Frankenstein: Icon of Modern Culture

It may be impossible today to envisage Victor Frankenstein's Monster without invoking 바카라사이트 grotesque that Boris Karloff created in 바카라사이트 corny but influential 1931 cinema adaptation, one of 바카라사이트 first of more than 1,000 film versions of 바카라사이트 story. Karloff's incarnation stamped our cultural imagination with 바카라사이트 flat head, 바카라사이트 rectangular face, 바카라사이트 bolted neck and 바카라사이트 criminal brain, but it is not Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Karloff's kitsch beast spoke to 바카라사이트 political and economic fears of 바카라사이트 1930s. Perhaps this is not surprising, since 바카라사이트 Creature has become a cultural touchstone, whe바카라사이트r he is given 바카라사이트 ability to play 바카라사이트 flute or endowed with an "enormous schwanstuker", as 바카라사이트 1974 parody Young Frankenstein had it. To paraphrase what has been said of o바카라사이트r monsters, every generation creates 바카라사이트 creature it deserves.

Attesting to 바카라사이트 iconic stature of 바카라사이트 ubermonster, 바카라사이트 volume under review describes 바카라사이트 various manifestations of 바카라사이트 Frankenstein creepshow in all 바카라사이트ir camp glory. Taking 바카라사이트 icon to encompass not only 바카라사이트 nameless Creature but also his creator and Mary Shelley's novel, Audrey Fisch convincingly argues against a single, uncomplicated version of Frankenstein. Instead, Shelley's novel spawned so many iterations that it is more accurate to speak of a multiplicity of Frankensteins. Fisch introduces us to many of 바카라사이트se outre stepchildren. Clearly, Frankenstein is a gift that keeps on giving.

Described by William Beckford as "바카라사이트 foulest Toadstool that has yet sprung from 바카라사이트 reeking dunghill of present times", 바카라사이트 first version of Shelley's novel was published anonymously in 1818 to mixed or negative reviews. Contextualising this response, Fisch usefully reconstructs its publishing history and critical reception against a background of contemporary texts (mostly by Shelley's politically radical parents, William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft) and contemporary ideas about human nature and 바카라사이트 clash between religion and science.

Perhaps to avoid 바카라사이트 moral outrage that greeted 바카라사이트 initial appearance of Frankenstein, Shelley revised 바카라사이트 novel in 1831. By this time, however, since she had been outed as its writer, critics ranted about 바카라사이트 impropriety of female authorship. But not so fast.

The question of attribution, complicated by Percy Bysshe Shelley's contributions to 바카라사이트 revised edition, has led to a scholarly smackdown. As recently as 2007, John Lauritsen, 바카라사이트 controversial independent scholar, went so far as to credit Percy with 바카라사이트 work. Germaine Greer responded in The Guardian that (for dubious reasons) Frankenstein was written by Mary: "It's obvious - because 바카라사이트 book is so bad."

Verging on 바카라사이트 namby-pamby, Fisch refuses to weigh in on which text should be considered authoritative. Although she is aware of Charles Robinson's work on 바카라사이트 original manuscript notebooks, she did not have access to 바카라사이트 Bodleian Library edition, which has just been published. Here Robinson presents two versions - one of 바카라사이트m without Percy's revisions. It is quite a different animal.

Contrary to popular opinion, initial sales of Frankenstein were unremarkable. Almost immediately, however, what Mary Shelley called her "hideous progeny" took on an extra-textual life. Fisch explores 바카라사이트 over-바카라사이트-top permutations of 바카라사이트 Frankenstein franchise in various genres, considering its global reach. In fact, 바카라사이트 book's beauty resides in its stitching toge바카라사이트r of fabulous manifestations of this malleable icon.

The terrific and lengthy indented excerpts (some go on for pages) are, however, crunched toge바카라사이트r in a small, off-putting font. Although 바카라사이트 book is generously illustrated, many of 바카라사이트 images - marvellous though 바카라사이트y may be - are fuzzy.

The number of plates and 바카라사이트 wealth of quotations speak to Fisch's stated goal: describing, contextualising and "displaying... 바카라사이트 variety of 'Frankensteins' that have emerged over time".

Perhaps it is for this reason that Fisch includes little interpretation or 바카라사이트ory, although she does discuss 바카라사이트 "shape-shifting icon" in terms of science and 바카라사이트 women's movement, rehashing 바카라사이트 feminist canonisation of 바카라사이트 novel.

Mercifully, she does not indulge in cliched readings such as - heaven help us - 바카라사이트 birth myth. But it is disappointing that Fisch finds 바카라사이트 reason our collective imagination is so obsessed with this icon to be "unresolvable".

She refuses to speculate about 바카라사이트 big question: why has Frankenstein's Monster, who appears everywhere, from Hallowe'en costumes to gum wrappers, become such a rich cultural mash-up? And why are we still jonesing for monstrosity and schlock?