Mary Wollstonecraft Books

Mary Shelley's story has been suppressed for over a century, because it treats a taboo subject: incest.

When Mathilda is being courted by a young man her father becomes violently jealous. He can't control his overwhelming passion -'My daughter,I love you' - and flees.
From being her God, her father becomes Matilda's nightmare: 'infamy and guilt was mingled with my portion; unlawful and detestable passion has poured its poison into my ears and changed all my blood (in) a cold fountain of bitterness.'
The lovers are doomed for the attraction is stronger than life: 'I am in love with death; no maiden ever took more pleasure in the contemplation of her bridal attirement than I in fancying my limbs already enwrapped in their shroud: is it not my married dress? Alone it will unite me to my father when in an eternal union we shall never part.'

Although sometimes too sentimental, 'Matilda' is a strong psychological portrait, brilliantly written by an intelligent and very well read author: 'more lovely than a sunbeam, slighter, quicker than the waving plumage of a bird, dazzling as lightning and like it giving day to night,yet mild and faint, that smile came.'

The story treats an important human conflict, partly resolved by evolution (C. Lumsden, E.O.Wilson - Promethean Fire).

Highly recommended.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. Wollstonecraft is not easy to read however, she makes a compelling argument. Mary Wollstonecraft viewed the institution of marriage simply as legal prostitution. She believed this to be the case for several reasons. First, the marriage laws in Britain at the time gave men legal rights over their wives including their property. The law also gave men custody of their children in event of divorce, and a woman could not even obtain a divorce without their husband's consent. For women divorce meant having to leave everything of importance in their lives behind. Thus, Wollstonecraft observed that Britain's laws left women in the unenviable position of being treated as mere chattel by their husbands. Second, Wollstonecraft argued that women's downtrodden position in society was not the cause of religious or moral teachings. She was emphatic in her assessment that it was women's denial of the same educational opportunities that men received that made them seem weak and inferior to men. Finally, she believed marriage only chained women to a life of drudgery in the home.

Armed with this information, Wollstonecraft set out to propose in her book A Vindication of the Rights of Women the idea, that equal education for women was the only remedy for this grave injustice perpetrated against them, and education for women would actually strengthen the institution of marriage. She made several prescient arguments to support this idea. First, Wollstonecraft believed schoolchildren needed the contact and interaction with other schoolchildren to develop properly. So, she argued against Britain's system of elitist education, especially its private schools and boarding schools. She advocated for the creation of national public schools, funded by the state, and attended by children from the entire socio-economic strata. Second, she thought it was imperative that both boys and girls must be educated together. The reason Wollstonecraft believed in coeducation, was that when both boys and girls get to know one another from an early age they would in turn, build friendships, and learn to respect one another. Therefore, when women get married, they will be able to serve as companions to their husbands and not just as trophy wives or sexual objects. "Nay, marriage will never be held sacred till women, by being brought up with men, are prepared to be their companions rather than their mistresses." Third, Wollstonecraft asked the question, how society could expect mothers to rear healthy boys capable of functioning as confident and productive men in society if their mothers, who raised them, were uneducated. She was horrified to think of the damage already done to children by uneducated, weak-minded mothers. Wollstonecraft articulates in beautiful fashion her argument for the need to educate women in the following quote. "If marriage be the cement of society, mankind should all be educated after the same model, or the intercourse of the sexes will never deserve the name of fellowship, nor will women ever fulfill the peculiar duties of their sex." This argument only enhances women's roles as wives and mothers. Finally, Wollstonecraft argued that the implementation of her educational reforms would prove to be a key element leading to the improvement of the institution of marriage in particular, and for family life in general. "Contending for the rights of women, my main argument is built on this simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of knowledge and virtue."

Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy, and feminism.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. Wollstonecraft is not easy to read however, she makes a compelling argument. Mary Wollstonecraft viewed the institution of marriage simply as legal prostitution. She believed this to be the case for several reasons. First, the marriage laws in Britain at the time gave men legal rights over their wives including their property. The law also gave men custody of their children in event of divorce, and a woman could not even obtain a divorce without their husband's consent. For women divorce meant having to leave everything of importance in their lives behind. Thus, Wollstonecraft observed that Britain's laws left women in the unenviable position of being treated as mere chattel by their husbands. Second, Wollstonecraft argued that women's downtrodden position in society was not the cause of religious or moral teachings. She was emphatic in her assessment that it was women's denial of the same educational opportunities that men received that made them seem weak and inferior to men. Finally, she believed marriage only chained women to a life of drudgery in the home.

Armed with this information, Wollstonecraft set out to propose in her book A Vindication of the Rights of Women the idea, that equal education for women was the only remedy for this grave injustice perpetrated against them, and education for women would actually strengthen the institution of marriage. She made several prescient arguments to support this idea. First, Wollstonecraft believed schoolchildren needed the contact and interaction with other schoolchildren to develop properly. So, she argued against Britain's system of elitist education, especially its private schools and boarding schools. She advocated for the creation of national public schools, funded by the state, and attended by children from the entire socio-economic strata. Second, she thought it was imperative that both boys and girls must be educated together. The reason Wollstonecraft believed in coeducation, was that when both boys and girls get to know one another from an early age they would in turn, build friendships, and learn to respect one another. Therefore, when women get married, they will be able to serve as companions to their husbands and not just as trophy wives or sexual objects. "Nay, marriage will never be held sacred till women, by being brought up with men, are prepared to be their companions rather than their mistresses." Third, Wollstonecraft asked the question, how society could expect mothers to rear healthy boys capable of functioning as confident and productive men in society if their mothers, who raised them, were uneducated. She was horrified to think of the damage already done to children by uneducated, weak-minded mothers. Wollstonecraft articulates in beautiful fashion her argument for the need to educate women in the following quote. "If marriage be the cement of society, mankind should all be educated after the same model, or the intercourse of the sexes will never deserve the name of fellowship, nor will women ever fulfill the peculiar duties of their sex." This argument only enhances women's roles as wives and mothers. Finally, Wollstonecraft argued that the implementation of her educational reforms would prove to be a key element leading to the improvement of the institution of marriage in particular, and for family life in general. "Contending for the rights of women, my main argument is built on this simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of knowledge and virtue."

Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy, and feminism.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. Wollstonecraft is not easy to read however, she makes a compelling argument. Mary Wollstonecraft viewed the institution of marriage simply as legal prostitution. She believed this to be the case for several reasons. First, the marriage laws in Britain at the time gave men legal rights over their wives including their property. The law also gave men custody of their children in event of divorce, and a woman could not even obtain a divorce without their husband's consent. For women divorce meant having to leave everything of importance in their lives behind. Thus, Wollstonecraft observed that Britain's laws left women in the unenviable position of being treated as mere chattel by their husbands. Second, Wollstonecraft argued that women's downtrodden position in society was not the cause of religious or moral teachings. She was emphatic in her assessment that it was women's denial of the same educational opportunities that men received that made them seem weak and inferior to men. Finally, she believed marriage only chained women to a life of drudgery in the home.

Armed with this information, Wollstonecraft set out to propose in her book A Vindication of the Rights of Women the idea, that equal education for women was the only remedy for this grave injustice perpetrated against them, and education for women would actually strengthen the institution of marriage. She made several prescient arguments to support this idea. First, Wollstonecraft believed schoolchildren needed the contact and interaction with other schoolchildren to develop properly. So, she argued against Britain's system of elitist education, especially its private schools and boarding schools. She advocated for the creation of national public schools, funded by the state, and attended by children from the entire socio-economic strata. Second, she thought it was imperative that both boys and girls must be educated together. The reason Wollstonecraft believed in coeducation, was that when both boys and girls get to know one another from an early age they would in turn, build friendships, and learn to respect one another. Therefore, when women get married, they will be able to serve as companions to their husbands and not just as trophy wives or sexual objects. "Nay, marriage will never be held sacred till women, by being brought up with men, are prepared to be their companions rather than their mistresses." Third, Wollstonecraft asked the question, how society could expect mothers to rear healthy boys capable of functioning as confident and productive men in society if their mothers, who raised them, were uneducated. She was horrified to think of the damage already done to children by uneducated, weak-minded mothers. Wollstonecraft articulates in beautiful fashion her argument for the need to educate women in the following quote. "If marriage be the cement of society, mankind should all be educated after the same model, or the intercourse of the sexes will never deserve the name of fellowship, nor will women ever fulfill the peculiar duties of their sex." This argument only enhances women's roles as wives and mothers. Finally, Wollstonecraft argued that the implementation of her educational reforms would prove to be a key element leading to the improvement of the institution of marriage in particular, and for family life in general. "Contending for the rights of women, my main argument is built on this simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of knowledge and virtue."

Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy, and feminism.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. Wollstonecraft is not easy to read however, she makes a compelling argument. Mary Wollstonecraft viewed the institution of marriage simply as legal prostitution. She believed this to be the case for several reasons. First, the marriage laws in Britain at the time gave men legal rights over their wives including their property. The law also gave men custody of their children in event of divorce, and a woman could not even obtain a divorce without their husband's consent. For women divorce meant having to leave everything of importance in their lives behind. Thus, Wollstonecraft observed that Britain's laws left women in the unenviable position of being treated as mere chattel by their husbands. Second, Wollstonecraft argued that women's downtrodden position in society was not the cause of religious or moral teachings. She was emphatic in her assessment that it was women's denial of the same educational opportunities that men received that made them seem weak and inferior to men. Finally, she believed marriage only chained women to a life of drudgery in the home.

Armed with this information, Wollstonecraft set out to propose in her book A Vindication of the Rights of Women the idea, that equal education for women was the only remedy for this grave injustice perpetrated against them, and education for women would actually strengthen the institution of marriage. She made several prescient arguments to support this idea. First, Wollstonecraft believed schoolchildren needed the contact and interaction with other schoolchildren to develop properly. So, she argued against Britain's system of elitist education, especially its private schools and boarding schools. She advocated for the creation of national public schools, funded by the state, and attended by children from the entire socio-economic strata. Second, she thought it was imperative that both boys and girls must be educated together. The reason Wollstonecraft believed in coeducation, was that when both boys and girls get to know one another from an early age they would in turn, build friendships, and learn to respect one another. Therefore, when women get married, they will be able to serve as companions to their husbands and not just as trophy wives or sexual objects. "Nay, marriage will never be held sacred till women, by being brought up with men, are prepared to be their companions rather than their mistresses." Third, Wollstonecraft asked the question, how society could expect mothers to rear healthy boys capable of functioning as confident and productive men in society if their mothers, who raised them, were uneducated. She was horrified to think of the damage already done to children by uneducated, weak-minded mothers. Wollstonecraft articulates in beautiful fashion her argument for the need to educate women in the following quote. "If marriage be the cement of society, mankind should all be educated after the same model, or the intercourse of the sexes will never deserve the name of fellowship, nor will women ever fulfill the peculiar duties of their sex." This argument only enhances women's roles as wives and mothers. Finally, Wollstonecraft argued that the implementation of her educational reforms would prove to be a key element leading to the improvement of the institution of marriage in particular, and for family life in general. "Contending for the rights of women, my main argument is built on this simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of knowledge and virtue."

Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy, and feminism.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. Wollstonecraft is not easy to read however, she makes a compelling argument. Mary Wollstonecraft viewed the institution of marriage simply as legal prostitution. She believed this to be the case for several reasons. First, the marriage laws in Britain at the time gave men legal rights over their wives including their property. The law also gave men custody of their children in event of divorce, and a woman could not even obtain a divorce without their husband's consent. For women divorce meant having to leave everything of importance in their lives behind. Thus, Wollstonecraft observed that Britain's laws left women in the unenviable position of being treated as mere chattel by their husbands. Second, Wollstonecraft argued that women's downtrodden position in society was not the cause of religious or moral teachings. She was emphatic in her assessment that it was women's denial of the same educational opportunities that men received that made them seem weak and inferior to men. Finally, she believed marriage only chained women to a life of drudgery in the home.

Armed with this information, Wollstonecraft set out to propose in her book A Vindication of the Rights of Women the idea, that equal education for women was the only remedy for this grave injustice perpetrated against them, and education for women would actually strengthen the institution of marriage. She made several prescient arguments to support this idea. First, Wollstonecraft believed schoolchildren needed the contact and interaction with other schoolchildren to develop properly. So, she argued against Britain's system of elitist education, especially its private schools and boarding schools. She advocated for the creation of national public schools, funded by the state, and attended by children from the entire socio-economic strata. Second, she thought it was imperative that both boys and girls must be educated together. The reason Wollstonecraft believed in coeducation, was that when both boys and girls get to know one another from an early age they would in turn, build friendships, and learn to respect one another. Therefore, when women get married, they will be able to serve as companions to their husbands and not just as trophy wives or sexual objects. "Nay, marriage will never be held sacred till women, by being brought up with men, are prepared to be their companions rather than their mistresses." Third, Wollstonecraft asked the question, how society could expect mothers to rear healthy boys capable of functioning as confident and productive men in society if their mothers, who raised them, were uneducated. She was horrified to think of the damage already done to children by uneducated, weak-minded mothers. Wollstonecraft articulates in beautiful fashion her argument for the need to educate women in the following quote. "If marriage be the cement of society, mankind should all be educated after the same model, or the intercourse of the sexes will never deserve the name of fellowship, nor will women ever fulfill the peculiar duties of their sex." This argument only enhances women's roles as wives and mothers. Finally, Wollstonecraft argued that the implementation of her educational reforms would prove to be a key element leading to the improvement of the institution of marriage in particular, and for family life in general. "Contending for the rights of women, my main argument is built on this simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of knowledge and virtue."

Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy, and feminism.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. Wollstonecraft is not easy to read however, she makes a compelling argument. Mary Wollstonecraft viewed the institution of marriage simply as legal prostitution. She believed this to be the case for several reasons. First, the marriage laws in Britain at the time gave men legal rights over their wives including their property. The law also gave men custody of their children in event of divorce, and a woman could not even obtain a divorce without their husband's consent. For women divorce meant having to leave everything of importance in their lives behind. Thus, Wollstonecraft observed that Britain's laws left women in the unenviable position of being treated as mere chattel by their husbands. Second, Wollstonecraft argued that women's downtrodden position in society was not the cause of religious or moral teachings. She was emphatic in her assessment that it was women's denial of the same educational opportunities that men received that made them seem weak and inferior to men. Finally, she believed marriage only chained women to a life of drudgery in the home.

Armed with this information, Wollstonecraft set out to propose in her book A Vindication of the Rights of Women the idea, that equal education for women was the only remedy for this grave injustice perpetrated against them, and education for women would actually strengthen the institution of marriage. She made several prescient arguments to support this idea. First, Wollstonecraft believed schoolchildren needed the contact and interaction with other schoolchildren to develop properly. So, she argued against Britain's system of elitist education, especially its private schools and boarding schools. She advocated for the creation of national public schools, funded by the state, and attended by children from the entire socio-economic strata. Second, she thought it was imperative that both boys and girls must be educated together. The reason Wollstonecraft believed in coeducation, was that when both boys and girls get to know one another from an early age they would in turn, build friendships, and learn to respect one another. Therefore, when women get married, they will be able to serve as companions to their husbands and not just as trophy wives or sexual objects. "Nay, marriage will never be held sacred till women, by being brought up with men, are prepared to be their companions rather than their mistresses." Third, Wollstonecraft asked the question, how society could expect mothers to rear healthy boys capable of functioning as confident and productive men in society if their mothers, who raised them, were uneducated. She was horrified to think of the damage already done to children by uneducated, weak-minded mothers. Wollstonecraft articulates in beautiful fashion her argument for the need to educate women in the following quote. "If marriage be the cement of society, mankind should all be educated after the same model, or the intercourse of the sexes will never deserve the name of fellowship, nor will women ever fulfill the peculiar duties of their sex." This argument only enhances women's roles as wives and mothers. Finally, Wollstonecraft argued that the implementation of her educational reforms would prove to be a key element leading to the improvement of the institution of marriage in particular, and for family life in general. "Contending for the rights of women, my main argument is built on this simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of knowledge and virtue."

Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy, and feminism.

Here at last is a thought-provoking and in-depth analysis of the role of women is science fiction literature. Well worth reading.

An incredible book that I only wish I had read earlier in my life. Once I started the book I had difficulty putting it back down except to do the things that I was obliged to do. I loved the book completely, but I am still after finishing it unsure what my thoughts and feelings are towards Victor Frakenstein or his monster. I want to feel compassion for the monster in his only desire for love and to not be alone but at the same time I fear that if I had met him in the city that I would scream in fear and desire to kill him myself. As far as Victor, he is someone who at times I felt sorry for and other times I wanted to hate him more so than the monster for his crazy ambitions to do such a thing and then to abhor and desire the death of his creation. A great book that I would recommend to anyone.

I first read Frankenstein my freshman year of high school. When asked about it, long after I stopped carrying about the novel with too many complexities for even a bright 14 year old to understand, I would simply say "I know that Mary Shelley is [radical feminist] Mary Wollstonecraft's daughter, but you would never know it from Frankenstein."
I reread the novel for my Goth Lit class freshman year of college when I was better able to understand the intricacies of the text. For the first time, I did see saw Mary Wollstonecraft's daughter. Numerous reviewers before me have expounded upon the "Man trying to usurp God with Reckless Science" themes of the novel, concentrating on the Reckless Science (so like what we see paralleled today) while ignoring the phallo-centric characteristics of the science that Victor Frankenstein practices.
The man's science relentlessly pursues and forcibly unveils a decidedly feminine and reluctant Nature, and manages to bypass the feminine entirely with the creation of monster that came simply from the work of a man. Frankenstein houses a genuine fear of female sexuality (just looks at the dream he has following his monster's creation, in which his beloved, while in his embrace, becomes the corpse of his dead mother).
I know my argument might seem shoddy here, but Hindle (the editor) puts together a wonderful introduction that, among other things, connects Frankenstein's science to his maleness.
The are many editions of Frankenstein. I feel that this one stands out because of its fine scholarship.

As far as I have gotten in the book it is a good piece of Literature. I am reading it for a Literature Course in School.

Too many "Monster Mash" ditties and cheap movie treatments ("Young Frankenstein") have made us forget this story's deep pathos and overwhelming sadness. Rewind to Mary Shelley's original. "Frankenstein" is about recklessness, man's inhumanity to man, and the potential idolatry of science.
The creature's desire for friendship mirrors Dr. Victor Frankenstein's desire to confide his secret to someone "normal."
Our author, the wife of English Romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, wrote "Frankenstein" when she was only 19 years old. Her story construction shows a remarkable sensibility that we'd find, if at all, in people much older. Some examples:
Her choice of name for Victor's university instructor -- Professor Waldman. He encourages Victor's medical research to better diagnose and treat disease. Waldman represents the "wall" of ethical norms that no person, no matter how talented or well meaning, should go beyond. To do otherwise, a person may well lose himself and all he holds dear. Victor charges past the wall with disastrous results.
Ambiguities of time and setting increases the story's power. Victor Frankenstein's faith tradition is left undetailed. Frankenstein sounds Jewish yet Victor and his family seem part of Geneva's gentile establishment. Perhaps VF is Roman Catholic and retains that religion's unhealthy fascination with the dead (with its disturbing statues of nailed-up Jesus and the habit of praying to deceased "saints"). Odd yet welcome that these people are in the vanguard of today's pro-life movement.
It shouldn't escape notice that Geneva, while an international city at Europe's crossroads, was also home to John Calvin's experiment in Reform Protestant theocracy. So is Victor a Jew, a Catholic, or a Presbyterian? We aren't told and that's crucial. Shelley is showing us that spiritual blindness is an equal-opportunity malady.
Negative reactions to the creature give us a glimpse of the violence lurking just below the surface of "civilized" society. Shelley's story is a signpost for how the manufactured men of advanced biology and other minorities-cum-servants come to be treated in a violent society. For prologue, see Alex Haley's "Roots." For meditations on the future, view the movie "Blade Runner." For contemporary applications, consider the debates over cloning and stem-cell research against a backdrop of a country where boxing, professional wrestling, the International Fighting League, and fisticuffs in hockey are taken to be normal instead of the abominations they truly are.
The only weakness in "Frankenstein" is the creature's ability to speak. It's not clear how he received this power. The Vilna Gaon once told his most accomplished student, Rabbi Chaim Volozhiner, that it's not especially difficult to create a man if a person truly understands a book known as the Sefer Yetzirah. The creation is known as a golem. A golem can do everything a normal man can do including reason, the Gaon told Rav Chaim, the exception being the ability to talk. The speaking spirit that G-d gave Adam and subsequent members of the human race can only be bestowed by G-d.
"Frankenstein" would have been even more terrifying and moving had Shelley withheld the power of speech (and some better movie treatments have handled it this way). Victor finding the creature's thoughts in a journal after his reign of terror would have been more poignant. Guess we can't blame our British Protestant author for not knowing Jewish tales involving golems.
It's possible for Jews to become Frankensteins -- consider what Dr. Bernard Nathanson did to the unborn, including his own offspring, in the name of "women's rights" and "reproductive freedom" (read BN's "Aborting America") before his soul reawakened. Yet if Victor Frankenstein is Jewish he lacks the key ingredients in being an Israelite -- compassion and acceptance of responsibility.
Failure to accept responsibility is what got the early fathers of mankind cursed (see the Book of Genesis for how G-d reacts when Adam tries to put off his sin on Eve and when Cain questions whether he needs to concerned about the whereabouts of murdered brother Abel). Noah moved the ball somewhat but only took responsibility for his own family. Our father Abraham, history's first prophet, was the pioneer in taking compassion and responsibility outside one's own tent, making converts and doing kindness to strangers. This set the pattern for Abraham's descendants and the spirit would manifest itself powerfully in his great-grandchildren Joseph and Judah, the sons of Israel.
Notice in Genesis how the story of Judah taking responsibility for his children with Tamar (even embarrassing himself publicly in doing so) comes amid Joseph beginning a journey that will include stewardship of Egypt and a grand act of forgiveness. The Torah is showing us that the new ethic is blooming on two tracks destined to become one.
The culmination comes when Joseph publicly tests Judah over the matters of their father (Jacob/Israel) and brother Benjamin. Judah demonstrates that his repentance and acceptance of responsibility are complete and immovable. Joseph's reservations melt and the brothers are tearfully reunited. Epilogue: Judah became the largest of the Israelite tribes and eventually become the identity for the entire holy nation -- all Israelites today are known as Yehudim, "Jews," (Yehudah being the Hebrew equivalent of Judah). It became halacha (Jewish law) that all Jews are responsible for one another. And Joseph was given an extra portion of inheritance by Jacob mainly for his (Joseph's) ability to avoid the desire for revenge, something that consumed the main characters in "Frankenstein." Israel must eventually forgive its/our brothers, the nations of the world, for the final redemption to occur.
It's a pity Dr. Frankenstein didn't know the personal prayer of Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi (Judah "The Prince"), someone who knew a good bit about taking responsibility. Rabbi Yehudah, thanks to the good grace and cooperation of Edomite/Roman cousin Emperor Antoninus, was able to compile the Mishnah, ensuring Judaism's oral law would not be forgotten.
Rabbeinu HaKadosh's daily prayer is found in the Babylonian Talmud (Berachos 16B) --
"May it be Your Will, Hashem, my G-d, and the G-d of my forefathers, that You rescue me today and every day from brazen men and from brazenness, from an evil man, an evil companion, an evil neighbor, an evil mishap, the destructive spiritual impediment..."
A few words from our author's husband in the heart of Victor Frankenstein may have saved the doctor and his creation from fates worse than death --
"The winds of Heaven mix forever
With a sweet emotion
Nothing in the world is single
All things by a law divine
In one spirit meet and mingle.
Why not I with thine?"
(P.B. Shelley, "Love's Philosophy")

The book, Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, really surprised me. I thought it would be a boring book, with language I didn't understand, and a plot I couldn't get into. But let me tell you I was WRONG. Yeah, it did start a little slow but once you got amerced into the plot of the creature and Frankenstein's hatred for one another, you couldn't really say you had enough of it.
In this book it starts off with letters from a boat captain to his sister, then we get to see Frankenstein's story, inside that is the creature's, and inside that is the story of the family in whom the creature watches. In other words, a big giant story sandwich. The tone of it could get a little boring and bleak but what was actually going on could never be. From all the deaths in the book it could be labeled a tragedy, but the tragic part was how the creature actually loved Frankenstein and blackmailed Frankenstein, so he, the creature, wouldn't be lonely. But when Frankenstein dies, so do all of his dreams of a loving life.
But I agree this is still a sci-fi book, but with the plot twists of a tragedy.


Faith Howell
Landrum High School

Hey, just finished "The Monsters" and enjoyed it immensely. I'm not a "literary" person but am interested in history. As a history it's a great and non-boring period read. I won't go into details like the lit buffs, but I wanted to put in a word for the general reader. If more lit "stuff" was written like this literature would be more meaningful. When you know the when and why and about how something was generated it gives it much more significance.

The general story has been covered before, but here the Hooblers provide a readable update to the creation of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" and the surrounding events of her life. In 1816, the poet Lord Byron challenged some friends to come up with ghost stories, leading to not just Mary's classic but also to the first modern vampire novel (by associate John Polidori). Here the Hooblers compile the latest knowledge of everyone involved, leading to useful biographies of Mary Shelley, her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelley, Byron, Polidori, Mary's proto-feminist mother Mary Wollstonecraft, her anarchist father William Godwin, and everyone else involved in Mary's literary life.

You'll be surprised by the free love and loose morals of all the protagonists, displayed during a brief lapse in the puritanism and patriarchy of European society when they were all in their primes. Percy and Byron come across in particular as irresponsible tail-chasing scumbags, with poor Mary suffering under her disrespectful and condescending male loved ones. But the Hooblers handily illustrate the social and historical inspirations for all these literary geniuses. They also provide a biographical reconstruction of "Frankenstein" and search for the parallels with Mary's life. This presents the only minor flaw in this book, as the Hooblers sometimes go overboard in conjecturing the inner private thoughts of Mary (and the others to a lesser extent) - regardless of the extensive use of letters and personal diaries as sources.

Indeed, Byron's challenge eventually lead to the early deaths of almost everyone involved, with poor Mary surviving but dealing with a parade of personal tragedies that would have killed a weaker person several times. This wasn't really a "curse" mind you, just the result of the reckless lifestyles and poor health care of the times in which they lived. Here the Hooblers have provided a consistently readable multi-biography and literary review, based on a fresh reading of primary sources, of a unique troupe of literary fellow travelers. [~doomsdayer520~]

In some ways, this book is similar to Ken Russell's "Gothic," but in other ways, it's not; for one, Russell's film tends to Romanticise the two anti-heroes (Byron and Shelley) while the book states the sad facts quite clearly. It presents the true side of the "Romantics" and shows us that Byron and Shelley truly were very egotistical, narcissistic, and very selfish people with a varied modicum of talent. I really liked that this book did not sugar-coat the truth.

Come to think of it, it may only have also been Byron's associations with his obviously mentally ill ancestors and peoples' obsessions with such luridness, and Shelley's association with Byron, that even elevated both to such high status! Add to that Byron's infamous handsomeness, although in my personal opinion, I never found him that intruiging -- even Samuel Taylor Coleridge was more darkly handsome when he was a young man. Coleridge was also a much better poet with a true talent for poetry! Read any of his poems, especially "Kubla Khan," and then make the decision on your own.

Call me prejudiced, but I have never been a great fan of Byron and Shelley, although Shelley, I think, was more genuine, so again, I think it may be true that Byron's celebrity, and Shelley's association with him made these two famous. And as for their personalities, again, quite horrific. Of course, from the two, Shelley was rather tame, Byron makes Shelley look like a choirboy! One wonders how Byron survived as long as he did without dying of some disease from his varied sexual encounters. (Again, if Byron was the first celebrity, this also gives you a good idea of how people can be elevated to grand heights when they really don't deserve to be.)

On the other hand, we are given a picture of Mary as being rather naive and foolish, as most young girls are when in love, but rather sweet altogether. She seemed to be the only morally and temperamentally sound one from the bunch. If anything, she is the real star here and the only real talent. (You can also see that her conscience was so strong that it haunted her to the point that she was impelled to write "Frankenstein.") Polidori, the poor victim, also had some real talent, I've always thought his short-story "The Vampyre" was quite excellent. And if you ask me, he was much more handsome than Byron (at this point you may think I actually loathe Byron, and sometimes I think I do!) As for Claire, she was just as batty as both Byron and Shelley, and deserved whatever the consequences may have been. Watch Ken Russell's film "Gothic" for a great interpretation of Claire's personality. Even though Mary Shelley has long been dead, I really feel for her, having to be around all those "monsters" as it were, must have been another reason for writing her classic novel!

This book focuses on the life of Mary Shelley, which was tragic. It appears to be well-researched (I don't know enough to contradict any of their conclusions) and was very interesting, one of my nightly "just before I go to sleep" reads. There is plenty of detail about the lives of Mary's parents, her family, her very famous husband, Percy, and other historical individuals, most notably Lord Byron. But the authors keep the pace moving and do not get bogged down in dull details.

I particularly enjoyed the fact that the authors freely gave their opinion on Mary and the people in her life, making the biography more accessible and less a dry textbook. There is some very interesting (and spooky) details about Percy's early death and Mary's bizarre reaction to it. They also attempt to dispel the lurid falsehoods told by Lord Byron's enemies and paint a portrait of the true man, one of Europe's first celebrity idols. He was still a bad character, and I cannot help but wonder how Mary's personal life would have improved if she and Percy had never met the man; however, would Frankenstein been written and Percy become a belated star?

I came away from the novel with a deep sense of pathos about Mary and a new sense of her greatness in literary history. In a way, Mary's life was a Gothic horror story, full of real life monstrous individuals.

I bought this book because I was curious as to the origins of "Frankenstein" and walked away with a desire to learn a lot more about the central figures. The authors do an excellent job of recalling the life of Mary Shelley (which was tragic) and the rest of the group that met that "dark and stormy night" in 1816 to tell ghost stories.
Lord Byron, Percy Shelley and John Polidori were all figures I knew marginally but the Hooblers have made them live in the pages of this wonderfully diverse study. They were fascinating people.
I recommend this book wholeheartedly. There are very few biographies as engaging as "The Monsters". Anyone with an interest in literature, monsters or just interesting people will enjoy this book.