What's In A Name?

I think it's pretty common knowledge at this point that the monster in Frankenstein, and it's many movie adaptations, is not himself called Frankenstein, he is "Frankenstein's Monster (which is, admittedly, quite a mouthful).

Here's my quibble with this: the monster should have a name of his own. This is not just to make it easier to refer to him (although that's really important too), it's because not having a name greatly dehumanizes him as a character. To be constantly referred to as a "monster" or "creature" or "demon" plays into his creator: Victor Frankenstein's prejudices against him. By refusing to name his creation (more accurately, his son) Victor is making a deliberate point to refuse the creature any identity of his own, any social standing as a man. To Victor, his creation is an abomination, something to be swept under the rug, forgotten until he starts killing, and even then refusing to come clean about his personal failings as a father, and frankly, his sheer irresponsibility.

But when we learn about the creature from his own words, we see he is, in fact, a man, albeit one who's 8 feet tall with yellow skin and red eyes. He is not this mindlessly evil creature that doesn't deserve the common decency of a proper name.

So what do we call the creature, then? Well in one scene, the monster seems to name himself, telling Victor "I should have been your Adam" (the creature had just read Paradise Lost). Mary Shelley also called the creature Adam in private company, something that the makers of I, Frankenstein apparently knew about.

Okay so the creature's name is Adam. Is that it? Not quite, for as I said, you can make a very strong argument that the creature is Victor's son, so really, it wouldn't be wrong to call the creature Frankenstein too! The creator is Victor Frankenstein. The creation is Adam Frankenstein. Like father, like son.

There, I hope that clears up matters a bit.