Comments on: “It’s Alive!” http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/its-alive-creation-m-w-shelleys-frankenstein/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=its-alive-creation-m-w-shelleys-frankenstein English 738T, Spring 2015 Sat, 12 Nov 2016 04:10:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Amanda Gogarty http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/its-alive-creation-m-w-shelleys-frankenstein/#comment-1310 Amanda Gogarty Wed, 25 Mar 2015 20:36:28 +0000 http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/?p=1193#comment-1310 Reading this post, I was really interested in the assertion that the creator may only do so much in characterizing the final creation. Although this is true of Victor's creature in Frankenstein, it is also true of the female monster that Shelley Jackson recreates from Mary Shelley's original female monster in Patchwork Girl, and of Jackson and Shelley's texts themselves. As Manon mentions in her above post, Mary Shelley's novel enjoyed great success, so much so that the story did eventually extend beyond her control. One example of this phenomenon is Patchwork Girl itself. Whereas Shelley's female monster could not survive in the original text of Frankenstein because Victor decided to kill it, this monster does survive in Jackson's hypertext. In another one of my post comments I mentioned the conflict between the expectations that Shelley Jackson sets for her hypertext in "Stitch Bitch" and the strict rules that Eastgate upholds (which limit reader accessibility in the sense that the text is not available online or in a downloadable format.) This is yet another example of the creator not being able to characterize his or her final creation, as Sara so accurately puts it. I think it is interesting to consider how, in modern-day literary study, authors can (or cannot) "characterize their own creations." Could they do this in print books in ways that they cannot in digital media? What are the advantages and downsides of an author not being fully able to characterize his or her own work? How does this chance our modern-day study of any given text? Of literature in general? Reading this post, I was really interested in the assertion that the creator may only do so much in characterizing the final creation. Although this is true of Victor’s creature in Frankenstein, it is also true of the female monster that Shelley Jackson recreates from Mary Shelley’s original female monster in Patchwork Girl, and of Jackson and Shelley’s texts themselves.

As Manon mentions in her above post, Mary Shelley’s novel enjoyed great success, so much so that the story did eventually extend beyond her control. One example of this phenomenon is Patchwork Girl itself. Whereas Shelley’s female monster could not survive in the original text of Frankenstein because Victor decided to kill it, this monster does survive in Jackson’s hypertext.

In another one of my post comments I mentioned the conflict between the expectations that Shelley Jackson sets for her hypertext in “Stitch Bitch” and the strict rules that Eastgate upholds (which limit reader accessibility in the sense that the text is not available online or in a downloadable format.) This is yet another example of the creator not being able to characterize his or her final creation, as Sara so accurately puts it. I think it is interesting to consider how, in modern-day literary study, authors can (or cannot) “characterize their own creations.” Could they do this in print books in ways that they cannot in digital media? What are the advantages and downsides of an author not being fully able to characterize his or her own work? How does this chance our modern-day study of any given text? Of literature in general?

]]> By: Manon Soulet http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/its-alive-creation-m-w-shelleys-frankenstein/#comment-1264 Manon Soulet Sun, 08 Mar 2015 19:30:29 +0000 http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/?p=1193#comment-1264 I would like to jump from Sara’s argument that “Shelley, then, seems to comment on the Artist’s act of creation in that the piece of art leaves the hands of the artist to be interpreted, or even changed, by the society in which it resides”. I think this is a very accurate statement. As she said in her post: Shelley also implies the act of creation by an Artist on a work of Art. It seems clear, then, that Shelley implies that the creator may only do so much in characterizing the final creation – then the creation continues to act (either actively or passively) on its own.” I wonder if it would be possible to establish a direct parallel between the Creature and Frankenstein the story itself, especially considering that, a little further, Sara explains that “The artist, though, is frequently horrified by his/her work, especially as he/she finishes it”. Could we then say that, like the Creature, the story is monstrous? What would monstrous mean in this context? Interestingly, just like the Creature, the story, following its publication, acquired a life of its own. So, the literary explosion that was initiated within the text through the multiplication of narrators and the complex framing (many narratives embedded within one another), was – still is – carried on over the centuries. As we all know, the text was re-adapted, re-interpreted, and rewritten numerous times and through many medias (theater, cinema, TV…). The story of Frankenstein is no longer stable, or fixed, it is forever mobile and changing, to the point where we can no longer say “Frankenstein” without specifying which version we are referring to. Therefore, the story of Frankenstein is exactly like that of the Creature: unstoppable, uncatchable, and has far exceeded the plans of its original author/creator -- it has escaped her control. As Steven E. Jones say in the chapter 4 Against Technology: “The ‘story of Frankenstein’ is now a modern myth with a life of its own.” So I wonder, can a reading of Frankenstein be separated from the culture that has grown around it? Can you read it without picturing the creature from James Whale’s version for instance? I seems improbable now that a reader could start reading Frankenstein without any pre-conceived opinions about it that consequently affect the reading experience. Then, how has the initial work/intent been lost in the culture born from it? Has the original meaning been deconstructed and/or lost through remediation? In this case, I guess that it is no longer question of creation in Frankenstein, but rather a re-creation of “the story of Frankenstein”. I would like to jump from Sara’s argument that “Shelley, then, seems to comment on the Artist’s act of creation in that the piece of art leaves the hands of the artist to be interpreted, or even changed, by the society in which it resides”. I think this is a very accurate statement. As she said in her post: Shelley also implies the act of creation by an Artist on a work of Art. It seems clear, then, that Shelley implies that the creator may only do so much in characterizing the final creation – then the creation continues to act (either actively or passively) on its own.” I wonder if it would be possible to establish a direct parallel between the Creature and Frankenstein the story itself, especially considering that, a little further, Sara explains that “The artist, though, is frequently horrified by his/her work, especially as he/she finishes it”. Could we then say that, like the Creature, the story is monstrous? What would monstrous mean in this context?
Interestingly, just like the Creature, the story, following its publication, acquired a life of its own. So, the literary explosion that was initiated within the text through the multiplication of narrators and the complex framing (many narratives embedded within one another), was – still is – carried on over the centuries. As we all know, the text was re-adapted, re-interpreted, and rewritten numerous times and through many medias (theater, cinema, TV…). The story of Frankenstein is no longer stable, or fixed, it is forever mobile and changing, to the point where we can no longer say “Frankenstein” without specifying which version we are referring to. Therefore, the story of Frankenstein is exactly like that of the Creature: unstoppable, uncatchable, and has far exceeded the plans of its original author/creator — it has escaped her control. As Steven E. Jones say in the chapter 4 Against Technology: “The ‘story of Frankenstein’ is now a modern myth with a life of its own.”

So I wonder, can a reading of Frankenstein be separated from the culture that has grown around it? Can you read it without picturing the creature from James Whale’s version for instance? I seems improbable now that a reader could start reading Frankenstein without any pre-conceived opinions about it that consequently affect the reading experience. Then, how has the initial work/intent been lost in the culture born from it? Has the original meaning been deconstructed and/or lost through remediation? In this case, I guess that it is no longer question of creation in Frankenstein, but rather a re-creation of “the story of Frankenstein”.

]]>