4 ms·

Review of annotated editions of Frankenstein

31 points by ehudla 9y ago

ashark 9y ago
First, yes, yes, all my yes. The more good guides to best-editions for various works that are written, the less time I have to spend tracking them down, which can take a long time for some works (ugh, Eastern works in English translation are hopelessly difficult to assess). Second: > It is now frequently required reading in schools, and passing classroom references to “Shelley” may more likely mean Mary than Percy Bysshe (the obscure author of Prometheus Unbound). This is a joke, or at least intense hyperbole, right? I'd wager way more people have read "Ozymandias" than Frankenstein (unfair because one's a page, and one's hundreds of pages, yes, but still, if we're talking frequency of mention) and several other of his verse works come up fairly often, while little other than Frankenstein does for Mary. If someone just asked "are you familiar with Shelley?" I would 100% for sure think they meant PB. I'd easily concede, of course, that Frankenstein itself is the most well-known (if not most widely-read) thing either of them wrote, though.
- jackfoxy 9y ago
  I read Ozymandias more than once, but that was decades ago, and you had to remind me of the author. I do think Mary has made a more lasting impression over the centuries. We read and discussed the romantic passages of Frankenstein in my college comparative literature class. I've never read the whole novel...maybe someday.
  - ashark 9y ago
    Oh, yeah, it’s immeasurably more influential than anything else either wrote. I just dispute the “mentions of name in classroom” and “who is probably intended by a bare, contextless reference to one ‘Shelley’” metrics.
chickenfries 9y ago
Yes! I read a little bit of Frankenstein in college, but I think I lacked too much knowledge of the various other books that Shelly references and probably some historical context to fully appreciate it. A recent video by Extra Credits on YouTube [1] made me want to go and find an annotated copy to read. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnSmGFmP8qU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnSmGFmP8qU
blacksqr 9y ago
>Mary Shelley’s original three-volume novel was published quietly and anonymously by Lackington and Co., Finsbury Square, London, in March 1818 and to little acclaim. In fact it was an immediate hit and sold out quickly.
- Finnucane 9y ago
  500 copies!
ashark 9y ago
> “Sometimes, watching him, I thought of Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, a simulacrum of the human that entirely failed to express any true humanity.” But that of course is a remark inspired by film images rather than the novel. For the debatable nature of “true humanity”—and whether Victor Frankenstein (never Doctor in the novel) or his Creature can best express it—is precisely the dilemma of Mary’s original fiction. Being alive but somehow, stomach-churningly inhuman in appearance and expression is precisely what's so awful about the monster in the novel. Inhumanity (again, of appearance and affect). The difficulty of expressing this visually is probably part of why the Monster in film is simply cadaverish and covered in scars and bolts and such. Its exact appearance—dimensions and general Lovecraftianly-left-to-your-imagination inhumanity aside—and the details of the process of its creation, get little page space in the book. There are (framing) story reasons for the latter to be lightly treated, in fact. Whether one can pin the Rushdie quote's inspiration to the film depiction depends on how one takes "express". It could, and was perhaps intended to, cover film and book alike.
- on_and_off 9y ago
  >and the details of the process of its creation, get little page space in the book . I read it a long time ago so my memory is fuzzy but I remember being very intrigued by the lack of description of the creature. IIRC, some kind of 'golem' made from base ingredients was more in line with what is described in the novel than a mesh of dead flesh.
jcoffland 9y ago
The silly version of Frankenstein almost kept me from reading this excellent book. After finally reading it this year, I was irked that I had only known Hollywood's cheesy version for so long. Here are some of the major misconceptions: 1. The monster is not called Frankenstein. Frankenstein is the Doctor. 2. The monster is not a bumbling fool but rather extremely intelligent. 3. There is no definite description of the appearance of the monster in the book and certainly no bolts in the neck. 4. It is also unclear how the monster was animated. There is no lightning rod and no "it's alive" moment. Frankenstein is at or near the top of many best of all time book lists. Shelly's The Last Man is also one of my favorites.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

31 points by ehudla 9y ago

First, yes, yes, all my yes. The more good guides to best-editions for various works that are written, the less time I have to spend tracking them down, which can take a long time for some works (ugh, Eastern works in English translation are hopelessly difficult to assess). Second: > It is now frequently required reading in schools, and passing classroom references to “Shelley” may more likely mean Mary than Percy Bysshe (the obscure author of Prometheus Unbound). This is a joke, or at least intense hyperbole, right? I'd wager way more people have read "Ozymandias" than Frankenstein (unfair because one's a page, and one's hundreds of pages, yes, but still, if we're talking frequency of mention) and several other of his verse works come up fairly often, while little other than Frankenstein does for Mary. If someone just asked "are you familiar with Shelley?" I would 100% for sure think they meant PB. I'd easily concede, of course, that Frankenstein itself is the most well-known (if not most widely-read) thing either of them wrote, though.

jackfoxy 9y ago
I read Ozymandias more than once, but that was decades ago, and you had to remind me of the author. I do think Mary has made a more lasting impression over the centuries. We read and discussed the romantic passages of Frankenstein in my college comparative literature class. I've never read the whole novel...maybe someday.
- ashark 9y ago
  Oh, yeah, it’s immeasurably more influential than anything else either wrote. I just dispute the “mentions of name in classroom” and “who is probably intended by a bare, contextless reference to one ‘Shelley’” metrics.

chickenfries 9y ago

Yes! I read a little bit of Frankenstein in college, but I think I lacked too much knowledge of the various other books that Shelly references and probably some historical context to fully appreciate it. A recent video by Extra Credits on YouTube [1] made me want to go and find an annotated copy to read. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnSmGFmP8qU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnSmGFmP8qU

blacksqr 9y ago

>Mary Shelley’s original three-volume novel was published quietly and anonymously by Lackington and Co., Finsbury Square, London, in March 1818 and to little acclaim. In fact it was an immediate hit and sold out quickly.

Finnucane 9y ago
500 copies!

ashark 9y ago

> “Sometimes, watching him, I thought of Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, a simulacrum of the human that entirely failed to express any true humanity.” But that of course is a remark inspired by film images rather than the novel. For the debatable nature of “true humanity”—and whether Victor Frankenstein (never Doctor in the novel) or his Creature can best express it—is precisely the dilemma of Mary’s original fiction. Being alive but somehow, stomach-churningly inhuman in appearance and expression is precisely what's so awful about the monster in the novel. Inhumanity (again, of appearance and affect). The difficulty of expressing this visually is probably part of why the Monster in film is simply cadaverish and covered in scars and bolts and such. Its exact appearance—dimensions and general Lovecraftianly-left-to-your-imagination inhumanity aside—and the details of the process of its creation, get little page space in the book. There are (framing) story reasons for the latter to be lightly treated, in fact. Whether one can pin the Rushdie quote's inspiration to the film depiction depends on how one takes "express". It could, and was perhaps intended to, cover film and book alike.

on_and_off 9y ago
>and the details of the process of its creation, get little page space in the book . I read it a long time ago so my memory is fuzzy but I remember being very intrigued by the lack of description of the creature. IIRC, some kind of 'golem' made from base ingredients was more in line with what is described in the novel than a mesh of dead flesh.

jcoffland 9y ago

The silly version of Frankenstein almost kept me from reading this excellent book. After finally reading it this year, I was irked that I had only known Hollywood's cheesy version for so long. Here are some of the major misconceptions: 1. The monster is not called Frankenstein. Frankenstein is the Doctor. 2. The monster is not a bumbling fool but rather extremely intelligent. 3. There is no definite description of the appearance of the monster in the book and certainly no bolts in the neck. 4. It is also unclear how the monster was animated. There is no lightning rod and no "it's alive" moment. Frankenstein is at or near the top of many best of all time book lists. Shelly's The Last Man is also one of my favorites.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]