Read the following articles from the Supplementary Materials right after the text of Frankenstein:
* Shelley, Introduction to Frankenstein, Third Edition (pp.165-169)
* Baldick, Assembling Frankenstein (pp.173-183)
* Robinson, Texts in Search of an Editor (pp.198-204)
* Mellor, Choosing a Text of Frankenstein to Teach (pp.201-211)
Answer TWO of the following...
Q1: According to Melor, why is the 1818 version of Frankenstein superior to the 1831 revision? Why does she consider it "a stable and coherent conception of the character of Victor Frankenstein and of Mary Shelley's political and moral ideology?" (211). NOTE that we read the 1818 version.
Q2: In 1831, how does Mary Shelley try to 'sell' her novel to her readers, particularly now that the work had become popular, and her husband--as well as Byron--were both dead? Does this read like an accurate autobiographical account or an attempt to cash in on the past?
Q3: Baldick claims that what makes Frankenstein so original--and shocking--in context with other early 19th century novels is "its starkly secular nature" (181). How does he support this, especially considering how often Shelley invokes allusion to Adam and Satan (and Paradise Lost) in her narrative. Why do you think she did this?
Q4: According to many of these articles, can we call Mary Shelley the real author of Frankenstein? Is there compelling evidence that she had multiple co-authors, or, as people in 1818 believed, that Percy Shelley actually wrote it himself? How does authorship become a tricky proposition in terms of the multiple texts of Frankenstein?
Elyse Marquardt
ReplyDeleteQ2: This method that Shelley uses to sell her novel to readers seems to be partly autobiographical and also partly fictional in order to make it sound more appealing. I believe she is not making up the part about her vivid dreams. Dreams can certainly influence the way our brains work in waking life, so I think she probably can contribute much of her bizarre and disturbing work to the fact that she had bizarre and often disturbing dreams. However, it is also probable that she exaggerated quite a bit in order to make the dreams' influence on her work seem more overshadowing and mysterious. She takes advantage of "artistic license" here.
Q3: Baldick supports his argument about Frankenstein's "starkly secular nature" by pointing out how dark and God-less the characters are. Very rarely is there any mention of a higher power, besides when the monster describes Victor has his creator. There are also the instances of Paradise Lost being included in the narrative. Shelley does this when the monster sees himself in the description of Satan. It is interesting that the only spiritually inclined character in this novel is the monster himself. This gives him more of a depth than the other characters have, and it helps us see him as a real person and identify with him on a more personal level.
Elyse Marquardt
Q2: Mary Shelley shares how she came upon the story that would inspire her novel. By doing so, I think it made the story all the more interesting to those who had not read it yet. She describes her dream as so terrifying, that it continued to haunt her long after she recorded it. For Romantic readers, the idea of a story being passed through a dream would have left books flying off the shelves. I'm not sure that she's completely trying to cash in on the past. Of course, as a successful author, her account of writing Frankenstein would lead to more gain; however, by sharing the process with her readers, as well as what inspired her, she is letting us in to her circle, which is somewhat autobiographical.
ReplyDeleteQ4: I was honestly surprised to see how much Shelley drew from other authors! While there is evidence she played with other writers' ideas, I do not think they could be considered "co-authors." I think this is especially true when it comes to the allegation that Percy wrote Frankenstein. Shelley tells us that "the illustrious poets also, annoyed by the platitude of prose, speedily relinquished their uncongenial task" (Shelley 167). Percy was bored by prose, so I do not think this novel could ever be attributed to him. In addition, the novel is just too personal to come from anyone else. Chris Baldick mentions that "the recurrence of orphaned (in particular, of motherless) characters more clearly echoes the facts of her own childhood" (175). I do not believe a work of fiction with multiple co-authors could also be autobiographical in nature.
Q1) The 1818 version is a result of Mary's dreams and ideals. The 1831 version is a product of all the hurt and death surrounding Mary. According to Melor, the 1818 version portrays Victor as a human with free will that chooses not to love his Creature, and the 1831 version paints him as this poor guy who had bad influences and should only be ashamed for trying to make a human, not choosing to deprive the Creature of love. I think the 1818 version is brilliant; it portrays this hideous monster, but makes us see his human creator as the true monster. It gives insight into the atrocities humans are capable of. By blaming all of Victor's tragedies on fate, the 1831 version takes away the central idea of what I think Mary really wanted us to see.
ReplyDeleteQ4) Mary Shelley definitely had help editing the Frankenstein texts. Robinson seems to think that Percy played a tremendous role in the creation of this book. He discusses how the editor "gives form and shape" to the novel. These are the exact views that worked against Mary, while she was writing Frankstein. I am sure it shocked the world, when everyone found out a woman wrote a book like this. Mary was accepted enough to spend all of her time listening to her husband and his Romantic colleagues, but I do not think they thought her capable of ever producing a work, on their level. Mellor discusses how Percy obviously made grammatical and spelling corrections, but she did not think he had as much authorship than people thought. Mellor also discusses how Percy underestimated Victor's flaws, which is funny, because he and Victor share many noticible traits. The multiple texts and edits make it even more complicated to see how much Percy contributed to the original story. He was definitely a greatly talented writer, but that does not mean Mary does not deserve to be thought of as capable of producing great works, like her husband.
Q1: To Mellor, the 1818 version best fit what Mary Shelley believed and experienced when she first conceived of the story. Mary Shelley based certain aspects of the story on recent events and topics of the time, as well as her own beliefs. In the time between 1818 and 1831 a lot of things can change, and a lot of things did change; death and betrayal being only a portion of such changes. In fact, the difference in Shelley’s beliefs would almost have us treat Mary Shelley from 1831 as a different person than Mary Shelley from 1831. The 1818 version is essentially the purest form of Frankenstein between the two versions, and even it received numerous revisions by Percy Shelley. Revising it further at the hands of someone whose beliefs differ from that of Mary Shelley in 1818 is only diluting the original ideas even more. The ideas she put into the story in 1818 not only formed Victor Frankenstein, but it formed the story. Removing those ideas and replacing them change the story. Instead of a Romantic story involving the abuse of free will and the wrath of Nature, it became a story of a man doomed to suffer at the hands of an uncaring entity.
ReplyDeleteQ2: While I don’t think she was completely fibbing on this account, I can’t believe it to be entirely factual. This opinion is formed not only on the basis of the account itself, but also on Mary Shelley’s circumstances. This was a widow living in a Romantic literary world whose life was essentially an 1800s soap opera; she needed money, she probably needed to vent about life, and she needed to cater to the likes of the Romantics if she wanted to succeed on the first one. In those kind of situations and with the way the account sounded, it’s hard to believe that she didn’t make a few exaggerations or throw in a false detail or two. She did include quite a few things that were clearly meant to entice Romantics, such as her “dreams” as a child and the idea that these dreams were solely for her and therefore not influenced by others. She told the account like a story all its own, complete with descriptive imagery and a sentence here and there that could be taken sarcastically. She even started off the account by making it look like some kind of personal secret, adding to its sublime and mysterious appeal. If this account turned out to be 100% accurate, all I could say is that she could tell one heck of a story.
Ashley Bean
ReplyDelete2. As much as I want to believe the “trance” story she tells of how the novel came to be, it definitely seems like an attempt to sell it. By telling an old story about herself and two dead writers competing to write a ghost story, it adds more famous names to the novel. She describes her struggle to create a true horror story, and how she wishes the readers could experience it like she did in that trance. Who wouldn’t buy a horror story produced in a trance? It’s just good advertising, whether it’s true or not.
4. I believe that we definitely can still call Mary Shelley the author. Whether or not Percy Shelley “edited” the novel to fit his fancy language expectation, the message is clearly from Mary. The point of the novel still comes through, and the fact that she could still pull it off with Percy hovering over her is pretty amazing. I think there is evidence that Percy had a hand in it, but I don’t think it was enough to give him co-authorship. It is not his message, in fact, the novel satirizes him a lot.
Q2. In 1831, Mary tries to sell her novel by saying that Shelley was a huge influence in her ability to finish the book. She, however, says that he is the biggest reason she finished, but the book is most certainty written by her. She makes it very clear. I think it’s important she does this after both Shelley and Byron have died because they were best friends. If she had done this while Shelley was alive he would have “edited” it and she would be stuck. If Byron were alive it would be the same thing. Of course Byron would stick up for his friend. So, in doing this after they died, she is able to have nobody that was there come against her and protest it being hers.
ReplyDeleteQ4. I absolutely believe that Mary Shelley should rightfully be called the real author of Frankenstein. Although, she had influences from many different books, this does not take away from the underlying autobiographical feeling of the book. We can clearly see that Mary has specific characters for specific people in her life. I can understand where scholars would believe that Percy had written it. On the other hand, it is very evident in the words and phrases that Percy changed that he did not fully understand the story himself. He did not see the underlying truths of Mary’s life weaved within them.
3.) It was pointed out that the nature of the book came - in large - by the fact that Shelley did not allude to God or religion in the text whatsoever (aside from mentions of being a "creator" on Victor's part). I feel that Shelley would take this approach to make Victor's decision stand-out more harshly. She didn't just want to TELL us that he was playing the roll of god, she wanted to show us. By leaving religion out of the text and letting the reader make their own interpretation of it, we all infer the god-like aspects Victor wishes to possess. This also makes the setting more dreary because all of these harsh and despicable events are happening in a "godless" world where only science exists and man is the only thing to truly blame or praise.
ReplyDelete4.) When it comes to "who wrote the book?" the answer is, hands down, Mary. While Percy did assist with some of the wording (4,000... big deal!) he did not actually conjure up any of the conflicts or decisions that took place in the novel. Instead, he simply changed the wording in some areas. That would be like someone walking up to Lady Gaga, telling her to change one or two words in a song, then claim they wrote the entire thing - it's simply ridiculous.
Karlyn Hedges
ReplyDeleteQ2. I think that her story of how Frankenstein came to be was her way of trying to sell it, much like Coleridge's claim that Kubla Khan appeared to him in an opium trance. It is a very romantic idea that this horrific story would have come to her in a dream while surrounded by these other famous romantic writers. Both of those elements would have made people want to buy her book.
Q1. Mellor states that in the 1831 version, "Mary Shelley replaces her earlier organic conception of nature with a mechanistic one" (210). It seems to lose its romanticism by placing the importance on simple actions and influences without delving into the meaning behind them. In the 1818 edition, nature and nurture played a big part, which was autobiographical for Shelley. The 1818 version showed Mary's true voice, while the 1832 edition was just not her.