The representation of the monstrous as an expression of the human condition in Frankenstein, Carmilla, The Picture of Dorian Gray, and The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

Authors

  • Arturo Joel Padilla Córdova UNAM

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59057/iberoleon.20075316.202642833

Keywords:

subjectivity, horror, modernity, beauty, perversity, morality

Abstract

The monster, as a literary figure, acquired a central place in 19th-century narrative, becoming a critical tool for questioning unbridled progress, devoid of ethical foundations and characterized by the repression of desire, double standards, and the superficiality of human relationships. This article comparatively analyzes four emblematic novels—Frankenstein, Carmilla, The Picture of Dorian Gray, and The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde—with the aim of identifying the different configurations of monstrosity as a resource for expressing the social and cultural tensions of the era. Through a qualitative approach based on textual analysis of the works and a review of specialized literature, the article examines the relationship between the representation of the monster and various aesthetic, ethical, and symbolic categories. Does monstrosity correspond to an autonomous entity, or is it the symptomatic reflection of a society in conflict? The results show that monstrosity transcends physical deformity to become a metaphor for exclusion, the fragmentation of the subject, moral repression, and the contradictions of the modern project. Consequently, the literary monster is configured as a critical device that highlights the fractures of nineteenth-century society, anticipating new forms of representing the human condition developed in subsequent years.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aznar Almazán, A. (1989, enero). El retrato de Dorian Gray: La teoría de un esteta. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Serie VII. Historia del Arte, 2, 433-440. https://doi.org/10.5944/etfvii.2.1989.2149.

Bermúdez Torres, V. (2025). Lo monstruoso: Su categorización y su función en la dramaturgia política. Alfa: Revista de la Asociación Andaluza de Filosofía, 40, 241-260.

Codesido-Linares, V. (2024). La evolución de un mito en las adaptaciones de Carmilla, escrita por Sheridan Le Fanu (1872): La novia ensangrentada (Vicente Aranda, 1972) y The Carmilla Movie (Spencer Maybee, 2017). Trasvases entre la Literatura y el Cine, 6, 203-222. https://doi.org/10.24310/tlc.6.2024.18228.

Enríquez, E. (2010). Las supersticiones como modelo para entender el poder de la ficción. Cuadernos Unimetanos, 23, 19-22.

Farga, M. (2011). Monstruos y prodigios: El universo simbólico desde el Medievo a la Edad Moderna. Universidad Iberoamericana Puebla.

Gómez Moreno, M. y Hewitt Hughes, C. (2016). Estudio de la obra de Stevenson sobre la base de la teoría de Jung del arquetipo de la sombra en El extraño caso del Dr. Jekyll y Mr. Hyde. Alpha, 42, 51-76.

Le Fanu, J. S. (2014 [1872]). Carmilla. Instituto Distrital de las Artes.

Liessmann, K. P. (2006). Filosofía del arte moderno. Herder.

Mayorga Madrigal, A. (2021). Vínculos entre el arte y el acto moral: Una revisión de las nociones de lo bueno y lo bello en Kant. Sincronía, 79, 123-130. https://doi.org/10.32870/sincronia.axxv.n79.6a21.

Ruiz-Castell, P. (2021). Diálogos entre ciencia y literatura: Notas sobre Frankenstein o el moderno Prometeo, de Mary W. Shelley. Acta Scientiarum. Language and Culture, 43(1), e55061. https://doi.org/10.4025/actascilangcult.v43i1.55061.

Shelley, M. (2020 [1818]). Obra selecta: Frankenstein y El último hombre. Editores Mexicanos Unidos.

Sichère, B. (2008). Historias del mal. Gedisa.

Stevenson, R. L. (2020 [1886]). El extraño caso del Dr. Jekyll y Mr. Hyde. Editores Mexicanos Unidos.

Wilde, O. (2010 [1890]). El retrato de Dorian Gray. Plutón Ediciones.

Published

2026-11-12

How to Cite

Padilla Córdova, A. J. (2026). The representation of the monstrous as an expression of the human condition in Frankenstein, Carmilla, The Picture of Dorian Gray, and The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Entretextos, 18(42), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.59057/iberoleon.20075316.202642833