• news
  • WEDNESDAY MARCH 28 2007 10:00 AM

Who Wrote Frankenstein?

Submitted by PointBlank

Edited by Rahodeb

Tags: Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, Fraud, Literature



Fittingly, the story behind the creation of the novel Frankenstein is almost as famous as that of the monster itself.

Mary Shelley, only nineteen at the time, spent the cold summer of 1816 with her future husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley; Lord Byron; and Byron’s doctor, John William Polidori. Due to the subnormal temperatures, the group was forced to stay indoors where they entertained each other by reading from a book of German ghost stories. When Lord Byron challenged the group to write their own stories, Mary Shelley came up with the first spark that would become the classic Frankenstein. Remarkably, Polidori was also inspired by Byron that night and later wrote what is considered to be the first modern vampire story, The Vampyre . Two horror greats were born that night. It don't get any more goth than that, people.

Now, however, one scholar is claiming that the story might not be true, at least when it comes to Mary Shelley and her monster. How did a marginally-educated nineteen-year old come up with what is now thought of as one of the first science-fiction novels, and why didn't she ever write anything of merit again? Perhaps she wasn’t the author at all, according to John Lauritsen, who claims that Percy Bysshe Shelley actually wrote the novel.

Lauritsen, a Harvard-educated "independent scholar" who has spent seven years in its libraries comparing the texts of Shelley's great works such as Ozymandias with his wife's subsequent books, says Frankenstein was too profound to have been created by an "ill-educated 19-year-old whose later writings were just ordinary".

He says some of the language, with lines such as "I will glut the maw of death", were pure Shelley, and that the young aristocrat wrote a handful of fashionable horror tales that echo the later tone of Frankenstein. Lauritsen said Shelley had many reasons to disguise his authorship, including hints of "free love" that had already driven him out of England and an undertone of "Romantic, but I would not say gay, male love".

Lauritsen also points out that the first edition of Frankenstein was published with no author credited and was roundly panned by the critics of the time. Obviously, a book like this is going to cause some controversy, but at least one critic, Camille Paglia, writing in Salon sees the novel as not only an important investigation, but a shot fired across the bow of academia as well.

Lauritsen's book is important not only for its audacious theme but for the devastating portrait it draws of the insularity and turgidity of the current academy. As an independent scholar, Lauritsen is beholden to no one. As a consequence, he can fight openly with myopic professors and, without fear of retribution, condemn them for their inability to read and reason.

Will a village of angry scholars armed with pitchforks and torches be coming for Lauritsen when his book, The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein comes out next month? Only time will tell.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 8

Next

Comments
thefaintjoy

thefaintjoy

Tampa, FL
May 2006

MAR 28, 2007 02:01 PM

baudot said:

AndersWolleck said:

baudot said:
Regardless of who wrote it, it's an excellent book.



I disagree. Your comment brings to mind all the comedians who get jokes stolen from them [ie "Hey its a good joke, who cares who came up with it?"

If something isnt set in stone then it should be treated as such



Eh? This doesn't parse.

Frankenstein is well written. It is powerful. This is true whether it is correctly attributed or not. My pleasure in reading it does not derive from it being written by a specific author.



how could you possibly enjoy a creative work without knowing what type of genitalia is behind it?

AndersWolleck

AndersWolleck

Astoria, NY
February 2003

MAR 28, 2007 02:05 PM

Margot_Dent said:

AndersWolleck said:

baudot said:

AndersWolleck said:

baudot said:
Regardless of who wrote it, it's an excellent book.



I disagree. Your comment brings to mind all the comedians who get jokes stolen from them [ie "Hey its a good joke, who cares who came up with it?"

If something isnt set in stone then it should be treated as such



Eh? This doesn't parse.

Frankenstein is well written. It is powerful. This is true whether it is correctly attributed or not. My pleasure in reading it does not derive from it being written by a specific author.



i suppose that could be true, but isnt that how you feel and not everyone else does? From personal experience i know many comic book creators, Steve Gerber included, that wont work on characters where the original creator isnt given credit and payment. Do i think Gerber could write a great Batman story, yes i do? but he wont. But as for your idea that knowing who writes it doesnt take away from your enjoyment, it is alot different for others who have had their ideas stolen from them



this story has nothing to do with someone having their idea stolen from them.

nice work name dropping, though.



in a tertiary way it does. the idea that people may not have been credited properly for frankenstein or that M shelley might not have been involved with the creation of frankenstein exactly relates to what i wrote. Also why did you feel the need to insult me at the end? i name dropped? Who Steve Gerber? Guess what! i interviewed steve gerber just by emailing his website. u can do it too then i can insult u as well

AndersWolleck

AndersWolleck

Astoria, NY
February 2003

MAR 28, 2007 02:07 PM

thefaintjoy said:

baudot said:

AndersWolleck said:

baudot said:
Regardless of who wrote it, it's an excellent book.



I disagree. Your comment brings to mind all the comedians who get jokes stolen from them [ie "Hey its a good joke, who cares who came up with it?"

If something isnt set in stone then it should be treated as such



Eh? This doesn't parse.

Frankenstein is well written. It is powerful. This is true whether it is correctly attributed or not. My pleasure in reading it does not derive from it being written by a specific author.



how could you possibly enjoy a creative work without knowing what type of genitalia is behind it?





i get great pleasure from reading a new novel from one of my fave authors, shouldi not get pleasure from enjoying a new work from one of my fave artists or is i all about the specific work? sometimes i even get excited about a project before i am able to experience because it is one of my fave artists. do u want to shit on that too?

baudot

baudot

Oakland, CA
February 2004

MAR 28, 2007 02:07 PM

AndersWolleck said:

baudot said:

AndersWolleck said:

baudot said:
Regardless of who wrote it, it's an excellent book.



I disagree....



...Frankenstein is well written.



i suppose that could be true, but isnt that how you feel and not everyone else does? From personal experience i know many comic book creators, Steve Gerber included, that wont work on characters where the original creator isnt given credit and payment. Do i think Gerber could write a great Batman story, yes i do? but he wont. But as for your idea that knowing who writes it doesnt take away from your enjoyment, it is alot different for others who have had their ideas stolen from them



I don't claim to speak for everyone, and unless you do, let's leave them out of this.

Claiming that it is a bad book if it's misattributed in order to defend the pride of the slighted author makes no sense. You don't defend the creator by insulting the quality of the stolen creation.

AndersWolleck

AndersWolleck

Astoria, NY
February 2003

MAR 28, 2007 02:10 PM

baudot said:

AndersWolleck said:

baudot said:

AndersWolleck said:

baudot said:
Regardless of who wrote it, it's an excellent book.



I disagree....



...Frankenstein is well written.



i suppose that could be true, but isnt that how you feel and not everyone else does? From personal experience i know many comic book creators, Steve Gerber included, that wont work on characters where the original creator isnt given credit and payment. Do i think Gerber could write a great Batman story, yes i do? but he wont. But as for your idea that knowing who writes it doesnt take away from your enjoyment, it is alot different for others who have had their ideas stolen from them



I don't claim to speak for everyone, and unless you do, let's leave them out of this.

Claiming that it is a bad book if it's misattributed in order to defend the pride of the slighted author makes no sense. You don't defend the creator by insulting the quality of the stolen creation.



oh i see, u misunderstood my post. i didnt mean that the book was any less good because of the possible creator dispute i just meant that i dont like this phrase [Regardless of who wrote it] it is always about who wrote it because they deserve the credit becuase it is their sweat, blood and life that is in that work

baudot

baudot

Oakland, CA
February 2004

MAR 28, 2007 02:18 PM

Ah. Then, like most internet arguments, it comes down to two parties not grasping the other's intent.

AndersWolleck

AndersWolleck

Astoria, NY
February 2003

MAR 28, 2007 02:20 PM

baudot said:
Ah. Then, like most internet arguments, it comes down to two parties not grasping the other's intent.



it was because i quoted your whole phrase, a boo boo

RileyStClair

RileyStClair

Los Angeles, CA
September 2006

MAR 28, 2007 02:22 PM

Shalome said:

yourfashionwar said:
i've always been amazed at hearing how all these great authors and composers come up with such brilliant stuff at an age when i (and most of my peers) were primarily concerned with partying all the time.

mozart penned his first symphony at what, ten? carson mccullers wrote the heart is a lonely hunter at 23.

when i was 19, aside from being pretty darn good at theoretical math, i played keyboard in a terrible attempt at a new-wave band and decoupaged (so not a verb) picture frames.

how do these people exist?



Perhaps they achieved greatness because they were geniuses who were capable of singular greatness, instead of just being "pretty darn good" at something.



no shit, sherlock. that's kind of my point.

baudot

baudot

Oakland, CA
February 2004

MAR 28, 2007 02:27 PM

AndersWolleck said:

baudot said:
Ah. Then, like most internet arguments, it comes down to two parties not grasping the other's intent.



it was because i quoted your whole phrase, a boo boo



I rather think the whole original phrase captures the entirety of what we've been expounding on these last two pages. But apparently we read it differently.

Shal

Shal

Los Angeles, CA
October 2002

MAR 28, 2007 02:56 PM

yourfashionwar said:

Shalome said:

yourfashionwar said:
i've always been amazed at hearing how all these great authors and composers come up with such brilliant stuff at an age when i (and most of my peers) were primarily concerned with partying all the time.

mozart penned his first symphony at what, ten? carson mccullers wrote the heart is a lonely hunter at 23.

when i was 19, aside from being pretty darn good at theoretical math, i played keyboard in a terrible attempt at a new-wave band and decoupaged (so not a verb) picture frames.

how do these people exist?



Perhaps they achieved greatness because they were geniuses who were capable of singular greatness, instead of just being "pretty darn good" at something.



no shit, sherlock. that's kind of my point.



Ah, sorry, I figured you asking "how do these people exist?" was the point of your post, since you seemed to be genuinely asking the question. Some people believe that everyone is capable of greatness, given the right environment. I don't. Misunderstood your point and question entirely, sorry. smile

Margot_Dent

Margot_Dent

Los Angeles, CA
February 2004

MAR 28, 2007 03:12 PM

Shalome said:

yourfashionwar said:

Shalome said:

yourfashionwar said:
i've always been amazed at hearing how all these great authors and composers come up with such brilliant stuff at an age when i (and most of my peers) were primarily concerned with partying all the time.

mozart penned his first symphony at what, ten? carson mccullers wrote the heart is a lonely hunter at 23.

when i was 19, aside from being pretty darn good at theoretical math, i played keyboard in a terrible attempt at a new-wave band and decoupaged (so not a verb) picture frames.

how do these people exist?



Perhaps they achieved greatness because they were geniuses who were capable of singular greatness, instead of just being "pretty darn good" at something.



no shit, sherlock. that's kind of my point.



Ah, sorry, I figured you asking "how do these people exist?" was the point of your post, since you seemed to be genuinely asking the question. Some people believe that everyone is capable of greatness, given the right environment. I don't. Misunderstood your point and question entirely, sorry. smile



holy crap, that is the nicest response to someone being rude EVER.

ron

ron

United Kingdom
February 2003

MAR 28, 2007 03:13 PM

Mary was well placed to tell the original story. It is likely that she visited Castle Frankenstein in September 1814 when in Gernsheim with Claire Clairmont, and learned the story of the alchemist Konrad Dippel and his attempt to create life. And she was aware of the experiments conducted in London and elsewhere by Luigi Galvani and his nephew Aldini, the latter attempting to reanimate decapitated corpses with electricity. But Percy Shelley had a direct interest in the science: he'd been taught by James Lind, who conducted similar experiments in galvanism. It's possible there was a degree of collaboration when Mary came to write the original and revised versions of her novel, indeed it would be surprising if there wasn't. But she was certainly intellectually capable of writing a book like Frankenstein, even if her subsequent work is less inspired.

Smuffy

Smuffy

I'm lost
December 2003

MAR 28, 2007 03:17 PM

Margot_Dent said:

Shalome said:

yourfashionwar said:

Shalome said:

yourfashionwar said:
i've always been amazed at hearing how all these great authors and composers come up with such brilliant stuff at an age when i (and most of my peers) were primarily concerned with partying all the time.

mozart penned his first symphony at what, ten? carson mccullers wrote the heart is a lonely hunter at 23.

when i was 19, aside from being pretty darn good at theoretical math, i played keyboard in a terrible attempt at a new-wave band and decoupaged (so not a verb) picture frames.

how do these people exist?



Perhaps they achieved greatness because they were geniuses who were capable of singular greatness, instead of just being "pretty darn good" at something.



no shit, sherlock. that's kind of my point.



Ah, sorry, I figured you asking "how do these people exist?" was the point of your post, since you seemed to be genuinely asking the question. Some people believe that everyone is capable of greatness, given the right environment. I don't. Misunderstood your point and question entirely, sorry. smile



holy crap, that is the nicest response to someone being rude EVER.



seriously.

daps to shal for maintaining her composure.

RileyStClair

RileyStClair

Los Angeles, CA
September 2006

MAR 28, 2007 03:23 PM

no prob, shalome.
ithat part was more just my wondering out loud instead of genuinely expecting responses. (me going "whoa, i suck. these people are awesome.")

and to the others, i only responded to what i (mis)perceived as a snarky comment from her.

communication errors on the interweb, LOLZ.

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

MAR 28, 2007 03:33 PM

HeyZeus said:


an undertone of "Romantic, but I would not say gay, male love".



What does that mean?



That means that Lauritzen is crackpot hoping to elevate Shelly as proto gay icon.

"Independent Scholar" in this case means "no training, study or expertise whatsoever". Lauritzen is a marketing analyst and is most famous for denying that HIV causes AIDS

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 8

Next

featured interviews