Skip to main content

Frankenstein's PhD

It may be because I spent far too much of this year thinking about 'Frankenstein' for a conference paper and journal article that never seemed to end, but I'm beginning to see my PhD as an echo of Mary Shelley's creation. The trouble is that I'm not sure if I'm Victor Frankenstein or his Creature.

Actually this came out of a conversation with a friend who has finished her PhD who told me she thought of the PhD as 'an ugly baby' and while it was ugly it was her baby so she was going to defend it always. I liked that, and I like my analogy of Frankenstein's creation.

Firstly because my PhD is very much a mish-mash of styles and approaches. It's not pure English or Drama it's not pure History or Sociology. And while few PhDs are 'pure' anything (except perhaps the purer sciences) mine feels more of a strange creation than many. What a PhD also needs is that drive, that obsession and determination to give life to what may considered lifeless material and it will no matter what you do, however careful you are, have great cost.

The thing is I really like that. Perhaps because I don't think Victor Frankenstein was the 'mad scientist' popular culture has made him out to be and that I also refuse to think of his creation as 'monster' rather 'Creature' much like a child, but deliberately engineered. Perhaps because I like the thought that what I've done is cobble together these dead bits of literature and history and given them a new form, a new being through analysis. Isn't that what all archive driven work does? pull together the pieces left for dead in storage and make something new out of them? or attempt to restore them to what they once were?

The more you think about it too, the more the Frankenstein analogy becomes apt. You spend all your time, energy on creating this thing. Like Victor Frankenstein driven by obsession you spend all your time locked away from family and friends just pouring your life into this creation to give it life. And eventually if you're doing it right it starts to answer back in a way, it has life of its own and becomes an independent thing.

But the thing is that you're always haunted by your creation. Like Victor chasing his Creature across the arctic wastes? both locked in a battle to the death, neither living while the other does but only able to destroy one another. That sounds like a really negative approach but it really isn't meant to be. In my reading of Shelley (and analysis you may soon read in an academic journal *cough cough* ) they are a symbiotic unit, each needing the other to survive, and each giving the other a reason to live. Now I'm not suggesting my PhD gives me reason to live, but it does give me purpose and drive.

But like Victor Frankenstein will I be haunted by my creation forever after? Short answer probably.

Our PhD's are our gateways, our opening gambit, however you want to put it. They are what marks us. Like an actors whose breakthrough role is iconic the PhD will forever be associated with us. Following us, taunting us in what we could have done better, not letting us move on with our careers if we let it.

Or, in this have we also become the Creature? shaped by our 'masters' or haunted ourselves by what we think we should or might be but never quite sure?

But in that actually answers the question. Frankenstein and his Creature are essentially one being, one does not exist without the other. So we become our PhD's as they are part of us. And it's not very healthy, it is all about obsession and relentless drive beyond the point of sanity and at great cost.

But in all this, even when he chases his Creature across the arctic wastes, doomed as that which he created, Victor Frankenstein achieved something fantastic.

It should be a depressing analogy, and perhaps it is. But I have great respect for both Frankenstein and his Creature.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Theatre Fangirls (here we go again)

There's some arguments that come around and you think 'really? we're still talking about this?' but also you're not really surprised.

So when it was annoucned Tom Hiddleston was teaming up with Kenneth Brannagh for a production of Hamlet, it was inevitable that the cries of  'Silly fangirls' began. Once again we're confronted with comments that girls 'Only want to see it because he's in it' and 'Aren't interested in the play'.

And because I am a woman, therefore incapable of thinking of him other than in terms of his looks....here he above with a cat looking cute.

But just like Mr H there is both petting a cat, reading a newspaper and looking brooding, I'd like to point out that it's entierly possible to be interested in more than one aspect of a thing at the same time. And secondly I say so what the audience is just there to look at his cheekbones?

I don't have a horse in this race. I think Hiddles is a damn good ac…

Why Elliott & Harper is the company I've been waiting for

I can never resist a good (bad) pun in a title. As the first production from Elliott & Harper opens its doors for previews tonight, it’s worth pausing to think what this new production company means and why indeed we need more like it. Something of a ‘power house’ company formed of Marianne Elliott and Chris Harper. Both coming from the National Theatre- as Director and Producer respectively- there’s a real understanding of both the craft of theatre and the audiences that do- and don’t- come to it there. And theatre made by and produced by theatre people, in the commercial realm. That’s potentially very exciting.








Firstly, the act of two theatre people who really love theatre, really understand theatre both from an audience point of view and an artistic point of view. Secondly, one of the UK’s best directors striking out on her own to make theatre on her own terms. Thirdly, and you bet it’s an important factor, a woman artistic director. It’s all exciting, and has the potential, …

Angels at the National (a reflection before the review)

I had to do a Kushner and give this post a long subtitle.

When I called my PhD thesis "Angels at the National" (I write terrible titles I know) I never thought I'd be able to say it again. Of course, the Gods like to have a laugh at my expense so mere months after I bound the copy, Rufus Norris and Marianne Elliot got together and decided that I clearly hadn't had enough to write about. 


But how does it feel to have the thing that has lived in your head for so long, back, brought to life in front of you? As much as I love the plays, I'm also conditioned to be hyper critical. I know every line (I amazed/freaked out Elliot herself with my ability to know exact quotations on demand). And of course, I have my own expectations about how it should be. How then would it feel to go back? 



At the end of Part 1 I found myself leaning on the railings by the Thames, trying to compose myself and my thoughts enough to move. At the end of Part 2, I'm sure I had forgotten how …