Tag: Vegan

  • “Ruh Roh, Raggy!” Scooby Snacks and the Polarising Effects of Meat-Free Dog Food

    “Ruh Roh, Raggy!” Scooby Snacks and the Polarising Effects of Meat-Free Dog Food

    Thanks to Scooby-Doo, I am greatly looking forward to my current students’ graduations. Although their taught sessions are now behind them, their enthusiasm has led them to carry on with screenings regardless, picking their own films for us to watch together and bicker about afterwards. I have begun to tease them relentlessly for the fact that, of all the features we have watched together, the only productions that have earned their rousing applause have been those in the double-billing of live-action and Golden Raspberry-nominated Scooby-Doo (2002) and Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed (2004). As well as being a textbook example of Gen-Z’s irony-infused love of camp culture, their spirited ovation has given me ample ammunition if, or should I say when, I desire to embarrass them in front of their loved ones at the end of their degree. When they chose Yorgos Lanthimos’ The Lobster (2015) they may have spent a good hour debating its conclusion, but little has rivalled the sight of Rowan Atkinson being revealed to be a robot piloted by a Great Dane pup.

    The amount of content in the Scooby-Doo empire is frankly bewildering. There have been, to date, fourteen animated TV series and forty-four films. For my students, the live-action films were monuments to the baffling wave of hyper-stylized cartoon adaptations that preceded their births. As a millennial, mine was a generation raised on a continual stream of Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! (1969-1970) re-runs and the cavalcade of Scrappy-Doo-focused series that followed in the 80s. Those before me, Gen X, were the first kids for whom the Hanna-Barbera franchise was seared into their cultural wallpaper. Is it possible, I wonder, to track the changing attitudes of generations through the antics of a scat-singing mystery-solving dog?

    Image: Scooby-Doo, Warner Bros. Pictures, 2002.

    I say this only half-jokingly. Folklorist Mark Norman has recently published an excellent book, Zoinks! The Spooky Folklore Behind Scooby Doo (2024), that explores how the series’ family-friendly approach to its frightful escapades can be traced through changing representations of teenage identity and monstrosity.  “There can be no doubt that, from its very first episode,” Norman writes, “Scooby-Doo has placed at least one paw very firmly into the Gothic camp” (2024: 20). First developed as a direct response to the organisation Action for Children’s Television’s (ACT) complaints that Saturday-morning cartoons had seemingly become too violent, Scooby-Doo exists at a fascinating intersection between horror tropes and children’s parable (Trammell, 2019). The gang of Mystery Inc. serve to rationalise the frightening world of the occult and unknown into reassuring explanations. Just as in the real world, peep beneath the masks of its ghouls and ghosts, and you will most frequently find the exploitative skullduggery of elderly businessmen and landowners. It is usually, after all, “Old Man Jenkins all along.”

    Watching the live-action adaptation with my students, possibly to keep my brain cells in some form of motion, I was taken by its depiction of the vast quantities of junk food that Shaggy and Scooby inevitably consume. I was aware that Casey Kasem, Shaggy’s first and decades-long voice actor, was a vocal vegan advocate and prominent supporter of several animal-rights and environmental causes. Kasem was a notable figure in American popular culture, but he would often argue that his campaigning for social issues was of far greater importance than his achievements in the entertainment industry. “The basic thing is to hopefully stop people from killing anything,” he stated, “and to create a non-violent diet for themselves, because a non-violent world has roots in a non-violent diet” (qtd. in Rushe 2014).

    Image: Casey Kasem by Alan Light, Wikimedia Commons, 1989.

    Scooby-Doo’s cast of characters have been used to promote an endless array of products over the decades, but Kasem quit his role when asked to perform as Shaggy in a Burger King commercial in 1995. In 2002, the same year that the live-action film was released, Kasem would return to the role after producers agreed that Shaggy could be represented on-screen as a vegetarian (Corliss 2014). Since then, the hippie gourmand has often been shown to trade in his trademark stack of towering ham sandwiches, enormous pepperoni pizzas, and triple-patty burgers for vegetarian and vegan equivalents. When Matthew Lillard took over the role, he would voice Shaggy commenting on his preference for tofu, and be seen, in-person, happily grilling up eggplant rather than beef for his burgers. Perhaps most prominently, in a Scooby-Doo and Guess Who? (2019-2021) episode featuring Sia, the glutton is shown hanging out with the singer-songwriter as they gorge themselves on vegan subs and dairy-free cotton-candy shakes.

    Following Kasem’s death in 2014, Shaggy has often reverted to his rampant omnivorism, seen rolling sardines in pancakes in Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated (2010-2013) and wolfing down “his body weight” in beef jerky in Be Cool, Scooby-Doo! (2015-2016). If anything, the cartoon character seems to possess a flexitarian diet. However, watching the 2002 film, I couldn’t help noticing that it was not only Shaggy who, for a time, refrained from eating meat, but also the canine Scooby himself. When the pooch’s beloved Scooby Snacks are introduced, we are informed matter-of-factly that they are “100% vegetarian.” As with his human companion, the Great Dane’s diet was shown in the immediate period following Kasem’s intervention as excluding any representation of animal products.

    Image: Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated, Warner Bros. Animation, 2010-2013.

    While Scooby-Doo’s brief dalliance with vegetarianism appears to have been fairly short-lived, it strikes parallels with a number of hotly debated issues that seem to be currently sweeping through our news and social media: namely, the ethics of canine dietary requirements. As Sylvia Albrizi et al. note in their paper, ‘Dogs that Ate Plants’ (2021) this is not a new affair. Humans have been feeding domesticated dogs meals based on foods such as cereals for much of our combined histories (ibid. 75). Meat-free dog foods have been commercially available in the UK since 1980, with the release of ‘Happidog,’ now known as ‘V-dog,’ made primarily from wheat and soya/pea proteins (‘History of Vegan Dog Food,’ 2024).

    However, rather than acting as a marginal fad, plant-based options have become an increasingly dominant presence in the dog food industry. Globally, a report last year estimated the current market size of the sector as being worth a whopping $6.5 billion and growing (Mordor Intelligence 2025). It should go without saying that these rising numbers have proven fairly controversial. Numerous op-eds have opined that such popularity indicates that owners “are losing the plot about what animals actually are” and prioritising their own ethical concerns over their pets’ immediate welfare (Strimpel 2022). “Now even DOGS are being told to go vegan!” exclaimed The Daily Mail when a study announced that plant-based nutrients could provide adequate alternatives to meat-based diets (Leatham 2025). When, earlier this year, naturalist Chris Packham announced that he had begun feeding his poodles, Sid and Nancy, vegan pet food, he was met with a torrent of public admonishment. “That’s very cruel denying them their preferred choice of food,” replied Nigel Owens, noted rugby referee and MBE, “dogs are not vegetarians” (@Nigelrefowens 2026).

    Image: Chris Packham by Garry Knight, 2018.

    The argument that meat-based dog foods are inherently less natural and processed is, in my opinion, fairly misguided. Writing in her exposé of the industry, Zaria Gorvett argued that “Big Pet Food is a multi-billion-dollar industry which invests heavily in research into ‘palatants’ – ingredients that make our pets want to eat their products” (2021). Numerous chemicals and additives such as cadaverine, heptanal, and sodium acid pyrophosphate are frequently used to intensify flavour and stop the foods discolouring. “While in human food, their levels are sometimes closely monitored as a way of ensuring the freshness and safety of meat,” she writes, “they’re often actively added to cat and dog food, either as offal extracts or lab-made additives” (ibid.).

    Like our own culinary histories, the food we have chosen to give our animal companions can be measured by the evolving roles they have played in our lives, as well as our own shifting methods of production and consumption. There are few sectors that prop up lower-welfare livestock farming as self-evidently as that of pet food manufacturing. The rendering industry’s waste-reduction practices are often rolled out as one of the primary justifications for the more egregious conditions associated with mass-scale animal slaughter. Instead of being dumped in landfills or burned, the immense waste can instead be recycled into “meat and bone meal, hydrolyzed feather meal, blood meal, and various types of animal fats and greases” for consumption by pets (Meeker & Meisinger 2015: 835).

    Image: Dog Food by Anne Hornyak, Wikimedia Commons, 2011.

    Beyond the obvious welfare issues regarding the animals slaughtered, the FDA has frequently issued warning letters and recall notices to such plants due to the presence of unsafe chemicals and bacteria in rendered offal. Such cases have included the detection of pentobarbital, a drug used to euthanise animals (Bonnin 2019), and Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza, otherwise known as bird flu (FDA 2025). Salmonella outbreaks, in particular, can frequently be traced back to rendering facilities, triggered by poor preventative measures and negligent sanitation standards (Carney 2024).

    In Food Pets Die For (1997), journalist and animal welfare advocate Ann N. Martin published one of the most notable attempts to address the scandals surrounding the commercial pet food industry. “I quickly learned that this is a multi-billion-dollar industry that operates with virtually no government regulations and in many ways self-regulated,” she would write in an updated edition (2002: viii). While a degree of oversight was introduced following crises such as the BSE outbreak, these issues remain ever-present.  “When you are dealing with a billion-dollar industry that wants to continue in the same mode, using the same dubious ingredients and condoning inhumane research on animals, change will only come in small increments,” she would argue (2002: viii-ix).

    Image: Rendering Plant by Julian E Beckton, Openverse, 2012.

    What about health and nutrition? Was Shaggy negligent in apparently supporting Scooby’s attempt to go meat free? Well, the growing wealth of academic evidence has begun to challenge assumptions about plant-based alternatives often propagated by meat industry representatives. Two years ago, the British Veterinary Association ended its opposition to canine vegan diets. As well as recognising a number of contemporary studies that observed equivalent health standards between dogs that were fed nutritionally-sound vegan diets compared to those who ate meat, they noted several instances where benefits were present, “such as improvements in skin and gastrointestinal conditions” (BVA 2024: 2). Similarly, the American Kennel Club’s advice compares the omnivorous needs of both dogs and humans, noting that both can safely subsist on vegan or vegetarian diets if the proper nutrients are present (AKC Staff 2021).

    Reflecting the very same reasons that so many of our own species abstains from carnivorism, the most overwhelming evidence supporting plant-based dog food is environmental in nature. A study last year suggested that an alarming “25–30% of the environmental impacts of animal production have been attributed to companion animal diets” (Nicholles & Knight 2025). Another suggested that transitioning all pet dogs to vegan diets could “save greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 1.5 times the UK’s annual output, while providing enough food energy to feed 450 million people, equivalent to the EU population” (Sustainable Pet Food Foundation 2025).

    Image: Bulldog by Kabo, Unsplash, 2020.

    The decision to feed dogs a vegan or vegetarian diet is undoubtedly going to remain a contentious one. However, just as we choose to domesticate animals based on our own questionable sense of authority, we also have a responsibility to understand the impact of this choice upon both their well-being, as well as the well-being of our planet. As Jelena Šuran, veterinary scientist and pharmacologist, summarises, “evidence of the benefits of adding plant ingredients to canine diets is increasing as studies become larger and better designed (2024: 52-53).

    Scooby-Doo might not seem a particularly apt vehicle for the exploration of such polarising debates, but, as evidenced by Kasem’s activism, the gang’s more-than half-century of adventures suggests otherwise. From their Annie-award-winning parody of The Blair Witch Project (1999), a mountain of viral creepypastas, and endless online debates regarding their racial and sexual identities, the franchise has, as my students’ enjoyment testified, rooted itself in countless urban legends and subversive folk tales. My brief look at the dietary questions surrounding Scooby Snacks might just as easily have focused upon edibles and drug cultures. As Lillard’s Shaggy says when introducing himself to Mary Jane, a young woman munching on the biscuits, “like, that is my favourite name.” 

    Image: The Scooby-Doo Project, Cartoon Network, 1999.

    Scooby-Doo is a franchise that gets a frankly ridiculous amount of mileage from the bottomless appetites of its two most cowardly protagonists. Thrust into paranormal dilemmas, Scooby and Shaggy’s death-defying desire to consume every foodstuff imaginable is a necessary element in their constant battle against their spooky adversaries. Their time as vegans, driven by Kasem’s activism, may have been short-lived, but it was pronounced enough to make me wonder how their dietary choices will be approached in the upcoming Netflix series, currently going by the insipid working title of Scooby-Doo: Origins. Still, if Scooby and Shaggy can, even briefly, overcome their hunger and fear, go plant-powered, and stand up to ghastly apparitions, there may yet be hope for us all.

    Head Image: Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated, Warner Bros. Animation, 2010-2013.

    AKC Staff. 2021. ‘Can Dogs Adapt to a Vegan Diet?’ American Kennel Club, September 1: https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/nutrition/dogs-can-adapt-to-a-vegan-diet/.

    Albizuri, Silvia et al. 2021. ‘Dogs that Ate Plants: Changes in the Canine Diet During the Late Bronze Age and the First Iron Age in the Northeast Iberian Peninsula,’ Journal of World Prehistory 34: 75-119.

    Be Cool, Scooby-Doo! 2015 – 2018. Exec Prod. Sam Register, TV Series, US: Warner Bros. Animation.

    The Blair Witch Project. 1999. D. Daniel Myrick & Eduardo Sánchez, Film, US: Artisan Entertainment.

    Bonnin, Evelyn. 2019. ‘WARNING LETTER: JBS Souderton, Inc. dba MOPAC,’ U.S. Food & Drug Administration: https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/jbs-souderton-inc-dba-mopac-574386-04232019.

    British Veterinary Association. 2024. ‘BVA policy position on diet choices for cats and dogs,’ British Veterinary Association: https://www.bva.co.uk/take-action/our-policies/diet-choices-for-cats-and-dogs/.

    Carney, Isaac K. 2024. ‘WARNING LETTER: Mid America Pet Food LLC,’ U.S. Food & Drug Administration: https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/mid-america-pet-food-llc-681516-11222024.

    Corliss, Richard. 2014. ‘Casey Kasem; The Voice of America,’ Time, June 15: https://time.com/2878606/casey-kasem-the-voice-of-america/.

    Food and Drug Administration. 2025. ‘Voluntary Recall of Wild Coast Raw Boneless Free Range Chicken Formula Raw Pet Food Because of Possible Bird Flu Health Risk,’  U.S. Food & Drug Administration: https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/voluntary-recall-wild-coast-raw-boneless-free-range-chicken-formula-raw-pet-food-because-possible.

    Gorvett, Zaria. 2021. ‘The hidden reason processed pet foods are so addictive,’ BBC, May 20: https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20210519-the-hidden-reason-processed-pet-foods-are-so-addictive.

    ‘History of Vegan Dog Food.’ 2024. Sustainable Pet Food Association, January 26: https://sustainablepetfoodassociation.co.uk/history-of-vegan-dog-food.

    Leatham, Xantha. 2025. ‘Now even DOGS are being told to go vegan!’ Daily Mail, September 3: https://www.dailymail.com/sciencetech/article-15060639/DOGS-vegan-Plant-foods-nutrients-meat.html.

    Martin, Ann N. 2002. Food Pets Die For: Shocking Facts About Pet Foods, Troutdale: NewSage Press.

    Meeker, D L. & Meisinger, J L. 2015. ‘Rendered ingredients significantly influence sustainability, quality, and safety of pet food,’ Journal of Animal Science 93. 3: 835-847.

    Mordor Intelligence. 2025. Vegan Dog Food Market Size and Share Analysis – Growth Trends and Forecasts (2025–2030). Mordor Intelligence. Available at: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/vegan-dog-food-market.

    Nicholles, B. & Knight, A. 2025. ‘The environmental sustainability of meat-based versus vegan pet food,’ Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 9.

    @Nigelrefowens. 2026. ‘That’s very cruel denying them their preferred choice of food,’ X, January 8: https://x.com/Nigelrefowens/status/2009395846429987210.

    Norman, Mark. 2024. Zoinks! The Spooky Folklore Behind Scooby Doo. Luton: Chinbeard Books.

    Rushe, Dominic. 2014. ‘Casey Kasem, voice of Shaggy in Scooby Doo, dies on Father’s Day at 82,’ The Guardian, June 15: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/15/casey-kasem-voice-shaggy-scooby-doo-dies.

    Scooby-Doo. 2002. D. Raja Gosnell, Film, US: Warner Bros. Pictures.

    Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed. 2004. D. Raja Gosnell, Film, US: Warner Bros. Pictures.

    Scooby-Doo and Guess Who? 2019 – 2021. Exec Prod. Sam Register, TV Series, US: Warner Bros. Animation.

    Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated. 2010 – 2013. Exec Prod. Sam Register, TV Series, US: Cartoon Network.

    The Scooby-Doo Project.1999. D. Chris Kelly, Larry Morris & Steve Patrick, Animated Special, US: Cartoon Network.

    Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! 1969 – 1970. Exec Prod. William Hanna & Joseph Barber, TV Series, US: Hanna-Barbera Productions.

    Strimpel, Zoe. 2022. ‘Vegan dog food is emblematic of our unhealthy canine obsession,’ The Telegraph, May 15: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/15/vegan-dog-food-emblematic-unhealthy-canine-obsession/.

    Šuran, Jelena. 2024. ‘Plant ingredients in dog food – what does recent research say?’ Pets International, February: 52-53.

    Sustainable Pet Food Foundation. 2025. ‘Plant-Powered Pups: New Study Shows Dramatic Environmental Gains From Plant-Based Dog Food in the UK,’ Press Release Hub, September 25: https://pressreleasehub.pa.media/article/plant-powered-pups-new-study-shows-dramatic-environmental-gains-from-plant-based-dog-food-in-the-uk-55527.html.

    Trammell, Kendall. 2019. ‘“Scooby-Doo” wasn’t just another cartoon. It was a Reaction to the political turmoil at the time,’ CNN, September 13: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/13/entertainment/scooby-doo-50th-anniversary-history-trnd.

  • Frankenstein (2025) and Vegetarian Monstrosity

    Frankenstein (2025) and Vegetarian Monstrosity

    Guillermo del Toro loves monsters. If there is any connective thread that runs through the director’s work, it is the very-same that the zealous Frankenstein uses to stitch together the patchwork flesh of his own creation. Whereas the latter would become horrified by the monstrous appearance of his life’s work, del Toro hopes to enthral us with his representations of outcasts who are demonised for their rejection of social norms.

    The anticipation surrounding his adaptation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (1818) has been fuelled by its seeming inevitability. ‘The creature of Frankenstein,’ del Toro would argue, speaking of Boris Karloff’s portrayal, “was a more beautiful martyr figure than Jesus with the exposed fracture. And I started adoring him’ (qtd. in Sweet 2025). This veneration is on full display in his adaptation, not only through his casting of the impossibly chiselled Jacob Elordi, but through the dialogue of Elizabeth, Mia Goth, who questions the incredulous Frankenstein, Oscar Isaac, ‘What if, unrestrained by sin, our creator’s breath came into its wounded flesh directly?’ (Frankenstein, 2025).

    Image: Netflix, 2025

    Del Toro’s messianic depiction of his Creature reflects his ongoing attempts to relate the special-effects driven spectacle of genre cinema through stories that feature marginalised individuals that are villainised for their social difference. So too has Mary Shelley’s own work continually been opined as a significant opportunity to explore nineteenth-century attitudes towards issues such as sexuality, gender, and social strata from an almost endless array of perspectives.

    As George Haggerty argues in ‘What is Queer about Frankenstein?’ ‘there is nothing normative about the relationship between Frankenstein and his creature: the almost by-definition dysfunctional family relations are transgressive from the start’ (Haggerty 2016: 116). The scientist’s own fervour, after all, is defined by his willingness to deviate from expected roles regarding reproduction in the pursuit of the ‘perfect’ male form, while the resultant Creature is defined by its inability to find social acceptance.

    One act of defiance that the Creature claims for itself is its choice to refrain from eating meat, stating to his creator that “My food is not that of man; I do not destroy the lamb and the kid to glut my appetite; acorns and berries afford me sufficient nourishment.  (Shelley 1818: 149). Notably, Carol J. Adams linked the Creature’s diet to feminist scholarship by dedicating an entire chapter of her book, The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory (1990), to its exploration. ‘Vegetarianism, like feminism,’ she writes, ‘is excluded from the patriarchal circle, just as Mary Shelley experienced herself as being excluded from the male circle of artists of which she saw herself a part’ (Adams 1990, 119).

    Image: Theodor von Holst and William Chevalier, 1831

    The Creature’s revelation of his plant-based diet has several different functions in Shelley’s novel. Being a veggie, for him, is a means of persuading Frankenstein to create a female mate. His reasoning is that, if he were to have some companionship, he would have no incentive to harm anyone and could live out the remainder of his life beyond civilisation’s reach. A rejection of carnism, therefore, is an attempt to evidence both his moral dignity and his desire for social withdrawal.

    The idea that vegetarianism is a sign of monstrous deviance is everywhere in our contemporary culture. Think for a moment, of the many vegan and vegetarian characters who are depicted as fanatics or oddballs, smug moralists, or even dangerous psychotics. Tom Clancy, for example, seems to find the prospect of such lifestyles utterly baffling, depicting them in Rainbow Six (1998) as a sure-fire means of identifying extremist eco-terrorists hell-bent on humanity destruction. Worse still, refusing to eat meat is frequently depicted as a rejection of presumed maleness. ‘The vegan monster offers a monstrous embodiment of human desires,’ writes Emelia Quinn, ‘threatening, as a result, existing discourses of meat-eating that work to shore up and insatiate a particular ideal of white, Western masculinity’ (Quinn 2021: 17).

    So, how did these culinary contexts make their way into Frankenstein? As the child of pioneering women’s rights campaigner Mary Wollstonecraft and political author William Goldwin, Mary Shelley was profoundly influenced by the social circles that she encountered throughout her life. She would rub shoulders with several Romantic-era advocates for vegetarianism, including Joseph Ritson, John Frank Newton and, notably, Percy Bysshe Shelley, the writer with whom she would elope and begin a tumultuous relationship.

    Image: Richard Rothwell, c. 1831-1840

    Percy Shelley himself would produce a pro-veggie pamphlet in which he argued that, were it not for the Promethean theft of fire, we might not be so willing to tuck into the flesh of other animals: ‘It is only by softening and disguising dead flesh by culinary preparation that it is rendered susceptible of mastication or digestion, and that the sight of its bloody juices and raw horror does not excite intolerable loathing and disgust’ (Shelley 1813: 13). Food, as it were, for thought.

    By imagining another Promethean creation similarly falling from grace, Shelley’s writing acts a cornerstone of the Regency and Victorian-era Romantics who helped to develop criticisms of industrialisation, the potential hazards of over-agriculturalisation and inequality driven by starvation and malnutrition, developing many of the country’s first animal welfare laws. When Michael Owen Jones collated several articles that explore the relationship between food and culture, for example, he chose to title it Frankenstein Was a Vegetarian: Essays on Food Choice, Identity, and Symbolism (2022).

    With this history in mind, where does this leave Guillermo del Toro’s recent production, and his own obsession with the vegetarian monster that haunted Shelley’s imagination over two-hundred years ago? The director had stated in 2015 that watching The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) had ‘made me a vegetarian for four years’ (qtd. In Alexander 2015), and he has similarly delivered a graduation commencement speech for the entirely vegan MUSE School in Los Angeles, where he argued that “we’re living in a world that is really on the brink in so many ways, ecologically, socially, full of injustice that seems to change, then comes back’ (MUSE School CA 2019).

    Image: MUSE School CA, 2019

    It’s in del Toro’s own body of work, however, that it becomes clear that his monstrous protagonists are all, in some way or another, shaped by issues surrounding speciesism and humanity’s fascistic approach to animal welfare. It is no coincidence that when the Creature of this film first encounters human civilisation, it is through an encounter of hunters stalking prey. Alone for the first time and wandering disorientated through the woods, Frankenstein’s creation encounters a deer peacefully grazing upon a bush. Approaching tentatively, he retrieves some berries and eats one himself, before extending his palm out to the animal in an invitation to feed. Bang! Suddenly this moment of serenity is shattered when hunters kill the deer with a single shot of a rifle.

    Despite being a product of man-made intervention, del Toro frequently positions his Creature as a force of nature, having a group of cottagers refer to him as ‘The Spirit of the Forest’ when he offers them unseen benevolence. Even when held captive within the bowels of the great stone tower that Frankenstein uses as his laboratory, the Creature is fascinated with the few elements of the natural world that he can interact with from his confinement, marvelling at leaves as he sets them upon water, watching them float down a small gulley that passes through his otherwise barren basement.

    Image: Netflix, 2025

    If the Creature’s identity is defined by his relationship to nature and vegetarianism, then Frankenstein’s is as carnivorous as one can imagine. It is an act of meat eating that establishes the toxic nature of his parents’ relationship and the scientist’s subsequent desire to penetrate the natural order of life and death. Charles Dance, coldly demands that his pregnant wife, Mia Goth in her second role, eat a piece of bread that has been dipped in the red juices of a particularly rare cut of meat, explaining to her that ‘the salts will enrich your blood.’

    Describing the shocking amount of flesh that covers many of the film’s sets, Oscar Isaac would describe his laboratory as a ‘meat banquet’ (qtd. in Hall 2025). Indeed, Frankenstein’s workshop opens into a butchers’ market that is decorated with a row of pigs’ heads hanging on a rail, carts of meat, and even a bucket of bones and offal. When the scientist invites his soon-to-be benefactor, Henrich Harlander, Christoph Waltz, inside, the audience is treated to a close-up of the latter hopping over a puddle of blood that has spilled down the street. It should be remembered that Shelley herself utilised similar imagery in her own novel, with her scientist stating that ‘The dissecting room and the slaughter-house furnished many of my materials; and often did my human nature turn with loathing from my occupation’ (Shelley 1818: 55).

    Image: Netflix, 2025

    Although they seem dissimilar, both Frankenstein and his creation are bound by their shared desire to understand the circumstances of their life, birth, and eventual death. What distinguishes the Creature’s gentle observations from his creator’s unempathetic zeal is their treatment of other living beings. It’s impossible to watch the film without comparing the scientist’s cruel conduct towards his creation, pulling him up in chains, barking instructions and beating him with a metal rod to real-world acts of animal mistreatment and captivity. Notably, when the scientist begins preparing for his final confrontation with his creation, he is asked by a merchant what he is hunting; his reply is, simply, ‘big game’.

    Frankenstein then, is not a character that del Toro depicts as one who would have any interest in animal lib. Instead, it is Elizabeth that allows the director to offer comparative acts of compassion. The dual casting of Mia Goth as Frankenstein’s deceased mother and unrequited paramour allows her to represent the life and love that the scientist is impotently unable to dominate. It is Elizabeth who challenges Frankenstein’s assumptions that humanity’s infliction of pain on other animals can be justified due to their seeming lack of sentience. ‘What is pain,’ Elizabeth proposes, ‘if not a mark of intelligence?’

    Image: Netflix, 2025

    Mary Shelley’s most enduring legacy is, perhaps, the rage expressed by Frankenstein’s ‘monster’ once it realises that its existence will not be tolerated by humanity. Some have chosen to explore this anger as an expression of the many traumas that the author endured throughout her life, especially the patriarchal injustices that she was subjected to as an intellectual (Tillotson 1983: 175). Others have continued to find courage in her Creature’s indignant wrath. ‘My Words to Victor Frankenstein above the Village of Chamounix: Performing Transgender Rage,’ for example, acts as a powerful example of Shelley’s novel being transformed into a performance piece designed to ‘harness the intense emotions emanating from transexual experience – especially rage – and mobilize them into effective political actions’ (Stryker 1994: 237).

    As for del Toro, his speech at the plant-based and sustainably-driven campus reflected similar concerns. ‘One of the energies you have as young people is rage. Most people tell you not to use it, to put it away, to be nice,’ he would claim, “I say make peace with it and use it. Be enraged at what you are inheriting. Be enraged at what you cannot do and what’s possible before and change it […] What makes you “stubborn” and “impossible” makes you tenacious’ (MUSE School CA 2019).

    The power of Mary Shelley’s creation has resonated across two centuries, in far greater effect than those of her male contemporaries. Del Toro’s newest incarnation of her Creature reminds us that rage is a natural response to injustice and that if we want to continue defining humanity through our seemingly humane natures, then we drastically need to rethink our relationship to the natural world that we exploit for the sake of our own pride, ambition, and gluttony.

    Head Image: Netflix, 2025

    Adams, Carol J.  1990. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. New York: Continuum.

    Alexander, Thomas. 2015. ‘[Interview] Guillermo del Toro on Serenading Crews, Silent Hills and Crimson Peak,’ October 7, Bloody Disgusting: https://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3364524/interview-guillermo-del-toro-on-serenading-crews-silent-hills-and-crimson-peak/.

    Clancy, Tom. 1998. Rainbow Six. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

    Frankenstein. 2025. D. Guillermo del Toro. USA, Film: Netflix.

    Haggerty, George. 2016 ‘What is Queer about Frankenstein?’ Andrew Smith ed. The Cambridge Companion to Frankenstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 116-127.

    Hall, Gerrad. 2025. ‘Oscar Isaac on creating Frankenstein’s doctor — and giving him a ‘rock star’ quality,’ September 4, Entertainment Weekly: https://ew.com/oscar-isaac-frankenstein-doctor-victor-rock-star-exclusive-11801021.

    Jones, Michael Owen. 2022. Frankenstein Was a Vegetarian: Essays on Food Choice, Identity, and Symbolism. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.

    MUSE School CA. 2019. ‘2019 MUSE School Graduation Commencement Speech,’ June 26, YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NokdAkdjzFw&t=95s.

    Shelley, Percy Bysshe. 1913. A Vindication of Natural Diet. London: Smith & Davy.

    Shelley, Mary. 1818 [2013]. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. London: Penguin Books.

    Sweet, Matthew. 2025. ‘How Netflix turned Frankenstein Catholic,’ November 11, The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/how-netflix-turned-frankenstein-catholic/.

    The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. 1974. d. Tobe Hooper. USA, Film: Bryanston Distributing Company.

    Tillotson, Marcia. 1983. ‘“A Forced Solitude”: Mary Shelley and they Creation of Frankenstein’s Monster,’ Julian E. Fleenor ed., The Female Gothic. Montreal: Eden, 176-175.

    Stryker, Susan. 1994. ‘My Words to Victor Frankenstein Above the Village of Chamounix: Performing Transgender Rage,’ A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 1:3, 237-254.

    Quinn, Emelia. Reading Veganism: The Monstrous Vegan, 1818 to Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.