Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

Episode 115

Release Date: November 2, 2023

Your hosts are joined by Adrian Gibson from SFFAddicts to discuss Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. They give Shelley some marketing advice a few years too late, rip into some 1970s editors with bad opinions and questionable facts, and debate both authorial intent and reader interpretations across centuries.

Find us on discord: https://discord.gg/dpNHTWVu6b or support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/fictionfanspod

Thanks to the following musicians for the use of their songs:

- Amarià for the use of “Sérénade à Notre Dame de Paris” - Josh Woodward for the use of “Electric Sunrise”

Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License

---

Episode Transcript*

*this transcript is AI generated, please excuse the mess.

Lilly: 0:04Hello and welcome to Fiction Fans, a podcast where we read books and other words too. I'm Lily. Sara: 0:09I'm Sarah, and I'm so thrilled that we are once again welcoming back Adrian M. Gibson, co host of the wonderful SFF Addicts podcast, on to talk about Frankenstein today. Adrian: 0:21Hello. Thank you for having me back. It's a pleasure to be here as always. Sara: 0:24It's so good to chat with you again. It's been ages. Adrian: 0:28It has been ages. It's been a queen's age, but I love chatting with you both, whether it's on my podcast or whether it's here, Lilly: 0:33Well, I've already had to stop you guys from talking about this book once, so let's see if we can get through our intro questions before we jump in too soon. Adrian: 0:42figure it out, we'll get there. Sara: 0:44Sorry, not sorry. Adrian: 0:46Yeah. I don't give a shit. Whatever. Lilly: 0:49So what's something good that's happened recently? Sara: 0:52My good thing is that I made plans with some friends who live out of town to come and visit me. So I'm looking forward to that. Adrian: 1:01Nice. I showed Sarah and Lily before we started recording, but I got the official cover art for my debut novel and I have since finished the graphic design and everything like that. And now I have like a real book cover and it's beautiful and I'm in love with it. And I can't wait for this book to get out into the world. Lilly: 1:20Yay! Sara: 1:20It is beautiful. And we will be having you back on for an episode that will come out on February 21st about the book. So be excited. Adrian: 1:29Yeah. I'm, uh, I'm really excited to chat with you both about it and like to get you to read it and hopefully not hate it and just be weirded out by like mushrooms and fun stuff. So be prepared, everybody. Lilly: 1:43It sounds like we're basically your target audience for this, so I think you're gonna be okay. Adrian: 1:48Yeah. I'm, I'm, my goal is to start the fungal punk genre as like a thing. Sara: 1:55into it. Adrian: 1:56So hopefully, yeah, hopefully we can make it a thing. You know, Jeff Vandermeer has already written a bunch of shit that I would qualify as fungal punk but he has not taken advantage of the term, and I'm going to popularize it, or at least that's my hope. Lilly: 2:12That's good marketing right there. Adrian: 2:14Yeah. Jeff, if you want to jump on board, I'm all for it, man. I love your work. What about you, Lily? What's, what's a good thing that happened in your life recently? Lilly: 2:26My good thing is that I technically started reading this book in the Arctic, which was very appropriate. Adrian: 2:34that is very appropriate. Lilly: 2:35Yes, the intro of Frankenstein takes place on a ship going through the Arctic Ocean. I was not in the ocean. I was just technically above the Arctic Circle, but it counts. Adrian: 2:47It does count. Sara: 2:48It does count. Lilly: 2:49And so that was very cool. Adrian: 2:50Which part of the Arctic were you in? Lilly: 2:52Sweden, we were in Kiruna or near Kiruna for the ice hotel. Adrian: 2:57Wow. So you're up in like Lapland. That's so cool, man. Lilly: 3:01It was very cold. Adrian: 3:04Yeah, of course it was cold. Lilly: 3:05Yeah. Adrian: 3:06It's like, we're just going to be in Sweden in November, but did you see the Aurora Borealis? Lilly: 3:11No. That was why we went in November. It's supposed to be like one of the best times to see it. No. Sara: 3:18That just means you have to go back. Lilly: 3:19That's what I said. Sara: 3:20womp. Adrian: 3:22That was pretty much my thinking when I went to Norway, I think back in like 2015, 2014 to Tromsøand we saw it on the last night because we were literally like in a cabin and then it was like. There's a blizzard, but we didn't realize that the guy who picked us up at the airport who was like, it was his Airbnb and he was just like super Norwegian, but his English was really broken. And when he spoke English, it sounded Norwegian, but we just didn't really realize like what he was saying is I wrote a storm coming. I'm like, what? I had a storm coming, and I'm like, what the fuck are you saying, man? So he kind of just ignored him. And then we realized like, oh, there's literally a blizzard coming across this fjord. The man was warning us that there is a storm coming. So no offense to that man. He was a sweetheart and he bought us like salmon and all this kind of stuff and like stocked the Airbnb with amazing things, probably because he knew there was a storm coming. Lilly: 4:20Yeah. Adrian: 4:22So, you know, take it or leave it. But we saw the Northern Lights on the last night, which was really cool. Lilly: 4:27Oh, that's amazing. Oh no. I've just realized that our second question is, what are you drinking tonight? And I'm a terrible podcast host who does nothing to drink right now. Sara: 4:37I thought you were gonna drink the herbal tea. Lilly: 4:39Yeah, I was. I haven't made the tea yet. That's the whole problem. Adrian: 4:42I made my tea. It's blackberry citrus. Lilly: 4:45Oh, that sounds good. Delicious. Adrian: 4:47Yeah, it's great. It's got zinc too. Says like, now with, now with zinc. So I'm really happy about that as well. Sara: 4:54I'm not drinking tea. I'm drinking whiskey because it's gray out and it felt like a whiskey day. Lilly: 5:00Very appropriate. Adrian: 5:01Because Sarah is the most badass person amongst us. Sara: 5:04It's true. Adrian: 5:05I'm just a sad dad drinking my, my tea. Lilly: 5:09Hold on, I do at least need water. I will be right back. All right, I've updated my answer. Now I'm drinking water. Adrian: 5:17Like a healthy human being. You did it, Lily. You did it. Lilly: 5:21There's literally just one rule on this podcast. I Adrian: 5:24Get a drink. This is your podcast. What the hell is Lilly: 5:28I know. Oh, we've gone off the rails. Adrian: 5:30I purposefully made tea because I knew I would be on this podcast. Although I probably would have made it anyways, but. Sara: 5:36Too much time away and you're forgetting all of the podcast rules. Adrian: 5:40Yeah, Lilly: 5:40terrible. I'm out of practice. Adrian: 5:42you go to the Arctic and just like, like, lose your memory. What did those Swedes do to you? Lilly: 5:49I think that's a different book. Adrian: 5:50We're talking about Frankenstein. This is not about memory or it is about memory, but not about memory loss. Lilly: 5:55Yes. Okay, but one more before we get to Frankenstein. Has anyone read anything else good lately? Sara: 6:01I've read things. I don't know if I would necessarily call them good. They've been good because I've been doing buddy reads with friends and that's been fun. But I read this dragon romance trilogy. That I think the first book was published in 96 and the last one was published in 2003, which was not really to my taste. It was fine. It was fun to read it with people, but I probably wouldn't reread it. And then I started, what is it? Fourth Wing by Rebecca Yarrow. I think that's her last name. Adrian: 6:32Yeah. That sounds familiar. Sara: 6:33Yeah. And I see why it's big on TikTok. It's fun, but it reminds me of, like, a Marvel superhero movie, where it's enjoyable, but it has no depth to it. And it's very tropey, and you can see what's coming a mile ahead. Adrian: 6:51But isn't, isn't it romanticy or kind of like within, Sara: 6:54Yeah. I mean, it's, it's also, like, romance. It's basically, I would say it's a, like, spiritual successor of Hunger Games. Like, not that the plot is similar, but it's the same kind of vibe, only aged up just a little bit. Adrian: 7:10right. But that I feel like that genre especially is really, really purposeful in terms of its tropes and, and the sort of beats and expectations that its readers want. Sara: 7:21I, yes, I mean, I, I do, I do Adrian: 7:23In which case it's like, there are probably a lot of people who are like, I'm so happy I can solve this a mile away. And you're just like, give me something more fucking challenging. Sara: 7:31yeah, like, I, I think it knows what it is and does it very well. It just is maybe not the genre for me. But it's like, it's fun. It's a fun book. It just is not going to make my top 10 list. Adrian: 7:46I'm also doing a sort of buddy read in the sense that the book I'm reading is written by a buddy. So I went to Denver recently for a wedding and cause it's not that easy for me to find English books in Ecuador. I finally got to pick up Thick as Thieves by my bestie MJ Kuhn. I've been reading that and I've been like live texting her with my reactions. And I'll be like, fuck you. This person's like horrible and like, ah, twist. And, and like, I love like your characters and all this kind of stuff. And she's just having a, having a ball reading my, my reactions to her twisty tourney thieves, stabbing each other in the back and, and people literally getting stabbed in the back with like hatchets and, and, and shit like that. So it's a really good time. I've just been like burning through it. I started it on Sunday and I'm already like three quarters of the way through. Lilly: 8:42Nice. Adrian: 8:43Yeah, Sara: 8:43I'm really excited to read that one. I own a copy, but haven't gotten around to it yet, but like I need to. Adrian: 8:49Yeah. It's really good. And also like she put me in the acknowledgement. So it's like, I have, I have to read it. I don't have to enjoy it. Lilly: 8:57It is obligatory, Adrian: 8:58Yeah. Yeah. Like if I'm, I'm, if I'm in the acknowledgements, I got to read the book. You know, I even sent her a picture when I picked it up. I was like, here's me. Thanks for including me. So yeah, that's what I'm, I'm, I'm reading that and then finishing up a reread of the Lone Wolf and Cub manga series, which is very long. And I read it ages ago. There are 28 volumes because manga is like that, but I love it. And I started a reread, I think in February and I'm on volume 27 of 28. And it's just, It's great. Sara: 9:37It could be as long as, like, Bleach, or Naruto, or One Piece, so... Adrian: 9:41Exactly. I figure like, for all the things I decide to reread, this is pretty tame. Sara: 9:47One Eight's actually not that bad when you think about it. Adrian: 9:49Yeah. Yeah. Lilly: 9:50It's actually over and not just on permanent hiatus forever. Adrian: 9:54Exactly. Sara: 9:55too. Adrian: 9:56Yeah. But it's really good and it's kind of cool to see how much stuff was inspired by this manga. And it's like... You know, even though I don't watch anymore because last season was like a dumpster fire, but the Mandalorian and what else like last of us, so many of these different sort of reluctant mentor father figure, whatever. And then they have like the young cub that they're they're trying to take care of and stuff like that. So many of these are inspired by. Obviously Lone Wolf and Cub wasn't the original thing to do that, but it is really cool to see how influences kind of like transcend cultures and transcend time in the sense that like this came out a while ago, but then it's like you're seeing a lot of modern media, especially. in tv and movies in the west that are adopting this sort of framework of like we're gonna have like the lone wolf and cub kind of kind of dynamic going on and people seem to really glom onto it in a cool way so that was really fun to see as well lots of samurai and lots of duels and it kind of reminds me a lot of dragon ball z and other anime where it's like They spend like a whole issue just like taunting each other and talking and talking about fighting in the lead up to a fight, and then the fight finally happens and it's like super explosive and blah blah blah but it lasts like a tenth of everything that came before it. Which I'm super on board for because it's like, you know, dramatic tension, and all that, but at the same time I'm like, fuck honor just like go after the dude with your Bushido code. Lilly: 11:40I have to say I haven't read that one but it sounds really good. Adrian: 11:43Yeah, it's very historically accurate samurai ronin manga with a beautiful art style and very well researched about the, I think it's the Edo period in Japan where everything is under the rule of a shogunate. There's kind of this transition period for samurai and what their kind of role is in society and everything like that. But it's this like, yes. Dad and his three year old son. And it was really cool. Cause I was reading this comic while I was in Canada for a month with my three year old son. And we were just going around and like having adventures and stuff, not killing people like samurai, but, you know, at the very least it was kind of this like fun analogy of. I'm reading this comic about a samurai father and his son who is like way too accustomed to death, but that's just, that's just what happens, you know, and my son is not accustomed to death, but we had a really fun time anyways. So, Lilly: 12:45Presumably that didn't come up while you were in Canada. Adrian: 12:48no, no, no, no, I mean my conversations with him are much more cheerful, for the most part. I'm like, hey buddy, this is what I'm reading. You want to hear about samurai duels and people being like beheaded and stuff. Lilly: 13:03Well, I was supposed to do a buddy read and then completely flaked out on the buddy part of it, but I still read the book, so I think I get half credit. Adrian: 13:12You don't even get a participation ribbon. Lilly: 13:14No, I read it after. So, my friend organized this big, like, book club thing for Halloween and picked Night Bitch by Rachel Yoder. And I was like, yeah of course I'll read that book with you! And of course I was not in the country when the big, like, talk about it was supposed to be. And I read it like a week after that. But I did read it. I had mixed feelings. It's about a housewife who is so unfulfilled and stressed out by her position that she ends up transforming into a dog. Sara: 13:45Okay. Adrian: 13:45Is that a thing? Lilly: 13:48I don't Adrian: 13:48Like, like you just, you just get so like irate that you just transform. Lilly: 13:52I mean, maybe. Sara: 13:54Is it, is it like a werewolf kind of thing, only it's not the moon that makes her transform? It's unfulfilled rage Lilly: 14:01Basically, yeah. Sara: 14:02people not picking up their clothes or whatever? Lilly: 14:06pretty much. Uh, and also being condescended to by, like, working mothers and people who have jobs and things, like, anyway, there was a lot. Adrian: 14:15I'm a stay at home dad. I don't get so pissed off that I just like transform. Lilly: 14:18Yeah. Adrian: 14:20I wish that would be amazing. Lilly: 14:23It was a little, hmm, I had some trouble with it in the beginning. The prose was really good, so, like, it was definitely worth sticking around for that at least. And then by the end, the ending was a little cheesy, but I needed it at that point, because the book is a lot of her, like, kind of suffering at her own hands. Like, people keep offering her help, and she says, no, I don't need it, I can do it all, and then being really upset that no one's helping her. Adrian: 14:48That's like the worst attitude that any like parent can take. This is like in my life, someone offers me help. I'm like, fuck yeah, let's go. You know? I'm all for it. Lilly: 15:01mm hmm. Adrian: 15:02gonna, not just gonna bitch and turn into a dog. Lilly: 15:04So, that frustrated me immensely, because she starts getting really upset with her, her spouse, her husband, for not doing more. And like, he offers several times, and she's like, But I must be a good mother, which means you can't help at all! Anyway. Sara: 15:18just stupid. Does Lilly: 15:19It was very stupid. So finally the book did wrap around to, it was society's expectations that was causing her to reject all of this help. So society was the bad guy, not her husband. Her husband was fine. So I was like, okay, I'm not mad at this anymore. Adrian: 15:35I feel like they should put more blame on her and not just society, you know, society, you know, society's like got its thing going on, you know, obviously there's like generations of societal pressures, but at the same time it's just like, own up to your own fucking problems, you know? Get it together, woman. Lilly: 15:52And she did, by transforming into a dog. Yep. Adrian: 15:57I would love that. If I could just like spontaneously transform into, into like emotional creatures, you know, like I'm so just. Like, I don't know, want about life that I turned into a cat or something. Sara: 16:13just add to your stress, though? Like, if you're stressed, because... For example, the house isn't getting cleaned, and then you turn into an animal who can't clean the house, and then, and then, like, you lose all this time, and you still have a dirty house, like, wouldn't that just make you more stressed? Lilly: 16:29Ah, but the dog doesn't care about a clean house. The dog just wants to roll around and play with her kid, Sara: 16:35Okay, but then you turn Adrian: 16:36back into a human, she's even more pissed because there's more mess. Sara: 16:39Yeah, Lilly: 16:40but she's had the emotional release that then she is able to tackle the chores. Adrian: 16:45I just like roll around with your kid as a human. Don't be so silly about it. This book sounds kind of stupid. I'm not, I'm not going to lie. Lilly: 16:53No, it was, it was rough. I was pretty mad at it for a while, but it did wrap around to the, like I said, cheesy ending where it gets over it or sort of integrates the night bitch into. Regular life, and tells her husband everything, and it's like, yeah, everything's fine now. Should have done this from the beginning, but okay. Adrian: 17:12she, she figured it out. Sara: 17:14I'm, I'm glad that she shows growth in that regard. Adrian: 17:21Bravo, Nightbitch. Lilly: 17:22It was a lot of, parenthood is miserable, and I was like, alright now, okay. And Adrian: 17:29but it's not all miserable. There is, like, a modicum of control that you can have as a parent, where it's like, you can embrace aspects of the chaos, and then when they go to bed, then you can clean up. If you're just micromanaging that shit, you're gonna get all pissed off. Lilly: 17:47then turned into a dog. Adrian: 17:48And then turn into a dog. Yeah. I mean, I'm in Ecuador, so maybe it's like I would just get, like, all fucking fed up and turn into like a spitting llama or something like that. It's all relative, but still, you know? Lilly: 18:01Location dependent, Adrian: 18:03It's location dependent, yeah. Oh, man. Lilly: 18:10Well, speaking of parenthood, we read Frankenstein for this. It's only tenuously about parenthood, but it kinda is. Adrian: 18:17Oh, this is, this is like a, this is like a quintessential parenting book. If you're gonna have kids, read Frankenstein. Sara: 18:26Before we actually start talking about the book, I have a question for everyone. Which version did you read? Because there's the original version that was published in 1818, and then there was the version that Mary Shelly revised that that came out in 1831. Adrian: 18:43That's the version I read. Sara: 18:45Okay, so you read the later version. Adrian: 18:47But I've, I've read, I've read the previous version though. So I've read both. Sara: 18:50Okay. Okay. Lilly: 18:51I read, uh, 1818, and I'm pretty sure I've only ever read that one, actually. Sara: 18:57I read the 1818 version only. It was kind of weird because it included the hand annotations that she made in a copy that she presented to a friend of hers in 1823, which is fine on its own. That doesn't sound weird. Except that the way that the text presented it, the things that she, like, crossed out were in the text marked with, like, carets. And the things that she added were in the text afterwards with square brackets. So it was kind of, not confusing, but like, kind of jarring because you would be reading, you would get to a sentence, or A couple of sentences that were carroted out that you knew she had removed from this other copy and then you got the additions and very interesting from an academic standpoint, not great when you're just trying to read the novel. Adrian: 19:51I feel like that would be ridiculously distracting. Sara: 19:54It was very, it was very distracting. Adrian: 19:56Like there are some books that do footnotes really well. And some where it's just kind of an unnecessary distraction, but that sounds very confusing to me. Cause you're like in the middle of reading it and you're like, I don't know which version you want me to read, Lilly: 20:10Yeah, Adrian: 20:10you Sara: 20:10exactly. So I, I did actually contemplate like going out and buying a new, a new copy, but I didn't wanna spend the money Adrian: 20:18so you suffered through it. Sara: 20:19and we were also supposed to record in like two days. So I was like, okay, I'll just, I'll just suffer through this. Lilly: 20:24deal with it. Speaking of bad footnotes, mine had some very bad footnotes, just content wise. First of all, I think this is funny. I have the Norton Critical Edition and the second Norton Critical Edition. Adrian: 20:40Why can't they just say like critical edition revised instead of making like more additions of it? Lilly: 20:46Probably because they want to make seven or eight of them eventually. Adrian: 20:50Thanks, Norton. Sara: 20:51Tell us you were an English major without telling us you were an English major. Lilly: 20:56I was just mad I couldn't find my version that's just the book. That's not true, I did browse through the essays in it a little bit and I did like them. So maybe that's the most telling of them all. Anyway, these stupid footnotes. I guess the best example is on page 13. It gives the definition of the word wonder. Astonishment mingled with perplexity or bewildered curiosity. Adrian: 21:22That is so unnecessary. Lilly: 21:23Yeah, like, who do they think is reading this book? Adrian: 21:26Yeah, I'm going to go read Frankenstein and I don't know what wonder is, but like half this book is about wonder. Lilly: 21:32And, like, some of the footnotes were helpful. Like, they gave period appropriate, not definitions, but importance for, like, St. Petersburg, for example. And I was like, great! I didn't know what St. Petersburg was all about in the 1700s. This is useful. And then, the definition of terrific, terrifying. Wow. Thank you, Norton. Adrian: 21:53I just had like a normal version with no footnotes and anything. So I, both of you sound like you suffered in your own particular ways. I didn't have any extraneous stuff on top of what I was reading. Lilly: 22:08You just read the story and enjoyed it? Adrian: 22:09I just read the story. It was great. Yeah. Sara: 22:12What a concept. Lilly: 22:13Oh, but you read the later version! Adrian: 22:16Yeah, because I've read this book, like, this will be like my fifth time reading it, I think. And it's like, I was an English Lit major as well, so I was obligated to read it. But, yeah, no, it's like I hadn't read it in probably ten years, and was reminded that I really like it. Lilly: 22:36I've heard that it's generally considered 1818 is better than the revised 1831 version. Do you have an opinion? Adrian: 22:45I mean, this is the thing, like, I feel that authors, the book that they put out originally should be the book that they stick with. At which point it's like, why would you go back and continue to revise this thing, you know? You should have just done that in the beginning. To me, it doesn't take away from the experience, but it also doesn't add anything to it. It just seems like Mary Shelley was kind of, you know, tooting her own horn and having a bit of maybe creative self doubt about like, did I make this clear enough? Or did I have to have this in there? Or should it have been different and blah, blah, blah. That's the kind of stuff that a lot of creative people go through. But for me personally, I'm like, no, just own that. Own the fact that you didn't do that thing. And that's the version that you put out and just be happy with it, you know, and if you want to add anything different to it, just deal with it, move on to the next project, write something else, take what you learned and bring it into the next project. It's like, I, I like the 1818 version and the 1831 version is like, to me, it doesn't make the experience better. It doesn't make it worse either. It just makes me think more about the author's process and intention and that kind of thing. Sara: 23:55It does have a couple of, kind of, major changes, right? So, I haven't read the 1831 version, but the copy that I was reading did have, not in the text, thank god, um, but in the back, as like, one of the appendices, it had a list of the things that had been changed. Which is harder to care about in that context, because you're not reading the book, but it's easier to... Adrian: 24:19It's a pinpoint. Sara: 24:21And so I noticed that like, for example, Elizabeth, who is Victor's love interest, is his cousin in the 1818 version, and is unrelated to him in the later version. And then it seemed like in the first edition, he basically creates Frankenstein just because he can. Like, it's very self driven. And in the later version, it's more, he's compelled to do it. And there's, there's less agency there. I don't know if you would agree with that. Adrian: 24:54Yeah, but I guess it's like a matter of having read them so far apart, where it's like I didn't really notice that much of the, that many of the changes. You know, like Shelly changing Elizabeth's background from like being the cousin to being unrelated in the context of the story, it makes no difference for us now. It's kind of like, okay, yeah, you married your cousin, but it's, it's a product of the time, you know, people in the 1800s married their cousins. Sara: 25:21Yeah, I mean, for the purposes of the story, I agree that's actually not a major change. Culturally, it might be, but... Adrian: 25:28Yeah. But the agency thing is interesting. Cause I didn't actually notice that. Like, this is the thing, you know, what you were saying in terms of. Reading it in the appendices versus actually just reading the book to me, so much of what made Victor Victor in terms of sort of his hubris and the way that he approached creating Adam, creating the monster that still came through in a, in a very similar way to me. It's like I said before. It's just kind of like Mary Shelley nitpicking her own work, unnecessarily, where it's like, to me, the message came across in a very similar way, regardless of the changes that she made in the later version, you know, even if there was more. You know, ego and, and self driven agency in the original version versus like him being compelled or kind of pushed in a certain direction in the later version. It's like, either way, even if someone pushes you along, there's still ego and there's still hubris in there. And the fact that you continued and you actually fulfilled the thing and created this monster. So to me, it's just, it just seems unnecessary for people to go back and like revise their work. In that way, because the message of the book and the potency of various themes still came across the same to me reading the 1831 version versus the same to me, like the previous four times I'd read it over a decade ago, I didn't view the book differently. It just reminded me like I like this book, and I like the things that it is trying to speak about and convey and whatever Mary Shelley thought. In terms of, you know, getting butthurt about, I didn't include this, or I felt like I should have changed this. It's like, you didn't need to. So much of it is just unnecessary. Lilly: 27:17It feels like a cop out, right? She didn't actually change his character. He still has just as much ambition as he did in the original. She just added a couple of lines where he says, And it was fate that I did this. Okay. Sure guy. Adrian: 27:32Oh, Victor. Yeah. I mean, to me, it's like... It just kind of annoys me sometimes when artists try to pick apart the something that they've put out there before. Because I love art for the fact that it's like, it is a product of the moment that it enters into the public space, you know? And a lot of musicians will do this, they'll like come back and like put out like a remastered version of like some previous album, blah, blah, blah. But it's like, they're not really doing that much, you know, in which case I don't really care the fact that like, Oh, you just want to put out like a 20th anniversary edition and get a little bit more money off of it and milk those sales and blah, blah, blah. But if someone's actually going back and saying like, I'm going to rewrite whole sections of my book. I'm like, why didn't you just do that in the first place? Cause the people who read that book in the first place, experienced that book for however many years, in the case of Shelly, it was like 13 years of people reading that book and the experience that they got from it. It does feel like a cop out and it does feel like. A little bit of a slap in the face from the author to be like, I didn't give you my best version. I'm sorry. You know, I came back. I just changed some things. Lilly: 28:45The essay that I read in the back of my Norton Critical Edition, Adrian: 28:50What? The first of the second. Lilly: 28:51the first, Adrian: 28:52Okay. Lilly: 28:53attributed the changes she made to all of the shit she went through in those 13 years, you know, kids dying and divorce and all of those various terrible Adrian: 29:05Turning into a dog. I don't know. Lilly: 29:08Mary Shelley would never. Adrian: 29:10She's not a night bitch. Lilly: 29:12No. Adrian: 29:13No, Lilly: 29:15There's less free will, right? And less optimism. I don't know. I haven't actually read that version. So, I'll stop pretending I know anything about it. Adrian: 29:23no, but to me, it doesn't, it doesn't really feel that different, you know, and. Yeah, it's like, it doesn't matter that, to me, it's like, you can go through those experiences in your life. Why don't you use those 13 years to write another book Lilly: 29:37Yeah. Adrian: 29:38that is a new reflection of what you've been experiencing? As opposed to just going back to this book that, of course, you're like, part of the English literary canon and all that kind of stuff. But she wasn't at the time. She was not at the time. Now she is. Now the, now Frankenstein is. But use those 13 years to explore other avenues of your creativity, other avenues of your emotions and your experiences. And not just fiddle with the thing that already exists, like put something else out, write something else that doesn't need to be manipulated again and again and again. You know, Sara: 30:15My understanding is that she did put out some other novels in the intervening years, but they weren't nearly as popular, and that part of the, and I could be mistaken about this, so correct me if I'm wrong, or don't quote me if I'm wrong, part of the underlining motivation to do this was to have another edition that would bring in more money. Lilly: 30:40Girls gotta eat. Adrian: 30:41so it is like the 20th anniversary edition, Sara: 30:44Yeah. Yeah, Adrian: 30:46those sales, milk those sales, man. Yeah, but then just like put out like a special edition or something like go hook up with like the broken binding and go put out a special edition or something. Why you gotta mess with the text, you know, like get like a Kickstarter going like, come on, Mary, what is this? Sara: 31:03she should have catapulted herself to the modern day so she can do that. Adrian: 31:07yeah. Oh, she would have been like all over that be like funded in like three minutes. Mary's on top of this. Yeah, Lilly: 31:15And then all the comments would be, Can't you just write a sequel to Frankenstein instead? Adrian: 31:20yeah, yeah. Greedy, greedy people. Lilly: 31:25Oh man, I forgot how much I can't stand Victor. Sara: 31:29He's kind of a douche. Adrian: 31:30He's kind of whiny, too. But yeah, this is something that I didn't remember. It's like, he just deals with where as in Night Bitch, she turns into a dog. Victor's just like, I'm just gonna like, be like, deathly ill anytime something traumatic happens to me. And I'm like, dude, you're such a baby. You know, it's not like, Oh, my life is so difficult. It's going to have like, like a five month fever and hives and whatever other illness happens to surface because I'm so stressed out. I'm just like, God damn it, dude. Fix your health. Yeah, Victor is, he's the foil, the annoying foil for the true magic and genius of this book, which is Adam, like Victor's just, he is the creator, but he's overshadowed by his creation in a way that I think is really interesting, but also like, I don't know, I don't know why he was written the way he was, but, you know, I don't necessarily sympathize with him, but I sympathize with Adam, Lilly: 32:30Yeah, Adrian: 32:31you know. Sara: 32:32for me, the thing about Victor is that he wallows, right? Like he just, I mean, he complains a lot about how terrible things are and how guilty he feels and how much he regrets bringing his creation to life. And then he just sits there and does nothing about it. He just wallows in his misery, whereas. When Adam is having difficulties because, like, he's, doesn't understand things, he's, he's unhappy, he, he doesn't know where he came from, like, he actively tries to fix his situation, and so he's much more proactive, which makes him much more compelling as a character than Victor. Adrian: 33:09And I think modern readers are more attracted to proactive characters. I think modern literature is more geared towards making characters more active and engaging. And the characters who are, you know, wallowing in their misery, are the kinds of characters that people don't necessarily attach themselves to, or are interested in, or want to continue reading about. You know what I mean? It's like, Oh, poor Victor, you're such a victim. And it's like, you brought this on yourself, dude. Whereas with Adam, it's like, Dude, you got this like, shit absentee father, and you're like, unable to speak. And you just, you learn how to, you learn how to read and speak this language just by like, listening to some folks in a cabin, and like, all this different kind of stuff. I'm like, Good for you, man. You know, you're a role model for, for the youth of today. Whereas Victor's just like, Oh, I created something and I'm just going to be all moany about it. Lilly: 34:14I think also Victor's just really cruel, like, it's one thing if he was wallowing in self pity, but he's also super mean to everyone, I mean, Adam, especially, but it's really makes him a very unlikable person all around. The moment that really struck me was when he returned home after finding out that his younger brother had been murdered, and his other little brother greets him. And is like, really upset. And Victor says something like, You can't greet me home like this. What are you doing? It's like, oh my god, Adrian: 34:47What do you expect? Our brother died. What do you want, man? You want me to come home and just like, have a fucking like flower arrangement or a feast for you? Like, yeah, like the way he treats Pretty much like everyone in his life, you know, his dad, what's the name of the friend, Sara: 35:05Henry? Serval? Lilly: 35:06Henry. Sara: 35:07Yeah. Adrian: 35:09He's not a likable character, which goes back to my point about like, if it was purposefully done this way, bravo. Cause he is the perfect foil for his creation. You know, it's like me, disliking Victor makes me more attracted to Adam and what Adam is going through. Like they work in, in very nice contrast. To each other and and to me it kind of brings to mind the notion of who are the real monsters in this world is the real monster Frankenstein or the monster that he created, you know, and if that was purposefully done it's like good job, Mary, Lilly: 35:51I think there's too many perfect foils for that to be entirely accidental. Yeah. Adrian: 35:58but at the very least, it's like, I think the the opening of the book, and the way that so much of it focuses on on Victor, and what he's going through it, it builds up to to me kind of like wanting something else. Thanks. Bye. And so the way that, that, that Shelley wrote these frame narratives worked in the sense that it's like building up a tension of like, I need, I need something else. Like, I need a new perspective. I need, it's not even like the tension of, oh, like, will they, won't they, or there's like a death coming or anything like that. It's just like a tension of, I don't like this character, but I'm still really curious about. How this narrative will unfold and then once Adam comes into the picture in terms of his growth and him learning about people and observing people and coming into his own as, as a person, despite being this. Hideous disfigured monster. That's where I'm like, okay, I'm fully in, I'm fully engaged in this. And it happened to me again and again, where it's like, I read this novel multiple times and even after 10 years, it was the same sort of. I expected it, like I knew it was coming, but still I was compelled to keep reading because it's not even that long of a book. Sara: 37:18No, it's, it's not that long. Not Adrian: 37:21than, I mean, I guess it depends on the edition. Norton, you're probably so long with all your essays and stuff. But my, my edition's like 240 pages or something like that. In which case... The way that the narrative momentum kind of goes along by the time I get to Adam, I'm like, this happened at the right time for me to transition away from my annoyance with Victor, in terms of his. Hubris in the way that he views the world to the way that he treats his family, but also like his views on his engagement to Elizabeth and all this different kind of stuff. I'm like, you're a turd. And I am fully on board for the monster that you create and to, to see what happens to Adam, even though I knew it was going to happen, but thinking back on it, like to the first time that I read the book back in high school, it was like 15 years ago, but. Adam is the thing that like centers me in this story. And so I find it really fascinating the way that Shelley was able to contrast humanity with, I don't know, the more monstrous, but then the whole book kind of questions the idea of like what even is a monster. Sara: 38:33sure if I think Shelley was quite that intentional with it. To be perfectly honest, I think that, that we as modern readers read a lot more into it. One thing that makes me sympathize less with Adam, even though I like him much better than Victor, but like, okay, even though your parent is a deadbeat, you know, father who wipes his hands of you and is super mean, that's no cause to go killing all of his Like family and friends. Right? Adrian: 39:05No, no, I'm sure. Sara: 39:06So I just, I like, I, I sympathize with Adam on the one hand because he is very poorly treated, but he doesn't make a great case for himself after a certain point with his behavior. Lilly: 39:21I have two counterpoints. Well, not counterpoints. Points. Related points. One, it's not just Victor that rejects him. It's literally all of society. Sara: 39:33It is, it is all of society. I mean, he has a really shit hand dealt to him. Like, I don't want to downplay that or the trauma that he goes through, but that's still not really reason to go killing everyone that your father loves. Adrian: 39:48yeah. But then again, it's like you look at human psychology, like, I guess you could say Adam is kind of the 1818 version of like an incel, you know, and, and he doesn't have the internet to vent or to find like minded people and that kind of thing. And it's kind of like looking into the psychology of school shooters and why they would, or like mass shoot mass shooters, what leads them to the point of committing an act like that? Sara: 40:21Just because there's a reason, though, doesn't mean that it's necessarily the fact that they commit the act is sympathetic. Adrian: 40:28No, no, no. Of course, of course not. But, but you can kind of see the evolution in his psychology where he is an underdeveloped mind in that sense and so it's like, it's not necessarily like you're sympathizing with him, but you can also understand. The evolution of his reasoning, even though you, you wouldn't agree with the fact that like, I wouldn't do that. But then again, I wouldn't shoot up a school either, you know, but you just kind of have to look at it in context, and the fact that it's like he was rejected again and again and again, and his conception of humanity is warped and twisted. Along the path that he goes along and human beings are often irrational, and he was often driven to the point of irrationality when it came to like, you know, wanting vengeance against this father that created him and abandon him and. Obviously, it's not a good thing. You don't go killing your uncle. You don't go like killing a bunch of people, but at the same time, I don't think it's so far out of the realm of possibility to see like this is a believable evolution of his mindset. Sara: 41:45I agree with that. I think my point more was that, like, just because I understand why he's doing a thing doesn't make me like him or enjoy reading about that aspect as a character, which is partly just me as a reader. Like, I just, I, I don't know. I find it distasteful. I find it hard to care about characters who do things like that. I'm very definitely not a grimdark reader, if you, if you can't tell. And so that does make it more difficult for me to really, I don't know, prefer Adam over Victor, right? Like they, they both do terrible things. Lilly: 42:27As a character, sure, but as a narrative device, I feel like Adam is more of an indictment of the people who made him the way he is, right? If you want to look at nature over nurture or whatever. But my second point is that Victor created him, he made a monster twice, right? First when he, you know, physically builds and animates this body. But then also, Adam is not born mean. Like, he wants connection. Adrian: 42:57No, he's, he's born like innately curious. The way human babies are as well, but then he's like, Oh, I'm gonna, I'm gonna, you know, make you a, make you a wife, you know, and then just not fulfill that promise to you, you know, I'm gonna, I'm gonna abandon you again, and again, and again. And I think, yeah, I mean the nature versus nurture thing is very Interesting. I wouldn't even say nature versus nurture. It's nature and nurture in combination, but Lilly: 43:25Victor didn't make a monster when Adam woke up. He made a monster when he consistently rejected him and tormented him and just, like, let him loose into a world that also rejected him with, like, no support whatsoever. Adrian: 43:39yeah, yeah, I mean, as a dad, like I can see the ways in which human beings are quite useless when they're born. They're adorable. But they're just like fragile little flesh, flesh babies and they will die if you don't nurture them if you aren't present and and the older they get, the more that nurturing veers away from the strictly physical and biological in terms of like you need food and sustenance you need sleep and sort of like comfort and those kinds of things to emotional and intellectual support. And with Adam, it's a very similar thing. It's like, so many of those steps that a parent would go through in order to care for their child, Adam is just denied. Again, and again, and again, and him being abandoned out in the real world, and then realizing that that rejection, whether it comes from his physical kind of monstrosity his physical form, but also just the denial of his. Intellectual and emotional curiosity about like, how do human beings learn and speak and interact with one another. And again, and again, he's just, his expectations are destroyed. And Victor does no goodwill to, to his creation by promising him more things and building up more expectations only to rip the rug out from under him. So I can fully understand why it's like, don't kill people. I understand the moral quandary that Sarah's in, but I also understand that this is like a broader metaphor for the ways in which the world shapes us and the ways in which people can shape us. You know, it's like the wife in, in the book that you read, Lily, where she's like society, like put these expectations on me as a mother and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But it's like, yes. There are societal pressures that are put on you, but there is also personal responsibility, you know, and there are ways in which Victor fails in his personal responsibility, and there are ways in which Adam fails in his personal responsibility as well. But the thing with Adam is that he has no context for his personal responsibility. Lilly: 46:02That's, I was gonna say, like, I definitely put the blame on Victor, I think, and this is the book, so I can say it's his fault, tirelessly. Adrian: 46:10He's fictional, deal with it. Lilly: 46:13But I just can't blame Adam when every single interaction he's ever had with a human being has just been met with this violence against him. Like, why wouldn't he start killing people? Sara: 46:27don't blame him. I just don't like it. Lilly: 46:29Okay, that's fine. Then I, I did say that this was a sub point, not necessarily a counterpoint. Sara: 46:35Yeah. Like, I totally get where he's coming from. It's, it's understandable. You're right that every time he has tried to be good, he has met it. with opposition for things, just because of things out of his control. And so he hasn't experienced, you know, love or affection or basically anything nice in this world, except kind of secondhand, you know, watching through this little crack in the shack that he's holed up in, in the beginning. So I, I think that his actions are understandable and he. says at the end, you know, I'm, I'm not proud of myself for killing everyone, but yeah, I just, I don't, I just don't like it. Lilly: 47:17Yeah. I mean, it's a sad Adrian: 47:18That's totally valid. Lilly: 47:20Oh man, him watching the family is almost even more heartbreaking because it tells him that kindness does exist. It's just not for him. Adrian: 47:29Yeah. It's like, I don't know, like a child without a father or mother, like imagine like an orphan child watching like a happy go lucky movie about like a fun family, you know, like, uh, I don't know. Some like, what, what are those, those, uh, Christmas vacation movie or something like that, like where it's like, just, it's just like wallowing and it's absurdity and everything, but it's, it's a happy family, but it's just full of hijinks. And this orphan child is just like, why don't I get any of that? All I get is this like shitty orphanage and, and, and gruel or something like that. And Adam just has to be this voyeur for the possibilities that life can offer. But. Every Every attempt that he has to try and capture some of that magic and that positivity, someone just shits on him, or something shits on him. And it's usually Victor. Lilly: 48:24It's usually Victor. Adrian: 48:25on him. It's like, come on dude, just don't be such a dick to people. Lilly: 48:29That's like, I feel like Victor does the wrong thing at every turn. Or the cruelest thing at every turn. He's too consistent for that to be an accident, you guys. Adrian: 48:40No, he's, he's sociopathic, for sure. Probably like, verging on psychopathic. Sara: 48:46I'm just not convinced that Mary Shelley really wanted us to sympathize with Adam is all. Lilly: 48:55Really? Sara: 48:56Yeah, Adrian: 48:56But why though? Do you think she wanted us to sympathize more with Victor? Sara: 48:59I don't know. I just, Adrian: 49:01Or do you think it's one of those things where, where it's like, I've talked to so many authors where they kind of say like readers interpret so many things that were never my, my intention, writing this, you know, so it's like the moment you put a book out into the world. The ability for other people to kind of pull different things from it and assume intention in the creative work. It's like a lot of it is just kind of out of your hands at that point. And, and with a novel like Frankenstein, with the sort of pedigree that it has within the literary canon and with the amount of time that it's existed in the world, the amount of interpretations that people have kind of formed around it. A lot of it is, is like personal to you and, and your lived experience and all that kind of stuff. But then it's like, what's more important? Shelley's original intentions or, or what you yourself take from, from the work? Sara: 49:55yeah, I mean, and I haven't done, I haven't read any, like, scholarly work. I don't know what Shelley intended. So I'm, I'm just, this is my, like, gut feeling, not backed up by any research whatsoever. I could be entirely wrong. I just think that the feeling that I get from the book is that we as readers, and we As a, like, culture, have placed a lot more importance on Adam as the victim than Shelley did. I Lilly: 50:30I don't get that interpretation, personally. I mean, he has a whole perspective section. Sara: 50:35could be wrong, but Lilly: 50:38Giving a character their own perspective is a pretty heavy hand. Like, I want you to understand what this person was going through. Adrian: 50:45Right, right. Sara: 50:47I don't think it necessarily means that this is the person you should be sympathizing with, though. Adrian: 50:52No, but at the very least it's like the author's intentionally giving you an inside glimpse into what they're experiencing. Not necessarily like you have to sympathize with them, but for you to better understand the complexities of what they're going through. Lilly: 51:05So I think we're maybe using different definitions of sympathize with. Like, are we saying that Adam is the good guy and Victor was the bad guy? I don't think that was what Shelley was Adrian: 51:15No, no. Lilly: 51:16do think she wanted to make sure that the reader didn't think Adam was the villain, right? He did bad things. She's not saying that you, you know, you should sympathize with everything he did, and, you know, just want to pat his head and give him tea, and invite him into your home where he certainly won't kill any of the people you love. Sure, I totally promise, right? Sara: 51:34Well, if you invite him into your home and give him tea, he probably wouldn't kill any of the people you love. Adrian: 51:39No, he'd be like, wow, thank you. Lilly: 51:41That's a great point, actually. Adrian: 51:45Bring him into my home and deny him tea. Lilly: 51:47There you go. But I do think she goes out of her way in the novel to give the reader insight into where Adam was coming from in a way that an author wouldn't if they didn't want some, at least some understanding on his behalf. Sara: 52:03Sarah, I mean, I, I still fall in the camp that I think that she wanted us to view Victor as the good guy more than Adam, but. Lilly: 52:13Interesting. Adrian: 52:14I mean, I, I kinda, I kinda come at it from the perspective of neither of them are true villains and neither of them are good guys. It's just kind of like, this is like the moral grayness of grimdark before grimdark ever Sara: 52:25Right, but, but I think that that is a modern interpretation and not necessarily what a reader in 1818 would have taken from it. Lilly: 52:35Ah, but that doesn't mean a reader in 1818 is more right than a modern reader. Or even closer to what Shelley's intention was. Sara: 52:43That's true. Adrian: 52:44But I do, I do understand where you're coming from, Sarah, in terms of like. You know, maybe more readers and more, more people in 1818 society in England or the UK or Europe or wherever were more. In line with Victor's actions. And I guess like the, I don't know, did common people treat each other like that? Did common people kind of, would they interpret Victor as more of like average Joseph in, in, in 18, 18 England or whatever, do you know what I mean? In which case maybe you're right. Where it's like, they view Victor more through the lens of normalcy and Adam is more of the outlier. Whereas we kind of come at it from the angle of with what we. Understand. In terms of our experiences and the ways in which society, the societies that we live in reflect upon our lives, we interpret things much differently and neither of them are good people, you know, and there is much more moral complexity and moral ambiguity with these two characters. But then again, like with Frankenstein and the age that we live in, I think we kind of had the extra, I wouldn't even call it burden, but the Sara: 53:59Context. Adrian: 53:59The added layers of confusion through the lens of all of the adaptations that have been made and the ways in which popular culture and film and television have morphed our perception of Frankenstein and this story, you know what I mean? It's like, more people have watched a movie that includes Frankenstein or is about Frankenstein than have ever read the books. So I think that. Cultural lens has skewed what we understand Frankenstein to be, you know, where more people probably think Frankenstein is the monster as opposed to the creator, where more people know Frankenstein through a Halloween costume than they do anything else. And so we have that added layer of confusion there. Sara: 54:46Yeah, I did not look up early reviews of Frankenstein to see what people in 1818 thought of it. Maybe that would disprove my feelings entirely. Lilly: 54:56Well, you're also getting at two different things. What did people in 1818 think of it versus Shelley's intention, right? Those aren't necessarily the Sara: 55:04They aren't necessarily the same. As far as I know, Shelley didn't write about her intentions, except maybe in the introduction to the revised version in 1831. Lilly: 55:13My edition has some of her letters in it. Sara: 55:18Okay, so maybe she does have comments in her letters that, again, would disprove me. I don't know, I haven't read them. Lilly: 55:24I haven't either. Adrian: 55:25Are those her letters to, uh, to Percy Shelley? Lilly: 55:28There's one to Shelley and then one to... Or I guess the other Shelley, Percy Shelley, and then one to a friend, both about Frankenstein. And I don't think they're include, well, they might be included in their entirety. I haven't read them. I just know they're in there and they're about the book. So now I am going to read them and we can follow up on this as a note or something, because I'm, I'm curious. I just feel like including two perspectives, two opposing perspectives. is going to give the reader some form of balance, right? If you wanted the reader to pick a side, you don't show them both sides. Unless it's, Sara: 56:02I disagree with that because the 1996 Dragon Trilogy that I read showed you a lot of villain viewpoints. Lilly: 56:10okay, but then it's really obvious that it's a villain viewpoint. Am I right or am I right? Sara: 56:16I mean, Adrian: 56:16But also it's like the whole book is framed through the captain, like Captain Walton, who's like the captain of the ship in the Arctic. So technically there are three perspectives. And Captain Walton's is like the neutral. He's the frame narrative. Sara: 56:33can it really be a neutral perspective when he is so enamored with Frankenstein just as a person? I mean, he has basically a man crush on him. He's, he's like, I really want to be this guy's friend. He's so literate. He's, he's so gentle. He's so wonderful. Adrian: 56:51Oh my God. I've never had someone so engaging on my ship. All these sailors are so fucking trite and boring. No one's ever been like Victor and then he dies. That is true. He does have a man crush and it's kind of cute. Sara: 57:09it is cute, but it's not what I would call necessarily a neutral position. Adrian: 57:15right. There is quite a bias there. That is true. Lilly: 57:19I did, however, very quickly look at the Wikipedia section for reception of the book. It told me nothing on this topic, but apparently, it was first published without an author, her name wasn't on it at all, and it was... Sara: 57:33Attributed to Percy Shelley, everyone thought that he wrote it. Lilly: 57:35Yeah. Adrian: 57:37I mean, once again, the times, unfortunately, Lilly: 57:41And the reception was generally positive, Sara: 57:43Yeah, I was gonna say I did get bad reviews because people thought that Percy Shelley had written it, is what my copy of the book told me anyway. Adrian: 57:51right. Lilly: 57:52but then when it was republished with her name attached, the writer of it is, we understand, a female. This is an aggravation of that, which is the prevailing fault of the novel. Everyone was really mad that it was written by a lady. Adrian: 58:08Jesus Christ. Sara: 58:09Ladies can't write novels, don't you know? Lilly: 58:12Not dark Adrian: 58:12of here. No. Oh Lilly: 58:15of the essays that I did read at the back of mine was about the two different versions, And it was titled, which one should you teach? And it's sort of like talking about the differences between them, except my favorite part Was it just ripping into the editor of the 1831 version? Because it was reprinted in the 1900s, obviously, and I don't remember the editor's name. But he wrote this foreword that was just like, sucking Percy Shelley's dick. This guy declared that Percy Shelley Like, shouldn't just be considered an editor, he should be considered the primary author. Sara: 58:57Okay, okay, I was, until, until you said that, I was gonna say that must be the editor of the version that I read, because he doesn't, he doesn't argue that Percy Shelley should be considered a primary author, but he does make the argument that Shelley should be like a co author. I, I didn't think very highly of him. as an editor, I will say, just based on his introduction. He also talks a little bit about why he doesn't think this book should be considered a gothic novel, or the first science fiction novel, and basically it comes down to, his argument comes down to, well those genres aren't high literature, and so this book isn't those genres. Lilly: 59:39I think it is the same guy. Does he also refer to Percy Shelley as Shelley and Mary Shelley, the actual fucking author of this book, as Mary? Sara: 59:48Possibly. But this book came out in 1974. Lilly: 59:54Hold on one second. Sara: 59:55It was the first, or it says that it's the first time that the 1818 version had been, like, reprinted in the modern day. Lilly: 1:00:05Is it Riger? Riger? Sara: 1:00:07I think it, I think it is. Lilly: 1:00:08Amazing. Apparently he also says that not just did Percy Shelley change the prose, he came up with the core concept of the book. And this essayist is like, that's simply not true. Adrian: 1:00:23Jesus Christ, man. Sara: 1:00:24Why? Yeah, it is, it is riger. Lilly: 1:00:27excellent. Sara: 1:00:28Yeah. Adrian: 1:00:29That touches on multiple things though. Cause it's like, obviously the times and, and so many female authors, like. The Bronte sisters publishing under different names and all this different kind of stuff, but at the same time, just like being so demeaning to the author where it's like, how many writer couples exist out there where they're each writing their own individual thing, but they will help each other with their work doesn't necessarily mean that that person's the fucking coauthor. It just means that they're. A couple who loves each other and wants to help each other with their creative work. And then at the same time, like the whole genre thing is really interesting to me, because I think to look at genres like gothic fiction or science fiction today, we have such a different perception. Of it, especially in comparison to high literature or whatever this Ryger dick said about Sara: 1:01:23so in his, in his defense, he doesn't use the term high literature. This is just my like interpretation of what he's saying. I actually kind of think that his definition of science fiction is closer to Lily's definition than mine, because he talks a lot about how the science in Frankenstein is very hand wavy science. Adrian: 1:01:47it's like a soft magic system. Sara: 1:01:48Yeah, it's like a soft magic system, so he's like, that shouldn't be considered science fiction. Still kind of with the implication that science fiction is not as legitimate a genre as, like, capital L literature. Lilly: 1:02:01is not my definition of science fiction though. Sara: 1:02:04But I think it's closer to yours than mine. Lilly: 1:02:08The science isn't the thing, though. It's using it to explore humanity, which Frankenstein absolutely does. Sara: 1:02:15Frankenstein does do that, yeah. I mean, I think that Frankenstein, by both of our definitions, counts as science fiction. And I think that this editor is wrong when he says that it's not. Adrian: 1:02:26He's just being a butthead, but I think, but I think actually I was talking to Ken Liu about this. Where we're going to do a masterclass for SFF addicts that'll come out in January, which is about technology as story and talking about the perception of science fiction from the lens of genre, but also through the lens of what science fiction actually explores. And he kind of proposed this idea of science fiction being. Technology fiction, as opposed to science fiction, where so much of the science fiction that we consume deals more with technology rather than strictly science or explicit science, in that sense, whereas Frankenstein for me, even though the science is hand wavy, it is science. And it is using science as a jumping off point, like you said, Lily, to explore humanity, but that science as vague as it is with all of its lightning and all of its fun and, you know, all the, just the lack of, of detail for me, kind of. Makes it more enjoyable, like I wouldn't have enjoyed this novel as many times if that act, that act of creation was over explained or over explored, because for me, that isn't necessarily like the most interesting part of the book, the creation is the impetus for everything else that happens in this book, and it's kind of like looking at the Bible. And the ways in which God creates the world in six days kind of thing, where it's like you're not thinking about how he actually did the thing, you're thinking about the implications of the thing that happened. And, and to me it's like the science in, in Frankenstein almost feels like more. biblical than it does actually scientific in the sense that Frankenstein is is going through this process of creation in a very godlike manner, but he's twisting it and he's How would I put this? He's tainting the process. And then that all allows for this much more interesting exploration in terms of the consequences. So what, what Ken was talking about is like, yeah, like we call it science fiction, but so much of it deals with. Technology and the ways in which technology impacts our lives and interacts with our lives and all that kind of stuff. And he was very like adamant about it. You know, I feel like he's going to be like, at some point, I'm going to start a petition to get sci fi changed to like tech fire or something like that. But in the sense of Frankenstein to call it science fiction for me, it's actually like really important because it's one of those books that really. influences so much of how I've come to understand science fiction over the course of my life, but also fantasy. And I feel like this book kind of bridges the gap between sci fi and fantasy and horror in a lot of different ways. And so like the nebulous nature of genres to begin with. And especially now where genre is more of a benefit for like booksellers and bookstores than it is for readers or authors, it is really interesting to me to see this book be such a Touchstone in terms of how it blends different genres together. And then to hear someone like this douchebag Riger to, to question the validity of any of any of any of it. Because we as readers are the ones who can truly interpret like what genre this could be or what this means to me or how to explore certain things, as opposed to like, Mr. Shelley and, and Mary, that fucking like Mary chick over there or whatever, or to get into such meaningless stuff is like you're the editor. Why do you have to even bother talking about like, who's the true author of this book or what the genre comparison has? any significance to you as the editor. It's like, no, none of this is meaningful to you. The people that can draw meaning from it are the people who are reading the stories, the people who are writing the stories. And I just think it's fascinating that, that we can even have this conversation about a book that's like 200 years old to think of the origins of. A genre like science fiction or the origins of gothic literature and all that kind of stuff and how today we can even compare that to capital L literature, because even today there are so many people who are like, you know, I think there's a still a bit of a stigma against science fiction and fantasy and horror, and these kinds of genres, especially when you come at it from the lens of like. The Pulitzer prize, New York times, bestsellers, and, and, and people who are more likely to read that kind of stuff as opposed to the kind of science fiction and fantasy that we read. I don't know. I think genre is something that I thought about a lot just because of podcasting. Lilly: 1:07:57I don't know if you experienced this, but I know when I was in college, there was definitely still, I don't know what it's like now, but there were entire teachers who just said, you may not write genre in my class. Like, yeah. Adrian: 1:08:10No, I mean, there was, there was one class that I took in university. It was called post apocalyptic narratives. That was the one class where I read anything remotely science fiction. It was like Philip K. Dick, we watched The Matrix, we watched Apocalypse Now. The Philip K. Dick novel was through Android Stream of Electric Sheep. There was, what was it called? It was a book by Angela something, she's a British author. There's also Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood, but that was like the one class that it took in four years of English at university where science fiction and fantasy was taken seriously and viewed at through an academic lens. And it is interesting that that a book like Frankenstein, which can be attributed to. You know, early origins of science fiction or what have you is viewed through the academic lens with such high regard, whereas more modern stuff, people will just shit on, you know. And they'll be like, Oh, like you can never be like a Pulitzer prize winning blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And it's like, yeah, who gives a shit? You know, like there's such grand exploration of ideas in these genres. And obviously there's really pulpy stuff. Obviously there's like really crappy stuff. Obviously there's like right to market and all of that stuff exists. Yes. But that doesn't detract from the amazing works that exist within these genres. So it's like, I'm thankful to Frankenstein for kind of. Setting that precedent, and I guess the fact that her editor commented on this means that that precedent was taken into account even back then, which is pretty impressive. Sara: 1:09:55I mean, so the James Ryger, this introduction is from 1974, like it's not that old. Adrian: 1:10:00Ah, okay, so he's a more recent editor. He's not the original editor. Sara: 1:10:04Yeah, he's, he's not that, or at least my understanding from my copy is that this book was published in 1974. Like that's when he was doing all of his research and writing this introduction and forward and all of that. Adrian: 1:10:16And, and sucking Percy Shelley's, uh, Sara: 1:10:19Percy Shelley's dick, yeah. Lilly: 1:10:20But I think that's even more poignant than that this conversation around A, did Percy Shelley actually write this book, and B, genre and where this fits in has been a a conversation that's been going on since it was written, and at least as recently as the 70s. Adrian: 1:10:37Yeah. Yeah, when, when genre, when genres like science fiction were huge. You know, that's like peak Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, you know? Sara: 1:10:47He doesn't argue that Shelley wrote the book. His argument is that he did extensive enough editing that he should be considered, like, a co author. Lilly: 1:10:57that's, he was a beta reader, okay? Adrian: 1:11:00Yes, exactly! Lilly: 1:11:01Is every beta reader a co author? Sara: 1:11:04Like, I'm not saying Lilly: 1:11:05is absurd. I'm exaggerating for comedic effect, but that's still absurd. Sara: 1:11:10yeah, I'm not saying it's not absurd. I'm just saying it's not, yeah, the comedic effect exaggeration. But it is, you're entirely right, it is still absurd. I mean, I think that he had trouble with the fact that this is a very well respected novel written by a woman. A very well respected genre novel written by a woman, because those things don't necessarily compute to a certain kind of academic mind, especially in the 1970s. Adrian: 1:11:37Right. But then I look back on, on an author like Ursula K. Le Guin, who was in the 70s, writing amazing... Amazing work that kind of transcended science fiction and could be qualified as like literary fiction, you know, it's like you have those people that are around but then again I guess Ursula K Le Guin fought for a long time to kind of get the recognition that she deserved. So yeah, this guy's just another product of his time too, which is really shitty and unfortunate, but I think now we're at a time where we can probably more fully appreciate the fact that it's like, yeah, it was written by a woman, who cares. It's a, it's a great book, you know? Sara: 1:12:18I mean, like Victor, he's an Adrian: 1:12:19Yeah, yeah. He probably like went home to his crying brother after their brother died and was just like, You greet me like this? How dare you? How dare you? Lilly: 1:12:31Well, I've never actually seen any Frankenstein movies. I probably should, huh? Sara: 1:12:35I thought you had seen, um, what is it, Young? Lilly: 1:12:38Oh, I've seen Young Frankenstein. Adrian: 1:12:40yeah. No, that, that's, that's the one I was gonna say. I was like, That, the one with, uh, with Eric Idle. I'm like, that's the one, that's the one you gotta see. Lilly: 1:12:48Yeah, okay, I've seen that one. Adrian: 1:12:50Yeah, Sara: 1:12:51I don't actually think I've seen any Frankenstein movies. Which maybe isn't a surprise given that I don't watch movies very often. Adrian: 1:12:58I mean, honestly, like, I don't really care for them. I think there was the one that came out in like 1920s, 1930s or something like that. But then it was like, for me, it doesn't, it doesn't interest me to indulge in those modern interpretations of Frankenstein anymore. So I'm Sara: 1:13:15I've watched the Doctor Who episode about the creation of Frankenstein, does that count? Adrian: 1:13:19yeah, or like Van Helsing. Did you ever watch Van Helsing? Lilly: 1:13:22Yeah. Sara: 1:13:23watch Van Lilly: 1:13:24Hey, at least Adam is, like, can have a conversation in that. Adrian: 1:13:27Yeah, that's true. But, I think all of the adaptations of Frankenstein have never done the book justice. Lilly: 1:13:37Well, it feels like they're all just remaking the first movie. Adrian: 1:13:41Yeah, yeah. Lilly: 1:13:42Like, how cool would it be if they Adrian: 1:13:43No, but that, but that's the thing. It's like the precedence for Frankenstein in popular culture is from that movie. It's like the green skin, even though that movie was black and white. So I don't know where the fuck they got that from. And like the, you know, like the bolts coming out of the neck and like the way the scars. Shape the face and like the broad shoulders and like the walk like this all Kind of stem from the same source But it isn't the original source and the original source to me is so much more interesting Lilly: 1:14:12oh, so much Adrian: 1:14:13like give me give me like it doesn't have to be a one to one adaptation but give me like a pure adaptation of the actual book as opposed to just this reiteration of Something that was not an analogous Interpretation to begin with. And so it's like, to me, it's just boring. It's just. And I think what would be more original, ironically, is going back to the original and to, and to actually take like the, obviously the, like a lot of movie and TV representations of Frankenstein. I feel like they kind of condense the thematic nature of the story where, you know, there's like the creator, creation, duality, and relationship, there's the. Manipulation of nature and natural forces, and that's something that is actually one of my favorite parts of Frankenstein is the way that it explores nature and the sublime, but I feel like it's so shoehorned into any interpretation of Frankenstein, where it's like, there's not the exploration of how a human being interacts with nature and can view it as something that is terrifying and sublime. And powerful. There's just kind of like, Oh, here's like the lightning that's striking the machine and Frankenstein comes into being and, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And then he becomes a monster and wants revenge and all this different kinds of stuff that doesn't really do justice to the fact that Adam is experiencing nature in such a way where he is both in awe of it, his beauty and its potential. And at the same time, he is terrified of what it can do. And, and Victor experiences this as well. In the sense of like, even just like the frame narrative of them going out into the Arctic. The Arctic is like the purest representation of the sublime power of nature. And that this is an environment that is going to fuck you up. And you have so little power here, and you have so little control. And this boat is stuck in the ice. And the cold is going to kill you, or something is going to kill you. And those are the kinds of things that just kind of get shrugged off in a lot of interpretations of, of Frankenstein. And I feel like they focus more on the monstrosity of the creation and the monstrosity of the act of creation, as opposed to the ways in which human beings, as a part of nature, Are inherently monstrous because nature is, is monstrous to nature's chaos. And for me, that's like reading this book again, I was like, I love it, man. I love, I love the way that it explores this balance between order and chaos and, and how humanity fits into the fabric of nature. And I don't know why that kind of stuff just kind of didn't feel, I don't know, I wouldn't even say appropriate. It didn't feel necessary for the ways in which people explored the Frankenstein story later on. But, I don't know, what do you two think? Sara: 1:17:26I actually think that that maybe has some bearing on my views about Mary Shelley's intention with the book because popular culture has lost, I think, a lot of the, or the movies have lost a lot of that nuance. And I think that informs my view that maybe Mary Shelley didn't intend a lot of the nuance that we read into it, which, you know, is not necessarily accurate. But hearing you talk about it, I think that that might be where that comes from. Adrian: 1:17:55Yeah, I mean I guess, I guess like adaptations tend to condense and boil things down as much as possible. Sara: 1:18:02Especially when you start getting adaptations of adaptations, like, as you, I think, quite rightly point out, a lot of these movies or adaptations are based on that first movie, not necessarily the source material, which further removes them from the novel. Adrian: 1:18:15It's like the adaptation game of telephone. Sara: 1:18:18Yes, exactly. Adrian: 1:18:20It just becomes more warped over time. But, to me it's like it's losing out on, on what makes the story so good. You know, it's whether whether it was it was Shelly's intention to write these things this way to explore these ideas in in such a way where she was thinking of these. broader themes. That's what I love about literature is that we're able to break apart and analyze these things in ways that, you know, when the story is in our hands, we're able to attribute meaning that the author was never intending. And as I said earlier, like with the authors that I've talked to who are like, readers will tell them things in the And, and they'll be like, I didn't, I didn't think about that at all. Or that was not the way that I wrote that character in my head. But that is the beauty of creativity. And the fiction is we're able to glean things from these stories that are influenced by our personal experiences. And in turn, these stories influence our personal experiences. So I think that relationship is, is just magical and whatever the fuck Shelley's intentions were with this book, the fact that we can read it 200 years later and explore these ideas and discuss it to me is just analogous to the power of nature. It's the sublime nature of the imagination in the form of a book, in the form of a story that has lived on for centuries. Lilly: 1:19:49Shelley is a creator, and she sent her creator out into the world, Adrian: 1:19:52Exactly. Lilly: 1:19:54but we were nice to it. Adrian: 1:19:57man, but then some people weren't nice to it and they made shitty adaptations and then, you know, that movie went out and like killed a bunch of other movies or I don't know what it did, but Lilly: 1:20:07Killed a bunch of Mary Shelley's family. Adrian: 1:20:09or just bombed at the box office. Maybe that's what it deserved. Fuck the world. You're all dead to me. Lilly: 1:20:17So I did Google the movies. It looks like Frankenstein is green on the poster for Bride of Frankenstein, which came out in 1935. Adrian: 1:20:26Yeah. Okay. So the green thing was, was OG, even though it was a black and white movie, it was a color poster. Okay. Lilly: 1:20:32That's what it looks like anyway. Unless it was recolorized and it's lying to me, but I hope not. Adrian: 1:20:38I don't want, I don't want this like green patchwork. I want like a mangled massive. Different colored skins and you know, Lilly: 1:20:46Kind of yellow. He's always described as kind of yellow in the Adrian: 1:20:49yeah, like something that's a little bit more grotesque and not so cartoonish. Lilly: 1:20:54what is it? His skin didn't quite cover up the veins and muscle beneath. Adrian: 1:20:58yeah, yeah, like to me it just sounds it's like the way he's described in the book. I'm like, I want to, I want to see that, Lilly: 1:21:05Yeah. Adrian: 1:21:06I want to see, like, this, like, hulking, disfigured creature, not this, like, green dude who has, like, rectangular shoulders and, like, a big jacket. Sara: 1:21:18Bolts aren't scary, I'm Adrian: 1:21:20No, the bolts are stupid, you know? I'm just, I love the novel, but I'm dissatisfied with, like, every other facet of Frankenstein, and Halloween just makes me... More annoyed at, at what Frankenstein has become. Cause there's so much, so many cool things that you can dress up as for Halloween and Frankenstein has just been like, just bastardized. Vampires have been bastardized too, but then like, you know, Lilly: 1:21:48But they deserve it. Adrian: 1:21:50yeah, yeah, it's like you see Twilight and all that shit and then you go back and read like Bram Stoker's Dracula and you're like, okay, this is very, very far removed. So maybe it's just a, I don't know. So many of these classic novels have just been reinterpreted in ways. that have set new standards for, or new, new kind of like baselines for people's understanding of like what this myth, what this creature, what this story is about. Lilly: 1:22:20Yeah, those feel different to me though, because like you just said, vampires are a whole mythology. I mean, Bram Stoker did kind of codify what we see as like the modern vampire, Adrian: 1:22:32But they've existed for far Lilly: 1:22:33Yeah, and so when a different work changes it, it's like you're just adding to the mythology. Whereas like, Frankenstein's, this is a book, this is a thing. Adrian: 1:22:43Yeah. Lilly: 1:22:44It's not like there's centuries of bodies of work that we're just adding to, Adrian: 1:22:49Yeah. That's true. Lilly: 1:22:50which makes it more egregious. Rigor. Adrian: 1:22:55than the movies, than that fucking, yeah, Reiger. I just, I, I'm gonna put, I'm gonna put Reiger into one of my books as like a, just a shitty, character, you know? Lilly: 1:23:10With really bad opinions. Adrian: 1:23:12Yeah, exactly. Be like, God, Reiger's just a dick, Sara: 1:23:15you should do it. Adrian: 1:23:16One of those characters that, that you, that you read and you're just like, all you can say is, God, that person is a dick. a piece of shit. And then you say his name and you're like, Reiger. It's just a name begging for a disgusted pronunciation of it. Lilly: 1:23:33It's true, it works perfectly. Adrian: 1:23:34Yeah. Sara: 1:23:38I have one, one thing I want to end on, which is a tweet by comedian Joseph Scrimshaw that is very relevant, and I just like it, so I'm going to read it. And his tweet from 2015 reads, Actually, Frankenstein was the name of the scientist. I, the person correcting you on this trivial point, am the monster. Lilly: 1:24:00It's very good. Adrian: 1:24:01I love it. I love it. It's so true though. Thank you. What's uh, what's the comedian's name again? Sara: 1:24:07Joseph Scrimshaw. Adrian: 1:24:09That is a great name too. Sara: 1:24:11It is a good name. Adrian: 1:24:12Damn. I like it, but it's very apt. Yeah. The amount of people that, that just. Yeah, like the story has been bastardized, the character has been bastardized, the name has been bastardized, so Mary Shelley deserves better. That's my final opinion. Sara: 1:24:33If you take away anything from this episode, take away that. Adrian: 1:24:37she deserves better, man. Lilly: 1:24:38Well, Adrienne, before we let you go, is there anything you can tell our listeners about what you might have coming up in the future? Adrian: 1:24:46So my debut novel will not be announced until mid December. Lilly: 1:24:53Then no one will know. Adrian: 1:24:54Just keep an eye out for that. Sara: 1:24:56Except we've already, we've already talked about how he's gonna come onto the podcast to talk about it. Adrian: 1:25:01Yeah, yeah, but the official announcement hasn't been made, but I'll just say if you like fungi and you like... Noir, murder mystery, police procedurals, then this will be right up your alley. Just keep an eye out for that. You can find me on Twitter, x, whatever the fuck you want to call it, uh, Instagram. Sara: 1:25:19We're still calling it Adrian: 1:25:21Yeah. Yeah. All that stuff at Adrian M. Gibson. You can check out my website. adrianmgibson. com so you can keep an eye out there for book announcement stuff. And then I'll be on in February to chat with Lily and Sarah about the book. Other than that, you can listen to SFF Addicts, which is my podcast with my friend and fellow author MJ Kuhn, where we interview other authors and do little mini master classes, where we dig into an aspect of writing craft or genre or what have you. So yeah, you can check out, uh, all of our episodes on YouTube and Spotify and video, or you can listen to it on Apple podcasts and all those other platforms. Sara: 1:26:03And the masterclass that you were talking about with Ken Liu, Adrian: 1:26:06That'll be out in January, but we've had some really, really awesome guests on this year, you know, like MJ and I kind of just checked off some, you know, dream authors to chat with, like we chatted with like Christopher Paolini earlier this year. We just recently had Jim Butcher on. So yeah, lots of different fun authors and books and masterclasses and writing stuff to check out. So yeah, Lilly: 1:26:31Awesome. Well, thank you so much for hanging out with us. It's always a delight to have you on the show. Adrian: 1:26:35Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Lilly: 1:26:38Sarah, we never actually asked if you liked the book. Sara: 1:26:41didn't dislike the book. Lilly: 1:26:42The pressure's on. All right. Sara: 1:26:44not gonna be on my top 10 this year either. But to be fair, I was reading, like I said, this weird copy, but, uh, yeah. Lilly: 1:26:56We'll blame it on that. That's fine. Sara: 1:26:58We can, we can blame it on that. Thank you so much for listening to this episode of Fiction Fans. Lilly: 1:27:07Come disagree with us. We are on Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok at FictionFansPod. You can also email us at FictionFansPod at gmail. com. Sara: 1:27:19If you enjoyed the episode, please rate and review on Spotify and Apple Podcasts, and follow us wherever your podcasts live. Lilly: 1:27:26We also have a Patreon where you can support us and find our show notes and a lot of other nonsense. Bye! Sara: 1:27:34for listening, and may your villains always be defeated. Bye!