The Sense Of Collection Its Target Readership

By Author: Alex Lee
Total Articles: 366
Comment this article

A further problem is the collection's sense of its target readership. The contributors certainly demonstrate enthusiasm, but too often what is offered is entry-level information. Do readers really need to be told and on more than one occasion of the existence of the Lunar Society, or the fact of Mary Shelley's elopement The book is marketed as 'an invaluable resource for students and scholars specialising in Romanticism, cultural history, philosophy and the history of science,' but students in particular would be better advised to go elsewhere for accurate information. Judith Barbour's dismissal of Boerhaave as a 'Dutch chemist and physician who experimented with live animals, dabbled in magnetism and electricity, and pursued the secret of compounding mercury as a cure for syphilis' is particularly worrying, Thomas Sabo Jewellery as is her belief that 'Frankenstein, like Boerhaave, is an ambiguous figure who may be seen as a scientific genius or a dabbler in the uncanny'.

Patricia Fara's 'Educating Mary: Women and Scientific Literature in the Early Nineteenth Century' is in ...
... two distinct parts. The first offers a useful survey of some of Mary Shelley's early reading; the second and analysis of a Danish text she is known to have read, Ludvig Holberg's Klim. Fara eschews 'untestable speculations'on how Holberg's story might have influenced the writing of Frankenstein. Rather she discusses three characteristics, which she sees shared by the two texts: 'the framing structure, the perspective of a monstrous outsider, and the use of mythological imagery'. It seems strange, however, to argue that these features are unusual. Too often the writers are forced to make weak links between some loose aspect of science and Frankenstein itself. Knellwolf suggests 'it is very likely' that Adalbert von Chamisso 'inspired the narrative frame of Frankenstein] given the 'interesting coincidence' that he was sailing round the world on the Romanzof expedition between while Shelley was writing it. Similarly she detects 'a telling parallel' with Charles Bonnet 'who was working on a thorough analysis of the vegetative process of primitive organism [sic], not far from where the Shelleys spent their summer in 1816' so it is 'conceivable that he inspired the conception of Professor Waldman'.

Joan Kirkby suggests 'there is no doubt that interest in the spirit world was related to Thomas Sabo Charms the question of life after death' in a discussion of Swedenborg and Kant. Jane Goodall describes how Joseph Priestley's 'laboratory was trashed' and wonders if 'perhaps we should see Frankenstein as a Priestley figure'. Referring back to her 1991 paper, Goodall goes on to outline a tension in Shelley's text between 'the reactive combination of revolutionary Prometheanism' and 'residual Calvinism.' Taking Priestley's electrical polarity as symbolic, and she moves on to a retrospective diagnosis of Mary Shelley as 'another textbook case' of bipolarism. The final essays in the collection move further and further from the eponymous text, ending with Robert Markley's discussion of H.G. Wells.