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 ...

6 | 7 | 8

Comments

Marge

Davis, CA

July 2003

APR 01, 2007 01:09 AM

SignalNoise said:
The notion that a person could write one *singular* piece, and that not do much else doesn't seem that impossible to swallow. Lots of people are defined by one *great* work, and a series of other lesser pieces. There are even modern examples, like Harper Lee.

Also, can I say, that nothing makes me roll my eyes more than "independent scholars sticking it to the establishment." I never got that. First, academics aren't just people with opinions who yell a lot. There are standards of evidence that matter, preferably driven by a theory. So an "aberration" in the available data is not the same thing as proving everyone else wrong - it needs to stand up to existing theories and counter-evidence.

Also, this notion that academics just bury people that disagree with them always strikes me as a bit odd. People who are just flat out wrong, and have terrible methods/bad inferences *do* get it handed to them. But someone who can come up a brand new, unorthodox idea with *powerful evidence* coupled with *good theory and methods* - that person probably gets a really nice job.

Often, when writing a dissertation, people want counterintuitive results, b/c that gets attention. The problem is people just drop in on an academic disciplines, acting like their random bits of facts strung together inherently meet the rigorous standards of academic work. And when academics dismiss it is as the hooey it often is, the "victim" cries about stodgy intellectual elitism, not realizing it's just shitty work.

I have flashbacks to Arcadia.

as_seen_on_tv

Salt Lake City, UT

February 2006

APR 01, 2007 04:53 PM

He must have a huge Schwanstucker!

RandomNerd

I'm lost

January 2005

APR 01, 2007 05:47 PM

I need some evidence here... I'm pretty sure this fella's just an Anti-Stratfordian looking for an easier target. He'll never convince us poor dumb rabble that Shakespeare was a fake, so now he's picking on a teenaged girl.

Oh, and...

"Damn your eyes!"

"Too Late!"

Metaverse

USA

March 2005

APR 01, 2007 10:50 PM

Where's Blue Oyster Cult when you need them....oh wait...that's Godzilla

gutter_punkx

Austin, TX

September 2006

APR 02, 2007 02:33 PM

i believe it was mary shelly who worte this novel. first off she was the daughter of mary wollstonecract and william godwin two of the greatest political thinkers and writers of the late 18th century. secondly, mary was exposed to all the greatest writers, thinkers, philosophers, artists, scientists, etc because of her parents. mary's parents were constantly entertaining the greatest minds the world had to offer in their homes in england. lastly, mary shelly's later work shows a world of growth and development from her first. take the time to read "ast man" (written and published long after percy died and partly because of his death she wrote the book). that novel is probably one of the most under apperciated novels of 19th century. but of course, Lauritsen only proves that some people just can't let go of old world traditions.

SocietysPliers

Ocala, FL

October 2004

APR 02, 2007 04:11 PM

chainlink said:

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

yeah , it's great isn't it ?

I love it! And at least in THIS thread, people aren't all just arguing in circles - there are actual valid points being made and irt would seem people here are actually LISTENING to other views and not just reiterating the same blinders-on rhetoric.

Thread that make us think and not just spew out our views in stupid angry fashions ROCK!!!

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH

April 2004

APR 02, 2007 04:23 PM

On the other hand, Harper Lee pretty much stopped publishing entirely. It's not that her later stuff wasn't as good... there was no later stuff. Shelley wrote a bunch of later stuff, it was just apparently no good.

ASSH0LE

Las Vegas, NV

June 2003

APR 02, 2007 08:28 PM

Both sides are wrong.

Edgar Winter wrote Frankenstein back in 1972.

Of course, his gender is to some degree still open for debate.

halfjack

Allston, MA

June 2005

APR 03, 2007 11:51 AM

mr_gosh said:

grave_chilling said:
but it's unlikely that he would be the author. Frankenstein is a feminist tale, and while Percy was ahead of his time, he was still a man.

I guess you're not familiar with Ibsin's "A Dolls House"?

word. see also hawthorne's "the birthmark." it has other points, but i remember studying it in college iunder woman's studies and being surprised