How monsters are made: ‘No remorse, no pity’ in Shelley, Dickens and Priestley’s Mister Creecher Chloe Alexandra Germaine Buckley, Lancaster University Abstract Chris Priestley’s 2011 novel, Mister Creecher, promises to show ‘the making of a monster…’ Set in 1818, the novel is a metafictional rewriting of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818), imagining the monster’s journey as he tracks his creator to Scotland. In this version, the monster is aided by London pickpocket, Billy, whose provenance, the early novels of Charles Dickens, suggests further intertexts for this contemporary novel. It is Billy, rather than the eponymous ‘Creecher’, who is the novel’s protagonist: a sentimentalized, suffering Dickensian child, whose narrative is reconfigured through encounters with Shelley’s gothic novel and a range of other intertexts. Through Billy, Mister Creecher (2011) re-imagines Dickens’ children and the Dickensian bildungsroman, reconfiguring the positions of villain and innocent. Neo-Victorian texts have been characterized by a doubled relationship to their intertexts, a relationship that is parasitic on the one hand, revisiting the traumas of a past reconstructed as barbaric, and redemptive on the other hand, since these reconstructions are usually aimed at a revisionist critique. In the case of Mister Creecher (2011) the parasitic relationship of contemporary metafiction to past gothic and Victorian works is a part of the novel’s active intertextual fabric. This is a novel that explores how intertextuality itself functions as a corrupting parasite, problematizing and infecting any future encounter with back-grounded works. The introduction of Shelley’s creation into Dickens’ landscape is a wilfully contradictory gesture. On one hand, the doubling of Billy with Shelley’s 1 monster provides a reverse bildungsroman, an account of villainy as social rather than simply essential or sensational, with reference to notions of family and childhood relevant in the contemporary moment. On the other hand, the monster’s invasion of Dickensian London is an aggressive act of gothic contagion or colonization, one akin to that imagined by Frankenstein himself in his fear that he has loosed ‘a race of devils… upon the earth, who might make the very existence of the species of man a condition precarious and full of terror’. Keywords child intertextuality Charles Dickens Gothic metafiction monstrosity Mary Shelley This article identifies Chris Priestley’s work as significant in the field of post-millennial gothic fiction for the way in which it foregrounds intertextuality as key to understanding gothic’s literary past and imagining its future. Priestley’s work has recently been included in the British Library exhibition, ‘Terror and Wonder: The Gothic Imagination’ (2014), curated by Dale Townshend, displayed alongside examples of ‘classic’ and canonical gothic fiction, as well amongst critically celebrated examples of contemporary gothic fiction. 2 Positioned at the intersection of postmodern metafiction, gothic fiction and children’s literature, Priestley’s novels recontextualize classic gothic texts and highlight newly relevant points of contact between the past and the present. I identify Mister Creecher (2011) as a key text in this developing body of work, since it is the first in a series of overt ‘rewritings’ of classic gothic texts that now includes The Dead Men Stood Together (2013), which adapts Coleridge’s ‘The Rime of the Ancient Mariner’ (1798), and The Last of the Spirits (2014), which adapts Charles Dickens’s ‘A Christmas Carol’ (1843). Two distinct periods of gothic fiction emerge in Priestley’s rewritings: Gothic Romanticism and the incipient Victorian novel. Through Priestley’s fiction, these two literary periods are posited as contemporary gothic’s point of origin, a point in time to which the contemporary writer is inexorably drawn. From the post-millennial vantage point, the period between 1790 and 1900 furnished some of the founding texts of the ‘gothic imagination’. This vantage point, however, often tends to ignore notions of literary ‘periods’ argued for by various critics of gothic fiction. Mister Creecher (2011), in particular, continues a trend evident in post-millennial children’s gothic to flatten the long nineteenth century as a point of gothic origin, creating a kind of ‘quasi-past, a nebulous Victorian/Edwardian/eighteenth- century/Gothic age’ (Buckley 2013: 260). This article also identifies Priestley’s work as engaging in Neo-Victorian appropriation. Neo-Victorian fiction is, of course, related to contemporary gothic, but also distinct in some important ways. The flattening and mingling of literary ‘periods’ in these works is not read as naïve ‘pastiche’, or as the result of a failure to differentiate between delineated historical moments, but as a deliberate choice that opens up a dialogue between different kinds of gothic fiction. Romanticism, for example, is 3 not simply subsumed into a Neo-Victorian setting. Instead, it remains distinct in Priestley’s novels, its narratives brought out in direct contrast to others jostling for interpretive attention. Jay Clayton has argued that Romanticism remains an important reference point for postmodern writers, though this connection is usually often erased: ‘Romanticism looms as a dark presence within postmodernism, something like its cultural unconscious’ (2003: 8). This connection resurfaces visibly in Priestley’s Mister Creecher (2011) and in The Dead Men Stood Together (2013) particularly. In the case of the former novel, Romanticism’s narratives of anti-reason and anti-universalism are pitted against a Victorian realist impulse to essentialize and categorize. Of course, gothic has always cannibalized itself, feeding on remnants of its own tradition to create new texts (Spooner 2006: 10). Priestley’s brand of gothic metafiction foregrounds this process and, in so doing, illuminates the contradictory relationship gothic has with its founding texts. I identify this contradiction as emerging from the fact that rewriting constitutes an ‘exorbitant’ activity, both confirming and simultaneously writing over past works (Derrida 1976: 157). In addition, I follow Widdowson, and designate Priestley’s work as ‘active intertextuality’, which recasts the ‘pretext as itself a “new” text to be read newly’ (2006: 506). However, I also read this form of ‘active intertextuality’ as paradoxically parasitic, appropriating material aggressively for its own purposes, whilst at the same further canonizing the existent narrative. In the case of Mister Creecher (2011), which rewrites two ‘pretexts’, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) and Charles Dickens’s Oliver Twist (1838), the contradiction inherent in the act of rewriting is further complicated by the way two pretexts are played off against one another as fundamentally incompatible 4 yet inexorably connected. In Mister Creecher (2011), Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) is recast as narrative of moral degeneration caused by the irrevocable breakdown of the family, whilst Oliver Twist (1838) is positioned as its opposite, a novel that opens with social breakdown, but that ultimately provides the solace of redemption through the restoration of the family. As I will demonstrate, Mister Creecher (2011) brings Oliver Twist’s Bill Sikes into the same textual space as Shelley’s monster, forging a link between the texts that cannot be unmade. Thus, two narratives seemingly at odds with one another are inescapably entwined. This article also links the contradictory and parasitic nature of active intertextuality to gothic contagion, arguing that Priestley’s gothic metafiction coalesces these various textual impulses and produces a gothic contagion transmitted through the intertextual links opened within the novel. In this analysis I conceive of contagion as a part of a specifically gothic pathology, following Sedgwick’s analysis of gothic surfaces in ‘The character in the veil’ (1981). Gothic surfaces are described by Sedgwick as contagious, spreading their characteristics to other surfaces and characters within the text (1981: 258). Crucially, gothic surfaces are ‘contagious metonymically, by touch’ (Sedgwick 1981: 256), a pathology that can be seen working in Mister Creecher (2011) between its pretexts, as well as within them. The active intertextuality of Mister Creecher (2011) opens up channels along which the contagion can travel, so that gothic disintegration passes from one text to the other, specifically moving from Shelley’s novel into Dickens’s. Gothic contagion passes from surface to surface, infecting texts retroactively so as to corrupt any subsequent reading of Dickens’s novel, in particular. Thus, even as the act of rewriting appropriates and canonizes 5 Oliver Twist, recasting it as one of contemporary gothic’s foundational texts, it corrupts any future reading by challenging its status as a ‘monumental’ text. That is, through active intertextuality and gothic contagion, the reified status of past novels, as discrete, self- enclosed and closed entities, is challenged. The character of Bill Sikes provides the main the point of contact between Dickens’s early novel and Shelley’s gothic tale. For Charles Dickens, Bill Sikes is one of those ‘insensible and callous natures… utterly and incurably bad’ (2013: 700). Indeed, from his first appearance in Oliver Twist, Sikes exhibits no redeeming features: a ‘stoutly built fellow’ with ‘large swelling calves’, in ‘soiled’ breeches and a ‘dirty’ ‘frayed’ handkerchief, beer smeared across his beard, Sikes growls insults at Fagin and kicks his own dog across the room (Dickens 2000: 78). Sikes is a villain of the pre-realist mould, a figure who harks back to an allegorical tradition before the advent of Romanticism and the rise of psychology. Sikes is simply bad and, for Angus Wilson, representative of Dickens’s conservative attitude towards criminals: Sikes and the gang ‘are brought sternly and horribly to justice’ (1966: 7). Nonetheless, Bill Sikes is still an ‘engaging ruffian’ and holds for Dickens an undeniable attraction (2000: 78). Dickens clearly relished inhabiting the role of Sikes during his last reading tours, in which the murder of Nancy was a regular feature. He is said to have declared, as he took to the stage, ‘I shall tear myself to pieces’, and afterwards described with some enjoyment the sensation of walking the streets as though he himself were a wanted man (Collins 1994: 267, 270–71). Even for Dickens, whose attitude towards the criminal was conservative, Bill Sikes could be reviled and relished in equal measure. 6 Sikes has continued to elicit both delight and disgust, even in contemporary adaptations of Dickens’s work. Recent interpretations and adaptations of Oliver Twist continue to present Sikes as one of the novel’s most horribly compelling characters. As Arthur Collins argues, whilst characters like Nancy and Oliver have been dismissed by critics as unrealistic or insipid, Sikes ‘still excites our interest, and raises critical and moral problems’ (1994: 261). A recent BBC adaptation of the novel (Oliver Twist [2007]) is a good example of this continued fascination with Sikes. In this adaptation Sikes is given little in the way of psychology and is portrayed by actor Tom Hardy as a man barely containing his inner chaotic animal violence. The performance recalls both the irredeemable evil villain of nineteenth-century melodrama and the empty-eyed psychopath of twentieth-century gangster films. Fagin simpers, cowering and fading into the background whenever Sikes is on-screen. Popular culture, then, has not sought to recuperate Sikes in the same way as it has its Gothic villains, notably the vampire. Sikes is not an anti-hero, representative of the darker side of ourselves. Nor is he the image of secret excess, hidden desire, or of pleasurable transgression. Sikes remains implacably other. Yet, Oliver Twist is a wish-fulfilment novel; its narrative outcome is, like many of Dickens’s novels, consolatory (Newsom 2001: 94). According to one critic, Oliver Twist offers ‘a humanist vision of what society might be, if we could only see what it really is… a moral metaphor celebrating “strong affection and humanity of heart”’(Gold 1972: 30, 60). The innocent Oliver remains uncorrupted; the wicked, Fagin and Sikes, are punished with death; wrongs are righted; and the idealized bourgeois family is ultimately restored. Dickens’s 1841 preface seeks to distance the novel from the so-called ‘Newgate novels’ of 7 the time, claiming that his work is not a sensationalized celebration of villainy. Add to this the brutal punishment he metes out to his villains, and it is clear that Dickens works hard to contain the excess, violence and corruption that lie at the heart of Oliver Twist. This is a novel deeply at odds with itself, ambivalent about the moral resolution it offers (Grossman 1996: 44–45). Indeed, for all Dickens’s attempts to extricate himself from the ‘Newgate novel’ controversy, it is the novels’ villains and their violent acts that have continued to fascinate readers beyond the neat resolution of the plot. The paradoxes of Oliver Twist are what concern Mister Creecher (2011), which acts as an interlude for Frankenstein and a prologue to Oliver Twist. Set in 1818, Priestley’s novel fills the gap in Shelley’s novel that occurs between Frankenstein leaving for Europe and his confrontation with the monster on the remote Scottish island towards the novel’s close. Priestley’s narrative tracks the journey the monster makes as he follows his creator across England, checking on the progress of the production of his female companion. However, whilst Mister Creecher (2011) is concerned with the protagonist/antagonist relationship central to Shelley’s novel, and with the world of that novel, the action of the novel unfolds in a different literary world altogether. Despite the 1818 setting, and references to the figures of late Romanticism, the opening of the novel establishes that we are in a Dickensian London through its introduction of a gang of pickpockets, and the orphan Billy. Ostensibly, then, Mister Creecher (2011) is a prologue to Oliver Twist, but a prologue that enters into conflict with its original, undermining its containment of villainy and violence. The pairing of Oliver Twist with Shelley’s Frankenstein draws disturbing parallels between 8 the two narratives and Mister Creecher (2011) makes use of gothic tropes to corrupt and unravel the fabric of the realist novel. It is important to note here that Mister Creecher (2011) in no way signals itself as a rewriting or adaptation of Dickens, either in its title, in its visual presentation and marketing, or for most of its narrative. The novel instead advertises itself as a metafictional reworking of Frankenstein alone. There is, then, something deliberately underhand in the novel’s treatment of Dickens, a tactic that partly exploits the device of a plot ‘twist’, revealing at the close that the main character, ‘Billy’, was in fact Bill Sikes all along. However, this underhand method of rewriting also reveals the parasitic and contagious pathology of gothic intertextuality, passing the contagion through into Dickens’s novel as though by the means of a silent infection, giving the host text little chance to mount a defence. Despite the overt references to Shelley’s novel, it is Billy, rather than the eponymous ‘Creecher’, who is the main protagonist. Billy, an orphan turned pickpocket, is reminiscent of a number of exploited and abused children depicted throughout Dickens’s oeuvre, though Billy’s early life is clearly written to echo Oliver’s. Like Oliver, Billy is a pickpocket, brutalized by the poor laws and an inhuman system of workhouses and orphanages, left finally to the mercies of a criminal underworld which exploits the weak and threatens to rob them of their humanity and innocence. Similarities between Billy and Oliver are emphasized throughout: both are born in the workhouse, losing their mother in infancy; both are passed into the hands of abusive and exploitative guardians; Oliver narrowly escapes being apprenticed to a sweep and Billy runs away from his sweep; both end up in 9 the criminal underworld and are enticed into criminal acts by the promise of food and shelter and neither know they have fallen in with pickpockets until it is too late. Oliver risks starvation on the streets of London when he is picked up by Dodger and Jack and brought to Fagin, ‘their unexpected offer of shelter […] too tempting to be resisted’ (Dickens 2000: 51). Billy has already embraced life in the pickpocket gang when he meets Creecher in the opening pages of Priestley’s novel, but he too is tempted into further acts of villainy at the moment when he is weakest. Billy lies unconscious in the gutter, near death, when Creecher intervenes and removes him to the safety and warmth of a baker’s attic. In each case, the moment of salvation for the boy signals his entry into deeper levels of violence and corruption, into a world that threatens to destroy him completely. Mister Creecher (2011) is a patchwork creation, incorporating references to a number of texts from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, producing a dialogue between contemporary gothic and its multi-layered literary and popular past. This pairing of Billy and Creecher, who agree to travel together to mutual benefit, begins as a ‘buddy’ story. The novel also incorporates the bildungsroman, and echoes of Magwitch and Pip from Charles Dickens’s Great Expectations (1860) can also be seen in the relationship between Billy and Creecher. Billy and Creecher’s journey takes them from the grimy streets of Dickens’s London to the outskirts of Elizabeth Gaskell’s Manchester and, finally, to the fells of William Wordsworth’s Lake District. Along the way abound references to an array of literary and popular fictions: Huckleberry Finn, Great Expectations, Terminator 2, the Hollywood monster movies of the 1930s, as well as other ‘Newgate novels’, notably William Harrison Ainsworth’s Jack Sheppard (1839–1840). Sprinkled atop all of this are lines from the 10