#nick dear

[the-tenth-arcanum]

unlovable creatures quotes from: the tempest, shakespeare // henry vi part 3, shakespeare // frankenstein, mary shelley // frankenstein (play), nick dear

[waateeystein]

Analyzing Nick Dear's Frankenstein (and why we should move on to better play adaptations)

Alrighty y'all, its the long-awaited Nick Dear Frankenstein analysis post! This post is focusing specifically on Dear's characterization of the Creature, and why it negatively affects the play overall (plus some adaption theory added in for funsies). For additional context, I am an MFA candidate studying theatre, and I did this research and the accompanying slides for a project in my graduate-level theatrical criticism class. Basically this post is the text version of that presentation, with some of the slides included, and the fluff trimmed. There is a fair bit of academic jargon in here, but I tried to make it as accessible as possible!

And with all of that out of the way, the Nick Dear Frankenstein deep dive is under the cut! (And citations at the end.)

CW: Discussions of violence and SA.

Before I get into the script itself (which if you are interested in reading it, a PDF version is easily found on google), I want to introduce a fun adaptation theory which is specific to studying Frankenstein, called "Frankenstein Complex Theory." This theory comes from Dennis R. Cutchins and Dennis R. Perry in the introduction section to "Adapting Frankenstein: The Monster's Eternal Lives in Popular Culture." (A fantastic read that I recommend to anyone if your school or local library has it in circulation.) This introduction introduces the "complex" theory, as well as some really awesome ideas that get used and referenced by all of the authors included in the book.

Basically Cutchins and Perry assert that traditional adaptation theory is simple not enough to properly study Frankenstein and it's innumerable adaptations. One might also assert that Frankenstein itself is an adaptation, Mary Shelley published multiple editions of her story, and one could argue that the original story is an adaptation of other stories like "Paradise Lost." Linda Hutcheon, another academic in the field of adaptation studies who also wrote a fantastic book (cited at the end), talks about this idea of "palimpsestuous Intertextuality." I want to first argue here that the original text of Frankenstein and its adaptations (the "myth" of Frankenstein) are palimpsestuous.

And when I say the "myth" of Frankenstein is "palimpsestuous," its basically just saying that the "myth" (tall green guy with bolts in his neck who is mostly non-verbal, going around killing people mostly without rhyme or reason) is the predominate cultural narrative of Frankenstein's monster, rather than how he actually is in the book. All of the cultural ideas of what Frankenstein's monster is are this giant network which interweaves with itself, references and builds off itself, and constantly creates new things from these connections. The book and it's adaptations are not in hierarchy, one is not implicitly better or more important than another, they all work together to create our cultural narrative of Frankenstein's monster. Thus, palimpsestuous Intertextuality.

But what is this "Complex" theory I mentioned earlier, and what does it have to do with Nick Dear? Well, here is a helpful diagram!

Essentially, every piece of Frankenstein media every created, including Mary Shelley's original novel, are all part of the "Frankenstein Network." The complex, however, is personal, it includes anything from that network that you have personally consumed. Some people have a wider complex than others, but nonetheless, most of us have some kind of Frankenstein Complex (if you're this far in the post I'm assuming you have one lol.) I think Cutchins and Perry really popped off when they created this theory, its a fantastic way of studying/teaching adaptation.

But onto Nick Dear. Why did I just spend so much time covering adaptation theory and teaching you all a bunch of academic jargon? Well firstly, I spent a lot of time on that research for class and I wanted to share. But secondly and more importantly, my thesis for this entire post is that Nick Dear, whose goal with his play was to create an adaptation which humanized the Creature and sticks very close to the novel, created something that was unintentionally more a product of his personal complex and the palimpsestuous "myth" of Frankenstein's monster. He wrote a play that deeply mischaracterizes the Creature, and in turn uses violence and SA for shock value rather than substance.

And maybe this is a bold claim, but I think comparing the plot of the novel (from the creature's point of view) and the plot of Dear's play is a good place to start. And for your visual reference, I created a plot diagram for both so that we can compare the two side-by-side. (Thanks Freytag lol.)

The first thing we can notice about comparing the overall plot structure is that they are indeed, very similar. And this tends to be most people's reactions to seeing this play. That compared to most other Frankenstein media, it is super faithful to the book in terms of setting and characters and hitting important plot points. And I too want to praise Dear for that. I think he was extremely smart about what characters he chose to cut or combine, and the plot points he chose to include. I also personally love that despite the cutting of Walton's character, Victor and the Creature still visit the arctic at the end of the play. Dear made so many great choices with his play, but ends up squandering it his mischaracterization of the Creature.

But how is he mischaracterizing the Creature? Well first, lets look at how Shelley characterizes him in the book, specifically in terms of violence. I argue, that anytime the Creature kills someone in the book, it is a mostly equal/proportionate reaction to the violence done against him. His first murder his killing William, and the subsequent execution of Justine after he frames her for William's murder. All of this comes after Victor's initial rejection of the Creature, and rejection by multiple villages, the DeLacey's and the young drowning girl and her father. Killing William and Justine was his first retribution after all of the rejection and violence against him, which was initiated by Victor creating him and rejecting him in the first place. And this is his only planned revenge at that point, his next move was demanding that Victor create a female creature for him, with the plan to flee and live a peaceful life in South America (whether he actually meant what he said is up to interpretation.) His next murders only come after Victor destroys the unfished female creature. This is when the Creature kills Henry and then Elizabeth. Elizabeth (and arguably Henry) are Victor's partners, and the people he most personally loves. Killing them is direct retribution for Victor destroying the female Creature, who was supposed to be (at least from the Creature's perspective) the Creature's romantic partner. All of the Creature's direct murders are direct mirrors to Victor's transgressions against the Creature. William is killed for the initial rejection and subsequent exiling from society, Henry and Elizabeth are killed for the destruction of his future romantic partner.

Dear takes a different approach in adapting these murders. In his play, the Creature's first murder is not William, but is actually the DeLacey's. After being personally tutored by Father DeLacey for a significant amount of time, the eventual and fated meeting with Felix and Agatha arrives and the creature is rejected by them. Instead of going straight to Geneva, as he does in the novel, he first sets fire to the DeLacey's cabin, killing the entire family inside. To me, this feels like the first instance of spectacle and shock over actual substance. In both Shelley's novel and Dear's play, as the creature learns about humanity and war, he clearly has a distaste for violence and killing. And because of this, I don't understand why the Creature has such an extreme reaction to the DeLacey's, especially in this version where Father DeLacey shows him so much direct kindness, and it is Felix and Agatha specifically who reject him. Why would the Creature decide to kill them all? If Dear wanted to add additional deaths, why not just kill Felix and Agatha and spare Father DeLacey because of his previous kindness? This violence, to me, feels undeserved and does not mirror the violence done against him by this family. From a staging perspective, the visual of the house burning is actually a very impressive collaboration between the set and lighting designers on the giant stage of the National Theatre. But I question why this moment needs to be here, when the rest of the play and it's staging in the premier production already has so much beauty and shock and spectacle. This is also the first moment where I find the Creature unsympathetic, because this action seems overly extreme as a response.

After this moment, the murder of William is different but not too dissimilar in tone to the novel. At it's heart, it is still the Creature's first direct revenge against Victor. After this, our next big departure from the novel is when the female creature is fully brought to life, different to the novel where she is never fully given life. Victor killing her after she has been able to briefly live is a more extreme measure on Victor's part too, which by my own argument, may warrant a more extreme reaction from the Creature. And to be absolutely clear, Victor simply kills/dismantles her, and nothing more. As for the creature's reaction, Henry is a cut character in this adaptation, so we obviously don't see his death. Instead, the Creature kills Elizabeth, but in this version, not only does the creature kill her, he also r*pes her. This is my biggest point of contention with the play. To me, the subtext in Dear's version is that the Creature views both Elizabeth and the Female Creature as some kind of property, and when his property (the female Creature) is taken away by Victor, he takes Victor's property (Elizabeth) away too. Right before her death in the play, the Creature and Elizabeth actually have a really touching conversation, and they seem to genuinely bond. And so when the Creature eventually kills her afterwards, him r*ping her comes completely out of left field. The only explanation to me, is that despite empathizing with her, the Creature ultimately still views her as Victor's property, and needed to take her away from Victor in a way that was more than just taking her life from him. And honestly, it's a really gross interpretation of these characters. And I want to be very clear that I know depiction is not endorsement, and that I also believe there is a time and a place for depicting SA on stage, but this play was not the time nor the place. The creature simply killing Elizabeth is enough to get the point across, the SA seems to have been added for pure shock value, and again, spectacle. One could argue that this action done by the creature is part of his sexual awakening, just as he learns about other aspects of humanity. But again I believe this is not justified by the text of the play, and is written for pure shock value at the expense of another character, specifically a woman. I would call this misogynistic.

And these extreme reactions from the Creature in Dear's play seem to create this hyper-masculinized version of the character and the story. And I think that is a shame considering the original story was written by a woman, and Mary Shelley did a fantastic job of writing a story where the men can exist across a spectrum of masculinity, without needing to be this stereotyped version of hypermasculinity with a desire for sexual vengeance. I mean, Victor creating the Creature is a pretty clear metaphor for motherhood/parenthood, especially considering Shelley's experience with motherhood and the loss of her children and her own mother. And not to say that a cis man isn't capable of writing an authentic adaptation of a woman's story, but here, I think Nick Dear missed the mark, especially in regards to Elizabeth's death and his depiction of Creature/masculinity.

And I don't want to boil this down to, "Nick Dear is a man and therefore his adaption is automatically bad." Because I don't think that's the case, and I think that's an unfair assumption to make. What I do think, is that despite trying to make an adaptation that strove to humanize the Creature better than most other adaptations, Dear instead created an adaptation that fell into the overly-violent monster tropes of the greater Frankenstein Network of adaptations. In essence, Dear may have unintentionally become a product of his own "complex." And unfortunately, that subconscious influence may be partially why we get this interpretation of the Creature, and the unnecessary shock factors added into the story.

So where do we go from here? Chances are, if you see a theatre company putting on a production of Frankenstein, it's probably the Nick Dear version. This was the case for me last October when I accidentally attended a production of this script at a professional theatre company back home in Florida. My hope is that one day we can move on from this script, and find a Frankenstein play adaptation that humanizes the Creature in a way that most audiences (who probably have not read the book) are unfamiliar with, while also not resorting to shock value that dehumanizes the women in the story. My homework for myself beyond this research project, is to read more Frankenstein play adaptations, and specifically ones that are not written by cis men. I think the experiences of women, trans people and disabled people (or obviously any intersection of these communities and identities) could really lend themselves to new and exciting interpretations of the script that bring broader perspectives into context. If you have any suggestions of Frankenstein plays or playwrights who have written Frankenstein plays, I would love to check them out! I also suggest giving the National Theatre world premier pro-shot of Nick Dear's Frankenstein a watch, purely just for the design of the show. Costumes, set, sound and lighting are all really spectacular, and I would love to do an analysis of that aspect of the show one day.

Obviously there was a lot about this show I didn't cover (Cumberbatch, I know), I just wanted to cover the characterization of the Creature at a textual level, because to me that is the most glaring issue with this play. Please let me know your thoughts, and thanks for reading if you got this far!

Citations (I didn't do a great job of referencing these in-text, but all of these sources are great and I highly recommend checking them out!)

Cutchins, Dennis R, and Dennis R Perry. “Introduction- The Frankenstein Complex: When the text is more than a text.” Adapting Frankenstein: The Monster’s Eternal Lives in Popular Culture, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2018, pp. 1–19.

Dear, Nick, and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. Frankenstein: Based on the Novel by Mary Shelley. Faber and Faber, 2011.

Hutcheon, Linda. “Beginning to Theorize Adaptation: What? Who? Why? How? Where? When?” A Theory of Adaptation, Routledge, New York, New York, 2006, pp. 1–32.

Jones, Kelly. “Adaptations of ‘liveness’ in theatrical representations of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Adapting Frankenstein: The Monster’s Eternal Lives in Popular Culture, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2018, pp. 316–334.

Pfeiffer, Lee. “Frankenstein: Film by Whale [1931].” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 24 Nov. 2023, www.britannica.com/topic/Frankenstein-film-by-Whale.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. 1818.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. 1831.

[frankensteinical]

Forty Days of Frankenstein, Day Forty: And here we are, day forty.  Don’t despair, though.  Between tomorrow and Hallowe’en, I’ll be sharing some late-breaking Frankensteins I found just this year (in my neverending Frankenquest) that were too late to make the first round.  Tonight, though, I bring you something extra special.  If you care at all about Frankenstein, you should see this if you ever get a chance.  If you only see one modern Frankenstein interpretation, see this one (hard to believe it’s already 12 years old).  Back in 2011, director Danny Boyle brought Nick Dear’s script for Frankenstein to the Royal National Theatre stage in London.  Starring in it were Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller—but with a twist.  In a mind-bending tour-de-force, the two actors alternated between playing Victor Frankenstein and the Creature!  From time to time this gets a re-release to cinemas, even though it was originally live on stage.  Frustratingly, so far, none of the powers-that-be will release it to home video, so just keep an eye out!

[ljones41]

I just did a recent re-watch of the 1995 version of "PERSUASION". There was something in this film that I found baffling.

In the movie, Mr. William Elliot, who is the main heroine's cousin and heir presumptive to her father, Sir Walter Elliot, had earlier married a wealthy woman from a lower class. She eventually died, leaving Mr. Elliot a wealthy man. But despite his wealth, Mr. Elliot attempted to reconnect with the family in order to ensure that Sir Walter would never remarry and produce an heir, which would prevent Mr. Elliot from inheriting Sir Walter's baronetcy and estate.

But in the 1995 version of "PERSUASION", Mr. Elliot had spent all of his late wife's money, making him barely penniless again. I never understood why screenwriter Nick Dear had allowed Mr. Elliot to lose his wealth. This doesn't make sense to me. This means Mr. Elliot would be forced to choose between finding another wealthy wife or marrying one of his less affluent Elliot cousins in order to prevent Sir Walter of ever remarrying. Dear had Mr. Elliot pursuing his cousin Anne Elliot anyway. But what would have happened if he had married Anne and spent her dowry? Then what? Especially since the very healthy Sir Walter would have lived a good number of years down the road. Did Nick Dear consider the ramifications of this change?

[medicalunprofessional]

[metamorphesque]

— Dear [ ], Nick Lantz (bio)

[text ID: I hid your name in a poem. / I hid your name in my mouth. / I hid your name in plain sight.]

[sorrowsofsilence]

thinkin about folio rn

source

[syntheticcharmva]

MOVIN' RIGHT ALONG!

Eddie's VA Tunnelberg, aka Joshua Waters and I worked together on a cover of the famous song from The Muppet Movie.

Featuring special guest Nick Nocturn of NightMind!

Joshua's Twitter: https://x.com/TunnelVa

Nick's Twitter: https://x.com/NM_NickNocturne

With Art by @glowbat

Mixing by @joezcafe

And video editing by @kmodoposts

Thanks for everyone who worked together and helped make this happen!

[threadsun]

Anonymous Asks: "I have a dilf ask! How would the sunny day characters, alan, and dachabo react to their little one asking them and mama for a little brother or sister for their birthday or christmas?

Classic awkward parents question lol"

Jack:

"A sibling?" Jack smiles and wraps his arms around you, propping his chin on the top of your head. "Well, I think that's a great idea! Isn't it, Sunshine? After all, having a playmate is important for a child's development. And we want to give you the best life we can! So how could we possibly say no?"

Ian:

Ian glances at you, eyes wide as he tries to come up with a response. "Well, um... I don't... I mean, we can think about it. And talk about it. I'd love another child, but it's a big responsibility." He glances at you once more, trying to judge your feelings on the matter. "We'll... we'll talk about it, okay?"

Shaun:

"Awww kiddo," Shaun crouches down to ruffle their hair with a wide grin. "A sibling isn't something you just get for your birthday. It takes a while to make one! We'll have to buy all the parts, make sure we choose the right style, and then put the whole thing together. Remember how long it took us to build the kitchen table?"

Nick:

Nick takes a moment to very solemnly consider the request. "Well, we have been talking about what to get you for your birthday. But you'll have to be very good and very patient. Babies take a while, and they're a big responsibility. You'll have to show us that you're ready to be an older sibling..."

Joseph:

"A sibling...?" Joseph lets out a slow breath and raises a questioning eyebrow to you. "Well, a baby isn't a gift. I mean, it is a gift. But it's... well, you don't just get one for your birthday. We'll have to do a lot of planning. Budgeting. Making sure we can take care of both of you. We'll see, okay?"

Jean:

"How about it, sweetheart?" Jean's nose nudges at your neck, breath brushing over your shoulder. "You can't say no to our child. Look, it would make them so happy to have a little sibling. Don't you want to make them happy? We can even get started tonight... make sure it's born in time~"

Rory:

The grin on Rory's face is equal parts delight and mischief. You can feel his hand on your back, drifting down to give your ass a subtle squeeze. "A little sibling sounds like a great idea! Right, sugar? We don't want them to be an only child forever, they'll get lonely without a sibling to play with."

Bo:

Bo's tail wags hard enough to thump against your hip at the question. He turns to you with wide, pleading puppy eyes. "Oh can we, puppy? Can we please? Another litter would be so nice, it's been so long since I got to—"

You have to silence him with a sharp nudge before he gets too graphic in front of the children.

Alan:

Alan hums thoughtfully, pulling you close to press a kiss to your forehead. "Ya know, it's not a bad idea, Doe Eyes. Ya wanna make the kid happy, dontcha?" His hand drifts down to rub your stomach absentmindedly, and you can tell he's already imagining it. "I think we can make it happen."

[angelamcss]

Bill & Frank | 1.03

[nocoastposts]

you with the dark curls, you with the watercolored eyes / you who bares all your teeth in every smile / says i can always hear you sing / i wanna hear you speak to me

[firstfullmoon]

Hope is optimism with a broken heart.

Nick Cave, in Faith, Hope and Carnage

[avesdraws]

i am cleaning up my computer i've been drawing this dude sooo much it should be illegal lol. real sorry

[vristaeus]

all this time later and charlie still gives nick stars in his eyes

[sunbitesworld]

MASTERLIST

Jack/Joseph:

Jack with a S/O who doesn't like others help (SFW/ANGST)

Jack with a S/O who sings sad songs to comfort themselves (SFW/ANGST)

Jack with a S/O who likes gaming (SFW/FLUFF)

Jack x GN! Reader (SMUT)

Joseph Haberdae x GN! Reader (SMUT)

Jack x GN! Reader who's crying over Ian cheating (SFW/ANGST/FLUFF) | 1 2

Jack finds out you want a baby (SMUT)

Joseph with a S/O that can fight (SFW/FLUFF)

Jack with a S/O that doesn't want kids (SFW/FLUFF)

Jack with a seemingly innocent S/O that writes suggestive songs (SUGGESTIVE)

Jack with S/O that has trust issues (SFW/FLUFF)

Jack with a S/O that wants kids but is scared to have them (SFW/ANGST/FLUFF)

Jack & Joseph with a S/O that is a night owl (SFW/FLUFF)

Ian Duff:

Ian with an asexual S/O (SFW/FLUFF)

Bo:

Domestic headcanons with Bo (SFW/FLUFF)

Bo with a S/O that is a night owl (SFW/FLUFF)

Alan Orion:

Alan with a S/O who's on their period (SFW/FLUFF)

Alan with a S/O that is a night owl (SFW/FLUFF)

[metamorphesque]

— Dear [      ], Nick Lantz (bio)

[text ID: I wrote your name at the top of a letter I never finished. / I wrote your name on the back of my hand with permanent marker, and every time I washed the dishes, a little bit of your name drained down with the soapy water.]