Question about Shelley's Frankenstein

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

@FriarTed

When Elizabeth fell, her face smashed against the end table, knocking over the oil lamp, doing both cutting & burning damage.

Justine the maid (who was lynched in the movie, judicially executed in the book, committed suicide in neither) was going to be raw materials for the Monster’s Bride. She’d been in the grave for a month plus, thus not all of her was usable.

Finally, from Chapter Four of the 1831 edition- Victor clearly assembled human parts & perhaps also animal ones for the Monster…

“… Who shall conceive the horrors of my secret toil, as I dabbled among the unhallowed damps of the grave, or tortured the living animal to animate the lifeless clay? … I collected bones from charnel houses; and disturbed, with profane fingers, the tremendous secrets of the human frame. … The dissecting room and the slaughterhouse furnished many of my materials; and often did my human nature turn with loathing from my occupation, whilst, still urged on by an eagerness which perpetually increased, I brought my work near to a conclusion.”

Please note that there is no definitive edition of Shelley’s Novel Frankenstein!

The Novel was an immediate success, & her printer was caught by suprise. He had thought the novel “lurid”, & was unwilling to begin a second printing.

The pirates were not so slow.

Pirated printings of Frankenstein were exceedingly common. They actually outnumbered the legitimate printings by better than 50 to 1!

Today, we are not even certain which one was the original, legit first edition!

The convoluted, incomplete legal record is no help, as Shelley died young, before things were sorted out.

Many pirated editions were “improved” :rolleyes: by the people who stole them to make things more lurid.

The actual Shelley text is, at least to scholars, in some dispute.

Or so said my college course in Science Fiction Literature.

[Chronos]

Incidently, as a creative writing major, I agree with this. Writers, like everybody, have a subconcious, and we’re not always aware of the full import of everything we write. However, I don’t believe the interpretation of Frankenstein in which the monster does not physically exist is at all supported by the text. Shelley clearly intended for the monster to actually exist, and she didn’t really leave it open to interpretation. My British lit II professor also thought that this reading was viable, but I never saw it.

The problem is that many scholars get to the point where they forget that the writer has a conscious mind, too. If a writer tells me “No, I meant that passage to imply this”, then I’m going to consider that at least part of the motivation. If that’s not fully supported by the text, then that might mean that the author just isn’t very good, but it does not mean that she’s a Freudian automaton controlled entirely by her subconscious to the point that she doesn’t even know what she’s writing.

[Miller]

@Chronos

The problem is that many scholars get to the point where they forget that the writer has a conscious mind, too. If a writer tells me “No, I meant that passage to imply this”, then I’m going to consider that at least part of the motivation. If that’s not fully supported by the text, then that might mean that the author just isn’t very good, but it does not mean that she’s a Freudian automaton controlled entirely by her subconscious to the point that she doesn’t even know what she’s writing.

See, I’d ignore that. If I couldn’t figure it out just by reading the book, then as far as I’m concerned, it’s not in the book. In principle, anyway. There are plenty of times where I’ve heard the author explain his work and gone :smack: But there are just as many where I’ve heard the author explain his work and decided I liked my interpretation better. It’s not a case of, “No, what you really meant was X,” it’s just sometimes X is more interesting then whatever its supposed to mean. If ignoring the author’s intent means I enjoy his book more, I’m all for ignoring him.

[FriarTed]

@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

Please note that there is no definitive edition of Shelley’s Novel Frankenstein!

The Novel was an immediate success, & her printer was caught by suprise. He had thought the novel “lurid”, & was unwilling to begin a second printing.

The pirates were not so slow.

Pirated printings of Frankenstein were exceedingly common. They actually outnumbered the legitimate printings by better than 50 to 1!

Today, we are not even certain which one was the original, legit first edition!

The convoluted, incomplete legal record is no help, as Shelley died young, before things were sorted out.

Many pirated editions were “improved” :rolleyes: by the people who stole them to make things more lurid.

The actual Shelley text is, at least to scholars, in some dispute.

Or so said my college course in Science Fiction Literature.

That passage tho is the same in the 1818 edition, only in Ch 3. Also, in 1831, the book was reissued under Mary’s supervision & new material (mostly making Elizabeth a foundling rather than Victor’s cousin and the long explanatory foreword). I think Leonard Wolf in his ANNOTATED FRANKENSTEIN used the text of the earliest available printing.