I’ve just finished Chris Priestley’s latest book, Mister Creecher
amidst the surfeit of fine reading on my shelves. I picked up his for Tales of Terror book as a curiosity and duly fell in love with his take on darker side of the fantastic and his apparent love of the Gothic in all its styles.
Creecher is Frankenstein’s monster who has come to London and rescuses Billy from being attacked. In his hideousness, something that mercifully the author does not shy away from, the monster embodies the soul of the Enlightenment, as Mary Shelley began to argue in Frankenstein. His act of reading and caring for somebody who is equally seen as an outsider is apparently a hideous act to the capitalist society. Chris Priestley develops Shelley’s depiction of the monster as the most human person in the novel, whereas Victor Frankenstein is the real monster. Yet this act of self-recognition is ignored for the superficial aspects, his looks, which is something that Kenneth Branagh and Robert DeNiro tried to get to in the 1994 depiction.
After following Frankenstein and Clerval to Oxford via Windsor, the creature and Billy join Browning’s Circus of Freaks (including more nods to the fantastic including Bradbury,and Kafka) though Bradbury hints out that Billy is far more a monster than the creature. Following Frankenstein’s footsteps, the pair go to the Lake district where Billy assumes a different identity, trying to remake himself.
Getting to the heart of something that the Romantics certainly did, this taking on of disguises and layering of other people perhaps comes to a head when he claims that lines from Keats’s Endymion are his own but ignores the subtle warning given to him that it cannot last. Perhaps Priestley also gets to heart of assuming change, that is must be something from within rather than just affected. Affectations lead to monstrosities, perhaps like his Uncle Montague and the ghost children. Hounded out of Keswick, he and the Creecher go separate ways with their very own stories (a nicely segued set of stories there as well).
The book is a lovestory to Nineteenth century literature and its decided lack of boundaries of genre or place. The type face, shortness of chapters, separation into books and the embedded poetry are so like Gothic novels that Priestley is obviously familiar with and this book is a call or readers to take on Charles Dickens or Mary Shelley; something that I whole heartedly concur with. Equally it goes against the cult of childhood innocence though, that children can go through horror and remain unaffected. Billy’s life is one that takes on the sheen of being a romantic novel and that it will not affect them; something that the monster gets to in his own way.
In the end, the reader should ask: who is the real monster?