The Guide 
August 2007


John Lauritsen.
The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein.
Pagan Press 2007.


Reviewed by Hubert Kennedy

    We all know that the movie versions of Frankenstein we grew up with are caricatures of the novel Frankenstein. What most of us don't know is that the book with which we're are all familiar (well, some more than others) is itself a bowdlerized version of the original novel, first published in 1818. It was published anonymously and although there were several who guessed that the author was the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, he himself credited his second wife, Mary Wollenstonecraft Shelley.
    Then in 1823, following the death of the poet, Mary Shelley republished the work, now with her name on the title page. It has since been nearly unquestioned that she was, in fact, the author, and the book has gone through numerous editions, all with her name on it. All libraries have so listed the book, while countless papers and dissertations have been written that accept her authorship. As the title of John Lauritsen's The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein (Pagan Press, 232 pages, $16.95) brashly alerts us, there's another perspective. This a book by someone unafraid to go against accepted opinion and the entrenched literary establishment. Lauritsen's assertion is that the real author was indeed Percy Bysshe Shelley.
    That is only one thesis of this intriguing and very readable literary discussion of the novel. The others are: “Frankenstein is a great work which has consistently been underrated and misinterpreted,” and “Male love is the dominant theme of Frankenstein.”
    The first thesis, that Shelley is the novel's real author, is the one that will be most vehemently rejected out of hand by those in the literary establishment. Paradoxically, perhaps, it is the one that will most readily be accepted by a reader with no vested interest in the “Mary is the author” camp, i.e., authors of papers and books based on the assumption that Mary Shelley is the author, professors who have taught this as fact for many years, and many feminists delighted to have found a successful sister. But “independent scholar” Lauritsen did not just wake up one morning and decide to buck the establishment. His book is based on a close and careful reading of all the pertinent documents — and he is very persuasive, for he marshals his evidence in a way that makes it hard to resist his conclusion. You do not have to be an English scholar to see the force of his arguments — and accept them.
    One argument for Percy Bysshe Shelley's authorship is based on the preface of the anonymous 1818 edition, which Mary Shelley admitted was written by him. (The preface is included in Lauritsen's book.) In it, the author describes the origin on the work:


    Now, Percy Shelley, Mary Shelley, Lord Byron, Dr. John Polidori, and Claire Clairmont were together that summer near Geneva. Lauritsen argues:


    Lauritsen, however, is more concerned with the textual argument. He compares Frankenstein (the 1818 edition) with other writings known to be by Mary Shelley and shows — convincingly, I think — that all those others are vastly inferior, coming to the conclusion that she was incapable of writing Frankenstein.
    On the other hand, Lauritsen shows that those who argue against Percy Shelley's authorship ignore the textual argument (which Lauritsen thinks all-important) and base their reasoning on the fact that the surviving parts of the original manuscript are in Mary Shelley's handwriting. Lauritsen demolishes this argument by pointing out, among other things, that she often copied for her husband and also for other writers. Furthermore, there are suspicious gaps in her notebooks.
    Lauritsen's thesis that Frankenstein is a “great work” may not be as readily acceptable, since it depends on careful distinction of the original edition of 1818 from the 1823 edition — and all later editions — which includes many revisions made by Mary Shelley and/or her father William Godwin, all to the detriment of the novel, according to Lauritsen. It is the original 1818 edition that Lauritsen claims as “great” and we are invited to determine that for ourselves. That edition has recently been reprinted and is also available on the internet.
    It is the third thesis — that “Male love is the dominant theme of Frankenstein” (the central part of Lauritsen's book) — which will strike a chord in the hearts of gay men. Here, again, Lauritsen is persuasive, especially where he shows that it is precisely this aspect of the novel that was bowdlerized by Mary Shelley and/or her father. Where there may have been ambiguities in the text that could refer to male love, their removal in the later editions was — tellingly — always resolved to the detriment of such an interpretation. (As used by Lauritsen: “The term male love, whose linguistic heritage goes back to classical antiquity, comprises sex, love, and friendship: different aspects of one and the same phenomenon.”)
    For example, Lauritsen points out that Walton, who has rescued Frankenstein near the beginning of the novel, falls in love with him, lays bare his feelings, and Frankenstein responds:


    Lauritsen comments:


    In preparing the 1831 edition of Frankenstein, Mary Shelley (and/or her father, William Godwin) demonstrated through bowdlerization that they grasped, and rejected, the homoeroticism in the above passage. Their version:
 

    Lauritsen further comments:


    As gay men, we can also readily understand Victor Frankenstein's Creature, who feels his isolation so strongly. We empathize with him in his search for the friend who would be everything to him.
    John Lauritsen has already shown himself unafraid of controversy. Once again he has plunged into the fray, unafraid to take on the establishment. This time I think gay readers will rally to his side. The book is written in a lively style that is easy and enjoyable to read. This welcome addition to the lore of Frankenstein can be heartily recommended.


Home