A MONSTER OF ISOLATION: CONSTRUCTING THE ISOLATED MONSTER IN FRANKENSTEIN THROUGH APPEARANCE AND IDENTITY by Elsa Snodderly
My chosen journal is Inquiries Journal, where graduate and under-graduate students can submit their work for publication. They are an open journal that focuses on publishing student research from the arts and humanities as well as the social sciences. The Inquiries Journal’s preferred citation format is APA, but they also accept research that is correctly cited in any major format, including MLA. Another requirement for this journal has to do with the length of essays. The Inquiries Journal usually publishes essays above 1,500 words and typically prefers essays to range between 2,500 and 7,000 words. My humanities research essay meets the requirements of the Inquiries Journal by meeting one of the major citation styles (MLA), presenting a new view of Frankenstein that is overlooked in the discourse community, and reaching the minimum essay length with over 4,000 words.
Introduction
Frankenstein’s Monster is arguably one of the most recognizable characters from 19th Century literature. Not only was Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus a precursor to the Gothic genre, but her character of the monster is still discussed over 200 years after it was published in 1818. Frankenstein is a Gothic tale about a hideous creature born from the hubris of the eponymous Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Shelley). After his creature comes to life, Dr. Frankenstein abandons his creation—who will henceforth be referred to as Adam—leaving the benevolent Adam to the mercy of a Romantic world, a world that sees him only in appearance (Shelley). Many discussions have been created surrounding the topic of Frankenstein with particular attention to Adam and what he represents. Some scholars assert Adam was inspired by Shelley’s personal life (Badalamenti; R. Britton; Carter), but other scholars are interested in his textual representation and base many of their arguments on his physical appearance (Beenstock; J. Britton; Gigante; Hatch; Malchow; Lancaster). It is no surprise most of the discourse centers around Adam and his appearance. In fact, some new research has started to emerge surrounding the psychological effects of society’s view of Adam’s body (Guernsey-Pitchford). Adam’s appearance is a huge theme in the novel because it is what separates him from society and encourages another large theme. My project will—like the infamous doctor—stitch these discussions together to reveal the semi-acknowledged, yet sidelined theme that drives Adam’s story. Isolation. Though Adam’s appearance creates an environment for his social alienation, it is his isolation that forces Adam to reflect and transform himself from a benevolent being to a murdering monster. In understanding social isolation in Adam’s story, I hope to accomplish two things. I hope to contribute to the very small discussion of isolation in the Frankenstein discourse community, while also illustrating how isolation is one of the major driving forces behind Adam’s character arc. From man to monster.
Much of the literature regarding Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s Frankenstein surrounds the character of the Monster, or Adam. Whether it involves Shelley’s inspiration behind Adam’s character (Badalamenti; R. Britton; Carter), why Adam is shunned (Beenstock; J. Britton; Gigante; Hatch; Malchow; Lancaster), or the psychological effects of Adam being shunned (Guernsey-Pitchford) one theme is clear: the murderous monster is a product of social isolation.
Several studies compare Frankenstein to the biographical life of Mary Shelley. In their separate studies, Anthony F. Badalamenti, Ronald Britton, and Richard Carter each assert that Shelley’s personal experience with social isolation and abandonment influenced the characters within her novel. In 1999, Carter takes a specific stance with the claim that Victor Frankenstein’s abandonment of Adam represents Percy Shelley’s abandonment of his paternal duty after the death of their child (1197). In 2006, Badalamenti supports this idea with the claim that Mary Shelley “unconsciously” based the tragic story of Adam on her troubled relationship with Percy Shelley (420). To illustrate, Adam is the representation of the “pain” and “rage” Mary felt as a result of Percy’s actions (420). With room for more questions, R. Britton enters the discussion in 2015 with a similar, but broader claim. He claims that all of the main characters—Walton, Frankenstein, and Adam—are also “unconsciously” based on different aspects of Shelley (R. Britton 7). In this case, Adam represents the death and abandonment that followed Shelley throughout her life, not just with Percy Shelley (R. Britton 7). While all the sources approach their interpretation of the text differently, they all agree that the text is—in some way—influenced by Mary Shelley’s feelings of social alienation.
Other research suggests that this influence from Shelley’s life goes deeper into Romantic society and their value of physical appearance. In 2008, J.C. Hatch looks into this negative view of appearance by pairing Silvan Tomkins’ theory of shame and disgust with Adam Smith’s theory of sympathy and applies them to the narrative. Hatch proposes shame and disgust of Adam’s body is another factor that pushes away human sympathy and encourages the Creation—or Adam—to be alienated (34). A year later, Jeanne Britton discusses sympathy—or lack thereof—in her study of Frankenstein. In her analysis, J. Britton also applies Adam Smith’s theory of sympathy to Adam and the epistolary qualities of the text. By applying Smith’s theory of sympathy to the novel, J. Britton argues Adam has the potential to elicit sympathy through his use of eloquent language, yet it is impossible due to his outward appearance (14). Even though they provide modern theories, the conclusions of J. Britton and Hatch are far from new. Eight years before Hatch launched his theory, Denise Gigante had connected Adam’s appearance to Romantic theories on aesthetics and the sublime. Gigante, similar to J. Britton, argues Adam physically reflects everything the Romantic society detests; he intellectually possesses qualities valued by Romantic society (567). This argument is later reinforced in 2015 by Zoe Beenstock, who also compares Frankenstein to Romantic philosophy; however, Beenstock proposes that the character of Adam is a direct critique of Jean-Jaques Rousseau’s Social Contract Theory (406-407). It is Adam’s appearance that continues to become a topic of discussion because it makes him Other—someone who does not fit into society.
Branching away from theories, in 1993 H.L. Malchow approaches the Otherness of the Creation and analyzes his Otherness through a post-colonial lens. Malchow expresses the importance of Adam representing the Other and asserts that Adam is the embodiment of the racial fears of 19th Century society (90-92). On the other side, Ashley Craig Lancaster opposed the idea in 2008. She disagrees with referring to Adam as the Other because she claims it absolves society of their failure of his upbringing and dehumanizes an already dehumanized “Gothic monster” (Lancaster 132-133). Though Lancaster deviates from the term of the Other, she does acknowledge the theory of sympathy discussed by J. Britton and the negative effects social isolation has on a person’s identity. In 2018, identity and the effects of social isolation are what Julia Guernsey-Pitchford expands upon in her examination of Donald Winnicott’s theory of the “true and false self” (56). By comparing Adam’s journey to Winnicott’s theory, Guernsey-Pitchford proposes that society’s view of Adam (false self) causes him to question how he perceives himself (true self) and eventually follows the false monstrous identity imposed upon him (66-67). Instead of focusing primarily on his appearance and how it applies to societal norms, Guernsey-Pitchford takes the discussion further by focusing on Adam’s psychological descent into the monster.
Before Frankenstein, Mary Shelley was no stranger to the concept of isolation. By reviewing her early life one can better understand the significance of isolation in her life and ultimately the characters in Frankenstein. Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (née Godwin) was isolated early on in her life. Her mother died ten days after she was born, and her father—William Godwin—remarried (Badalamenti 421). Shelley’s stepmother disliked her, which resulted in Godwin sending Mary away from home in her early teens to amend the rift his new wife had with his daughter (Carter 1196). In her mid-to late-teen years, Mary Shelley’s father disowned her after she ran away with the married Percy Shelley (Carter 1197). Shelley’s first child was born prematurely and then died soon after (Badalamenti 424). Percy did not comfort the grieving Mary; he only expressed his disappointment that the child was female (Badalamenti 424). Mary was isolated in her grief. She had lost her child, she was shunned by her father, her lover cared little for her grieving, and on top of all this she was wrestling with the parental abandonment she felt as a child. These are the major events in Shelley’s life that have piqued the interest of scholars as it relates to the novel. The isolation Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley experienced from the people around her was evidently a destructive force in her life; it follows that isolation is also a destructive force in the novel she wrote a year after the death of her daughter.
Along with the personal history of Shelley, my essay will focus on the societal pressures of the Other and Winnicott’s theory of the true self and the false self. The Other is anyone who deviates from social norms. In the context of Romantic society, the Other is someone who is other than a rich, white, gentleman. In other words, the Other is a label created so those who are privileged stay in power. When the label is applied to someone, they are considered Other than human. This extends to women, the poor, people with disabilities, and people of a different ethnicity (Malchow 92). It is designed to create a stigma around the labeled individual; this stigma discourages the sympathy required to include people in any kind of social interaction (Hatch 34; J. Britton 14). If someone is assigned this label, they are identified by the stigma that follows even if they present qualities that would otherwise be praised in the Romantic society. For example, some of the Romantic qualities include being virtuous and well-read (by Romantic standards), having eloquent speech, wealth etc. (Gigante 567). This connects with Winnicott’s theory by creating two separate identities. One is the label of the Other and the second is the individual the label is applied to.
Psychoanalyst Winnicott theorized everyone had two versions of themselves: the true self, and the false self. The false self is the one society sees first; it is like a shield for the true self (Guernsey-Pitchford 55). The true self is where a person has the ability to participate and thrive in society (Guernsey-Pitchford 55). The ability to balance both selves stems from infancy where the “primary caretaker” encourages and supports the child so they can have the confidence to be their true self, while also developing a false self to protect their true identity from society (Guernsey-Pitchford 55). Ideally, both versions of a person are supposed to coexist together, yet in some instances, the false self dominates the true self. This is what happens with Adam. Since he did not grow up with a reliable caregiver, he could not develop his true or false self and so when the time comes both of his identities battle against one another forcing his false self to become his primary self (Guernsey-Pitchford 59). This, however, is not where his inner struggle stops. Though Adam’s true self is secondary, it still exists within him and continues to fight a losing battle. The emergence of Adam’s false or monstrous self is just the beginning of Adam’s internal battle with identity, fueled by his constant isolation.
Adam is called many things, but he is commonly known by a name that is inspired by his appearance: “monster” (Shelley 151). Though Adam is not blatantly called “Other,” he is called a “monster.” A ‘monster’ is defined as “Originally: a mythical creature which is part animal and part human […] [and] is frequently of great size and ferocious appearance” (Oxford English Dictionary). It is famously known that Frankenstein constructs Adam like a quilt, from freshly dead body parts, and to this quilt, he adds the “instruments of life,” and suddenly the body parts animate into something outlandish: “his yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black [...] but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, [...] his shrivelled complexion, and straight black lips” (Shelley 55). These are the monstrous features that make Adam a monster. His inhuman appearance and unconventional beginnings frighten Frankenstein and, in turn, anyone who encounters him, because he appears to be different from themselves. Similar to Percy and William Godwin’s abandonment of Mary and her unnamed first child (Carter 1197; R. Britton 7), Adam is abandoned at birth by the only parent he knows, Victor (Shelley 55). Because of his monstrousness, Adam is tasked to fend for himself despite his inexperience with the outside world. Everyone around Adam sees that he is different, so they treat him as such. They treat him as Other. When Adam first meets common village people, they chase him away with stones (Shelley 111), and when Adam grabs young William’s arm, he calls Adam “monster!” and an “ugly wretch!” (Shelly 151). William’s connection of Adam’s ugliness with being a monster is similar to how people in Romantic society connected appearance (e.g., ethnicity, sex, etc.) with the Other. The Village folk’s reaction to Adam shows the violence that accompanies being labeled as the Other in Romantic society. As established, the Other is typically determined by the appearance of a person, especially if that person does not physically conform to society’s norms, and Adam fits that description. With that said, there are those that believe Adam should not be labeled as such within the discourse community.
As illustrated by Frankenstein, William, and the village people, Adam’s physical appearance makes them view Adam as different, or a monster. In Frankenstein, a monster is synonymous with the Romantic Other. However, Lancaster disagrees with using the label of Other when referring to society’s views of Adam. Though she concedes that the Gothic monster is designed to be “the ultimate Other in society,” Lancaster argues that the label promotes the “cycle of violence” from an “unapologetic society” (147). Lancaster makes a valid point. The use of the term is used to label someone who is dehumanized in the eyes of society, but for the purposes of this paper and the discourse community, the term “Other” is used to refer to society’s view of Adam. The use of “Other” in the context of interpreting the novel is not meant to exonerate those who wronged Adam, but highlight their flawed view of Adam. Adam is acknowledged as a being, human or not, who desires social interactions. Society sees Adam as a monster because he is different, or Other. It does not reflect on Adam’s true identity, but it does affect him. He is forced into this position where he is socially isolated, which eventually affects how Adam sees himself.
Adam grows up in a bubble where he is surrounded by prejudice and painful experiences without the support of a family or friend. Having that emotional support is crucial to a person’s well-being, especially if they are in Adam’s situation. As Guernsey-Pitchford implies, Adam is disadvantaged from the beginning by not having a family or caregiver (64). In addition, Adam has no connection to society, no teacher, no friends, nothing that helps him develop a healthy identity. This detachment results in society assigning Adam a toxic identity, based on their reaction to his appearance. This is Adam’s false self; the self society sees. Adam’s true self is buried skin-deep. Beyond the sutured limbs and discolored eyes, Adam is a model of the Romantic intellectual. Before his transformation, he’s gentle, eloquent, sociable, yet his true self is not enough. According to Beenstock, Adam is a “hybridity” of two forms of being; though he is educated, his appearance is what prevents him from entering a social contract within society (Beenstock 413); however, there is a moment where Shelley shows Adam’s ability to use his true self to blend into society. Early in his life, Adam encounters the Cottagers—fellow outcasts from society; he observes them, and through his “self-education,” Adam “conforms” to Romantic ideals, which makes him aware of his monstrous appearance (Malchow 115). When he initially realizes how he looks compared to everyone else, he believes he is “the monster that I am” (Shelley 120), yet Adam continues to hope his true self—the virtuous, gentle identity—will become apparent. Adam attempts to reveal his real identity and enter society by engaging with the outcast Cottagers, particularly the blind man known as De Lacey (Shelley 141). Though Adam knows he is different, he still hopes to “overcome” the “prejudice” of others by proving to one person he is still good (Shelly 141). As he talks with De Lacey, Adam nearly succeeds in creating a social connection. As Adam tells his lonely story, moving De Lacey with his eloquent words, he has a sudden outburst of gratitude: “How can I thank you, my best and only benefactor? From your lips first have I heard the voice of kindness directed towards me; I shall be for ever grateful” (Shelley 142). Because De Lacey cannot perceive Adam’s appearance, De Lacey gives Adam the validation and sympathy he craves. Until this point, Adam has had no support, yet he still makes the effort to fit into the society designed to stand against him. If De Lacey had been alone, Adam may have had a chance to establish a lasting social connection, but De Lacey’s son, Felix, returns and chases him away due to his appearance (Shelley 142). This important scene proves a couple of things. One, Adam has two sides to himself: the true self and the false self. And two, Adam’s false self dominates his true self. As I said, Adam’s false self was assigned to him by society, instead of encouraged by Frankenstein. According to Guernsey-Pitchford, it takes time for an infant to cultivate a healthy false self (55), but Adam was deprived of that and, instead, society created a false identity for him. However, with De Lacey, Adam almost finds the parent he desires. For a brief moment, he knows what it is like to be respected and a member of society. Guernsey-Pitchford claims Adam “becomes evil” after this event (67). I agree Adam’s false identity dominates his true self when his “best and only benefactor” (Shelley 142) is torn away, but I also argue that Adam is still battling against the identity society created for him. It is true De Lacey, even in his small scene, was the only loving caregiver Adam ever knew. He was the man that could have nurtured and reinvented Adam’s false self by simply including him in his limited social circle, yet even though De Lacey turns on Adam, and Adam loses his chance to be a part of society, he does not turn evil. Despite the pain and isolation, Adam, though hurt, still chooses to do good. For example, after this experience, Adam dives into a river to save a drowning child (Shelley 149). An evil creature might have found pleasure in the distress of another human, but not Adam. He is still battling with his false self because Adam still has a glimmer of good, a sparkle of hope, that one day he can shed his false self so people can see the true creature that lies within. However, as long as Adam looks like a monster, people will isolate him as one, because of their prejudice and disgust in his Otherness.
A side effect of being Other is the prejudice and disgust society throws with their sticks and stones. Because of their disgust, people assume Adam is as he appears. A monster. This assumption is what creates Adam’s isolation, and this isolation is what builds the monster. It does not matter that Adam is a benevolent creature who pleads for mercy with an old blind man (Shelley 142), or that he saves a child from drowning, despite the cruelty of villagers (Shelley 149). It does not matter that once Adam learns to speak, his eloquent words almost move his Creator to sympathy (Shelley 156). What matters to Romantic society is how he appears, and since he appears differently, since he is Other, sympathy is unachievable. As shown with Adam’s interaction with De Lacey, the only thing that separates Adam from society is the disgust of people who think of him as Other, thereby he cannot create that sympathy required for social interaction (Hatch 41; J. Britton 4). His appearance creates disgust and limits his opportuni- ties for positive interactions, or any interactions, thereby isolating him from what he craves most. Adam has no friends and the closest thing he has to a father abandoned him at birth; even fellow outcasts receive the love he desires; even his creator has a loving family. The thought of forever being alone enrages Adam and, as a result, he takes it out on the innocent William and Justine (Shelley 151). Both the murder of young William and the framing of Justine are Adam’s first monstrous acts. One could argue Adam’s criminal behavior is inspired by the pain others cause him, and I would agree, but also point out that he did not originally plan to kill William. He was driven there with desperation to—as horrifying as it is—forcefully adopt William: “[...] this little creature was unprejudiced, and had lived too short a time to have imbibed a horror of deformity. If, therefore, I could seize him, and educate him as my companion and friend, I should not be so desolate in this peopled earth” (Shelley 151). It is only when William mentions the name “Frankenstein” that Adam kills him, because not only is Adam perpetually alone but he discovers Frankenstein has everything he does not, even though Frankenstein is the reason Adam has nothing. So, while it is an act driven by pain, the pain is dominated by the horror of forever being alone. Adam is cursed to desire social interaction, but he is forced into isolation, thus leading to the immoral descent of his character. However, Adam’s tipping point between false and true self happens when he begs Frankenstein for a mate, only for Frankenstein to destroy his last chance for kinship.
One could argue that Adam jumps from those painful moments into the false self, but I would argue that it was more of a slide before the fall. Even after all that has happened, Adam believes he will be fulfilled if he has an equal who will see him for his true self and not shy away from his false self. After he confesses to Frankenstein about murdering William and implicating Justine, he implores Frankenstein for a companion, connecting his immoral actions to his life of terminal solitude: “My vices are the children of a forced solitude that I abhor, and my virtues will necessarily arise when I live in communion with an equal” (Shelley 102). He believes having a female counterpart will help him establish an empathetic connection and return him to a morally-just life. However, Adam never finds out. As Frankenstein creates Adam’s companion, he thinks of Adam’s murders and the disgust he feels when he imagines the possibility of Adam procreating with his companion and populating the world with more of his kind; these thoughts motivate Frankenstein to destroy the nearly completed companion (Shelley 178). This is the moment Adam realizes he will always be alienated from society, and this forces him into a deep, isolated depression, similar to Mary Shelley when she lost her first child. Though different, Adam too lost something precious, and the depression that comes from the eternal isolation changes him, and suddenly he accepts the dominance of his false self; he becomes a murdering monster.
Adam is alone. Frankenstein destroys the only thing Adam believes will fulfill his social needs, forcing him into isolation once again, which drives Adam to become what Frankenstein fears him to be: a miscreant, a murderer, a monster. Of course, there are other factors to Adam’s journey, but the topic of isolation should not be ignored or sidelined. It is entwined with his appearance, and the pain he feels in his short existence. Throughout the novel, Adam faces the duality of his true and false self. Before he makes official contact with De Lacey, he acknowledges his false self, but continues to struggle so he may be seen. It is not until he is guaranteed to be alone that he starts to genuinely question his identity. Without someone who looks like him or sympathizes with him, Adam’s “negative body image” starts to take over his “earlier positive sense of self,” essentially destroying his true self (Guernsey-Pitchford 59). In his descent, Adam kills William after realizing Frankenstein has what he cannot (Shelley 151); after the murder he frames Justine because he knows she—or any other person—would never accept him (Shelley 153); and the final slide, Adam goes on a murderous, revenge-fueled rampage after Frankenstein condemns him to live a life without the kinship he craves (Shelley 178-212). The solitude plays a huge part in Adam’s fall to villainy. Frankenstein’s creation originally starts out as a moral and naturally-good creature who seeks out companionship, but being classified as Other detaches him from society; to add on, after Adam is isolated with the thoughts and memories of being called and treated like a monster, Adam loses himself. So, while there are other factors to Adam’s transformation, it is clear that isolation plays a large and dangerous role in his character arc, changing him from a man to a monster of isolation.
It is evident there are different approaches when talking about the character of Adam. Nevertheless, despite differing approaches and arguments that span from the early 1990s to the late 2010s, most of the discussion focuses less so on Adam’s isolation, and more so on his physical appearance. While appearance is important to the character and the story, sidelining the destructive force of isolation in Adam’s story is limiting the possibility for new interpretations of a complicated character, and therefore limiting the discussion of isolation outside of fiction. The concept of the Other came from real origins and prejudice. Social isolation is a real result of being Other, and the themes of isolation were inspired by the real experiences of Mary Shelley. More discourse is required to fully understand the extent to which isolation affects the novel, but in my examination of Adam, it is evident I have barely scratched the surface of a neglected discussion. Adam’s story highlights two things: the importance of social interaction for living beings and the danger prolonged isolation has on self-image and a person’s view of the world. Acknowledging the significance of isolation in Adam’s tragic descent is important because it gives the audience a new perspective of Adam as well as the dangers humans face when confronted with isolation.
Badalamenti, Anthony F. “Why Did Mary Shelley Write Frankenstein?” Journal of Religion and Health, vol. 45, no. 3, Springer, 2006, pp. 419–39, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27512949. Accessed 2021.
Beenstock, Zoe. “Lyrical Sociability: The Social Contract and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Philosophy and Literature, vol. 39, no. 2, 2015, pp. 406–421, doi:10.1353/phl.2015.0052. Accessed 2021.
Britton, Jeanne M. “Novelistic Sympathy in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Studies in Romanticism, vol. 48, no. 1, spring 2009, pp. 3-22. Gale Literature Resource Center, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A206686948/LitRC?u=anch19713&sid=bookmark-LitRC&xid=ead7cd8. Accessed 23 Sept. 2021.
Britton, Ronald. “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: What Made the Monster Monstrous?” Journal of Analytical Psychology, vol. 60, no. 1, Feb. 2015, pp. 1–11. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/1468-5922.12126. Accessed 2021.
Carter, Richard. “Mary Shelley’s Nightmare (1797–1851): Frankenstein; Her Life, Literary Legacy, and Last Illness.” World Journal of Surgery, vol. 23, no. 11, 1999, pp. 1195–1201, https://doi.org/10.1007/s002689900646. Accessed 2021.
Gigante, Denise. “Facing the Ugly: The Case of ‘Frankenstein.’” ELH, vol. 67, no. 2, Johns
Hopkins University Press, 2000, pp. 565–87, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30031925. Accessed 2021.
Guernsey-Pitchford, Julia. “Divided Selves of the Social Alien from Milton’s Satan and Mary Shelley’s Monster to Damien Echols of the West Memphis Three.” Studies in Popular Culture, vol. 40, no. 2, Popular Culture Association in the South, 2018, pp. 53–84, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26582185. Accessed 2021.
Hatch, James C. “Disruptive Affects: Shame, Disgust, and Sympathy in Frankenstein.” European Romantic Review, vol. 19, no. 1, 2008, pp. 33–49, https://doi.org/10.1080/10509580701844967. Accessed 2021.
Lancaster, Ashley Craig. “From Frankenstein’s Monster to Lester Ballard: The Evolving Gothic Monster.” The Midwest Quarterly, vol. 49, no. 2, winter 2008, pp. 132-148. Gale In Context: High School, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A181858500/SUIC?u=ak_sdlc_web&sid=bookmark-SUIC&xid=819ed32d. Accessed 2021.
Malchow, H. L. “Frankenstein’s Monster and Images of Race in Nineteenth-Century Britain.” Past & Present, no. 139, [Oxford University Press, The Past and Present Society], 1993, pp. 90–130, http://www.jstor.org/stable/651092. Accessed 2021.
“Monster, n., adv., and adj.” OED Online, Oxford University Press, September 2021, www.oed.com/view/Entry/121738. Accessed 15 November 2021.
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein. Illustrated by David Plunkert, Rockport Publishers, 2018.
Elsa Snodderly is pursuing an English degree with a minor in Creative Writing. Selected by Patricia Jenkins.