Responded, Lee. And sorry.

Bug, I was going to add that DH said basically Frankenstein was a result of a drunken challenge over a druggy, drunken weekend, and so it was. But--and this is the sticking point for me--the bit of fantastical fluff was coming from a person steeped in the rules of societal and religious thought and conduct. Controverting those rules was a big rebellion, even in a short fiction. Today the elements of the story seem tame and almost commonplace. But that's a result of the changes in society, not in the merits of the story in its place in time.

I always find that even if I dislike a book, looking at it in the historical context will at least give me a place to grab a hold of it.

Actually, the edition I have of the book is kind of fascinating, and I want to grab a couple of their other books (they have Emma, THe Merchant of Venice, Pride and Prejudice, etc.). It's the Longman Cultural Edition. So, not only does it have the book, but it has all of the cultural information right. there. This stuff is actually pretty interesting. I just got done reading a bunch of the original reviews for the book. They were more negative than I imagined.

In a little while I'm going to read a story written by Shelley's mother that is said to have influenced Shelley. I can also read some of her husband's poetry, and probably will.

I have a little fondness for the story, I admit. I guess I've always felt a little freakish, and a sort of bond with the monster.

I hope at least you feel you've got a better handle on it, now.

Beverly, have you read Lives of the Monster Dogs, by Kirsten Bakis? I just read it, and it was pretty good. I haven't read Frankenstein yet, but it's in a very similar vein, down to incorporating journal entries and news articles as part of the narrative.

The movie "Gothic," while disturbing, is an interesting look at how MWS was inspired for Frankenstein.

I think the book is also about the force of creation; the unstoppable impetus some people feel to create, to hell with morals or social mores, they have to get the angels/demons inside them out. The creature can be read as an analogy for a book or a poem or a painting, but one born from the dark subconscious side of the creator's brain. Van Gogh or Picasso, not Kinkaide.

And that kind of creation tends to have a life of its own. Once the creator births it, it is in the world, and the world treats it as the world sees it. Readers critique books, viewers critique movies, and the creation has to survive these assaults on its own.

For me, the tragic figure is the creature, suddenly sentient in a strange and beautiful though baffling world, bereft of the tools he needs to survive and succeed. I think all of us empathise at times with the creature.

This though, for sure.

I think the book is also about the force of creation; the unstoppable impetus some people feel to create, to hell with morals or social mores, they have to get the angels/demons inside them out.

Interesting, given that my understanding is that the book itself was written when she and Shelley and Byron, I think, were up at some hunting lodge and challenged each other to write horror stories to fend off the boredom.

Also, vw, I wrote some of my best papers about books I passionately disliked or disagreed with. It can be REALLLY satisfying to tear a novel or author to shreds in an academically precise, well-researched way.

(OR maybe that's just my little lit kink coming out, non?)

Thanks for the rec, P-C, I'll have to look for it. I'm a journal junkie. That and correspondence. It's like eavesdropping, even in fiction.

Just finished the latest Kim Harrison. She brought me back tothe fold with that ending