Mary Shelley didn't write Frankenstein!

[uchtungbaby]

I was reading a comment where someone wondered whether Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein? I think I may be able to add fuel to the fire on that question. Mary's father was a philosopher (William Godwin) of modest reputation. He would have been quite capable of writing Frankenstein. If we assume that he is in fact a ghost author for the book then, this would explain the intellectual maturity and complexity of the story. One of the problems with attributing the story to Mary is that she was too young to have acquired the lexicon used in the narrative. This is why many doubt her authorial claim.

Perhaps William Godwin dictated the story to Mary so as to provide the young lady with a means of income. Back in those days reputation was everything. Poor Mary had family problems so the father may have thought that giving her the story might help her out a little?

[C K Dexter Haven]

Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, uchtungbaby, we're glad to have you with us. The comment you were reading was a Straight Dope Staff Report: Did Mary Shelley not write "Frankenstein"? (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmaryshelley.html)

When you start a thread, it's helpful to other readers if you provide a link to the Staff Report. That helps keep everyone on the same page, saves search time, and avoids repetition. In this case, I point out that while there is considerable speculation, the Staff Report says that there is no evidence whatsoever of any authorship other than Mary Shelley, and that the writing style is consistent with her other writings. It's certainly possible that her father (or her uncle or her second cousin or Francis Bacon) wrote everything she is credited with, but in the absence of any evidence, it's all interesting speculation.

The Staff Report does comment on the "family problems" which were pretty significant, she had eloped to live with P.B. Shelley, who was a married man.

[John W. Kennedy]

One of the problems with attributing the story to Mary is that she was too young to have acquired the lexicon used in the narrative. This is why many doubt her authorial claim.Then "many" are imbeciles. She was a well educated 19-year-old with a lifelong literary bent, and the lover of one of England's greatest poets. And her father, by the way, was not of "modest reputation"; he was the Karl Marx of his day.

There is, however, one little error in the Staff Report: "wacky Victorian women," forsooth! The reign of Victoria was long indeed, but it did not comprise the entire 19th century. Frankenstein was written and published during the nearly as long reign of George III.

[dropzone]

Maybe he said it because it was Mary's love of the products of Victoria's Secret that so enraptured Shelley.

Then again, it might've just been because she put out.

[Jake]

Maybe he said it because it was Mary's love of the products of Victoria's Secret that so enraptured Shelley.

Then again, it might've just been because she put out.

Heh. We all know that Cecil's grandfather wrote "Frankenstein."
Actually, there's a rumor going around that the big guy WAS Cecil's grandaddy.

[uchtungbaby]

Then "many" are imbeciles. She was a well educated 19-year-old with a lifelong literary bent, and the lover of one of England's greatest poets. And her father, by the way, was not of "modest reputation"; he was the Karl Marx of his day.

There is, however, one little error in the Staff Report: "wacky Victorian women," forsooth! The reign of Victoria was long indeed, but it did not comprise the entire 19th century. Frankenstein was written and published during the nearly as long reign of George III.


Touchy,touchy. Maybe if you were to read the lost manuscript 'Maurice or The Fisher's Cot' thought to be an early work by Mary you would see: That the narrative is influenced by the rote learning of stories by her father. It is not a matter that should cause shame however! The writing of stories is often a cumulative process of learning handed down from parent to child. In the case of Frankenstein the evidence is very compelling that Mary had been taught the story by her father. For example, Mary could not have known things of science implicit to the story because women were not allowed to attend universities to learn the scientific discipline of medicine. Medical knowledge was the domain of men. This is why Mary Shelley could not have written Frankenstein. Now some people have tried to get around this fact by suggesting that Mary would put on her husbands' clothes and pretend to be a man so as to get into the lecture theatres. This is a bit far fetched because a self-repecting Victorian women would never denounce her weak feminine demeanour just to look at a pack of old corpses. Those who believe Mary wrote Frankenstein are suffering from the brainwashing of modern feminism and the revisionism of gay science. In other words, you have all fallen for the biggest trick in a conmans book: False history.

[Dunderman]

Maybe if you were to read the lost manuscript 'Maurice or The Fisher's Cot' thought to be an early work by Mary you would see
So: in order to show that a work that has been widely recognised as Mary Shelley's for over a century is not in fact hers, you submit as evidence a "lost" manuscript. Why do you believe that Maurice was written by her, but not that Frankenstein was? Why is the Maurice case so much stronger?

Also consider that one reviewer (http://www.erudit.org/revue/ron/1999/v/n15/005868ar.html) had this to say:Any reader of Mary Shelley's fiction will immediately recognize Maurice as her own. Like Frankenstein, and many of her tales, Shelley frames her narrative in an intriguing way, and spins her tale through the voice of more than one narrator.

[Askance]

the evidence is very compelling that Mary had been taught the story by her father.It is? Let's hope there are some pretty solid cites coming.
Mary could not have known things of science implicit to the story because women were not allowed to attend universities to learn the scientific discipline of medicine. Medical knowledge was the domain of men. And were they also prohibited from talking to men who went to university, or reading their books?
This is why Mary Shelley could not have written Frankenstein.Oh, that bald assertion above was your evidence. Sad.
some people have tried to get around this fact by suggesting that Mary would put on her husbands' clothes and pretend to be a man so as to get into the lecture theatresThey have? Cite?
This is a bit far fetchedIt certainly is, and quite unnecessary.
a self-repecting Victorian women Did it miss your gaze, up there? Frankenstein was written during George III's reign, not Victoria's.
would never denounce her weak feminine demeanour just to look at a pack of old corpses."Denounce her demeanor"? What are you talking about? Do you actually know any women? I mean real ones, not inflatable.
Those who believe Mary wrote Frankenstein are suffering from the brainwashing of modern feminism and the revisionism of gay science.Ah, so the real agenda arrives. Misogyny and homophobia, two for the price of one.
In other words, you have all fallen for the biggest trick in a conmans book: False history.Yes, and you alone know The Truth. BTW, who exactly are the conmen here? Are you also alleging a deliberate conspiracy?

[Dan Norder]

You know, I don't get why so many ignorant people weave such wild and crazy theories based solely upon the speculation that the people credited with certain accomplishments were just too ignorant to have been able to do it themselves... It's just the pot calling the kettle black.

One thing that upper class 19th century women could do was read books, and being that it was one of their only real outlets, they could learn a lot, lot more than random modern conspiracy theorists ever go. I would personally bet everything that Mary Shelley knows far more about pretty much any subject imaginable (except for those things that didn't even exist until after she died, so of course never had the chance to learn about) than whomever this uchtungbaby person is. She was one very smart young woman, raised at a time when education (for people of her class) was quite superior to what it is today.

[WotNot]

For example, Mary could not have known things of science implicit to the story because women were not allowed to attend universities to learn the scientific discipline of medicine. Medical knowledge was the domain of men. This is why Mary Shelley could not have written Frankenstein. Now some people have tried to get around this fact by suggesting that Mary would put on her husbands' clothes and pretend to be a man so as to get into the lecture theatres. This is a bit far fetched because a self-repecting Victorian women would never denounce her weak feminine demeanour just to look at a pack of old corpses.

Have you read the book? At all? The explicit science in the book amounts to no more than a handful of common words – “Chemistry”, “artery” and the like. The scientific thinking which is implicit in it was not only common knowledge, but a hot topic of conversation among the educated classes of the time. No in-depth research, no imaginary visits to dissecting theatres, would have been necessary for anyone of Mary’s class and time to write what she wrote. What the book does show knowledge of is the areas of Europe that we know that Mary visited around the time that she wrote the novel – did she get that from her father as well?

Those who believe Mary wrote Frankenstein are suffering from the brainwashing of modern feminism and the revisionism of gay science. In other words, you have all fallen for the biggest trick in a conmans book: False history.

Oddly enough, Mary’s mother was a feminist (and presumably her father had sympathy with her views) – would Mary really have been raised as an ignorant, mindless chattel? Her biography seems to indicate that she wasn’t.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Mary could not have known things of science implicit to the story because women were not allowed to attend universities to learn the scientific discipline of medicine. Medical knowledge was the domain of men. WotNot has already answered this, but I'd like to call your attention to the opening paragraph of the Straight Dope Staff Report: Would Frankenstein's monster be possible today? (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mfrankenstein.html) (written by my son the biochemist): Mary Shelley's science isn't much more than ill humours and leeches. There's no explanation of how the good doctor accomplishes his task. There's no lightning, there's no sewing, there's no grave-robbing. Shelley goes out of her way to avoid telling us how dead tissue can be reanimated. Dr. Frankenstein says he won't tell because he's afraid others will follow in his folly. Mary Shelley probably didn't tell 'cause she just couldn't come up with anything. There is an implication that pieces of bodies were utilized in some fashion (references to "dissecting rooms" and "slaughterhouses") but there's nothing explicit. As near as I can tell, the lightning thing is just a creation of Hollywood.
In short, the argument that Mary Shelley didn't know science (whether true or not) is completely irrelevant -- there's no science in the book, not even the slightest hint thereof. However, to the contrary, her father WOULD have had some grounding in science, and the absence of any such is indicative that he did NOT write the work.

And yes, John W. Kennedy, we knew it was written before Victoria ascended to the throne, but the joke is lost if someone says, "Those wacky Georgians!" My son is not above sacrificing roughly two decades for the sake of a joke.

[Tenar]

Medical knowledge was the domain of men. This is why Mary Shelley could not have written Frankenstein. Now some people have tried to get around this fact by suggesting that Mary would put on her husbands' clothes and pretend to be a man so as to get into the lecture theatres. This is a bit far fetched because a self-repecting Victorian women would never denounce her weak feminine demeanour just to look at a pack of old corpses. Those who believe Mary wrote Frankenstein are suffering from the brainwashing of modern feminism and the revisionism of gay science. In other words, you have all fallen for the biggest trick in a conmans book: False history.

Good god. You presume that there was never a SINGLE woman who transgressed the social norms, and you presume that medical knowledge was so arcane that there was no way to pick it up except first hand at a dissection, and presume that NO well educated 19 year old author with an unusual amount of life experience has ever managed to "acquire a lexicon" or "show emotional depth and maturity"? I thik it's pretty clear that Shelley did transgress the social norms in a BIG way (note the affair referenced above). I won't even go further into the question of how far sexism, homophobia and ignorance will take you here. You'll find out soon enough.

[John W. Kennedy]

And yes, John W. Kennedy, we knew it was written before Victoria ascended to the throne, but the joke is lost if someone says, "Those wacky Georgians!" My son is not above sacrificing roughly two decades for the sake of a joke."Those wacky Regency women" would be just as funny--and true.

[Annie-Xmas]

"Revisionism of gay science." Will someone please explain that that means in general, and what that meana in this argument? I can't wrap my mind around it.

[Crandolph]

That's Achtung , with an A.

[Dan Norder]

That's Achtung , with an A.

No, most of us realize that's how the German word is spelled (though probably not the original poster), but this guy is definitely more of an Uch.

[Laughing Lagomorph]

"Revisionism of gay science." Will someone please explain that that means in general, and what that meana in this argument? I can't wrap my mind around it.


Yes, I was hoping for some elucidation on this point as well. Should be quite interesting.

[uchtungbaby]

WotNot has already answered this, but I'd like to call your attention to the opening paragraph of the Straight Dope Staff Report: Would Frankenstein's monster be possible today? (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mfrankenstein.html) (written by my son the biochemist):
In short, the argument that Mary Shelley didn't know science (whether true or not) is completely irrelevant -- there's no science in the book, not even the slightest hint thereof. However, to the contrary, her father WOULD have had some grounding in science, and the absence of any such is indicative that he did NOT write the work.

And yes, John W. Kennedy, we knew it was written before Victoria ascended to the throne, but the joke is lost if someone says, "Those wacky Georgians!" My son is not above sacrificing roughly two decades for the sake of a joke.


I think you are all missing the point. During the period in which the novel is written scientific knowledge was the domain of a select group of a predominantly male demographic. If Mary was to acquire the knowledge of electricity for example, then she would have had to have acquired that knowledge from her father. Up until the publication of Frankenstein, the phenomenon of electricity was a mystery. Some people thought that electricity was a type of magic and some still do. A common practice at the time was for scientists' to collect the dismembered corpses of criminals. They would take them to a university lecture theatre and subject the limbs to jolts of electricity in an effort to procure a spasm from the dead appendage. Only men would attend such experiments. The only way Mary could have known of the link between electricity and muscle spasms would have been as a result of hearing the story from her father who regularly attended public executions .

Some have claimed that the link between electricity and muscle spasms was common knowledge at the time. This is untrue! After the publication of Frankenstein it became common knowledge and not before. In fact, it became fashionable after the publication of the novel for the 'well to do' to purchase 'buzz boxes' from curiosity shops. They would take the electrical device with them to parties and proceed to kill a stray dog or cat so that they could try and solicit a muscle response from the dead animal by subjecting it to an electric jolt.

The knowledge of electricity before the publication of Frankenstein was a secret medical knowledge. It was maintained as a secret in an effort to monopolise power over life and death in the hands of a few. It was not a conspiracy. It was simply accepted practice at the time.

[APB]

Whatever else it was, electricity was not 'secret medical knowledge' in the opening decades of the nineteenth century. The idea of using it on dead bodies had been widely publicised by Galvani's nephew, Giovanni Aldini, in public demonstrations across Europe in the early 1800s. The most famous of those, then as well as now, had taken place in London in January 1803 and that had been widely reported in the press. Indeed, you can read one of those accounts for yourself from the Newgate Calendar (http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/newgate4/foster.htm), hardly a publication aimed at an elite, all-male readership. Note, in particular, that it assumes that the reader will know what 'galvanism' means and that they will be able to work out who Aldini's uncle was without it being spelled out. That was because Galvani was already a celebrity and a household name.

[hildea]

Have you read the other posts in this thread? And, as WotNot asked, have you read Frankenstein?

I'd like to see some cites that confirm your claims of how electricity was viewed in Shelley's time. But it's not really relevant to this debate: As the quote in Dex's post said: There's no amination by electricity in Frankenstein.
After days and nights of incredible labour and fatigue, I succeeded in discovering the cause of generation and life; nay, more, I became myself capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter.
...
I see by your eagerness and the wonder and hope which your eyes express, my friend, that you expect to be informed of the secret with which I am acquainted; that cannot be; listen patiently until the end of my story, and you will easily perceive why I am reserved upon that subject.
...
It was on a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils. With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, I collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs.(Full text of the novel here (http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=181777&pageno=1).) See? Not much explicit science there.

<hijack>
A really interesting account, APB, and in its way more horrifying than Shelley's excellent work of fiction. "The Chief Baron, in summing up to the jury, said that this was a case which almost entirely depended upon circumstantial evidence, but in some cases that might be the best evidence, as it was certainly the most difficult, if not impossible, to fabricate."
and
"Some of the uninformed bystanders thought that the wretched man was on the eve of being restored to life. This, however, was impossible, as several of his friends, who were under the scaffold, had violently pulled his legs, in order to put a more speedy termination to his sufferings." :eek:

[hildea]

Um, the "you" in my post is uchtungbaby, of course, not APB.

[RM Mentock]

"Those wacky Regency women" would be just as funny--and true.No, funnier. More edgy

Son of Dex just made a mistake.

[bonzer]

During the period in which the novel is written scientific knowledge was the domain of a select group of a predominantly male demographic. If Mary was to acquire the knowledge of electricity for example, then she would have had to have acquired that knowledge from her father.

Aside from APB's point that knowledge of electricity was a commonplace of popular culture by this time, you're also overlooking the fact that books explaining science for ladies were a flourishing genre and had been for about a century beforehand. It was largely taken for granted that a cultured women wouldn't read "proper" science books, but she would also be expected to take a fashionable interest in new scientific discoveries and there were plenty of authors catering to this taste. Womens' access to scientific writing was thus usually different from mens', but they certainly could familiarise themselves with up-to-date science.
That's not even including those women who did explore beyond the confines of what was specifically intended for them.
Nor was Mary Godwin growing up in a household that was particularly backwards when it came to encouraging women. It's known from one of her father's letters that he intended her to have at least some scientific education, though exactly what form this took is not entirely certain.

Patricia Fara's recent Pandora's Breeches: Women, Science & Power in the Enlightenment (Pimlico, 2004) discusses the ways 18th century women could follow, and even participate in, science in some detail. Her final chapter is, funnily enough, specifically devoted to Mary Shelley and an examination of what scientific books she'd probably read and their influence on Frankenstein.

[C K Dexter Haven]

If Mary was to acquire the knowledge of electricity for example, then she would have had to have acquired that knowledge from her father. Up until the publication of Frankenstein, the phenomenon of electricity was a mystery. Several people have disputed this, but the fact is that it doesn't matter: as hildea points out, the novel doesn't mention electricity.

You might as well say that Abraham Lincoln didn't write the Gettysburg Address because he didn't know about nuclear weapons.

[bonzer]

Several people have disputed this, but the fact is that it doesn't matter: as hildea points out, the novel doesn't mention electricity.

Not quite. What none of the versions of the novel mention is electricity in connection with animating the monster. (There is a 1831 preface where she retrospectively mentions that "galvanism had given token of such things" as part of a vague explanation, but that's not in the actual story.) The subject is however mentioned as part of the general scattering about of vaguely scientific references by Frankenstein. For example, from Chapter 2 (http://www.literature.org/authors/shelley-mary/frankenstein/chapter-02.html):

Before this I was not unacquainted with the more obvious laws of electricity. On this occasion a man of great research in natural philosophy was with us, and, excited by this catastrophe, he entered on the explanation of a theory which he had formed on the subject of electricity and galvanism, which was at once new and astonishing to me. All that he said threw greatly into the shade Cornelius Agrippa, Albertus Magnus, and Paracelsus, the lords of my imagination; but by some fatality the overthrow of these men disinclined me to pursue my accustomed studies. It seemed to me as if nothing would or could ever be known. All that had so long engaged my attention suddenly grew despicable. By one of those caprices of the mind, which we are perhaps most subject to in early youth, I at once gave up my former occupations; set down natural history and all its progeny as a deformed and abortive creation; and entertained the greatest disdain for a would-be science, which could never even step within the threshold of real knowledge.

This is from the 1831 text, rather than the 1818 original, and it's possible that it was added then. (I don't have a copy of the 1818 text to hand and there doesn't appear to be a complete version of it online.)

Such references are, of course, still not evidence of a knowledge of science beyond that available to her.

[WotNot]

This is from the 1831 text, rather than the 1818 original, and it's possible that it was added then. (I don't have a copy of the 1818 text to hand and there doesn't appear to be a complete version of it online.)

The copy I have here appears to be a reprint of the 1818 edition, and that passage is identical. Not, as you say, that it matters much – that much would have been common knowledge to any literate person at the time.

In any case, she seems to have been more inspired by the work of Erasmus Darwin than Galvani –the 1831 preface you quoted mentions him at length, and the preface to the 1818 edition begins like this:
The event on which this fiction is founded has been supposed, by Dr. Darwin, and some of the physiological writers of Germany, as not if impossible occurrence. I shall not be supposed as according the remotest degree of serious faith to such an imagination; yet, in assuming it as the basis of a work of fancy, I have not considered myself as merely weaving a series of supernatural terrors. The event on which the interest of the story depends is exempt from the disadvantages of a mere tale of spectres or enchantment.

Clearly Mary (whatever her knowledge of contemporary scientific advances may have been) had no interest in writing what we would consider hard science fiction, merely in sketching in a plausible background that would remove her horror story from the realm of the supernatural.

Frankly, I’m at a loss to understand uchtungbaby’s reasoning. Surely there can very few novels whose initial impetus, inspirations, influences (both general and particular) and circumstances of writing are more fully or more popularly known. We know who wrote it, when and why she did, who she was with at the time and what they talked about. We know the places they went to that became the settings for the novel, and the dreams she had that inspired its mood and theme. All of this has been well-known for nearly 200 years, and with the help of Google, ample supporting evidence is available at the click of a mouse.

One last point: when The British Critic reviewed Frankenstein (http://www.dickinson.edu/~nicholsa/Romnat/frankreview.htm) in April 1818, the reviewer clearly showed distaste that a female should have written so grisly a fantasy, but significantly failed to express any disbelief that it was possible for her to have done so.

[John W. Kennedy]

All of this seems to me to be nothing more than a lame rehash of the dreary old anti-Shakespeare bullshit.

[WotNot]

All of this seems to me to be nothing more than a lame rehash of the dreary old anti-Shakespeare bullshit.

Well, at the very least, the dreary old anti-Shakespeare bullshit has room for interesting speculation, given the comparatively sparse details existing about Shakespeare’s life.

Even supposing that the theory that William Godwin wrote Frankenstein was worth considering (which it isn’t) the sheer density of misinformation, irrelevant argument, and good old-fashioned stick-your-fingers-in-your-ears-and-go-“Na na na I can’t hear you” to which uchtunbaby has had to resort to support it makes me wonder whether it’s worth the wear-and-tear on my fingertips to try to persuade him otherwise.

[anson2995]

Some people thought that electricity was a type of magic and some still do.
Does anyone else find it ironic that a person who wrote this sentence would also be arguing that Mary Shelley lacked the requisite scientific knowledge to have written "Frankenstein."

At the very least, human understanding of (and experimentation with) electricity dates to the early 17th century. I think you could make the case that popular understanding of some forms of electricity dates back to Ancient Greece circa 600 BC.

Uchtung, how about a cite for either of your claims? Can you provide any evidence to support your assertion that "people thought electricity was a type of magic," or for your claim that "some still do"?

[Frank]

One last point: when The British Critic reviewed Frankenstein (http://www.dickinson.edu/~nicholsa/Romnat/frankreview.htm) in April 1818, the reviewer clearly showed distaste that a female should have written so grisly a fantasy, but significantly failed to express any disbelief that it was possible for her to have done so.
Obviously, the brainwashing of modern feminism kicked in earlier than we all thought.

[WotNot]

Obviously, the brainwashing of modern feminism kicked in earlier than we all thought.
I wouldn’t discount the influence of gay science.

[uchtungbaby]

Whatever else it was, electricity was not 'secret medical knowledge' in the opening decades of the nineteenth century. The idea of using it on dead bodies had been widely publicised by Galvani's nephew, Giovanni Aldini, in public demonstrations across Europe in the early 1800s. The most famous of those, then as well as now, had taken place in London in January 1803 and that had been widely reported in the press. Indeed, you can read one of those accounts for yourself from the Newgate Calendar (http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/newgate4/foster.htm), hardly a publication aimed at an elite, all-male readership. Note, in particular, that it assumes that the reader will know what 'galvanism' means and that they will be able to work out who Aldini's uncle was without it being spelled out. That was because Galvani was already a celebrity and a household name.


I would not be too sure of your source on that issue. A lot of misdirection has taken place on this issue because of the revisions of phamplet printers shortly after the great exhibition of 1851 in London.

[uchtungbaby]

Does anyone else find it ironic that a person who wrote this sentence would also be arguing that Mary Shelley lacked the requisite scientific knowledge to have written "Frankenstein."

At the very least, human understanding of (and experimentation with) electricity dates to the early 17th century. I think you could make the case that popular understanding of some forms of electricity dates back to Ancient Greece circa 600 BC.

Uchtung, how about a cite for either of your claims? Can you provide any evidence to support your assertion that "people thought electricity was a type of magic," or for your claim that "some still do"?


Get your own bibliography. Earn it like the rest of us.

[uchtungbaby]

Not quite. What none of the versions of the novel mention is electricity in connection with animating the monster. (There is a 1831 preface where she retrospectively mentions that "galvanism had given token of such things" as part of a vague explanation, but that's not in the actual story.) The subject is however mentioned as part of the general scattering about of vaguely scientific references by Frankenstein. For example, from Chapter 2 (http://www.literature.org/authors/shelley-mary/frankenstein/chapter-02.html):



This is from the 1831 text, rather than the 1818 original, and it's possible that it was added then. (I don't have a copy of the 1818 text to hand and there doesn't appear to be a complete version of it online.)

Such references are, of course, still not evidence of a knowledge of science beyond that available to her.

Read it again. Myths relating to the effects of electricity are implicit to the novel. Where do you think Holleywood got the idea from in the first place.

[RM Mentock]

Get your own bibliography. Earn it like the rest of us.No?
Read it again. Myths relating to the effects of electricity are implicit to the novel. Where do you think Holleywood got the idea from in the first place.The myths implicit in the novel are evidence of a knowledge of science beyond that available to her?

[anson2995]

Get your own bibliography. Earn it like the rest of us.
Translation: "I'm making stuff up as I go along."

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I'm convinced that you don't know anything about anything. Again, I challenge you to provide a source that confirms your assertion that "[s]ome people thought that electricity was a type of magic and some still do." Until you can do that, all you're doing is engaging in argument by assertion, and you're just wasting everybody's time.

[C K Dexter Haven]

I'm convinced that you don't know anything about anything. Moderator speaketh: anson2995, a gentle reminder that personal insults are not permitted in this forum, however much deserved. You may be critical of a person's arguments; but you may not insult the person him/herself.

OK?

[Moirai]

Get your own bibliography. Earn it like the rest of us.


Welcome to the SDMB.

When asked for a citation to back up someting one claims is a fact in a post, it is generally thought of as polite to provide it.

It helps to avoid the appearance of pulling ideas out of one's ass.

Just a suggestion.

[anson2995]

OK?
Agreed, duly noted, and thank you.

[uchtungbaby]

No?
The myths implicit in the novel are evidence of a knowledge of science beyond that available to her?
Yes that's right.

Oddly enough, I like the rest of you wish that Mary had developed the novel from her own inherent understanding of the world. It would fit in nicely with the revisions of feminism and gay science and might provide us all with some certainty about the genealogical contrivances advanced in relation to the novel.

The truth is that the men of both the Shelley and Godwin families were famous for their 'hell-fire club' type parties. It was probably during one such party that the men decided to give young Mary the kick along that she needed to rise up in status amongst the literati of her time. It must have worked because she did acquire some famous acquaintances. I suppose she would have been quite 'chuffed' to have had so many famous men casting praise over the novel, which for all intents and purposes, it was supposed that she had written.

Her father must have loved her very much to have foregone his own drives and ambitions in the interests of his daughter. To write a fantastic piece of fiction and then, give up the fame associated with it is a great act of love by a father for his daughter.

A close friend of the family was a lovely women called Lady Mountcashell. She knew of the harmless deception initiated by Mister Godwin and Percy Shelly. She immortalised their 'hell-fire club' antics in 'Twelve cogent reasons for supposing P.B.Sh_ll_y to be the d_v_l inc_rn_t'. The absence of lettering in the title of the poem is a common hell-fire convention used to avoid litigation. Percy and William would have dragged her through the courts (just for fun!) had she mentioned either one of them directly in the poem. Nobody really knows whether Percy and William found the poem very funny, though most people who know that Mary did not really write the novel think the irony in the poem is hilarious.

If you decide to use this in your own work then a simple acknowledgement to 'Uchtungbaby' and the webpage that it is taken from should suffice.

[Dunderman]

Do you even read our posts? Are you going to provide a source or not?

[Sarah Woodruff]

Medical knowledge was the domain of men. This is why Mary Shelley could not have written Frankenstein.
Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell (http://www.netwrx1.com/CherryAmes/blackwell.html) might disagree with you on that score. As might all female nurses and midwives since the dawn of history.
In the nineteenth century:
Political theory was the domain of men, yet Mary Wollstonecraft wrote a political dissertation called A Vindication of the Rights of Women.
Literary reputation as a poet was the domain of men, yet Emily Dickinson was a published poet of enormous literary acclaim.
Knowledge of physics was the domain of men, yet Madame Curie managed to discover the element Radium.
And so forth.

...Where is the documented evidence for your claims?

[Contrapuntal]

If you decide to use this in your own work then a simple acknowledgement to 'Uchtungbaby' and the webpage that it is taken from should suffice.

So you don't want a share of the royalties, then? That is might generous of you, because I see this thing blowing way the hell up. We're talking dinosaur dollars.

[John W. Kennedy]

No?
The myths implicit in the novel are evidence of a knowledge of science beyond that available to her?Yes that's right.Some sort of evidence or rational argument is missing here.Oddly enough, I like the rest of you wish that Mary had developed the novel from her own inherent understanding of the world.This is the difference between you and us. We "wish" nothing save to ascertain the truth.It would fit in nicely with the revisions of feminism and gay science and might provide us all with some certainty about the genealogical contrivances advanced in relation to the novel.That's half bigotry and half outright nonsense.The truth is that the men of both the Shelley and Godwin families were famous for their 'hell-fire club' type parties. It was probably during one such party that the men decided to give young Mary the kick along that she needed to rise up in status amongst the literati of her time.Proof? None. Logic? None.It must have worked because she did acquire some famous acquaintances. I suppose she would have been quite 'chuffed' to have had so many famous men casting praise over the novel, which for all intents and purposes, it was supposed that she had written.But that doesn't faze you; you can just go on drawing conclusions from your imaginary premise.Her father must have loved her very much to have foregone his own drives and ambitions in the interests of his daughter. To write a fantastic piece of fiction and then, give up the fame associated with it is a great act of love by a father for his daughter.Still more phantasy.A close friend of the family was a lovely women called Lady Mountcashell. She knew of the harmless deception initiated by Mister Godwin and Percy Shelly. She immortalised their 'hell-fire club' antics in 'Twelve cogent reasons for supposing P.B.Sh_ll_y to be the d_v_l inc_rn_t'. The absence of lettering in the title of the poem is a common hell-fire convention used to avoid litigation. Percy and William would have dragged her through the courts (just for fun!) had she mentioned either one of them directly in the poem. Nobody really knows whether Percy and William found the poem very funny, though most people who know that Mary did not really write the novel think the irony in the poem is hilarious.More phantasy.If you decide to use this in your own work then a simple acknowledgement to 'Uchtungbaby' and the webpage that it is taken from should suffice.Don't worry. If I ever decide to do a companion page to my collection of the outrageous lies and delusions of the Shakespeare deniers (http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/antistrats.html), you'll be one of the first.

[FriarTed]

That's half bigotry and half outright nonsense.


In the spirit of Chalcedon, I'd say that uchtungbaby's "femrev&gaysci" comments are fully bigotry and fully outright nonsense.

For some reason, I don't have access to an 1831 preface at the moment (the Net link I pursued didn't come up & I don't have time to look for others), but I do know that there is a reference in it to the use of galvinism & to "the pale student of unhallowed arts" infusing his creature with a spark of life from some machinery.
So electrical references to the monster's creation do exist there tho not in the text of the novel.

Re the whole OP, I never heard WG suggested as the author, but I have heard there was speculation at the time about PBS.

[Johnny L.A.]

Slight hijack, please.

What is the correct pronunciation of 'Bysshe'?

[andros]

Per the Britannica, it's "bish."

[RM Mentock]

That reminds me of a joke I just heard: what do you call a Bysshe with no eyes? bsh

[samclem]

That reminds me of a joke I just heard: what do you call a Bysshe with no eyes? bsh
It's fish with no eyes. fsh

[Johnny L.A.]

What do you call a pig with three eyes?

Piiig!

[Dangerosa]

Not that I agree with the OP, but Elizabeth Blackwell was slightly later than Mary Shelley, in feminist years (she got her MD in 1845, rather than the 1818 of Frankenstein). (Seneca Falls, and the "discovery of women as people, was 1848). A lot happened between the time Mary wrote Frankenstein and Dr. Blackwell got her MD. And Emily Dickensen was never published in her lifetime and wasn't even born until 1830. More appropriate would be to compare Shelley with an earlier Jane Austen or Fanny Burney or Anne Radcliffe (who wrote romantic horror).

Which isn't to say its impossible for Mary to have the basic groundings in science. Regency women overall were less sheltered (IMO) than their Victorian counterparts, and Mary - given her mother and father's liberalism and beliefs, as well as her own apparent disinterest in conforming to social norms (running off with a married man) was likely to have been even less sheltered from ideas than most.

uchtungbaby, one of the convention of the Straight Dope is that if you make a statement, you should be prepared to back it up with a cite, state it as opinion or as knowledge gleaned from somewhere (I can't provide a cite, but I remember learning in Biology that). Obviously, the people here will weight your claims based on the quality of your cite.

[uchtungbaby]

Slight hijack, please.

What is the correct pronunciation of 'Bysshe'?


Johnny that doesn't help but I see what you mean. I'm not going to respond to everyone except in a generic way. If you want a source then get off your chair, visit your local library(where I come from they're free), and request works by Claire Tomalin. She is a descendent of the Shelley's but would probably not agree with me though she inadvertently provides the evidence I alluded to in my last contribution.

Too save time I might try to put everything in context. Human reproduction is anathema to the cause of feminists and advocates of gay science. They seek to turn every fertile man into an obedient eunuch and every woman into a discordant automaton. Such is there understanding of what Mary would have called 'governance'. Even Germaine Greer would agree with this I believe(?) I think she now sees the fruits of her advocacy and regrets it all very much(?) But let's resist shooting the messenger. The declining birth rate in her own demographic is enough punishment for the mischief.

When I think of feminism and gay science, I think of empty playgrounds and children with imaginary friends. I think of that Glen Campbell tune 'Where's the playground Susie ?' I think of 'mother's little helper'. I think of lost mateship. I think of their attempt to murder an entire demographic with philidomide. All this because their intellectuals are incapable of reproduction.

If I openly promoted a discourse that was anathema to human reproduction, then in all likelyhood, I would be dodging rotten tomatoes from all directions. Yet advocates of gay science and feminism are able to get away with it. Why? Because they veil what they do in subterfuge. The hijacking of the Mary Shelley hoax is just one example in the many. Why do they do it? Because they wish to brainwash people into a belief that there are specific physiognomic markers in one subject(.i.e.,beta-sigma, P7 Chorea's) that induce pathological markers in another subject. Put simply, they try to bolster the idea that heterosexual interaction is unhealthy to one or both of the partners in a relationship. Conversely, the behavioural sequences (usually alpha2,gamma1) endemic to both feminist and gay discourses are made to seem inevitable and appropriate. Were it not for an act of God they probably would get what they desire.

I leave you with this comment. Those who have seen the authentic work of Mary Shelley know her feelings on these sorts of matters.


"...They are bitter and cursed by God for the mischiefe(sic).' (Mary Shelley,source: Vatican Library).

Here 'mischiefe' takes on the meaning ascribed to it in the 15th century 'Haydyn's Case'. It seems that this mob have been around before.

[uchtungbaby]

Whatever else it was, electricity was not 'secret medical knowledge' in the opening decades of the nineteenth century. The idea of using it on dead bodies had been widely publicised by Galvani's nephew, Giovanni Aldini, in public demonstrations across Europe in the early 1800s. The most famous of those, then as well as now, had taken place in London in January 1803 and that had been widely reported in the press. Indeed, you can read one of those accounts for yourself from the Newgate Calendar (http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/newgate4/foster.htm), hardly a publication aimed at an elite, all-male readership. Note, in particular, that it assumes that the reader will know what 'galvanism' means and that they will be able to work out who Aldini's uncle was without it being spelled out. That was because Galvani was already a celebrity and a household name.

I'll try to be quick. After the great exhibition of 1851 there were an awful lot of unemployed printers and artists. There is a good chance that your references(though I am not sure because I have not seen them)were the product of forgers employed by the wealthy to try an promote the notion of a past golden age. This is probably where your Galvani leaflets fit in.

[APB]

I'll try to be quick. After the great exhibition of 1851 there were an awful lot of unemployed printers and artists. There is a good chance that your references(though I am not sure because I have not seen them)were the product of forgers employed by the wealthy to try an promote the notion of a past golden age. This is probably where your Galvani leaflets fit in.

Nice try, but you're still talking nonsense and, what is more, you know that you're talking nonsense.

As it happens, the Newgate Calendar account was lifted almost word-for-word for the report in The Times of 22 January 1803 (issue 5625, col. D). Again, you can check this for yourself online at the Times Digital Archive (http://www.galegroup.com/Times/), although this does require a subscription.

[blackhobyah]

While Elizabeth Blackwell was the first woman to obtain a degree in medicine in 1849, that doesn't mean that no women attended university studies in the subject. Women were frequently allowed to attend lectures, but not allowed to take degrees until comparatively late in the 19th century.

As for women scientists ... allow me to introduce a well-known scientist from an even earlier era: the inimitable Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle (http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/cavendish/cavendishbio.htm). Ada Byron, Lady Lovelace, daughter of Lord Byron, one of Shelley's intimates is acknowledged as an early thinker in the area of computer science. So it's nonsense to suggest that women didn't have access or interest in the area of science.

The difficulty with Victorian history is that it is, in some ways, still part of our present, and we assume that some of the attitudes which prevailed under Victoria were the same for previous generations. This isn't true, Georgian society, without the rupture of the Industrial Revolution, was in many ways able to be a more open society than the Victorians. And the Georgians were also the inheritors of the European Enlightenment, when an interest in natural history, science and philosophy was a normal part of cultured life.

One of the problems with attributing the story to Mary is that she was too young to have acquired the lexicon used in the narrative. This is why many doubt her authorial claim.


Emily Bronte was only 29 when she wrote "Wuthering Heights", a book which contains a remarkable emotional lexicon for a young woman who never married, rarely left home and was ill for much of her life. Fanny Burney was only 26 when she published "Evelina", Charlotte Bronte wrote "Jane Eyre" at 31, Anne Bronte was 27 when she published "Agnes Grey". Jane Austen wrote her first novel at 14, and was only in her early twenties when she wrote "Sense and Sensibility", "Pride and Prejudice" and "Northanger Abbey".

In contrast, Mary Shelley was the daughter of two of England's important intellectual figures, her mother was Mary Wollstonecraft, an early feminist writer and thinker, who's first work was called, "Thoughts on the Education of Daughters".

It's not difficult to understand that a daughter of two such remarkable intellectuals might have had an unusual and extensive education and access to a wide range of learning.

At 19 Mary Shelley had two children and had had one which died early on in her relationship with Percy Shelley, she had also suffered the suicide of two people close to her. It would seem to me that those experiences would be a catalyst for adulthood for anyone, let alone a fiercely intelligent, well-educated young woman with an acquaintance which numbered some of the most prominent thinkers and writers of her day.

And in an age when the average life expectancy was under 50, a nineteen year old would most certainly be considered an adult, not a teenager and capable of an adult's understanding.

It seems to me purest misogyny to insist, on the basis of no evidence to the contrary, that Mary Shelly couldn't have written as she did, simply because she was a young woman.

[John W. Kennedy]

Which isn't to say its impossible for Mary to have the basic groundings in science. Regency women overall were less sheltered (IMO) than their Victorian counterparts, and Mary - given her mother and father's liberalism and beliefs, as well as her own apparent disinterest in conforming to social norms (running off with a married man) was likely to have been even less sheltered from ideas than most....especially since she was home-schooled.

But really, the only "science" involved here is Luigi Galvani's (1737–1798) somewhat mistaken notions of "animal electricity", which Alessandro Volta (1745–1827) had already undermined in 1800, and the level she treats it at is approximately that of an EPCOT exhibit. (Volta had been made a count on the basis of his work in 1810; so much for the alleged "secret".)

[John W. Kennedy]

I'll try to be quick. After the great exhibition of 1851 there were an awful lot of unemployed printers and artists. There is a good chance that your references(though I am not sure because I have not seen them)were the product of forgers employed by the wealthy to try an promote the notion of a past golden age. This is probably where your Galvani leaflets fit in.In short, you have nothing to defend your statements with but a paranoid conspiracy theory.

This thread has now become pointless.

[anson2995]

England in the Eighteenth Century (1714 – 1815)

[Crandolph]

Gay science?

I remember the cop, the Indian, the construction worker, the cowboy... nope, no scientist ...

[anson2995]

Sorry for my previous mangled post.

The OP has asserted that Mary Shelley lacked the scientific knowledge necessary to have written Frankenstein. In particular, he insists that in Shelley's time, the general public had no knowledge of electricity.

This OP is demonstrating one of the most basic flaws of historical research, which is to answer a historical question through his own reconstruction, deduction, and assumptions. The types of questions he attempts to answer in that way are better answered directly, from both primary sources and secondary sources. What did people at the time say, what historical evidence exists friom the era in question, and what have subsequent scholars said?

There are, for example, many accounts wriitten in the late 18th century describing the public fascination with electricity and public demonstrations of devices like the Leiden jar (invented around 1742) or George Adams' spark machine (invented around 1762). By 1785, Adams and others had invented electical devices that were widely used in medical treatment.

Louis XV, who died almost 25 years before Mary Shelley was born, was fascinated with electricty, and he helped sponsor research and publications that drew worldwide attention. Public fascination grew as a result, and lightning rods sprouted all over Paris. This culture of scientific curiosity drew Benjamin Franklin to France in the 1750s. His book, documenting a decade of electrical research, was popular in England and France. All of these events are well documented in contemporary sources.

This half century before Mary Shelley was born was a period of intense public interest in science, history, and philosophy, known generally as the Age of Enlightenment. I could provide dozens of cites that describe the scientific knowledge of Shelley's era... one should probably suffice: "England in the Eighteenth Century (1714 – 1815)" by Professor J.H. Plumb. He notes that in addition to many scientific discoveries about the nature of electricity during the late 18th century, it was a subject that generated great public interest.
But electricity was also a fashionable game. Louis XV witnessed the administration of an electric shock to a line of monks a mile long and was convulsed with laughter when they all leapt into the air. Public demonstrations of the powers of electricity became exceedingly popular and profitable. To see brandy ignited by a spark shooting from a man's finger became one of the wonders of the age. Wesley became a firm believer in electricity's curative powers because he regarded it as a kind of élan vital, and he warmly recommended intense and prolonged electric shocks for a wide range of diseases from malaria to hysteria. Other amateurs preferred to experiment on themselves first and a miscellaneous crop of discoveries followed – the Leyden jar, Galvani's frogs' legs, and the great Anglo-American contribution – Benjamin Franklin's lightning conductors which George III had installed in Buckingham Palace as soon as he bought it. There was a deepening curiosity about nature, about mankind, about society, and its historic past. n all studies there was greater precision, and an increased reliance on observation, a growing detachment from the intellectual attitudes of the past.

So I will say again... uchtungbaby's assertion that Mary Shelley could not have had any knowledge of electricity, that "people thought electricity was a type of magic," is clearly and demonstrably false. Further, it displays a gross misunderstanding or disregard for the facts, and frankly that calls his/her entire claim into question.

[Annie-Xmas]

Too save time I might try to put everything in context. Human reproduction is anathema to the cause of feminists and advocates of <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-hclick.php?hid=156' target='_blank'>gay</a> science. They seek to turn every fertile man into an obedient eunuch and every woman into a discordant automaton. Such is there understanding of what Mary would have called 'governance'. Even Germaine Greer would agree with this I believe(?) I think she now sees the fruits of her advocacy and regrets it all very much(?) But let's resist shooting the messenger. The declining birth rate in her own demographic is enough punishment for the mischief.

When I think of feminism and <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-hclick.php?hid=156' target='_blank'>gay</a> science, I think of empty playgrounds and children with imaginary friends. I think of that Glen Campbell tune 'Where's the playground Susie ?' I think of 'mother's little helper'. I think of lost mateship. I think of their attempt to murder an entire demographic with philidomide. All this because their intellectuals are incapable of reproduction.

If I openly promoted a discourse that was anathema to human reproduction, then in all likelyhood, I would be dodging rotten tomatoes from all directions. Yet advocates of <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-hclick.php?hid=156' target='_blank'>gay</a> science and feminism are able to get away with it. Why? Because they veil what they do in subterfuge. The hijacking of the Mary Shelley hoax is just one example in the many. Why do they do it? Because they wish to brainwash people into a belief that there are specific physiognomic markers in one subject(.i.e.,beta-sigma, P7 Chorea's) that induce pathological markers in another subject. Put simply, they try to bolster the idea that heterosexual interaction is unhealthy to one or both of the partners in a relationship. Conversely, the behavioural sequences (usually alpha2,gamma1) endemic to both feminist and <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-hclick.php?hid=156' target='_blank'>gay</a> discourses are made to seem inevitable and appropriate. Were it not for an act of God they probably would get what they desire.

I leave you with this comment. Those who have seen the authentic work of Mary Shelley know her feelings on these sorts of matters.


"...They are bitter and cursed by God for the mischiefe(sic).' (Mary Shelley,source: Vatican Library).

Here 'mischiefe' takes on the meaning ascribed to it in the 15th century 'Haydyn's Case'. It seems that this mob have been around before.

Feminists and gays are, for the most part, perfectly capable of having children, and okay with the idea of straights having sex and children. Like your argument about Mary Shelly, you've started with a very faulty premise.

[rfgdxm]

Touchy,touchy. Maybe if you were to read the lost manuscript 'Maurice or The Fisher's Cot' thought to be an early work by Mary you would see: That the narrative is influenced by the rote learning of stories by her father. It is not a matter that should cause shame however! The writing of stories is often a cumulative process of learning handed down from parent to child. In the case of Frankenstein the evidence is very compelling that Mary had been taught the story by her father. For example, Mary could not have known things of science implicit to the story because women were not allowed to attend universities to learn the scientific discipline of medicine. Medical knowledge was the domain of men. This is why Mary Shelley could not have written Frankenstein. Now some people have tried to get around this fact by suggesting that Mary would put on her husbands' clothes and pretend to be a man so as to get into the lecture theatres. This is a bit far fetched because a self-repecting Victorian women would never denounce her weak feminine demeanour just to look at a pack of old corpses. Those who believe Mary wrote Frankenstein are suffering from the brainwashing of modern feminism and the revisionism of gay science. In other words, you have all fallen for the biggest trick in a conmans book: False history.
What if Mary had a person friend who was a knowledgeable physician and surgeon? Let's assume that Mary got the idea in her head to write a novel about a corpse being reanimated. Yet Mary knows basically zilch about medicine. In that case, she could:

#1) Dress up as a man so as to get into the lecture theatres.

#2) Ask her male friend who was a knowledgeable physician and surgeon to fill in the details about what might be needed medically to reanimate a corpse, and incorporate this knowledge into her novel.

Wouldn't #2 be more plausible? And William Godwin was a philospher, not a surgeon. It seems more likely that Mary would have based what she wrote from discussions with a surgeon than her political philosopher father.

[RiverRunner]

What do you call a captain with two eyes?

Aye, aye, cap'n!


RR

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Sorry for my previous mangled post.
There are, for example, many accounts wriitten in the late 18th century describing the public fascination with electricity and public demonstrations of devices like the Leiden jar (invented around 1742) or George Adams' spark machine (invented around 1762). By 1785, Adams and others had invented electical devices that were widely used in medical treatment.

Indeed. Benjamin Franklin purchased his electrical equipment from a man (Archibald?) who travelled around the colonies giving exhibitions to both male and female audiences of the wonders of electricity. This included work with what could be called a crude Van de Graaf generator that gave shocks and rasied the hair of young ladies. Franklin continued these demonstrations, but purely on a local level. Others still travelled the colonies and Europe demonstrating the wonderous effects of electricity , even if they did not understand it.

The effect demonstrated on human bodies was obvious. It would not take too much imagination to perscribe wonderous life-giving properties to electricity, even before Volta and Galvani.

But of course, that was more gay science.

[inkleberry]

Too save time I might try to put everything in context. Human reproduction is anathema to the cause of feminists and advocates of gay science. They seek to turn every fertile man into an obedient eunuch and every woman into a discordant automaton. The declining birth rate in her own demographic is enough punishment for the mischief.

I'm a queer feminist with a son and an ornery husband. Please explain me.

Because they wish to brainwash people into a belief that there are specific physiognomic markers in one subject(.i.e.,beta-sigma, P7 Chorea's) that induce pathological markers in another subject. Put simply, they try to bolster the idea that heterosexual interaction is unhealthy to one or both of the partners in a relationship. Conversely, the behavioural sequences (usually alpha2,gamma1) endemic to both feminist and gay discourses are made to seem inevitable and appropriate. Were it not for an act of God they probably would get what they desire.


Whoa..... are you trying to argue that *genetic markers* are a hoax of some sort? Seriously, it looks to me like you are arguing "gay science" is behind genetic testing for Huntington's Chorea and other genetic diseases with the intent of somehow destroying human reproduction by convincing people it's unsafe to reproduce? I'm really hoping I am reading this wrong.

What is this "act of God" you allude to? I have some guesses, but I doubt you are inferring anything nearly as crass and tasteless as I suspect.

[uchtungbaby]

In short, you have nothing to defend your statements with but a paranoid conspiracy theory.

This thread has now become pointless.

I realise it affects your sensibilities luv. Perhaps you could hold back your straining contensions and consider that we are all merely 'wax and wire'. The 'Hell-fire club'(HFC) has advised on governance for centuries. They were instrumental in gaining the power for women to have primary control over their children etc,. Many HFC's of the 18th-19th centuries thought that the idea of giving women disciplinary control over their bodies might give the men more time to relax and smell the flowers. It was thought to be a fair exchange. The women of that time believed that "...the children hath the melodie of birds." Obversely, the men found a glass of red wine and a quiet read of 'Anatomie fur Divineers' (Source: Vatican Library, Transitional Linguistic subject area.) a good precursor to watching executions in the main square of town.

How things have changed? Feminists now claim to have praxis and freely conspire with the criminal incarnants that, occupy the jars of every anatomy department established prior to the twentieth century. Obviously, the 'Majees' of the late 19th century were slightly off the mark when they told other HFC's (no doubt those ones on the turps at the time) that the resonances of these mischiefous people, would end once they were placed in jars containing what we now know of as formaldehyde.

It is worth pointing out that they think they have won this vexing game but: Nobody wins when people play this ruse. They only prolong the inevitable. I am sure that the 'Majees' know that they will end their days as a discursive pack of old lampshades; and the rest of us; well we shall end our days doing the dance of the dodo (and I don't mean Wilsons Disease).

[uchtungbaby]

What if Mary had a person friend who was a knowledgeable physician and surgeon? Let's assume that Mary got the idea in her head to write a novel about a corpse being reanimated. Yet Mary knows basically zilch about medicine. In that case, she could:

#1) Dress up as a man so as to get into the lecture theatres.

#2) Ask her male friend who was a knowledgeable physician and surgeon to fill in the details about what might be needed medically to reanimate a corpse, and incorporate this knowledge into her novel.

Wouldn't #2 be more plausible? And William Godwin was a philospher, not a surgeon. It seems more likely that Mary would have based what she wrote from discussions with a surgeon than her political philosopher father.

I like the way you think! I am sure there is more to this story than meets the aye(sic)...I mean eye. My only disagreement with your view is that if you take a look at a portrait of Mary from that time you will notice that her features do betray the fact that she is a women. Her handsome and delicate shimmer would be easily detected by the physigonomic knowledge of the physicians that attended the lectures. The assumption that a man would not smell her beautiful body and run his fingers over her blushing cheeks betrays the womanliness of this person.

[uchtungbaby]

I'm a queer feminist with a son and an ornery husband. Please explain me.



Whoa..... are you trying to argue that *genetic markers* are a hoax of some sort? Seriously, it looks to me like you are arguing "gay science" is behind genetic testing for Huntington's Chorea and other genetic diseases with the intent of somehow destroying human reproduction by convincing people it's unsafe to reproduce? I'm really hoping I am reading this wrong.

What is this "act of God" you allude to? I have some guesses, but I doubt you are inferring anything nearly as crass and tasteless as I suspect.

I am suggesting that the chorea's are a form of post-hypnotic suggestion.

[blackhobyah]

The 'Hell-fire club'(HFC) has advised on governance for centuries. They were instrumental in gaining the power for women to have primary control over their children etc,. Many HFC's of the 18th-19th centuries thought that the idea of giving women disciplinary control over their bodies might give the men more time to relax and smell the flowers.

Which Hell Fire Club are you talking about? There were two famous ones, the best known being that formed by Sir Francis Dashwood in the mid-18th century. Francis Dashwood died in 1781, and his Hell Fire Club had disbanded some twenty years before that.

The previous one was started early in the 18th century ... but secret clubs of all kinds were a passion of the 18th century, I hardly think you can conclude from two such groups that they had enormous influence for centuries. They were more than likely a nice excuse for a bunch of wealthy men to indulge themselves in drink, drugs and debauchery, accompanied by a nice frisson of blasphemy to liven the mix.

John Wilkes was a member of the Hell Fire Club and a supporter of female suffrage, but the Married Women's Property Act was a project of William Gladstone after the General Election of 1880, and John Wilkes died in 1797, so it's hard to see how much influence he could have had.

The Married Women's Property Act, which gave women control over their property wasn't passed until 1882, by which time both John Wilkes and Francis Dashwood had been dead for nearly a century.

Obviously, the 'Majees' of the late 19th century were slightly off the mark when they told other HFC's (no doubt those ones on the turps at the time) that the resonances of these mischiefous people, would end once they were placed in jars containing what we now know of as formaldehyde.

In the interests of accuracy, I point out that everyone's resonances are likely to end once they are placed in a jar of formaldehyde, I hardly think a warning to this effect is even slightly off the mark, although perhaps unneccesary for all but the most foolish.

I've searched the Vatican Library catalogue for a copy of Anatomie fur Divineers and can't find it. What is it about? I have to say that it would have to be a pretty incompetent cataloguer who would put a book which appears to be about fortune-telling into the linguistics section.

As for the rest of your argument ... with all due respect, I think that unless you can provide some evidence for your conclusions, I'd have to say that I think it's of the same order as other conspiracy theories: entertaining fiction.

There may be internal concordance for you, but if you want to convince anyone else, you're going to provide some evidence outside your own imagination.

[blackhobyah]

#1) Dress up as a man so as to get into the lecture theatres.


James Barry did, and graduated as a doctor from Edinburgh University in 1812. Her appearance was described as: " Her physical appearance was distinctly feminine. She was small and delicately built being only five feet tall, her face was pale and smooth with high cheek bones and sandy curls (dyed reddish in later life), a long nose and blue eyes. Her hands were small and delicate."

She went on to a distinguished career as a doctor in the British Military Forces, and her sex wasn't discovered until her death in 1865.

Now I'm not suggesting that Mary Shelley did anything of the kind, but at least one woman did (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/lj/warslj/women_07.shtml).

[John W. Kennedy]

I realise it affects your sensibilities luv.It is against the policies of this board for me to reply to this filthy attack on my intellectual integrity. It is also against the policies of this board to give any kind of objective description of the rest of your post.

Moderators, I beg of you, move this thread to where it belongs.

[Scott Plaid]

Moderators, I beg of you, move this thread to where it belongs.For what little my opinion in the matter is worth, I second this vote.

[bienville]

Slight hijack, please.

What is the correct pronunciation of 'Bysshe'?

Traditionally: "bish"

But Regency Hip-Hop culture popularized the alternate pronunciation: bi-ASSHE!!!

[Frank]

uchtungbaby, you are invited to broaden your SDMB horizons. Please visit the BBQ Pit (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=323146).

[inkleberry]

I am suggesting that the chorea's are a form of post-hypnotic suggestion.


Huntington's chorea is a form of post-hypnotic suggestion? Oh my. Please join me in the already existing Pit thread.

[FriarTed]

Methinks uchtungbaby uses the term 'HFC' with the same meaning that we more conventional conspiracy-buffs use 'Illuminati'.

Also, I do wonder if the names John Tyler Kent or Lyndon LaRouche mean anything to him?

[FriarTed]

What if Mary had a person friend who was a knowledgeable physician and surgeon? Let's assume that Mary got the idea in her head to write a novel about a corpse being reanimated. Yet Mary knows basically zilch about medicine. In that case, she could:

#1) Dress up as a man so as to get into the lecture theatres.

#2) Ask her male friend who was a knowledgeable physician and surgeon to fill in the details about what might be needed medically to reanimate a corpse, and incorporate this knowledge into her novel.

Wouldn't #2 be more plausible? And William Godwin was a philospher, not a surgeon. It seems more likely that Mary would have based what she wrote from discussions with a surgeon than her political philosopher father.


I don't know about him being a surgeon, but the only one of the Shelley circle to have completed a spooky story besides Mary was Byron's physician John Polidori.

[Larry Borgia]

I realise it affects your sensibilities luv. Perhaps you could hold back your straining contensions and consider that we are all merely 'wax and wire'. The 'Hell-fire club'(HFC) has advised on governance for centuries. They were instrumental in gaining the power for women to have primary control over their children etc,. Many HFC's of the 18th-19th centuries thought that the idea of giving women disciplinary control over their bodies might give the men more time to relax and smell the flowers. It was thought to be a fair exchange. The women of that time believed that "...the children hath the melodie of birds." Obversely, the men found a glass of red wine and a quiet read of 'Anatomie fur Divineers' (Source: Vatican Library, Transitional Linguistic subject area.) a good precursor to watching executions in the main square of town.

How things have changed? Feminists now claim to have praxis and freely conspire with the criminal incarnants that, occupy the jars of every anatomy department established prior to the twentieth century. Obviously, the 'Majees' of the late 19th century were slightly off the mark when they told other HFC's (no doubt those ones on the turps at the time) that the resonances of these mischiefous people, would end once they were placed in jars containing what we now know of as formaldehyde.

It is worth pointing out that they think they have won this vexing game but: Nobody wins when people play this ruse. They only prolong the inevitable. I am sure that the 'Majees' know that they will end their days as a discursive pack of old lampshades; and the rest of us; well we shall end our days doing the dance of the dodo (and I don't mean Wilsons Disease).

What the hell are you talking about?

[FriarTed]

For some reason, I don't have access to an 1831 preface at the moment (the Net link I pursued didn't come up & I don't have time to look for others), but I do know that there is a reference in it to the use of galvinism & to "the pale student of unhallowed arts" infusing his creature with a spark of life from some machinery.
So electrical references to the monster's creation do exist there tho not in the text of the novel.



I just looked it up- paragraphs 9 & 10 in the 1831 Intro.

[C K Dexter Haven]

uchtungbaby, you are welcome to express opinions here, but you need to read the Forum descriptions, and you probably need to read a few more threads to get the hang of this place. We're not like other discussion boards you may have seen.

First, this forum is for discussion of the staff report. That means that you can offer evidence or opinions, whether historic or literary, on whether Mary Shelly wrote Frankenstein.. You have offered your opinions, and you have been asked for evidence (and provided with evidence countering your opinions, so now you either provide evidence or you walk politely away and say, "We'll agree to disagree."

Second, you may NOT offer conspiracy theories or your sentiments about feminism or any other such drivel, not in this forum. Such comments are completely out of line in this thread, and in this forum. You want to do that, go to the forum called Great Debates or the BBQ Pit.

Third, you may NOT offer personal insults to posters in this forum. Such comments are not appropriate for this forum. You want to make snide and nasty personal comments, go to the forum called the BBQ Pit.

This thread has gone as far as it's going.

uchtungbaby, if you have come to our Message Boards to engage in interesting (polite!) discussion and commentary, you are more than welcome. If you have come here solely to provoke a response, then see What is a troll?
(http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mtroll.html) and understand that it's a bannable offense.