Thanks for following my smol Substack. Anyone who writes about Shelley and Frankenstein is worth a follow back in my book. Uh, pun intended. And Victor is definitely the bad guy.
oh i absolutely adored reading this and so glad i came across it! it was great to hear your interpretation! i'm not sure who (if anyone) i would paint as the monster in my own interpretation. i've not read it in years, but in regards to the monster, i think humanity itself arguably could be the true monstrosity of the novel.
slight bit of a tangent but one thing i'll always find interesting regarding this text (and i had to go back to old university notes to confirm) was the change in tone from the 1818 to the 1831 version, shelley almost becoming less progressive with that time - i'd noted in particular that during chapter 2 elizabeth was studying with clerval and victor, being part of that learning process in the 1818 version but then in the 1831 she was almost there just to encourage ("her smile, her soft voice, the sweet glance of her celestial eyes, were ever there to bless and animate us"). it's a small detail but something i find quite interesting. i wonder if this has any impact on how we view her death as a reader?
anyway, great read! (and forgive my spouting of this fact here!) i look forward to reading more from you :)
Yes! I absolutely agree, I don’t think the novel is about the hunt for a single monster, or if multiple characters even demonstrate monstrosity. I think it’s so much more about the monstrous ways patriarchal society operates.
Yes, it’s definitely an interesting question. I must say, when I was writing this I avoided the matter of the different editions simply because once you open the door to the study of bibliography, there is always so much more to consider that I’m ill equipped to engage with. When I was doing my Master’s degree, I was lucky enough to handle the original Frankenstein manuscript at the bodleian, and my (male) lecturers delighted in pointing out all of Percy Shelley’s annotations and implying what a heavy role he played in the writing of it (personally, neither myself or my other female classmates could really discern that his influence had been all that great but there you go). I didn’t get a lot of time with the manuscript, but I wonder if that had something to do with it. Shelley was a much more experienced author when she came to the 1831 edition (both in her writing and in her life), perhaps she herself had a clearer idea of the way gender behaves in the story. By erasing Elizabeth’s agency, she becomes even more a parody of the swooning Gothic heroine whose literary power lies in her death. I think some people are reluctant to think of her this way because obviously we like to think of female writers writing interesting female characters, but I think that’s sort of the point. Elizabeth is almost non-existent in the eyes of the male characters and the reader, thus when she dies it feels not just futile, but almost entirely meaningless, and upon examining that we are confronted with the idea that male on female violence extends beyond the physical to the total rejection of and disregard for femininity. The support of such acts by the patriarchal structure is tantamount to the metaphorical murder of women.
Hahaha, no worries! I literally write this Substack so that I can have these conversations! Thanks so much for your thoughts, and I’m glad you liked it 💕
frankenstein is probably my favourite book of all time so i love love love reading people's interpretations of it!! i have always been under the belief that no one character is the true monster, no one is wholly good or wholly bad, and lumping people into 'good' and 'evil' is a wild oversimplification. i agree with your take, all in all, monsters are men!! this was a great read!! <3
Yes! The creature, whatever heinous deeds he might commit, functions as an avatar for the reader - brought into a narrative created by a man (or two) and furiously pushing back against what he finds. Though the creature isn’t ‘good’ through experiencing the narrative in alignment with him, we are encouraged to recognise the ‘monster’ within and are thus not able to wholly condemn his actions as it functions in a way as radical action against prescribed narratives of masculinity 🤓 I’m glad you liked it, thank you so much!
Thanks for following my smol Substack. Anyone who writes about Shelley and Frankenstein is worth a follow back in my book. Uh, pun intended. And Victor is definitely the bad guy.
oh i absolutely adored reading this and so glad i came across it! it was great to hear your interpretation! i'm not sure who (if anyone) i would paint as the monster in my own interpretation. i've not read it in years, but in regards to the monster, i think humanity itself arguably could be the true monstrosity of the novel.
slight bit of a tangent but one thing i'll always find interesting regarding this text (and i had to go back to old university notes to confirm) was the change in tone from the 1818 to the 1831 version, shelley almost becoming less progressive with that time - i'd noted in particular that during chapter 2 elizabeth was studying with clerval and victor, being part of that learning process in the 1818 version but then in the 1831 she was almost there just to encourage ("her smile, her soft voice, the sweet glance of her celestial eyes, were ever there to bless and animate us"). it's a small detail but something i find quite interesting. i wonder if this has any impact on how we view her death as a reader?
anyway, great read! (and forgive my spouting of this fact here!) i look forward to reading more from you :)
Yes! I absolutely agree, I don’t think the novel is about the hunt for a single monster, or if multiple characters even demonstrate monstrosity. I think it’s so much more about the monstrous ways patriarchal society operates.
Yes, it’s definitely an interesting question. I must say, when I was writing this I avoided the matter of the different editions simply because once you open the door to the study of bibliography, there is always so much more to consider that I’m ill equipped to engage with. When I was doing my Master’s degree, I was lucky enough to handle the original Frankenstein manuscript at the bodleian, and my (male) lecturers delighted in pointing out all of Percy Shelley’s annotations and implying what a heavy role he played in the writing of it (personally, neither myself or my other female classmates could really discern that his influence had been all that great but there you go). I didn’t get a lot of time with the manuscript, but I wonder if that had something to do with it. Shelley was a much more experienced author when she came to the 1831 edition (both in her writing and in her life), perhaps she herself had a clearer idea of the way gender behaves in the story. By erasing Elizabeth’s agency, she becomes even more a parody of the swooning Gothic heroine whose literary power lies in her death. I think some people are reluctant to think of her this way because obviously we like to think of female writers writing interesting female characters, but I think that’s sort of the point. Elizabeth is almost non-existent in the eyes of the male characters and the reader, thus when she dies it feels not just futile, but almost entirely meaningless, and upon examining that we are confronted with the idea that male on female violence extends beyond the physical to the total rejection of and disregard for femininity. The support of such acts by the patriarchal structure is tantamount to the metaphorical murder of women.
Hahaha, no worries! I literally write this Substack so that I can have these conversations! Thanks so much for your thoughts, and I’m glad you liked it 💕
frankenstein is probably my favourite book of all time so i love love love reading people's interpretations of it!! i have always been under the belief that no one character is the true monster, no one is wholly good or wholly bad, and lumping people into 'good' and 'evil' is a wild oversimplification. i agree with your take, all in all, monsters are men!! this was a great read!! <3
Yes! The creature, whatever heinous deeds he might commit, functions as an avatar for the reader - brought into a narrative created by a man (or two) and furiously pushing back against what he finds. Though the creature isn’t ‘good’ through experiencing the narrative in alignment with him, we are encouraged to recognise the ‘monster’ within and are thus not able to wholly condemn his actions as it functions in a way as radical action against prescribed narratives of masculinity 🤓 I’m glad you liked it, thank you so much!
An interesting exposure to the tale. Thank you for sharing it.
And thank you for reading it! I’m glad you liked it! :)