Interpretations of une semaine de bonte by Max Ernst (in class)

    Frankenstein

A very common story in present day, this book caused quite a stir when published. Along with the outcry concerning its topics and imagery was also the question of its genre. Largely placed in gothic literate now (indeed much of Shelly’s inspiration was from highly regarded gothic authors of the era), there were other authors who thought otherwise, such as William Beckford (author of Vathek). Mary Shelly’s novel produced a great disgust in the man which resulted in a scathing review, partly due to the highly descriptive nature of her writing. It was much more graphic than the gothic sources of that time. However, it now seems that this specific element know plays a part in the gothic requirements. The key part of gothic literature is the sensation that its words can create.

Before engulfing myself into this novel I had not realized the extent that an authors life can effect their writing. It seems a rather obvious notion now, but previously I had not seemed to give much attention to this. Reading the biographical content that came with my copy, I learned not only the origin of the tale but the surroundings of Mary during her writing process, which was quite gothic by its self. It seems rather evident that such environment intensity must have greatly contributed to the highly sensational writing of Frankenstein. Drawing again from her own life, similarities can be drawn between Mary and her character of DR. Victor Frankenstein: manly that of an obsession with death. This condition seems hardly surprising after learning about the substantial loss she had experienced in her life (especially that of her husband and offspring). The notion of putting one’s self into one’s work is now quite clear to me, even more so when connecting myself. We have been long taught that a piece of writing is good because the reader can connect to it. I now see that this is only possible because of the original and personal connection derived from the author of said piece. When reading the text, I was enthralled with its descriptive nature, but it was the monologues of Victor that I most enjoyed because I could relate to the drive and ideas that rooted his interest in exploring the secrets/perceived limitations of nature.