Hagrid- the Responsible Frankenstein?

While reading the last two pages of Stephen Jay Gould’s essay ‘The Monster’s Human Nature’ (where he argues that lack of parental responsibility on Frankenstein’s part was the primary reason behind the creature’s transformation from a benign creature “susceptible of love and sympathy” to a horrific monster who declares to his creator that “I will glut the maw of death, until it be satiated with the blood of your remaining friends.”), the choice of a few of his phrases brought vividly to my mind a very minor character from the Harry Potter series, called Grawp- a giant who is an outcast in his own community and outside- and how he was trained to live a ‘civilized’ life by his half-brother, Hagrid. If we go by Gould’s article, then the necessary nurture and care that was wanting in Frankenstein’s treatment of his creature was given to a large extent to Grawp, thus taming him and bringing his better qualities forth. However, the purpose of my paper is not to draw a parallel between Grawp and Frankenstein’s unnamed creature (let us just call him Creature for the length of this paper, shall we?), but to highlight how, in the working out of some basic themes, the two cases are diametrically opposite to each other, and the possible reasons behind this difference. In doing so, Stephen Gould’s essay will be my focal point, around which most of my arguments will hinge.

The most obvious difference between Grawp and Creature remains the basic fact of their existence: Grawp is most certainly an outsider, an Other in the mainstream human society that Hagrid inhabits alongside Harry and the other main characters, but he is nonetheless part of a larger community of a certain kind of species known to the humans- the giants- from whose society Hagrid rescues him and brings him to the human world. Creature, in contrast, is unique in the way Frankenstein creates him from dead bodies through scientific experiments, as a result of which he is one of a kind, one who belongs nowhere, especially in the world he has gained consciousness in. Frankenstein is thus a creator and ‘parent’ figure, while Hagrid is merely a guardian figure and a rescuer. (Ironically, ‘rescue’ is what Creature really needed from the ruthless world he was exposed to, but instead of educating people into accepting him, Frankenstein chooses to abandon him, thus dooming him to his inevitable destruction; whereas Hagrid rescues Grawp and forcibly drags him away from the other giants to secure a better future for him, in spite of very strong physical resistance from Grawp himself).

To go a bit into the background of Hagrid and Grawp, Hagrid is a half-giant and Grawp, his half-brother, is a giant in the Harry Potter series. In the magical world, giants are treated like racial Others by the humans: their massive size and ‘inherent’ ferocity being the reason why they are feared and shunned by humans in general; Dark forces like Voldemort and his Death Eaters harness their bestial nature as tools to facilitate them in their mission to spread anarchy and destruction in the magical world. The stereotypes and generalizations done by Rowling in the treatment of giants is problematic- this debate can well fill another paper- but right now let us ignore some of these issues and dismiss them as permissible  in the name of myth and fantasy, and concentrate on some of the more pertinent issues. Grawp, even though a giant, is not ‘normal’ by their standards: he’s 16 feet tall, compared to their 20-24 feet tall heights, so he is in effect a deformed giant, a dwarf, a shame and a liability to them. As the language given to the giants is a permutation and combination of grunts (reinforcing their depiction as primeval savages), their ostracism of Grawp is manifested in purely brutal and physical violence. They would be more than glad to kill and eat Grawp, but Hagrid, his half-brother, accidentally comes across him and rescues him from the giants.

Hagrid is an interesting character in terms of how his social position is negotiated and accepted in the magical world, too. Being a half-giant whose genetic composition is not known to everybody, he is accepted and loved as an oversize human, mainly because he was reared by his human father and has acceptably human features, but also because Dumbledore, the most influential wizard in the text, treats him with the dignity and respect one would accord a fellow human being. In fact, there is a lot said in the text about how Dumbledore shows faith in Hagrid, an inherently harmless creature, turning a blind eye to his parentage and a few mildly vicious instincts, and secures his future for him in a way that makes everyone else accept him too. Please note how often and conclusively I use the word ‘inherent’ here. This is because Rowling implies, at a superficial level, how people consider biological determinism as the key to understanding a character: so, if and when Hagrid is his usual naive, affectionate self, he is grudgingly dismissed as an exception, but whenever he chances to make a mistake, the whole community practically pounces on him and shreds him to pieces. (It is interesting how Hagrid’s human genes and rearing is never considered in his defence when he falls in trouble, except with people who have known him personally, who are all non-conformists or outsiders in their own way). In that sense, Hagrid exists in the margins of society, who could very well do with all the acceptance he could get...then why does he risk it all and sneak in a vicious giant and attempt to tame him? The answer, as Hagrid puts it, is blood. But there is more to that. He is willing to risk all he has so that he can bring close to himself the one person he can relate to, not just because they are bound by blood but also because they are both subalterns in both the worlds they know- they are both outsiders together.

Hagrid’s adoption of Grawp is not an isolated incident, either. All his life he has shown a propensity to look at the milder side of dangerous beasts, protect and care for the misunderstood and abandoned creatures and even nurture a baby dragon. One can see very clearly his tendency to understand and care for the suppressed voices, looking for a sense of belonging and kinship with these creatures. This culminates in his taking on the role of a responsible parent figure for Grawp, taking upon himself the formidable task of educating him and everyone else in tolerance and mutual acceptance, done for the only family he has left, found after years of leading a lonely life clueless about the existence of a half-brother.

On the other hand, Victor Frankenstein comes from an idyllic family with very strong roots in their social and cultural environment. They are influential and well respected within their community. When Frankenstein goes to Ingolstadt, his physical distance from his family manifests itself in his emotional distancing from them as well. A lot has been said by critics about the absence of the familial and feminine influence on his work, which thus does not help him remain grounded and is the reason his experiment spirals out of his control. That is a different debate altogether, but my point here is the fact that in the frenzy of working on his project, the absence of the familial anchor effectively makes Frankenstein neglect to consider ethical questions like what might be the consequences of his experiments and who will take responsibility, in every sense of the term, for his actions, whether it succeeds or not.

When his experiment finally succeeds, he rushes out of the attic as a result of his completely instinctive and visceral repulsion to Creature’s appearance, after which he returns to his hometown Geneva, only to find Creature has killed his brother William and framed Justine for the murder. Mary Shelley devotes a lot of time to his inner conflict on whether or not he should confess about the part he has played in the entire episode, but finally refrains from doing so on the lame excuse that nobody would believe him and believe that he had lost his mind. The real reason that Shelley does not spell out is his reluctance and, indeed refusal, to move out of his comfort zone, and own up to his actions, which would amount to Frankenstein relinquishing the respect and esteem he and his family command in the city, and open himself up for public ridicule, critique, and maybe even disgust and repulsion. His cowardice is the result of his reluctance to take on the Herculean task of educating Creature and also other people in learning to accept him: indeed, he does not even consider such an option. There is absolutely no reason why Frankenstein would want to own up for a past ‘mistake’: it would not give him anything he wanted; rather it was harming his present and was a threat to his comfortable and secure position in society.

Frankenstein’s experiment did not result in the invention of any mere material object or the discovery of a new kind of species of plants or animals that he would like to be acknowledged and given credit for on a public forum. He literally gave birth to a creature (from the body parts of dead people), defying the very basic laws of biological reproduction. This ‘unnatural’ birth is not something he is prepared to come to terms with when he returns to society because of the aforementioned reasons, and also becomes a vital reason behind his inability to conceive of and carry out his role of a parent to Creature in the ‘natural’ order of things. One wonders whether Frankenstein’s lack of a biological connection with Creature- the absence of the bond of blood- also might have contributed to Frankenstein’s lack of empathy and sense of solidarity for his creation, as opposed to Hagrid’s impulsive instinct and desire to protect his half-brother. How important a role does blood or social acceptance and recognition have to play in fulfilling the role of a parent?

While Frankenstein does not dare face the society or even confide in his family about Creature, Hagrid also hides Grawp from everybody, in a forest, initially (which shows some of his reservations about the acceptability of his enterprise). However, he shows grit in his conviction that what he is doing is not wrong by humane standards, and applies himself with single minded dedication to educating Grawp and securing his future, just in case he is captured some day by the Dark forces (Voldemort’s supporters with whom the rest of the magical world was currently at war), fiercely contending with every other minor and major obstacle that he is faced with in the meantime.

As individual characters, the way Grawp is treated is diametrically opposite to how Creature has been developed. Creature is a completely isolated and singular being, his mind a Tabula Rasa that picks up impulses from his surroundings and intelligently uses them to gather knowledge about the world he has been brought into. He is self-educated; he picks up French very quickly and trains himself to read heavy literary works just by eavesdropping on Felix teaching Safie in the hovel above his haunt. He is given substantial space in the novel to articulate his thoughts and feelings and present his side of the story... his is one of the most important voices in the text. His predisposition to love, helpfulness and gratitude is reciprocated by everyone in disgust and strong revulsion, which finally turns him into a cold-blooded murderer (though an extremely focused one: he never killed anyone if it did not serve his sole purpose of hurting the man who had abandoned him after creating him). He is an extremely evolved being in the way he tries to logically reason with Frankenstein and reach a compromise by having him create a sexual partner for him; Frankenstein’s refusal to do so divests him of the final shred of hope for love that he could cling onto, and finally turns him into a ruthless, destructive force.

In stark contrast to Creature is Grawp, who is treated like a demented child who needs to be taught how to talk, behave and so on. He is not even given a voice in the text; his speech consists of a few grunts that are supposed to constitute the language of the giants. Grawp is socialized in the ways of giants, and Hagrid’s attempts to civilize him into the ways of humans (that he himself has been socialized into) draw clear parallels to the imperial tendencies of colonizing the mind and culture of the natives through language. Grawp’s episode is not about the triumph of nurture over nature, but about how one kind of (sophisticated) acculturation manages to negate the other (more visceral) one. Rowling also thus subverts the idea of basic and unchangeable traits and, like Shelley, talks about love, respect and acceptance- and not greed and bribery (the tools used by the Dark forces to win the support of the giants) - as the tools needed to draw subalterns into our fold.

The kind of reaction each Grawp and Creature invites from the other characters, however, is more or less similar. Their hideous appearances, unnatural skin colour and towering sizes are most intimidating to anyone who beholds them; these people do not waste time in associating their physical exterior with a cruel and vicious nature underneath. However, since Grawp comes from a community known to the wizarding community for a history of extreme violence and brutality, it comes as little surprise that Grawp is regarded with prejudice and wariness. Thus, in comparison, while Creature’s creation would be considered more blasphemous and scandalous to Grawp’s existence, his rejection by the society is hence just as tragic: there is no just basis for their shunning of him and he is given no fair chance to prove his worth to these people. In the Harry Potter books, various humans and other creatures try, at various points, to dissuade Hagrid from his mission to civilize the giant, saying his attempts will not work, but he disregards them and doggedly carries on with his efforts. As a result, when Grawp has been tamed enough and is actually an asset to Harry and his supporters in the war against the Dark forces (due to his sheer strength and size that had repulsed the humans earlier), people begin to accept him with an open mind.

The resolution of these two narratives is extremely significant in their polarity. While Grawp is successfully civilized and assimilated into the mainstream, and is seen in a funeral with his ‘head bowed low’ in respect, appearing ‘almost human’, Creature leads Frankenstein into a chase right into the uncharted North Pole, where both die extremely lonely and miserable deaths. In relation to this it is important to note the trope of the subaltern needing a sexual and social companion, which has been used in intriguingly different ways in the two narratives. While Frankenstein’s refusal to get a sexual and social companion for Creature finally drives him over the edge, culminating in his final murder of Frankenstein’s own bride (a revenge for being deprived of his own bride: Tropp), Hagrid considers getting a ‘lady friend’ for Grawp towards the end of the series as a reward for having been able to get ‘civilized’ successfully, when he is no longer a threat to the human society. (It may be recalled that Frankenstein’s refusal to make a female partner for Creature lay in his fear that they would procreate and increasingly become more and more of a threat to society.) It seems that while a partner of his kind is a crucial requirement for Creature, without which he is thrust into a sea of despair and hopelessness, Grawp does not seem to want the company of a female counterpart, possibly because of the increasing love, friendliness and acceptance he gets from the people, which he gradually learns to recognize and value. Of course, the lack of a coherent voice given to Grawp leaves this analysis hollow, as we have no idea what Grawp really felt, thought and wanted.

Thus we see how Grawp’s growth can be mapped as an equal and opposite trajectory to Creature’s decline. Both the narratives deal with a similar theme, but are treated in very different ways. Shelley and Rowling are both married British women whose writings are almost two centuries apart from each other. Having lived in completely different socio-political, historical and economic environments, their texts have invariably been coloured by the impulses prevalent in the times in which they lived. Stephen  Gould’s essay was published in 1996; the Harry Potter series was conceived in 1990 and the book in which Grawp first makes his appearance- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix- was published in 2004. Since Gould and Rowling both are living in a post colonial, post modern world where psychoanalytical studies are held in high esteem, it is not surprising to find them both articulating similar ideas about parenting and social responsibility. We also find Rowling- a White woman- unconsciously giving expression to a lot of her colonial impulses in her treatment of the Grawp episode. While she makes a radical point about the need to look beyond one’s genetic composition before judging about their character, her resolution of the incident is problematic in that the subaltern is ultimately converted and assimilated in the fold of the British, human (or alternately, the colonizing) community. Nevertheless, her political stance has been expressed quite clearly, despite a few such ideological paradoxes that she needs to work out.

The most fascinating and intriguing aspect of Shelley’s Frankenstein is its multiple narrative voices and their Chinese-box style arrangement, which makes it virtually impossible to identify Shelley’s actual voice, opinion or politics in the text. This skilful narrative technique serves as the perfect way to voice her (perhaps) subversive and radical ideas, and yet not ruffle conservative feathers by positing it as just another character’s version of events. The novel throws up some uncomfortable questions about how she looks at issues of parental care and responsibility, or the lack of it, that she might not have wanted to be brought to the attention of her family. In spite of being Mary Wollstonecraft’s daughter, Shelley chose not to be too vocal about her opinions, instead showing her primary interest to lie in getting her novel published. This is further reinforced in how Percy Shelley, in the preface to the novel, tries to lower the tone of the novel to a more conventional mode, and refrains from mentioning that the author is female, in an attempt to make the novel more acceptable to its potential readers.

Shelley’s novel is a response to the prevalent Enlightenment idea of human potential which, aided by the development of science, can lead to great achievements, but without rational consideration for what one’s actions might entail or lack of moral responsibility for one’s actions can lead to disaster. Creature, too, has been modelled on the idea of the Noble Savage, but with many variations and departures from the same. Shelley too essentially evokes the same idea that Gould and Rowling advocate a couple of centuries later, but her treatment of Creature shows the pessimism of her Age about the ineffectuality of the Enlightenment and Romantic ideals; in as much we find Shelley to be ideologically conservative, maybe in reaction to her radical parents’ politics.

 On the other hand, in Rowling’s treatment of Grawp we find optimism about racial and cultural interaction and a strong, postmodern conviction in the values of love and family that can overcome any barrier of language, race, culture etc and its power to unite all peoples to fight for a worthy cause. Rowling writes at the turn of the millennium but draws heavily from the classics, right from the plot structure, allusions, characterisation etc. Her inclusion of Grawp in the series, among other things, also serves to etch out the trope of the marginalised voices contributing in the struggle of the dominant community, regardless of the injustice done by them to his own community in the past and present. Significantly, she does not give Grawp a voice; in these respects Rowling is extremely colonial in her politics, in spite of the cosmopolitan and modern tone she seeks to give the series.

One must also note that Mary Shelley experiences a lot of deaths and births of her own children and others around her around the time she began to write the novel. Rowling, in comparison, has had healthy children; despite being divorced and then remarrying, she has managed to keep her family together and happily so. Mary was living in with Shelley for a long time and had to leave her country when he was exiled, besides having to deal with the various other controversies surrounding him. The concept of a happy, integrated family is something she is alienated from from her childhood. This contrast in their personal lives plays a vital role in the way these two women choose to conclude/resolve their respective stories: Grawp finds family and acceptance (albeit having its own problematic, which Rowling chooses to overlook), while Creature dies a bitter, vengeful person, alone and unloved in the icy Arctic region.

Finally, I would like to conclude by going back to the title of this paper and re-examining it: Hagrid is seen to be shouldering all the responsibilities that one would ideally have expected and wanted Frankenstein to follow, but that does not qualify him to be labelled ‘the responsible Frankenstein’. We have seen above how these two ostensibly similar plots have been treated so radically differently and why, which is why I accept my title as misleading, but justify it by pointing out the question mark beside it. I hope my paper has been successful in its aim to explore the two cases closely and establish the inherent problems in categorizing Hagrid as a responsible, modern avatar of Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein.

~ Enakshi Nandi