Who Really Wrote Frankenstein, part II

Well, I wrote a version of my blog post about Who Really Wrote Frankenstein and sent it off to the Daily Telegraph in London, England. Turns out The Original Frankenstein is a new version of Frankenstein that’s being published by Oxford University—my old Alma Mater. Just kidding, just kidding! Although I did spend the summer of 2004 at Oxford University’s Exeter College studying 19th century British literature. I also spent hours and hours and hours in the Bodleian Library that summer, researching the Shelleys. And it’s also where I got that A+ on a paper about Percy Bysshe Shelley I keep bragging about. In any event, my Letter to the Editor got published yesterday. Here’s the link:

Here’s the text. (They edited it aggressively, but the salient points remain):

Who wrote Frankenstein?

Sir – I see that University of Delaware professor Charles Robinson has written a new book, The Original Frankenstein, in which he identifies 5,000 changes made to Mary Shelley’s manuscript by her husband (report, August 25).

Professor Robinson claims that Frankenstein should therefore be credited: “Mary Shelley with Percy Bysshe Shelley”. I disagree.

Prof Robinson is one of the most highly respected experts on Mary Shelley and I depended upon him for my research for Requiem for the Author of Frankenstein, a novel on the life of Mary Shelley. Clearly Shelley edited Mary’s manuscript.

However, I would argue that Shelley was Mary’s editor in the same way that Gordon Lish was Raymond Carver’s. The demands the publishing industry makes on authors fall into a shady area. Prof Robinson’s research opens a discussion on the nature of the author/editor relationship.

Until that conversation takes place, it seems unfair to assert that Shelley should be listed as a co-author. It is also worth noting that Mary Shelley mainly worked on her novel in Bath during the winter of 1816-1817 when her husband was in London. There are letters from Mary complaining of her loneliness.

Although I credit Shelley with some feminist understanding, I don’t believe he had the insight to say in Frankenstein what Mary said about women and their irrelevance – a theme that is also central to her overlooked novel Valperga.

There is also the little acknowledged fact that Mary Shelley influenced Shelley: she was the first person to collect, edit and publish his poetry after his death.

She should be credited with the authorship of her own work.

Dr Molly Dwyer, Fort Bragg, California

And now, I’ve heard from Professor Robinson! He emailed me in response to my letter.

Molly Dwyer,

Once you read the book, you will see that MWS is still credited with writing the novel—what I am attempting to do is to show just what PBS’s contributions were—my Introduction [and even my title page] does not argue for him controlling the novel. What you will find useful in the book is that I print 2 Frankenstein’s, both based n the Draft and therefore taking us back closer to what MWS wrote:

1] the first text is a corrected version [spellings and punctuation corrected and made consistent] of the Draft, with PBS’s words shown in italics—the first time a reading text shows that;

2] the second text, the more ‘original,’ is the uncorrected version of the draft with all PBS words purged and with all MWS words that PBS canceled restored—you get MWS’s original voice that way—one of my points is that it is much more colloquial.

The intent of the two texts is to give the reader the evidence to make his or her judgment on all of this—your analogy of the other editors of writers’ works is a good one.

They are releasing the book in England and it is available thru amazon.com in the uk—not sure when they will release it in USA—might be a year as they attempt to sell the rights. The UK version is reasonable priced, 14.95 pounds sterling for 450 pages and a hard cover and two texts.

Thanks for crediting my earlier work on Frankenstein.

The Telegraph writer apparently got all of his info from the Sunday Times version of the story—and the writer there had never read Frankenstein—and his piece does overstate a number of points—I will be happy when full-fledged reviews come out—TLS is planning one soon.

I send along the Times url—you will see that the Telegraph builds on it—it is

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article4597084.ece

Charlie Robinson

I’m honored that Dr. Robinson responded to my remarks, and interestingly, he’s saying he’s not that pleased with the way the Daily Telegraph represented his work. That he conceded my point about the author/editor relationship, is especially gratifying. My original remarks, as I said above, were aggressively edited. Here’s a what I actually wrote about the author/editor relationship:

I am well aware that Dr Robinson is one of the most highly respected experts on Mary Shelley—I depended upon him for my own research, and clearly Shelley edited Mary’s manuscript. Dr. Robinson is not the first to make that claim. I would argue that Shelley was Mary’s editor in the same way that Gordon Lish was Raymond Carver’s, and that if the same criteria were applied, Lish would have to be listed as a co-author alongside Raymond Carver. Perhaps Lish should be: Carver’s wife has recently argued as much, insisting Lish’s heavy hand tampered with Carver’s work. Certainly some of the demands the publishing industry makes on contemporary authors, in order to secure hoped for commercial success, fall into a shady area. Robinson’s research opens a discussion on the nature of the author/editor relationship—what it should be, and how it should be credited. Until that conversation takes place, it seems imprudent and unfair to assert that Shelley should be listed as a co-author of Frankenstein, “with” or otherwise.

So. I’m still kind of pulling all the pieces together. It’s the Internet age; this would not have happened in another time. I wouldn’t have seen the article, there wouldn’t have been the opportunity for such instantaneous communication. It just wouldn’t have happened. I said in my letter that I wanted to be part of the conversation, and it seems in some small way, I’ve been invited in. Thank you Daily Telegraph, thank you Dr. Robinson.