Between Allan Rune Pettersson’s novels Frankenstein’s Aunt (1978) and Frankenstein’s Aunt Returns (1989) there emerges a contradictory view on discipline. Whilst being a dominant motif in the first novel, discipline of the monstrous is dissuaded from in the second. This article aims to explain this contradiction through an analysis of the different meanings ascribed to the monstrous body in the two novels. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen’s monster theory and Michail Bachtin’s work on the chronotope is used whilst intermedia theory provides a framework to explain the relation between the novels in the light of a TV series based on the first novel. The first novel creates a gothic chronotope where the protagonist Hanna Frankenstein tries to atone for her nephew’s sins in the past (his creation of the Monster). Here, the monstrous body is assigned meaning through a correlation with the discourse on the child, which legitimizes disciplining the monsters. In the TV series, monstrosity is described as a result of loneliness and consequently, the function of discipline is altered. The Monster falls in love with a human girl and, thanks to aunt Hanna’s efforts, he eventually marries her. Thus, monstrosity is obliterated altogether. In the second novel, aunt Hanna accuses the Monster and his bride of betraying their individuality. However, as their bourgeois lifestyle is the result of her own acts of discipline in the first novel, she now has to atone for new sins in the past – this time her own. The second novel thus reinvents the gothic chronotope and re-interprets the first novel in the light of the TV series, providing a missing link between the novels. In the end, the second novel advocates the co-existence of the monstrous alongside the human.