Fritz/Igor, Frankenstein, Jekyll/Hyde 24 Jun 2023

In classic literature, misconceptions surrounding character names can often lead to intriguing symbolism and deeper interpretations. This article explores the instances of misremembering Fritz/Igor, the nameless monster in “Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley and the motivations behind Dr. Jekyll’s transformation into Mr. Hyde from “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” by Robert Louis Stevenson, we unravel the layers of meaning that these misconceptions represent.

Fritz/Igor

In the popular imagination, the name Igor is often associated with Dr. Frankenstein’s assistant. However, in both the original novel by Mary Shelley and the 1931 movie adaptation, the assistant character was either unnamed or named ‘Fritz’. This misremembering of names highlights a collective feature of cultural memory and the powerful influence of film adaptations in shaping our perception of literary works. It symbolizes the malleability of narratives as they pass through different mediums and the fusion of elements that occurs in our collective consciousness.

Forgetting Fritz

The transformative shift from Fritz to Igor can be traced back to the influential 1931 film adaptation of “Frankenstein,” directed by James Whale. In this cinematic interpretation, the character of Fritz, portrayed by actor Dwight Frye, was given a name and a more prominent role. As a loyal yet bumbling assistant to Dr. Frankenstein, Fritz exhibited exaggerated physical attributes that made him more memorable to audiences.

However, it was the 1935 sequel, “Bride of Frankenstein,” that solidified the replacement of Fritz with Igor in popular consciousness. Bela Lugosi’s portrayal of the character Ygor introduced a new hunchbacked and subservient assistant figure. Due to the similarities between Ygor and the assistant character from the original novel and previous adaptations, the names and characteristics became intertwined in the collective memory.

Inventing Igor

In Mary Shelley’s classic novel “Frankenstein,” published in 1818, Dr. Victor Frankenstein’s assistant is not given a name. He is depicted as a hunchbacked, servile figure who assists the doctor in his scientific experiments. It is worth noting that the assistant’s role in the novel is relatively minor, and he does not possess the defining characteristics that would later become associated with Igor.

The introduction of the name “Igor” and the distinct image of a hunchbacked assistant are attributed to the 1931 film adaptation of “Frankenstein,” directed by James Whale. In this influential cinematic interpretation, the character known as “Fritz” serves as Dr. Frankenstein’s assistant and exhibits some exaggerated physical features. However, it wasn’t until the sequel, “Bride of Frankenstein” in 1935, that a new character named “Ygor” was introduced, portrayed by actor Bela Lugosi. Ygor, with his hunchback and subservient nature, is often conflated with the assistant character from the original novel, and it is from this amalgamation that the iconic character of Igor emerges.

The name Igor has become synonymous with the archetype of the mad scientist’s assistant, embodying loyalty, eccentricity, and sometimes even malevolence. From parodies to Halloween costumes, Igor has become a cultural shorthand, instantly recognizable and associated with the world of scientific experimentation and the macabre.

The Nameless Monster

Another significant misconception arises from the misattribution of the name “Frankenstein” to the creature in Shelley’s novel. The creature remains unnamed throughout the story, emphasizing its lack of identity and the absence of a definitive label. This misconception represents the blurred boundaries between creator and creation, as well as the unintended consequences of Victor Frankenstein’s ambition. By merging the name of the creator and the creature, we are confronted with the moral implications of playing god and the inherent interconnectedness between the two entities.

Conflating the Doctor and his Monster

At first glance, the popular conflation of Frankenstein and his monster may seem a misunderstanding perpetuated by adaptations and popular culture. However, upon closer examination, we discover a deeper unity at play. Victor Frankenstein, the ambitious scientist driven by his desire for knowledge and creation, shares an intrinsic bond with his monstrous creation. The creature is an extension of Frankenstein’s aspirations, embodying the darker consequences of his actions. In this intertwined relationship, we find the unity of creator and creation, their fates inextricably linked. Victor Frankenstein is haunted by the consequences of his creation, tormented by the repercussions of his attempt to play god. Similarly, the creature is burdened by his existence and his desperate search for meaning and connection in a world that rejects and fears him.

While the conflation of Frankenstein and his monster may initially seem like an oversight, it can also be viewed as a symbolic representation of their interconnectedness. The creature is, in essence, a part of Frankenstein himself, an embodiment of the darker aspects of his character and the consequences of his actions. Their fates are bound together, and the narrative serves as a powerful exploration of the moral and existential dilemmas that arise from the act of creation.

Separating the Monster and the Doctor

While society may wrongly attribute the name “Frankenstein” to the creature, it is essential to recognize the collective misidentification apparent in the collapse of distinction between the creator and his creation. Victor Frankenstein represents the human ambition and pursuit of knowledge, while the creature symbolizes the consequences of unchecked scientific ambition. Their separation serves as a reminder that creation and responsibility are distinct entities, highlighting the complexities of playing god and the ramifications of such actions. It underscores the complex dynamics involved in the act of creation itself. Victor Frankenstein represents the boundless human ambition and the relentless pursuit of knowledge, while the creature embodies the unintended consequences that can emerge when such ambition is left unchecked. The fact that the collective remembrance fails to distinguish them made apparent by the common application of Dr. Frankenstein’s surname to the monster indicates that this is not simply grasped.

Misidentifying Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

In “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” the cultural narrative of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde emphasize a type of separation between these two characters. Dr. Jekyll, the respected scientist, represents the façade of respectability and societal expectations. Mr. Hyde, on the other hand, embodies the suppressed desires and immoral inclinations that lie hidden within Jekyll’s psyche. Interestingly enough, this separation was so great as to change the character’s prefix or form of address as well as seen in the ‘Dr.’ to ‘Mr.’ title. Their separation symbolizes the struggle between good and evil, the battle to maintain a distinct identity against the overwhelming forces of temptation and darkness. Yet, in this apparent dichotomy, we uncover a profound unity—the two sides are of the same individual, intricately intertwined in their shared existence.

In this complex relationship, the apparent separation serves as a symbolic representation of the internal struggle we all face—the battle between our societal facade and the buried desires and tendencies that exist within us. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde symbolize the eternal conflict between the socially acceptable and the hidden, often taboo, aspects of our own personalities.

The unity of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde challenges us to question the nature of identity and the limitations of categorizing individuals as purely good or purely evil. It compels us to reflect on the intricate interplay between our conscious and unconscious selves, the delicate balance we strive to maintain between societal expectations and our true desires.

In recognizing this interconnectedness, we move beyond the misidentification of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as separate beings. They are not distinct individuals, but rather intertwined aspects of the same individual’s psyche. Jekyll’s experiments and subsequent transformations represent a psychological journey—a profound exploration of embracing and reconciling the conflicting forces within oneself.

Dr. Jekyll’s Misremembered Mitosis

The motivations surrounding Dr. Jekyll’s transformation into Mr. Hyde are often misunderstood. Though he was driven to explore his hidden desires and dark impulses, Dr. Jekyll willingly undergoes the transformation. Contrary to common misconceptions, it is not a lack of control or external influence that leads to his transformation but a conscious choice to separate his morally upright self from his repressed desires. This misconception reveals the complexities of human nature, the struggle between societal expectations and our hidden selves, and the consequences of indulging in our darker impulses. Though in collective memory, these differences in motivations are enough to split the character as if they are two separate beings.

The human tendency to disassociate and say, “Oh, that wasn’t me,” when confronted with our own questionable actions is rooted in the mechanism of repression. Dr. Jekyll’s motivations reflect this universal aspect of human psychology—the impulse to suppress and distance ourselves from the parts of us that society deems unacceptable or immoral.

In societal contexts, we often conform to established norms and expectations, adhering to a façade of respectability and righteousness. However, beneath this surface, lurk our hidden desires, impulses, and darker inclinations. Dr. Jekyll’s choice to create a separate persona in the form of Mr. Hyde exemplifies the struggle to maintain this societal façade while simultaneously exploring and indulging in the suppressed aspects of his being.

The split between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is not a division between two separate beings, but rather a manifestation of the internal conflict between societal expectations and our hidden selves. It is a reflection of the eternal struggle to reconcile our moral compass with the undeniable allure of our repressed desires.

The misconceptions surrounding Dr. Jekyll’s motivations and the tendency to perceive him and Mr. Hyde as separate entities highlight society’s discomfort with acknowledging the complexities of human nature. By attributing the transformation solely to external influences or loss of control, we overlook the profound impact of our own choices and the psychological mechanisms at play.

Conclusion

The misconceptions surrounding character names in classic literature hold symbolic significance, offering insights into the malleability of narratives, the blurred boundaries between creator and creation, and the complexities of human nature. The misremembering of Fritz and Igor reflects the transformative power of adaptations and our collective memory. The nameless monster in “Frankenstein” represents the intertwined identities of creator and creation. The misconceptions regarding Dr. Jekyll’s motivations shed light on the conscious choice to explore hidden desires. By unraveling these misconceptions, we gain a deeper understanding of the profound themes and intricate narratives that continue to captivate readers and challenge our perceptions of these timeless literary works.

article [ literature  ]