Frankenstein Discussion

[John]

I've been meaning to reread Frankenstein for years - so I'll definitely join. Which edition will we be using? I'd rather use the 1818 - but I'll be listening on Audio, so I'll have to use the later, more well known edition...

[Laurel]

I refer to the 1818 edition of "Frankenstein" in the schedule below, but if you have the 1831 edition, that is fine. It will be interesting to compare the two. The University of Pennsylvania website gives a side-by-side presentation of the two versions and includes many other helpful features. http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/1818v1...

DATES. DISCUSSION
Mar19-25. Letters, Book 1, and Mary Shelley's 1831 Introduction
Mar 26- Apr 1. Book 2
Apr 2-8. Book 3
Apr 9-15. Entire book

If you have the 1831 edition, see the chapters in parentheses here. http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Indexe...

I hope you will bring to our attention any of the excellent notes on the U. Penn site as we read, as well as other sources and, of course, your own thoughts and questions.

There are many geographic references in "Frankenstein," and I am hoping Lily and others will flesh out our reading with illustrations and notes on the places visited by Victor Frankenstein and his Creature.

[John]

This is the only reading of the 1818 edition that I can find - and, frankly, I'm not a great fan of this reader. If anyone knows of any other recordings of the earlier edition, please do let me know. As we all know, Audible is less than helpful in notation. :)

http://www.audible.com/pd/Classics/Fr...

[Thomas]

Laurele wrote: "DATES. DISCUSSION
Mar19-25. Letters, Book 1, and Mary Shelley's 1831 Introduction
Mar 26- Apr 1. Book 2
Apr 2-8. Book 3
Apr 9-15. Entire book
."

My edition (the very handsome $3.95 1983 Signet Classic paperback) does not have books -- only chapters. Can you tell me which chapters are included in which books?

[Lily]

Thomas wrote: "My edition (the very handsome $3.95 1983 Signet Classic paperback) does not have books -- only chapters. Can you tell me which chapters are included in which books?

Thomas -- mine is the same (or of similar elegance -- it is beyond easy reach as I write this). I am assuming that "Volume 1, 2, 3" on the link Laurele gave us @msg2 corresponds to Book 1, 2, 3. But I am sure she will clarify for us.

http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Indexe...

[Thomas]

Gotcha. Thanks, Lily.

[Laurel]

Thomas wrote: "Laurele wrote: "DATES. DISCUSSION
Mar19-25. Letters, Book 1, and Mary Shelley's 1831 Introduction
Mar 26- Apr 1. Book 2
Apr 2-8. Book 3
Apr 9-15. Entire book
."

My edition (the very handsome $3.95..."

In the 1831 edition, book 1 is chapters 1-8.

[Laurel]

John wrote: "This is the only reading of the 1818 edition that I can find - and, frankly, I'm not a great fan of this reader. If anyone knows of any other recordings of the earlier edition, please do let me kno..."

John, there is a free LibriVox reading of the 1818 edition here: https://librivox.org/frankenstein-or-...

It is quite maddening trying to find editions (and translators) on Audible, isn't it? That's the only quibble I have with them, for I love them dearly. I now have four Audible editions of "Frankenstein," only one of which, the Flo Gibson, is (I hope) 1818. I speed Flo up on my iPad, and she comes through better.

[Everyman]

Had a nice clear two hours on the ferry (or actually half an hour waiting in line and an hour and a half on the boat) to read Frankenstein, and why didn't I read this years ago? My margins are filled with notes I can hardly want until Wednesday to comment on.

[Lisa]

I recently read this and was very disappointed. Based on one of the films, this was exactly what I pictured. Nothing to surprise or delight me. Perhaps it's overexposure to the Frankenstein phenomenon through other books. I hope I'm the exception to the rule. Enjoy everybody.

[Thomas]

Yet another Frankenstein movie? One just came out a few months ago (I, Frankenstein). I haven't seen it, and probably won't based on its 4% rottentomatoes rating. I think this is another one where they call the Monster Frankenstein....sigh.

[Laurel]

I hope some of you will choose to read the links provided by the University of Pennsylvania professor. They will take you into the heart of theRomantic movement and connect the book to the scientific and geographic discoveries of the day. Indeed, some of you may find the notes more interesting than Mary Shelley's tale. See, for instance, the link to St. Petersburg in the letter head.

http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/1818v1...

[Laurel]

Everyman wrote: "Had a nice clear two hours on the ferry (or actually half an hour waiting in line and an hour and a half on the boat) to read Frankenstein, and why didn't I read this years ago? My margins are fil..."

Everyman, here' sand essay that should interest you:

http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Articl...

[Everyman]

Laurele wrote: "Everyman, here' sand essay that should interest you:

http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Articl... "

Indeed it did! I wonder whether his view of the degree of PBS's influence on the novel is accurate. I rather suspect that it is; I was surprised on reading it that an 18-19 year old could have written it, particularly given that her later works, after PBS's death, are quite inferior.

[Dee]

Everyman wrote: "Had a nice clear two hours on the ferry (or actually half an hour waiting in line and an hour and a half on the boat) to read Frankenstein, and why didn't I read this years ago? My margins are fil..."

Exactly my reaction when I first read it a few years back. I hope I can find the time to reread it over the next month, but even if not, I'm sure I'll contribute to the discussion in some way

[Catherine]

I had to look up my review here because I couldn't remember when I had read it but I knew it was recently. It was in July 2012. It was my first time reading it and I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it and by the depth of emotion and thought which it provoked in me. I am looking forward to reading the discussions here and seeing how much can be mined from this wonderful story.

[Sarah]

I'm hoping to participate in the discussion. Hopefully I will have time. It would be great to discuss this again. Don't know if I'll have time to read it again, though. However, it's still fresh in my mind from...oh July and August of last year. I had to read it for my AP English class during the summer. I'm sure this will be very stimulating.

[Ro]

Looking forward to participating in the discussion. I read this in high school and again for a more intensive read in my Master's program. I'm overseas right now so I hope I can keep up with the discussions.

[Andreea]

Everyman wrote: "Laurele wrote: "Everyman, here' sand essay that should interest you:

http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Articl... "

Indeed it did! I wonder whether his view of the degree of PBS's influence on the novel is accurate. I rather suspect that it is; I was surprised on reading it that an 18-19 year old could have written it, particularly given that her later works, after PBS's death, are quite inferior. "

PBS did indeed edit Frankenstein, but it's important to remember that Mary Shelley was the daughter of two philosophers, both of whom were big believers in female education, so her knowledge of classical literature and philosophy went far beyond that of the average 18-19 year old.

Her diary says that she had already read Milton quite extensively when she wrote Frankenstein. Between 1814 and 1817, she not only read Paradise Lost several times but also read Comus, Of Education, Areopagitica, Lycidas and Paradise Regained.

Full list of books Mary Shelley read between 1814 and 1821 as recorded in her diaries:

http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/MShell...

[Andreea]

Also !! there's actually a long tradition of women writers prodigies in the 19th century, at least on the poetry side which is what I know more about. Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Felicia Herman, Christina Rossetti, Letitia Elizabeth Landon, Eliza Cook and probably others I can't remember right now all started publishing poetry when they were in their teens.

[Dee]

Andreea wrote: "Also !! there's actually a long tradition of women writers prodigies in the 19th century, at least on the poetry side which is what I know more about. Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Felicia Herman, Ch..."

Also Jane Austen, whose Northanger Abbey was published the same year as Frankenstein (after Austen's death), but was written when she was in her early twenties, or maybe even late teens.

[Dee]

Andreea wrote: "Full list of books Mary Shelley read between 1814 and 1821 as recorded in her diaries:

http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/MShell... "

What a fascinating list. It's like a 19th century goodreads for a famous person.

[Laurel]

Andreea wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Laurele wrote: "Everyman, here' sand essay that should interest you:

http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Articl... "

Indeed it did! I wonder whether his view of the degree of PBS's in..."

I think Mary is the author of this book, even though a woman. She did indeed have an excellent education.

[Kathy]

I'm looking forward to joining you again for this discussion! I have copies of both texts and have taught from the 1831--the Bedford text edited by Johanna M. Smith, which was the one my English dept. chose for us. Will be interesting to see how 1818 (which, according to the Norton introduction, is now the preferred for scholarly purposes) compares.

[Paul]

And my edition? Why, it's the Signet Classic pocketbook, with an afterword by Harold Bloom, that I bought in August 1979 for $1.50. I probably read it not long after that, so it is due for a reread.

My impression at the time (age 20) was that it was nothing too special, apart from the story idea itself, which is excellent. But I was impressed by the 1931 movie directed by James Whale when I watched it for the 2nd time about three years ago, and I will be reading the book with different eyes as well now.

Every once in a while I do borrow some of the monster's attitudes and lines, adapted to my own use, such as, "Whiskey: gooood."

[Everyman]

A reminder: a number of people here have read Frankenstein at least once, and/or seen the movie. So there is likely to be more than usual familiarity with at least some of the book's themes. However, for many others (myself included) this will be the first time they have read the book.

It may, therefore, be useful to remind participants that we have a strict no spoiler policy for this group. Please be careful not to refer to or otherwise post about plot elements which are not included in the designated reading.

When a topic is, for example, Chapters 8-12, that also allows for discussion of anything in the earlier chapters also, since it's often valuable to link earlier plot elements or events to the chapters under discussion. So it allows for discussion of anything in Chapters 1-12. But nothing after Chapter 12.

Thanks for taking care to follow this group policy, and I look forward to a rich and fascinating discussion.

[Wendel]

Andreea wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Laurele wrote: "Everyman, here's an essay that should interest you: http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Articl...""

Wade does not provide substantial arguments for a co-authorship Percy Shelley never claimed. It comes down to the idea that at 18 one is unlikely to write a book of Frankenstein calibre: Lacking at eighteen the artistic experience as well as the intellectual depth necessary to sustain a novel dealing with the implications of a mortal's imparting life to a creature of his devising, Mary -- as her letters and journal entries show -- turned to Shelley for advice and direction.*

But what exactly is the intellectual depth needed to speculate about the consequences of creating a daemon? That is the question we need to answer, and it is something I will keep in mind while reading the book. For the moment it may be of interest that Charles Robinson**, after a thorough study of the manuscript, concludes that Percy’s corrections add up to somewhat over 5% of the word count (p.42). Most of these corrections were stylistic. So that at least would not make him a co-author.

Of course, Percy was more than just an editor. In her 1832 Introduction Mary recognizes that his encouragement and inspiration was essential in the making of Frankenstein. But still, she claims, the story and the ideas were her own. Without very strong arguments for the contrary I would accept "the story of the making of" as given by the Shelley's.

* The additional line of reasoning is this: … perhaps she was unaware of the central importance of the Miltonic element in the novel … - implying that she failed to understand the book and therefore can hardly be considered its author?

** In the introduction to his edition of Frankenstein, based on the 1816-17 manuscripts https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...

[Everyman]

Wendel wrote: "Wade does not provide substantial arguments for a co-authorship Percy Shelley never claimed. It comes down to the idea that at 18 one is unlikely to write a book of Frankenstein calibre: Lacking at eighteen the artistic experience as well as the intellectual depth necessary to sustain a novel dealing with the implications of a mortal's imparting life to a creature of his devising, Mary -- as her letters and journal entries show -- turned to Shelley for advice and direction.*"

I think it's a bit more than that. I think there's no question that she initiated the idea, but her diaries show that she and Percy discussed it at length, and that there were points where she gave him a free hand to make changes.

The other aspect that suggests to me a fairly significant contribution by Percy is that from what I read none of her later novels, all written after his death, have anything approaching the depth and quality of Frankenstein. Most authors improve, or at least don't degrade, in their later works. If this had really been almost exclusively her work, I would expect at least one or two of her later novels to show the same spark of genius.

I don't think it's diminishing appreciation for her imagination and her writing to suggest that while the initial idea and probably most or all of the initial writing was hers, her lover and soon-to-be husband, a very accomplished writer in his own right, had a significant role in helping her develop the ideas, images, and language of the work.

BTW, I have no doubt that she understood the Miltonic aspects of the work. After all, as she makes clear, not only had she read Paradise Lost herself, but Percy used to read it aloud to the group in the evenings, so she was immersed in it during the period she was writing (and, in my view, he was heavily editing) the book.

[Todd]

Is there a noted biography of Mary Shelley? The smattering I know would illustrate some of the Frankenstein themes and perhaps the "degradation" suggested about her later writing?

[Everyman]

Todd wrote: "Is there a noted biography of Mary Shelley? The smattering I know would illustrate some of the Frankenstein themes and perhaps the "degradation" suggested about her later writing?"

I don't know of any noted biography.

The "Selected Bibliography" in the Norton Critical Edition of Frankenstein lists Lyles, Mary Shelley: An Annotated Biography and Mellor Mary Shelley: Her Life, Her Fiction, Her Monsters

The Wikipedia article on her seems fairly good and with some detail; it is certainly well documented. It includes at the end, among the Secondary Sources, several biographies, though I have no idea which if any of them are considered authoritative.

You could also look for reviews here on Goodreads or elsewhere. Also, you could ask your librarian if there is one or more critically accepted biographies of her.

[Dee]

Todd wrote: "Is there a noted biography of Mary Shelley? The smattering I know would illustrate some of the Frankenstein themes and perhaps the "degradation" suggested about her later writing?"

Browsing the bibliography at the end of the Oxford Dictionary of National Bibliography entry on Shelley (Well worth checking out if your library has access either to the hard copy or the online subscription) suggests the following: Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley: An Introduction, Mary Shelley: Romance and Reality, and The Godwins and the Shelleys: A Biography of a Family. The first of these is by Betty T. Bennett, who wrote the article (The ODNB frequently uses authors who have published major biographies of their subjects)

[Todd]

Decided on Lonely Muse: A Critical Biography of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelly in so much as I could get it through the library system.

[Andreea]

Wendel wrote: "Wade does not provide substantial arguments for a co-authorship Percy Shelley never claimed. It comes down to the idea that at 18 one is unlikely to write a book of Frankenstein calibre: Lacking at eighteen the artistic experience as well as the intellectual depth necessary to sustain a novel dealing with the implications of a mortal's imparting life to a creature of his devising, Mary -- as her letters and journal entries show -- turned to Shelley for advice and direction.*

But what exactly is the intellectual depth needed to speculate about the consequences of creating a daemon?"

Just as a sidenote and possibly something to look out for when reading the novel, there are a lot of readings that focus on pregnancy and child birth as a recurring themes in the novel. Some people argue that at 18 Mary Shelley had more of an insight into the frightening and painful consequences of creating new life than PBS could have had since she had already been pregnant twice.

She gave birth to a premature daughter who died in 1815 and a healthy son in 1816. Both pregnancies were very difficult and she fell ill a lot. After her daughter's death she was very depressed and only recovered when she conceived again. Additionally, (at least when she was younger) she was obsessed with the circumstances of her mother's death, who died in child-birth while giving birth to her. Mary Shelley herself nearly died when she miscarried in 1822. I think in total she gave birth to 5 children (?), but only one of them survived into adulthood.

[Everyman]

Andreea wrote: "Just as a sidenote and possibly something to look out for when reading the novel, there are a lot of readings that focus on pregnancy and child birth as a recurring themes in the novel."

Yes, Shelley's experience with childbirth is certainly something we're going to want to consider.

[Lily]

Everyman wrote: "...(and, in my view, he was heavily editing) the book. ..."

My dear Eman: (view spoiler)[Is it easier for an academic's reputation to be based on providing evidence a talented male spouse edited his wife's work than determining how many female spouses aided and abetted their husbands' professional work? And, yes, my question is rhetorical and I'm not looking for an answer. Perhaps just venting! [g]

Sue Monk Kidd in her "Author's Note" for The Invention of Wings wrote of "[Judy] Chicago's view that women's achievements had been repeatedly erased through history."

The Wiki entry about Dorothy Sayers is full of negative statements about her writings and little about the Dante translations which she considered some of her best work. The photo selected for the article is far from the most flattering available -- which probably should be ignored as totally irrelevant. But is it coincidence that Sue Monk Kidd's physical depictions of young Sarah and Angelina Grimké are closer to the handsome portrait of their father than the (mature) images of the sisters that appear in their Wiki entries? (Or that a local Oklahoma Fox station "accidentally" dropped mention of the evolution segment of Cosmos?) It is widely reported that a) women authors are being segregated in the Wiki resource, b) a disproportionately smaller number of Wiki contributors are female, and c) women bloggers often experience significant online aggression. I understand all these comments are somewhat banal and beside the point. I raise them only to say let us be wary.

I'm not a literary scholar and I recognize the logic and evidence of Dr. Wald's comments, but this rant fervently requests that we exercise due care in discrediting the author of the small literary gift long bequeathed to us under the name of Mary Shelley.

Artist's portrait of another famous couple:

http://www.general-anaesthesia.com/im...



I don't know what the current scholarly views hold, but the last time I studied this picture there was evidence that Marie-Anne Pierrette Paulze (13 when she married the 28-year old Lavoisier) was a significant help to her husband. But Antoine Lavoisier is (rightfully so -- his contributions were considerable) the name known to history. His wife's efforts largely have been subsumed.
(hide spoiler)]

[Thomas]

Just curious, while we're on the subject of influences, if William Godwin's novel Caleb Williams might have had some influence as well... Has anyone here read it?

[Lily]

Thomas wrote: "Just curious, while we're on the subject of influences, if William Godwin's novel Caleb Williams might have had some influence as well... Has anyone here read it?"

Well, this is from the Goodreads entry for Godwin:

"He and Mary Wollstonecraft, author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, secretly married in 1797. She died tragically after giving birth to daughter Mary in 1797. Godwin's loving but candid biography of his wife, Memoirs of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1798), further scandalized society. Godwin, caring not only for the baby Mary, but her half-sister Fanny, remarried. He and his second wife opened a bookshop for children. Godwin, out of necessity, became a proficient author of children's books, employing a pseudonym due to his notoriety. His daughter Mary, at 16, famously ran off with poet Percy Shelley, whose Necessity of Atheism was influenced by Godwin. Mary's novel Frankenstein also paid homage to her father's views...."

[Kathy]

Lily wrote: "I'm not a literary scholar and I recognize the logic and evidence of Dr. Wald's comments, but this rant fervently requests that we exercise due care in discrediting the author of the small literary gift long bequeathed to us under the name of Mary Shelley."

Thank you, Lily, for your "rant." My blood pressure was going up, too!

[Icydove]

I got some goodies from the library today. It had Death and the Maidens: Fanny Wollstonecraft and the Shelley Circle, Mary Shelley, and The Annotated Frankenstein.

[Everyman]

Lily wrote: "Everyman wrote: "...(and, in my view, he was heavily editing) the book. ..."

My dear Eman: ..."

I disagree with none of what you say. But the fact that in many cases there is diminution of the woman's role doesn't change what the facts may be in this case. I grant that we don't know for sure. And we shouldn't assume solely on the basis of gender. No argument there. But I don't think I was doing that, but rather was trying to interpret a great deal of evidence including from her own diaries.

But your general point is certainly taken, and certainly valid.

[Lily]

Thank you for your response, Eman.

[Everyman]

Lily wrote: "Thank you for your response, Eman."

And thank you for reminding us of the challenge women authors (well, women generally) have had in the past (and to a hopefully lesser extent still do) getting fair credit for their intellectual contributions.

I guess Jane Austen was lucky that she didn't have a husband or lover or even close male relative grabbing some of the credit for her work!

[Wendel]

When Mary - shortly after the birth of her third child - is too tired to correct the final Frankenstein proofs, she gives Percy carte blanche to do what he thinks necessary. To Wade this indicates Percy’s usual high level of involvement, but why? If anything, it would suggest rather the contrary to me (why would he need a carte blanche in the first place?)

The thing is, Wade is trying too hard, spoiling his case. In fact the diaries and letters do not have much to contradict Mary’s statement in her 1832 Introduction, while the circumstantial evidence remains weak. If (that is, if) Frankenstein is so much better than Mary’s other books, she still would not be the only one-hit-wonder, wouldn’t she? (and what about the quality of Percy’s prose?).

However, Charles Robinson’s edition of the manuscript and his attempt to reconstruct Mary’s original is of a different order. And (like Wade) this touches larger themes than just who did what. As I noted earlier, Percy’s handwriting adds up to 6 or 7 percent of the manuscript, mostly stylistic corrections. But it does not stop there and Robinson argues that Percy’s additions did give the novel a new twist.

We will see. Now it is about time to start reading (one of the editions of) Mary's book.

The Independent’s review of Robinson’s book (may contain spoilers):
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ent...

The manuscripts on-line: http://shelleygodwinarchive.org

[Kathy]

Interesting piece from the Independent. It strikes me that even the "significant" contributions PBS apparently made to the novel were no more than any involved editor makes. Many authors submit early drafts to a trusted editor, and subsequent revisions depend upon the guidance and the pen of that editor. In this case, the editor happened to be the author's husband and a major literary figure. I suspect we would find the same kinds of contributions to many, many novels from a multitude of unsung editors whose names are not remembered in literary history. In other words, I can't see that Percy's 7% seems like much of an issue, except as a curiosity and perhaps a window into *him* as a writer.

[Lily]

Kathy wrote: "...perhaps a window into *him* as a writer."

And perhaps as a husband and as a would-be mentor lost too soon. But with two minds and backgrounds like theirs, what possibilities for creative interaction!

As I've thought about this, I am reminded of all the skull drudgery stories around Truman Capote and Harper Lee regarding both In Cold Blood and To Kill a Mockingbird -- who contributed what to whom. Perhaps sometimes we do need to leave the creator(s) in peace and receive the art on its own terms.

[Everyman]

[Linda]

Everyman wrote: ""

hee hee. :)

[Everyman]

Frankenstein Sighting:

I was reading Harper's Magazine over breakfast and in a review of Richard Holmes's new book on ballooning I ran across this:

Published in 2009, Richard Holmes's The Age of Wonder: How the Romantic Generation Discovered the Beauty and Terror of Science is a thrilling survey of how the Romantics saw the relationship between science and the literary imagination. Beauty combined with terror was the definition of the Romantic notion of the sublime, which wedded aesthetic pleasure to fear, the darkness of unreason, and the power of mysterious forces. There was no Two Cultures problem: poets and novelists embraced and were moved by the scientific imagination. In science itself, the sublime flowed from new understandings of electricity, magnetism, gases, and telescopically revealed nebulae; in science fiction, the pattern of the sublime was Mary Shelley's Frankenstein...

[Laurel]

Everyman wrote: "Frankenstein Sighting:

I was reading Harper's Magazine over breakfast and in a review of Richard Holmes's new book on ballooning I ran across this:

Published in 2009, Richard Holmes's The Age of ..."

Thank you for the reminder! I have been wanting to get that book. The history of science is very interesting to me, and combined with literature, well....

[Everyman]