Introduction About Virginia Tech

By Author: emaly su
Total Articles: 235
Comment this article

Stated initially as a desire to 'reopen the question of how science and scientific ambition is portrayed in [Shelley's] story, by offering a range of historical perspectives, based on detailed accounts of scientific knowledge that are relevant to it' (p. 1).

This desire is later rendered as being to bring 'to life the challenges and complexities of science as they are reflected in the novel'. Is the focus to be Frankenstein itself or developments in British Romantic science contemporary to it?

It is a pity other contributors did not follow the lead of Anita Guerrini, whose 'Animal Experiments and Antivivisection Debates in the 1820s' is a model of lucid argument based on well-presented, original research.

It considers one specific controversy at a precisely defined moment: the rise of the anti-vivisection movement between Magendie's London visit in 1824 and Richard Martin's bill on bear-baiting in 1825.

Having said that, its link to Frankenstein is strained, Guerrini forced to conclude 'Although Mary Shelley probably did not have Magendie Wholesale Jewelry ...
... in mind when she created Victor Frankenstein [...] the two names became synonymous with the unblinking cruelty of the scientist in the process of gaining new knowledge'.

Melinda Cooper's piece on the study of monsters, 'Monstrous Progeny: The Teratological Tradition in Science and Literature' is also note-worthy, as although disappointingly short, it addresses the text directly and with insight.

Their lead was not followed. Frequently, hesitant summary of others' scholarship does duty for primary research, with description replacing argument. From the vast field of the history of science we are given little more than interesting tit-bits. This important period of science is ill-served.

Although Patricia Fara raises the epistemological issue of the term 'science' and its cognates in the Romantic era, the editors ignore it.

Nor do they offer any survey of key developments, favouring instead potted biographies of seemingly random Chanel Jewelry British and European figures from a range of both periods and disciplines. The familiar question of Mary Shelley's stance on scientific experimentation is raised only to be fudged.

What is puzzling is why Marilyn Butler's defining 1993 introduction to the 1818 text has not been used as a starting place: none of the essays, for instance, develops Butler's argument for the centrality of the 1814 vitalist controversy between Abernethy and Lawrence.

Several important works of the history of science receive slight or no attention: Andrew Cunningham and Nicholas Jardine's essential Romanticism and the Sciences (1990), for example, do not appear in the bibliography.

Although Ludmilla Jordanova's 1994 chapter 'Melancholy reflection: constructing an identity for unveilers of nature' is cited, its methodological model for exploring the interaction of scientific ideas and literature is not discussed or followed, nor is her central argument that it is a mistake to see Frankenstein as a direct critique of scientific experimentation.