mary Shelley's imagining of him, but who names himself John Clare and has a fondness for Romantic poetry. I'm also a great fan of Young Frankenstein both for Gene Wilder's compassionate stance toward the creature - a compassion both deep and silly - and for its deeply engaged dialogue with James Whale's 1931 masterpiece. In short, I suppose that like many people, though not all, I tend to enjoy the monsters that are the least monstrous and the most human.As the curator of the new exhibition, 'It's Alive! Frankenstein at 200' at the Morgan Library and Museum, what did you hope to achieve by bridging the gap between modern and historical interpretations of the novel and its characters, and what particular treasures will be on display that we should look out for?In some ways I'm most excited about how the exhibition bridges the gap *backwards,* showing how Frankenstein rose from a vital and vitalizing background of Gothic art. We've borrowed Henry Fuseli's Nightmare, Joseph Wright of Derby's night piece showing the alchemist Hennig Brand discovering phosphorus, and quite a lot of other Gothic art, including a wonderful piece by De Loutherbourg of a young man trying to raise the dead at Tintern Abbey. I'm also pleased that we've got strong representations from both cinematic and theatrical productions, allowing visitors to connect very distinct embodiments of the creature; and finally, there are some quite wonderful modern illustrations of the novel -- I would point to those by Barry Moser and Pierre-Alain Bertola in particular.