Shelley's Frankenstein : your views

[paranoid marvin]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

Sorry, we posted simultaneously. I didn't meant to stun you (if that's what Lobolover really mean) with another wall of words when you were already reconsidering.

I'm glad you DID post.F as a conjuror/maagician dabbling in the dark arts is an interesting idea...

[j. d. worthington]

Teresa has once again brought in another aspect that, while I briefly touched on it earlier, she has explained much more eloquently -- that shadowland between science and superstition which was still very much a part of the beliefs of the time. Her choices from Hawthorne are excellent; we might also include Roger Chillingworth here as well, especially as Hawthorne hints quite strongly he may be (at least in some ways) something of an agent of a diabolical power.

Something to keep in mind (again, as Teresa notes earlier, in her comment on the subtitle of the novel, "or, the Modern Prometheus") is that literalism was something being greatly questioned at this time, as was the case with the rationalism of the previous century. There was a reaction toward symbolism, myth, allegorical figures and situations, and the imaginative potential of such themes in general. This gave us a much richer literature as a result; one that, at its best, is almost endlessly interpretable and can be enjoyed on a multitude of levels simultaneously.

I fear that is one of the things I find rather lacking in so many more recent writers, linked with the concurrent obsession with literalism. It robs so many promising works of depth and profundity, as well as texture, leaving them, in my view, flat and insipid in comparison. This is by no means true of all modern writers -- there are several working now who are very worthy inheritors of the great tradition -- but (especially, it would seem, in genre writing) it does seem to be rather prevalent. As a result, much of this writing appears, in John Ravenor Bullen's phrase, "mongrel and ephemeral", doomed to being reading matter which dates far too quickly and becomes, at best, curiosa as far as future generations are concerned....

[Lobolover]

Again,im not denying its GOOD,its just some people (readrofessors) tend to think this is the One and Only "horror" novel in the entiere world history and the "greatest" horror book in the history of the universe-Im saying the others I read were far beter writen-yes,it was marvelous for its time,but that doesnt mean we have to disregard works of similar or higher qualities,simply because we want to look "edycated" and want to scoff at any other work as inferior,without having even read it (again,the atitiude of several professors I met with,one being an open confession) and run around in circles, flaping with girlands and sacrificing virgins to the fulll moon any time a repint of one of the most reprinted,the most affordable and obtainable books, maybe besides the Bible,pops up.

Again,I say that this is probably a sign of what ive long coned "Books far too over rated for their own good".Basicly,any book that is so universaly showed down evryones throat,that it gets featured in children cartoons could belong here-as well as any book taking the paper away far to often from too many others.

[j. d. worthington]

I've no problem with continued reprints of Frankenstein, though I think it's a good thing that both the original version and the later one are kept in print these days (for comparison, if nothing else). And with each new reprinting which is given a scholarly touch, there is new information on Shelley and a new take on the novel made available. So I'm not going to complain about reprints here.

I do agree that some (by no means all) academics have severe tunnel vision here... but that's true with any academic field, and literature (especially something as narrow as the weird field) is no exception. Poe still goes through periods of decline critically speaking, and even Frankenstein has had its periods of eclipse -- on top of which, it was not accepted into the literary canon for quite some time to begin with....

We have seen in the past few decades (at least in England and America) a greater acceptance fof the weird tale as worthy of note academically, and this has resulted in some reissuing of more obscure or out-of-print works, and is quite likely to continue to do so, as long as they provide a rich field for discussion and analysis....

[Lobolover]

Yes-the level of such tunnel vision arises when no teacher of professor of LITERATURE to whom ive ever spoken has ever even HEARD of Lovecraft-but all have heard of Frankie.........and I think ONE of them has read it.

Its like-weve mentioned many tales we'd like to see back in print-be it a more acessible Wakefield,some things like "Ape's Face",a reprint of Ewers,"The Medusa",Barry Pain,etc.,but we dont.Yet there are so many versions of other books.And also,theres only SO MUCH you can get out of a study of one book in 190 years.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Lobolover

And also,theres only SO MUCH you can get out of a study of one book in 190 years.

Afraid I can't agree with that. We're still discovering new ways to look at Shakespeare and Chaucer, let alone Mary Shelley (or Lovecraft), where it's a much shorter period....

[Lobolover]

I dont mean from her whole life and input-I mean from one book.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Lobolover, I think some of the writers you mention write books better at producing the thrill of horror, the writing is more vivid and colorful, and the authors are more skilled at producing indelible images -- but that's what they are, images, and somewhat static, compared to the ideas and discussions that Frankenstein generates.

Professors of literature tend to be more interested in the ideas and discussions -- as well as books that bring up questions about the human condition, rather than celebrate the human imagination. (Of course there are writers like Poe whose works fit into both categories.) I think you can teach students to appreciate ideas, but how they respond to creativity is more personal. There are some things we do better to explore on our own.

[Lobolover]

Believe me,thats not why the only horror novel of whose existence they know is Frankenstein-its because it looks "edycated" to mention it,but it looks "un-edycated" to mention anything else.You may not have that experience, but I sure have-ive been looked on as short of a freak when I mentioned a horror novel OTHER then Frankenstein to a literature teacher (BY that teacher) and my curent literature PROFESSOR said she "isnt intersted" and chuchling said she doesnt think that horror has any quality.

[MontyCircus]

Unlike Dracula, which really ground to a halt as it came to the end, Frankenstein was fun throughout.

I have no idea why you have a problem with him learning quickly. This is the story about a dude who stitches bits of corpses together, reanimates it with...I don't think it was lightning in the book...wasn't it chemicals or something? Or was that Lovecraft. Anyway, it ends up being a super-strong, super-agile, super-intelligent being the likes of which the world has never seen.

But he learns to read quickly and you laugh. What?

That's like being halfway through a Star Trek movie and suddenly bitching about one particular advanced technology and its infeasibility (I see warp speed, I see holodecks, I see transporters, I see photon torpedoes...but PHASERS??? That's just silly!)

I really liked that particular bit, it's basically the most important part of the story. He really grew to love that family, and felt a part of it. But they attacked him. It was kind of like Kafka's Metamorphosis...in reverse...or something.

Sorry, I didn't do a thesis on Frankenstein or the history of 19th Century Gothic writing, so I'll leave all the uber-analysis to others. For me, I'll just say that there are a lot of old dusty classics out there, but I would define Frankenstein as an enjoyable read.

[MontyCircus]

Originally Posted by Lobolover

Believe me,thats not why the only horror novel of whose existence they know is Frankenstein-its because it looks "edycated" to mention it,but it looks "un-edycated" to mention anything else.You may not have that experience, but I sure have-ive been looked on as short of a freak when I mentioned a horror novel OTHER then Frankenstein to a literature teacher (BY that teacher) and my curent literature PROFESSOR said she "isnt intersted" and chuchling said she doesnt think that horror has any quality.

hehe, she sounds like you asked her to watch the latest Saw movie. But even still, I'm sure there are film buffs that think Psycho is the only horror flick worth mentioning.

Casually dismissing an entire genre of literature. Wow. No matter how many degrees someone has, anyone that close-minded is an idiot and a robot.

You should tell her you don't think her classes have any quality, and back it up with plenty of footnotes and quotes

[Lobolover]

also,if anyone should get that impresion-I do NOT hate the novel,I just hate the over ratedness brought on by some critics.

[Lobolover]

Well,I kinda like her,shes sort of-weird and I mean WEIRD-she sways around class on the desks,rapidly exhales suddenly and has a tendency to not say almost anything during class and when giving a punishment,she gives one IMPOSSIBLE to get-like rewriting an article published in one issue of a daily newspaper published a week ago.

But yes,she kind of-cant handle her classes too much.

[Lobolover]

This also reflects the fact she didnt WANT to teach literature,but physics originaly,and had to consede to teaching literature.The school librarian and teacher,who has far better lectures (I listened to one between an empty door frame),she stil is sort of-off topic,if you get my meaning.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Lobolover

You may not have that experience, but I sure have-ive been looked on as short of a freak when I mentioned a horror novel OTHER then Frankenstein to a literature teacher.

Probably the teacher was just weary and impatient because you were about the 10,000th student who made the suggestion that you ought to be studying something else.

And arguing with students who think they know better than the entire academic community can be an endless process. They're never satisfied, no matter how carefully the teacher explains the reasons why a certain book was chosen and not another. Being dismissive is a more effective way to bring the conversation to a close, thereby allowing the teacher to get on with his or her work.