News > Culture > Who Wrote Frankenstein?

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 Byrons 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 wasnt 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.

PAGE:

1 ...

4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Comments

reprobate

New Orleans, LA

December 2002

MAR 28, 2007 03:40 PM

AndersWolleck said:

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

Ummm, no really your reasoning is categorically tortured here. If the authorship of Frankenstein was misattributed it is because of the will of the author. This is not theft. Moreover not crediting the creators of works-for-hire is also not theft. Finally, I don't think you're in any danger of anyone stealing your work so you can probably calm down.

Hastur

Eugene, OR

February 2003

MAR 28, 2007 03:57 PM

The mother of feminism and the father of anarchism gave birth to Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley aka Mary Shelley, the writer of Frankenstein. Percy Shelley, the poet, was a disciple of her father William Godwin.

Wollstonecraft, the founder of modern feminism was born in 1759. and wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792. William Godwin, her husband, was the founder of anarchism.

Frankenstein is consider by most critics and award-winning sci-fi writers to be the first science fiction novel and by many, the best. Frankenstein is also considered in the top 10 of horror writing by the critics and writers themselves. Its also the first sci-fi story to have an overwhelming critique of technology, science, and progress. On the cutting edge of its time.

Admiral_Pants

Austin, TX

May 2004

MAR 28, 2007 04:16 PM

wildanarchist said:
The mother of feminism and the father of anarchism gave birth to Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley aka Mary Shelley, the writer of Frankenstein. Percy Shelley, the poet, was a disciple of her father William Godwin.

Wollstonecraft, the founder of modern feminism was born in 1759. and wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792. William Godwin, her husband, was the founder of anarchism.

Frankenstein is consider by most critics and award-winning sci-fi writers to be the first science fiction novel and by many, the best. Frankenstein is also considered in the top 10 of horror writing by the critics and writers themselves. Its also the first sci-fi story to have an overwhelming critique of technology, science, and progress. On the cutting edge of its time.

While you've got that open, could you look up shellfish for me?

endlessly

Fort Wainwright, AK

June 2006

MAR 28, 2007 05:57 PM

Ovaltine?

Sexdwarf

Hermosa Beach, CA

February 2003

MAR 28, 2007 06:17 PM

Its not new that someone is disputing whether Mary Shelley wrote it or not.
When I read it in high school I'd already heard about this (not 'this' specific case, 'this', that she did not write it herself).

coleen

USA

January 2007

MAR 28, 2007 07:02 PM

I love the story of how Frankenstein was created, such a neat thing to think about. I should have a book writing contest with my friends now, then maybe I'll be famous, ha.

Either way, the book is a classic, I remember writing a phenomenal paper on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, senior year.

And as someone noted before, a woman writing such a novel would be hard for people of the time to grasp, seems like a pretty legit reason for it not being credited to her in the beginning. But who knows?

ElizaTheTroll

Australia

January 2006

MAR 28, 2007 07:24 PM

It's amazing how quickly some people are ready to believe in what, for all we know, most probably is no more than just another crackpot theory.

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

MAR 28, 2007 08:23 PM

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

In response to my dear friends SignalNoise and bean:

In principle, I agree that that is how academia and scholarship (and I guess academia is institutionalised scholarship) are supposed to work.

In practice, I agree that that is how they often do work.

Novelty of approach and counter-intuitive results can often be a career-enhancer.

But you guys know my grumpy prejudices here, right?

So rather than try an outline why various humanities disciplines can violate that reasonable expectation, or detail Paglia's experience as an academic outsider which would undoubtedly inform her comments above, I might just relate an anecdote.

My friend Gill was heading to the US to take up an academic post at a liberal arts college, in a post which would have suited her combination of interests, at the intersection of social science and women's studies. (I've related elsewhere the conversation she and I had this same night about the Sokal affair.)

In the middle of a conversation about her academic/scholarly viewpoints, I suddenly thought to ask her "What would make you change your mind on any of these positions?"

Now, keep in mind that I'm aware many opinionated scholars hold their viewpoints very deeply. But still, academia is meant to train people to change their minds. Entering a seminar room or picking up a new book or journal article is meant to be a signal that you're ready to be persuaded of something you didn't prevously believe or had not thought much about. (Of course, that won't always happen, if the work's not up to scratch.)

Keep in mind also that she was trained in formal/empirical social science and knew about data, statistical testing, and falsification.

Her answer to my question was striking, and has stayed with me.

"Nothing."

I asked again, a little surprised: "Absolutely nothing?"

"Nothing."

I've got some sympathy for Paglia here. At least on the principle. I don't know squat about this particular book.

dholokov

Toronto, ON

April 2003

MAR 28, 2007 08:50 PM

For an essentially inoffensive topic which doesn't deal with abortion, meth babies, or Israel , this thread has a tremendous amount of fighting in it...

just sayin

SignalNoise

USA

February 2004

MAR 28, 2007 09:00 PM

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Man, you *are* a grumpy cuss.

Obviously, academics are still flawed people, and individuals cling to their own positions - for both normative and career-development reasons. That said, I'm not sure that *individuals* need to be willing to change their minds so much as the body of academics as a whole needs to change their minds. In other words, Academic X makes point Y. But Point Y is flawed, even though Acad-X will never admit it. But that's OK, because X's student, X-Prime develops a theory that is Y+1. So, on the aggregate, you get advancement by acceptable standards, even if individuals are fallible.

Eat that Mr. Economics.

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

MAR 28, 2007 09:38 PM

SignalNoise said:
Man, you *are* a grumpy cuss.

But you KNEW that!

Obviously, academics are still flawed people, and individuals cling to their own positions - for both normative and career-development reasons. That said, I'm not sure that *individuals* need to be willing to change their minds so much as the body of academics as a whole needs to change their minds. In other words, Academic X makes point Y. But Point Y is flawed, even though Acad-X will never admit it. But that's OK, because X's student, X-Prime develops a theory that is Y+1. So, on the aggregate, you get advancement by acceptable standards, even if individuals are fallible.

Again, no dispute from me. A single academic can be resistant to a new idea [or unwilling to abandon it], but a different academic can be willing to adopt it.

In fact that's potentially why change in academic scholarship can be continuing but glacial, exhibiting plenty of inertia and then suddenly there's a rush of change as enough people jump on the new bandwagon.

But I can't imagine any of those academics, grumpy stuck-in-the-muds though many of them may be, saying as a statement of principle: "I am unwilling to change my mind."

As opposed to saying in a particular case "I do not accept your hypothesis."

And the reason my friend was able to get away with being unprepared to change her mind? Because in the disciplinary environment of (for example) Women's Studies, there is no standard for what constitutes a flawed hypothesis. In fact, Women's Studies rarely works on hypotheses at all. Any empirical evidence used to support a hypothesis is almost always anecdotal. Aggregate statistics are almost never used to test hypotheses, only to back up assertions.

Which is to say, the sorting of "good" (acceptable) ideas from "bad" (not accepted) ideas in areas like literary criticism (or Women's Studies, which is kind of literary theory on steroids) is not based on transparent scholarly criteria, but on political consensus.

If a literature department or cultural studies department seeks to hire a "postcolonial theorist", you know that's code for "someone who'll tell us that colonialism is bad, using very big words in the process."

Eat that Mr. Economics.

Ha! *pokes S/N with a null hypothesis*

PS: You've read this, right?

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

MAR 28, 2007 09:39 PM

dholokov said:
For an essentially inoffensive topic which doesn't deal with abortion, meth babies, or Israel , this thread has a tremendous amount of fighting in it...

just sayin

Well, when we say "He/she created a monster!" we want to know who the he/she is, right?

SPOILERS! (Click to view)