# Mary Shelley didn't write Frankenstein! **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [June 22, 2005, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331 "2005-06-22T08:56:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![hildea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ebca7d/32.png) [@hildea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hildea)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/21 "2005-06-24T09:43:47Z")
Um, the “you” in my post is **uchtungbaby** , of course, not **APB**. ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/22 "2005-06-24T10:08:39Z")
> [@John W. Kennedy](#): > > “Those wacky Regency women” would be just as funny–and true. No, funnier. More edgy Son of Dex just made a mistake. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/23 "2005-06-24T11:08:39Z")
> [@uchtungbaby](#): > > 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_. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/24 "2005-06-24T12:12:07Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/25 "2005-06-24T13:17:57Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![WotNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e19b73/32.png) [@WotNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WotNot)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/26 "2005-06-24T14:36:59Z")
> [@bonzer](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/27 "2005-06-24T16:22:12Z")
All of this seems to me to be nothing more than a lame rehash of the dreary old anti-Shakespeare bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![WotNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e19b73/32.png) [@WotNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WotNot)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/28 "2005-06-24T16:34:43Z")
> [@John W. Kennedy](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/29 "2005-06-24T17:04:36Z")
> [@uchtungbaby](#): > > 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”? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/30 "2005-06-24T17:55:43Z")
> [@WotNot](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![WotNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e19b73/32.png) [@WotNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WotNot)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/31 "2005-06-24T18:46:28Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > Obviously, the brainwashing of modern feminism kicked in earlier than we all thought. I wouldn’t discount the influence of gay science. ---
**Author:** ![uchtungbaby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@uchtungbaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uchtungbaby)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/32 "2005-06-25T05:33:41Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![uchtungbaby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@uchtungbaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uchtungbaby)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/33 "2005-06-25T05:35:58Z")
> [@anson2995](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![uchtungbaby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@uchtungbaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uchtungbaby)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/34 "2005-06-25T05:39:25Z")
> [@bonzer](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/35 "2005-06-25T05:59:59Z")
> [@uchtungbaby](#): > > Get your own bibliography. Earn it like the rest of us. No? > [@uchtungbaby](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/36 "2005-06-25T12:26:00Z")
> [@uchtungbaby](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/37 "2005-06-25T18:24:39Z")
> [@anson2995](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/38 "2005-06-25T19:16:11Z")
> [@uchtungbaby](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/39 "2005-06-25T19:54:48Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > OK? Agreed, duly noted, and thank you. ---
**Author:** ![uchtungbaby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@uchtungbaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uchtungbaby)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2005, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331/40 "2005-06-26T07:30:16Z")
> [@RM Mentock](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mary-shelley-didnt-write-frankenstein/309331.md?page=3)