Introduction

Does love have a proof? I considered bar none, then turned to Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, and a text her husband authored, “On Love” to consider how the center holds. To say these dead letters are porno is accurate; they are also the reflection of a systems marriage. They were drafted the same year but published by different means. Frankenstein was published in 1818 as the byproduct of an intimate collaboration. Clare Clairemont and Lord William Byron were there with the vampire Polidori in Switzerland in 1816, where Percy Shelley played himself, a dream Mary defend by hurt: the manuscript she produced that summer was published with his hand in 1818 and republished in 1831. Contemporary writers on Mary Shelley describe him as a careerist agent: for her, he was the father of her child, and the author of a book. They eloped. The fact that we still read it in its amended form, by the care of sex between them, is too much. Why trash threads and not pages? What’s beloved? Intimate contact: A seminar is a LinkedIn party; an encounter at a corner in Paris is a marriage. Between touch is the keyboard, or the slambook. So old, the question: where belongs Frankenstein in the probabilistic thinking of the COVID-SARS epidemic? Could anyone really say none? Why bind it to love, this virus of a wail?

I read the novel in early 2020, as a 32-year-old, after a rapefest with four professors. I read I should in the papers; it was the missing link. Frankenstein is everywhere in plot against the 20^th century film. Try BAM’s screening of The Craft, from the old days of slambooks and sleepovers. It was my favorite in junior high school, because the slumbers were us. Does Frankenstein merit inclusion in the category of ‘novels of love?’ Yes. Consider Elizabeth. Why does she belong to the creator? By tongues. I no longer remember how he dies, her maker, except that he never sees the gender of childhood when he encounters the forest. The question for us: what would the text look like if she’d been staring at her fingers against the shift key instead of the view on paper? Not like an amazing model 4 fashion people who follow Simmel, whose Top Model made the runway the sidewalk. Stare the fashion text. The who is in brand, then: name it! by Casa Toi. Here’s a stole I should have worn before now: why and how are COVID and SARS different but the languages we have to name them from the same water? Why take one and not the other? The vaccine is a cancer. So is every cure. Where we feared an end, others wanted its shame, but I already knew. Mary Shelley my genius, take fear in the trip: “What if they move and create aliens?” hers wonders about the second shift, where men and women work together in the home. We consider every detail to be remarkable but the eyes though. Yellow or not? 

The crosswalk again, yield: Nerves open to gore. In video games, one gets hit., or kills I played Grand Theft Auto on the road and couldn’t see the reason for what the other players were whispering in my ear: crash everything. I wouldn’t hit anyone and got eaten. It takes limited sense to obey order. How do law-abiding people bend the rules, without care or punishment? With lies. What lies? Lamèe. Walgreen’s sales. I can’t say speaking multiple languages is erudition, but I’d ask you not to pretend Russian isn’t the Lisa Frank binder between us. How would adult childs know me where I would run for accidents, why I drank too much one night and invited people to bed again. My eyes bled red. I wore a coat in Berlin before they turned me in for it. I am no longer allowed over because I owe them a visit. Does this count? Wifi connected, senses active: what feet need walking? Sometimes I don’t know who I’ve offered to sleep with because I can see only Mary. The ones I’ve touched indiscreetly were board games. The ones who know tongue call it the mask. How do I bear witness to what you know? Would my husband come? I hoped so. But then what? Who visited? Sue me for type, or the error of liberation: it’s not another day. I had no idea who I was really speaking to every time I addressed Dear. Was I the serial killer who won the Goncourt? The bad brute was written out of fiction by Frank Norris, but no more, because I hedged my war with smoke. Keep as shave, chore legs, cede hair, paint nails. Whose genetics do I carry now, where in Cameroon? But I’ve never gotten close to a text I’d seat except the night I read Sobranie to a group of Parisians. Except this, and another. What isn’t Gone, Girl? Mary Shelley’s private writing is a mind.

The argument her FRANKENSTEIN plants as probabilistic thinking ekes out the novel reader in the combinatorial awakening who stumbles ups from a medical bed nude in a laboratory in Ingolstadt like a sick Adam and Eve, or a baby. Where does story begin? With typos. A scientist stitched parts over a two-year period of labor to insist to the voyager whose brackets make story, that he’d endeavored to take "infinite pains and care to form" proportion, the limbs muscles and arteries described under stretched yellow sin. Jaundiced? The open eye of the stillborn, a "horrid contrast,” is that what terrifies the character who flees the chamber? Frankenstein damns cynicism: the sensible reader is where but with Victor Frankenstein? He flees from the awakening. Reborn death is the passion. “Handsome! Handsome!” is what Mary Shelley’s original copy calls him in 1816. By 1818, when the text is on market, the text slips ‘his’ corrections in ‘her’ dissimulation by the invisible stole of authorship, the ‘emendation’ of Percy’s, and the outburst takes his gender. “Beautiful! Beautiful!” is where Percy Shelley conceals the unreliable stutters of breath, the stans dinging clauses to iconicity. 

I had my own waking dreams, like Mary’s. I woke up at 3 or 4 in the morning some nights while I was growing up, before I even started my adolescence. I would leave my bedroom and wander into the dark living room, where we had a computer. I would chat or browse about my pussy. I’d already shared it with Natalie, how I looked at it in the mirror. But when I found the darkness imaginable, she was already gone with her father. I never got to tell them about Geocities or IRC. Never did she hear me utter these new basics “I’m burning,” to a woman like her. I found bondage through grotesque images of piercing then dismembering, limbs severed, bosoms gored. I read stories about girls who were abducted, who chose lives of bondage, children who were killed. I brought myself to orgasm on them, before or after my first hallucination? In that bedroom, before I found snuff, I saw myself on a conveyer belt, a Ford part chopped up like a vegetable. It wasn’t a vertical or horizontal instantiation that took real estate in my bedroom yet, but I know it was schizophrenic because I’ve had many of them since, and also the big ones you see on TV, which look like StarTrek visuals, or the cell phone the Netflix show imagines Niko the astronaut uses to call home from her spaceship; the John Nash biopic and Queen’s Gambit show them different. Mine compact the moodboard format of the first (scarier than the instantiations in real estate). Like Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, the visions are not crazy to me, but foretellings of how I am the sum meaning matter. Complying with the immigration requirement to give my fingerprint to the government as a child hewed me like an autopart, because my parents didn’t care to see how they were damaging hearts taught by the Soviets. They became capitalists to money. How I stitched myself back from sodomy was by Internet posting my photograph to Gmail, ‘thedanae@gmail.com’, sharing my voice on AOL, giving my browsing history up to all these fathers, him too. Last year, I made up a story to explain what was happening to me for a cyberneticist benefit: I said my mother was a reader of Hemingway, and my parents fought, and it was the ‘90s. The real story is here, with Frankenstein.

With readings of the first edition to assemble the natal imaginary, the split subjectivity of the mothering daughter, I ask how literary critics made Percy Shelley author by the Corrections: line-edits bethrow Gordon Lish, mine hew her losses with my own. Mary Shelley learned new sciences secondhand from Percy, a student of medicine who died by shipwreck, a poesis becoming to the end in Charlotte Brontë’s second novel which follows the same plot. Their friend Byron and the handsome Polidori were at the Villa Diodati, where the woman saw the yellow-eyed ‘waking dream’ reposing before putting him on the page. The readership of Frankenstein can assume the ‘dream’ to be the murderer (I think we should be of confirming this point) of William, the youngest member of the Frankenstein family. That dream Shelley has—why not of the elder brother, Victor--the conflation effect of the title between the two creatures--whose naming denies Elizabeth, but of the monster-creature named Nothing? The turn of plot, the murders, seam the imaginary. 

He a fever-dream, she the purity principle, the namesake of the famous slave Justine. The convict Marquise de Sade is not a listed item in Mary Shelley’s journals (though Godwin is, both as author and protagonist, by the St. Godwin tale) so whether the servant’s name was taken from the French revolutionary novel Justine is yet to be considered by others in publication, though my previous work on Goodreads leads me to hesitate to pretend the first has just aery. However, the opening sentence of the 1816 draft, which is not the preferred version in any nineteenth, twentieth, or twenty-first edition outside the Robinson’s red book, drew my attention to because it centered the female servant, though not. The speaker is Victor (not the voyager titled as MWS’s brother in the 1818 and 1831 editions) observing:

if servants had any requests to make, it was always through her.

‘her’ is his betrothed is Elizabeth. The rhythm prefigures Edgar Allen Poe’s Lolita: “Even the winged angels in heaven coveted her and me.” The grammar prefigures the sex class position of the Second Wave feminists: her and ‘servants’ are doubled in the first sentence of the extant manuscript, in the murder plot after the creature is born in later editions, who make Elizabeth a double for Justine in epistolary correspondence and in scene. The lower case first letter is attractive to the reader of e.e. cummings and bell hooks, or lingerers over archives, but would be described as a ‘solecism’ by editors of unfamous authors who do not accompany their divergences from AP style with high-theoretical backslapping. Like minds. The ‘emendations’ Percy made, as E.B. Murray says, are disregarded by contemporary readers and scholars, who champion the book as one by Mary - the textual record designates it to be Percy’s. Confusion may be attributed to the murky record of whose hand panned the 1818 preface: critical editions hew to Percy (Robinson brings himself close to suggesting that Mary’s was the proper hand). This chapter finds it Mary’s work. By Mary Shelley’s rhetoric in the archive of journals and public notes available, the supposition of Percy’s authorship of the 1818 preface takes the credible authority of dead scholarship. 

1. Form as Collage

Percy Shelley operationalized Mary Shelley’s 1816 manuscript to make it a book, weaving the original into a trigonometric expression, let’s say orientalist—an “algorithm.” Defined in English dictionaries as the Arabic digital system of 1_to_9_and_0, the expression differentiates the digits from the Roman numbers by the principle of tithing: the ninth digit is 3 squared by a fourth zero. Frankenstein can thus be understood as a triptych enclosing a model of love, which is not the infinite sublime but rather the combinatorial null. Like the creature, the novel reader is the nominal subject who triangulates distinction, drawing the binary into a multiverse of possible, as I will explain further. The creature, the novel reader for love, appears in FRANKENSTEIN as a speaker of dialogue, a dramatic character cloistered in three layers of republicanism, after Perry Anderson’s Imagined Communities, which describes how republican letters created national audiences--which we mention by the account of the motivated radicalism of Mary Shelley’s father, the writer William Godwin, whose face we find by the birds as the moving target of the eye-I of the book’s creator, another explanation of this point coming, by virtue of the dedication and our analysis of the vertical instantiation of persuasion from the speaker in the prose fragment “On Love.” 

 The primary argument of this chapter is that Frankenstein is a novel of love, a “ghost in the machine,” we called it in a text we prepared with Regina Ta for The Center of Spatial and Textual Analysis, that may be seen to figure friendship as an alternative to romantic love. To chore this claim, because why not? —I read it against Percy’s prose fragment “On Love” and Niklas Luhmann’s marriage story for the network dynamics of sex in marketplaces by what can be called ‘capital forms’ of ‘prestige.’ I tease these latter terms: networks are themselves sexed forms of capital, and marketplaces necessarily networks of prestige. The mythos of Frankenstein’s origin places its production with a nightmare during a ghost story competition in Switzerland, near the stepsister Clare Clairemont’s birth family. Lord Byron, her lover, was present: his infant daughter Ada would come to write the first computational algorithm with Charles Babbage’s numbers. We detail because it places the social history of the novel with the history of computation, supporting our argument about the “novel of love” as a “machine,” which we make according to the nominalizations ‘novel’ and ‘algorithm’ by homology. “Poor Polidori,” Anne Mellor calls him after James Rieger, Byron's personal physician who wrote letters in poem formations, was also present. He rounded out the party by bringing The Vampyre, a charismatic text that was ‘published, without his knowledge’ in 1819 amidst a ‘bonfire of the vanities’ (a fire where papers went gone—E.B. Murray draws out Rieger’s interest in Tom Wolfe). The publication of Polidori’s papers in 1819, thought under Lord Byron’s name, invalidates the closing claim of the 1818 authorial preface, which has it that Frankenstein is the only entry to the ghost story competition at the Villa Diodati that was finished. Today the editions published in 1818 and 1831 are available, through text entity recognition, to the computational reader: I work with BookNLP to scan the open system of language Frankenstein glorifies as form for patterns of gender transmission disclosed by sentences. BookNLP can evaluate the semantic information of homo sapians (meaning gender) by parsing our software (style). The distinctions Mary Shelley gives as literature proceed from exercises of identification, the reading practice that breaches social designations, like market logic, on the line of physiognomy (facial recognition {bias]). Our method understands physiognomies of sign and signified (Benedict 1995) by the tradition of Biblical typology I encountered in the Puritan scholarship of American Studies—typology is the practice by which spiritual pilgrims read the Bible as two books, first against each other and then against ‘reality,’ that text we encounter through movement in spacetime. (The Russian word ‘fysionomia’ is poetry of the face like a monkey at dinner; the US-racial implications of this are covered by Henry Louis Gates, but not its dissonances. No novel but maybe Beloved has ever come close to the experience of reading racial science as the crypto project of American studies.) The question of how computers read with Enlightened facial philology is one computational reading can address.

It is the creature who teaches us to address the maker: Only “with difficulty I remember the aera of my being” is how the who that is not identified by BookNLP begins his account, the central persuasion that markets the plot of FRANKENSTEIN to the human reader. We meet it, after the opening section, which follows an epistolarian then the scientist, maybe the eponymous hero of our title (if we pretend Victor knew neither William nor any other Frankenstein), as a naturalized social being who can distinguish between boundaries of propriety, a claim we can make because the novel denotes its speech properly: he sees the bread and flowers outside the cottages and wonders why he can’t enter, because he may already know how to speak. Perhaps feminized for a passive view on the “phallic field of vision” (Brooks 1993), the creature reinforces the scientist’s humility by conflating ‘him’ with God in the line about Adam, a father whose eyes daughters knew after Milton. The walking he/him pronoun we name ‘monster’ or ‘creature’ or ‘Frankenstein’ BookNLP leaves unnamed with the -1 set. He delivers a standing address coached on the “amiability of domestic affection,” his aspirational normative, though for us aspirational is the unparalleled description of undifferentiation it encounters in the forest by the same standards Shelley establishes as constraint in the 1818 preface (“the amiableness of domestic affection”), given her description of the undifferentiated water at the Cascade du Chades. His account is a parapoetic repetition of the Paradise Lost epigraph that frames the first edition as intertext (creature goes on to read tomes): this is either a fictional standing address or the account of education Mary Shelley gave as syllabus of her mind, though leaving her name out in toto. (It is not unusual for women authors to use pseudonyms, like Elena Ferrante or Fanny Fern. It is more remarkable that Mary Shelley allows Percy to become the fabled author, she the Windex for profession.) With all these frames, one might ask why one might forget that the plot turns on Justine, a servant from the opening paragraph of the extant draft (1816)? We asked before we found the manuscript. (A pause here though, because how to account for our first encounter with Justine, which barreled us for a discovery of sex by pee (the golden shower) to understand what France had to do with our ‘it’—the Russian. All we can say is we sought objectivity and heard ends. Where is that copy of the Marquise de Sade? We sought out sadomasochism because it had relation. Our nonna peed her pants to understand it.)

The algorithm-novel FRANKENSTEIN (1816) was published in three volumes in 1818 for Lackington &co with a dedication, a citation of Paradise Lost, John Milton’s name, and an authorial preface exclusively attributed to Percy Shelley, even in modern critical editions, such as by the footnote published on the page of Norton’s Frankenstein preface: “written by Percy Bysshe Shelley.” An early review of the novel by Sir Walter Scott showed his grievance of this, the erasure of Mary’s authorship, when the critic mentioned in a skeptical aside, the possibility that Percy had written the book. Mary Shelley rebuffed the statement shortly:

WALTER

it is said to be written by Mr Percy Bysshe Shelley who, if we are rightly informed, is son-in-law to Mr. Godwin; 

MARY

(who dedicated the book to Godwin)

I am most anxious to prevent your continuing in the mistake.

How did critics take her at her word? 

Though the book now brands her name exclusively on the spine, the authorship of the preface is given to Percy, despite an inconsistency in the textual history of the debate of authorship. I consider this error to be paradiagetic—a word which forgives the ‘paratext’ principle of narrative theory by bringing it to bear on book history, bringing the theoretical ‘paradigm’ of cultural studies out of Kuhn’s closet and into dialogue with the paradigmatic of Google Scholar—a function by the algorithmic factor encoded in the regressions of trigonometric exhibition justified by Barbara Johnson. What mean love is this lovematch? What did the author who died by name make, where the child in Percy who let himself love everything to the wreck? Waterfalls. The three novel dedications “inscribed by author” according to the page (I mean, couldn’t a brilliant undergrad produce a reading showing it is Godwin’s authorship it testifies to? Argument plausible.), make the disputed authorship of the first edition preface fractalize by fig1. Adam by John Milton, fig2. Lackington, Hughes, Hardings, Mayor & Jones of Finsbury Square and fig3. the narrator of Caleb Williams. 

The dissociation of the name ‘Mary’ from the printed matter of FRANKENSTEIN implicates performances of anoretic gender—transplanting a term I zhe Kate Hayles to vow to be on automobiles for the Shelleys (the anoretic performer, like Kafka’s “The Hunger Artist,” in my reading with Jen, eats or doesn’t to show herself or others how she troubles and is troubled according to the mind-body problem)—violating the capital personality given by ‘authorship attribution’ like citation or sales, [cf. , “Open Source Data Ethics,” and [class, v., speech_action disputing the patent  US6285999B1 conglomerated on Larry’s Rack], compounded by structures of interest underwriting the transmission of commodity (i.e. bodies) on the literary market over a period that includes the two-hundred+ year marathon of the FRANKENplague from the perspective of my intervention in the autoproduction of show (Cohen, Curtis, Denson, Kirschenbaum). The “matter of fact” presentation of Percy Shelley’s authorship of the 1818 preface rather should have been treated as a “matter of concern” (like climate change for Latour, or the nominal ‘contemporary’ for the Contemporary Drift) than a factoid: if not been for James Rieger’s denunciation of Mary Shelley’s authorship in the editorial commentary of his 1818 text (which E.B. Murray piggybacked on in 1977 for the Keats-Shelley Review Memorial Bulletin to corroborate Rieger’s low opinion of the integrity of Mary Shelley’s authorship) we may never have dug up the ‘truth.’ Rieger and Murray’s accounts determine the paradiagetic production of the Report on the Investigation Into Percy's Interference in the 1816 Election of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's Hand {untitled as “Mother’s Milk” January 2021}, which ‘enstranges’ the reconstruction that split English and Creative Writing in The Program Era (McGurl) in the practical transupplication of content and form, {IBac], by Ada Lovelace’s commentary on Charles Babbage and John Keats (to follow Hammerman & Russell, Jakobson, Parker, Shklovsky, Vendler, Skakov, Ruttenberg) which I submitted to my co-chairs to adequate praise. Within six months, the faculty would be poised to vote on my dismissal. I withdrew from the program instead; I hope they don’t mourn. As of Dec. 7, 2021, the material has developed. Here is a transcription of Charles E. Robinson’s introduction to a facsimile edition in two volumes, 

MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT SHELLEY

VOLUME IX

THE FRANKENSTEIN NOTEBOOKS

A FACSIMILE 

OF MARY SHELLEY’S MANUSCRIPT NOVEL, 1816-1817

(WITH ALTERATIONS BY PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY)

SURVIVES DRAFT COPY.

Tell me what you see here. By studying the dissociation of the title Frankenstein: or, the Modern Prometheus (published in three volumes in 1818) from the authorship of Wollstonecraft-Shelley [MWS] through transits of “excess and experience of instability” (Luhmann’s definition of marriage passions) imprinted by textual intercourse we examined following a structured method we designed to trace the reproduction of the ‘literary novel’ (the literary and the novel are collocates) through the sociocultural “code of love” (Armstrong, Swidler, Christin) that produces an exhibition of Bride and Groom for ‘Wedding Marriage’—we find the self-reflexive vulva in Irigarayan miniature. By focusing on the critical transmission of the combinatorial mobility, FRANKENSTEIN (1816), we can propose the following trigonometry, derived from Mary Shelley’s algorithm and the computational engine, cf. Ada Lovelace,

love = Truth_{nullproof|                            

to justify the following ‘sentence equation in terms’: 

‘love is the truth that has no proof’ 

That is the major argument of a doctor) who will also tweet the following claims based on grounded identification with the textual intercourses encountered in documentation and artifacts:

1. The hand of my corpus logs a response pattern to the textual intercourses of Percy and Mary Shelley, 
   1. Mary (Godwin) Wollstonecraft-Shelley and Percy Bysshe Shelley were in sum. They did not love each other good. 
2. Textual response e.g. identification can be located in the history of the 18th-c novel of sensibility, Mark Algee-Hewitt shows, as schematized by the operations of ‘manipulation’ as the nominal Enlightenment abstraction. with Luhmann, I substantiate the following terms of judgment:
   1. If your reasoning with me leads you to affirm the argument, “love has is truth with no proof,” 
      1. Then would the carrier value of the bodies you co-constitute with the word ‘love’ subject you to, by the determination of interest implicit in the system, decelerate the apartheid conditions of data?
         1. Variants of the generic form (e.g. pulp fiction) (the ‘novel’ in utilized usage as ‘new’ not ‘book’) defamiliarize a passage struck from published editions, but dangling in the original draft of FRANKENSTEIN (1816) to dissemble readers of sympathetic identification (Fliegelman, Fish, Warhol) from the galvanic fiction of Mary Shelley's body: galvanism being what motivated the plan Victor Frankenstein describes as art coming to life: electro-resuscitation.
            1. By this definition, the only form of ‘art’ possible to make today incorporates hardware and software with electric impulses. Computers and parts are gems. Writing and paint are techne.  

In the critical reception printed as intercourse testifying to the marriage of Mary and Percy Shelley (what truth?), a contract conjoint by the production of Frankenstein (1818) for market as a product molded from promethean clay {Raw Data [Gitelman, “airy flights of imagination” MWS]. Textual historians consider whether Mary Shelley’s “grammatical solecisms” (which every author must practice in draft) portend Rieger’s designation of Percy as the “minor collaborator” of the author or her “invisible hand,” a term Percy adds to the novel, and Robinson snatches for he. In “Coming Unstrung: Women, Men, Narrative, and the Principles of Pleasure,” Susan Winnett critiques Peter Brooks by a looped consideration of sex-differentiated models of reading bodies (cf. “Out of Line, Stuck in a Loop” NM March 2020) and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein by Rieger’s characterization of the “young author’s lack of skill” (508), a note Denise Gigante knows who follows by Nathan Weinstein’s dissertation chapter, as the universalisms inherent in the narrative of narratology, but does not engage with what he puts forth to substantiate the interest. As Robinson points out, darling Frankenstein “is the best known work of the English Romantic period” (1996 v.1 vii), referring to its popular reception, since ‘novel studies’ class/es the gothic control Frankenstein with The Mysteries of Udolpho (1794), Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey (1794, pub. 1817), and Herman Melville's Moby Dick (1851), whose scenes of whiteness are Frankenstein, while definitions of Romanticism exclude its mention (Kiely, McGann, Wu), which the Shelleys may have anticipated, based on the publishing history of the manuscript (and Shelley’s disclaimer for the “enervating effects” in her preface?). After the revised manuscript of Frankenstein was rejected by Murray, Jane Austen and Lord Byron's publisher, and Charles Ollier (whose wand archives include Shelley's A Defence of Poetry and the first poems of Keats), Shelley placed it with a press specializing in ‘occult’ titles like Lives of the Alchemystical Philosophers with a Critical Catalogue of Books on Occult Chemistry, A Critical History of the Celtic Religion and Learning (published the year of Emma in 1815, the major novel of love determining FRANKENSTEIN) and the 1813 Tales of the Dead, which transfigures the "volumes of ghost stories, translated from the German into French" Mary Shelley remembers reading just before writing the text in 1816, according to the new preface drafted for the 1831 edition of Frankenstein, after Shelley’s death: the Fantasmagoriana by Jean Baptiste Benoît Eyriés 'f(e)ll into our hands'—the party of young romantics were assembled at the Villa Diodati one dreary summer, where she had the waking dream, felt the "thrill of fear" (441) which possessed her to write a diary of the uncanny praecox feeling. E.B. Murray meanwhile credits Percy for supplying the 

“more imaginative renditions of…Gothic potential”

that ‘emend’ (to crib his terminological imagination in FID) “Mary’s suggestions” (“Shelley’s Contribution to Frankenstein” 52). An examination of the account Murray supplies to support his argument fail to convince that Percy’s emendations were “more imaginative” or “Gothic” than the original, though he does add detail grounding the work towards realism, by the standards of irony, which contribute to the imaginative effect of the Gothic text. 

2. For Hagrid, JK. 

The ‘popular,’ which sustains the binary of high-low by the splice cut after the nineteenth-century, plots the possibility by which the viewer’s gaze collides with the mediated postproduction of ‘face’ to determine the post-cinematic compound of postnaturalism after Heidegger. From this perspective, which Shane Denson addresses in his book Postnaturalism: Frankenstein, Film, and the Anthropotechnical Interface, recovering the FRANKENSTEIN of Frankenstein designates the issue of COVID as one from which the unfinished redistributive recuperation of the common tongue from the ‘undercommons’ implicated for instance in the question I had about war crimes like the GI Bill, persists in our oral of narrative intuition e.g. telepathy. This work specifies its focus to an archive of woman-authored literatures prior critics sort in proximity to the ‘canonical’ peaks of ‘good’ modern literature like Alexander Pope, to show how 'cultural capital' divides the literary field at the intersection of aesthetic theory and the schismatic (i.e. ‘this pretty like Hallmark’ versus ‘this fractal, as Andrew Abbott might say’). The 'romance novel' and 'literary fiction' are opposed structures of book mobility, not function--an insight weaned on Radway and Guillory, through my article on ‘the danger of reading in bed.’ Mark McGurl’s recent book on Amazon makes a similar argument; he has reviewed many previous versions of my work, which I would take quite seriously. In disciplining formations that sublimate sex-differentiated practices of 'objectivity,’ the place of Frankenstein within the historical and theoretical division of fields fractalizes the discipline of literary studies as intransigence, when considered through what I would call the "hew conscience" imbricated in the functionalist post-45 institution: histories place Mary Wollstonecraft-Shelley at the center of the Shelley-Byron coterie, but Frankenstein is sometimes excluded from its proper perimeter. The third edition of Romanticism: An Anthology (2012) mentions Mary Shelley but neglects to include a selection; Jerome McGann doesn't mention Frankenstein when searching his Romantic Ideology. 

The postwar intellectual history of the discipline, (with Derrida, Lacan and Johnson on the "The Purloined Letter" debates colliding on the formation of women’s studies departments leading to the incorporation of American Studies à la Robyn Weigman against the backdrop of the retrenchment of old school formalism embodied in the figures of Roman Jakobson and Helen Vendler), draws Frankenstein into the center of feminist studies with Madwoman in the Attic, and then into the subfield of 'novel studies' (which is historically conscripted by Ian Watt's The Rise of the Novel and Denis de Rougemount's Love in the Western World) and Barbara Johnson's 1982 "My Monster/My Self." Ellen Moers (1974) reads to show the latencies of maternity sedimented in the sentimental expression of 'story.' Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar read for the oedipalism of English literature (221). Barbara Johnson follows her psychoanalytic orientation to consider the three distinct frames of biography from the perspective of narrative theory to corroborate earlier biographical scholarship on what’s suppressed of Frankenstein (cf. Moers and Knoepflmacher). Gaytari Spivak's 1985 "Three Women's Texts and a Critique of Imperialism" returns to Gilbert and Gubar’s diffusion of Justine by considering Mary Shelley's invention of the "isolationist tendencies" of enlightenment individualism championed for bourgeois women by 'high feminist canons.' Spivak mirrors in her critical [canonical] selection of the case doubles with Madwoman in the Attic and Jane Eyre. Returning to Barbara Johnson's "brief study [that] tries to rescue [Frankenstein] for the service of feminist autobiography," Spivak points out that Mary Wollstonecraft-Shelley's "recalcitrant text" (254) resists Johnson's reading of its autobiographical Bender: "there is a framing woman in the book who is either tangential, nor encircled, nor yet encircling," Spivak scholarship sews, "she” – Margaret Walton Seville, the sister who mediates the epistolary enclosure of Frankenstein – “is the occasion, though not the protagonist, of the novel" (259). More specifically, as Anne Mellor said, Margaret Walton Seville, MWS, showed the code her author wanted for her self, testifying to her inclusion as a mute textual transference to Mary Wollstonecraft. 

These intertexts were what led me to add Frankenstein to a corpus of ‘novels of love,’ despite its seemingly unfitting position within them. Spivak's account of the "recalcitrant" norms of the canon, whether female-oriented like this one or ‘family-friendly,’ disturbs the well-trained puppy who, under what David Schumway called the ‘star system’ of academia, might have ended up neglecting both the intricacies of 19^th-century 'racial science' implicated in the account of bioresuscitation (a controversial technique called also 'animal magnetism' and 'galvanism') and the negative delimitation of the raced double of imperialism (which James Wood has argued was hysterically suppressed by English fiction more or less before Zadie Smith and David Foster Wallace, minor footnote). In fact, Mary superimposes her sympathetic presentation of a "handsome" yellow-skinned man (who became “beautiful” after Percy’s revisions) over an imprint of the 'mad' creature they render as the solipsism of the ‘mad’ scientist who jumps ship (with, as Carolyn Williams says, the ‘female suicide of Mary Wollstonecraft’) when he realizes the legal nonadequation of his sensumintellectus by the orders of res (re: Bodleian). Look at the passage from 1816 to 1818:

But soon, he cried clasping his hands <,> I shall die and what I now feel will no longer be felt--soon these thoughts--these burning miseries will be extinct--I shall ascend my pile triumphantly & the flame that consumes my body will give rest & blessings to my mind. (FRANKENSTEIN 429)

"But soon," he cried, clasping his hands, "I shall die, and what I now feel will no longer be felt; soon these thoughts--these burning miseries--will be extinct. I shall ascend my pile triumphantly, and that flame that consumes my body will give enjoyment or tranquility to my mind. (Frankenstein 244, italics Percy)

The novel closes here. Margaret Walton Seville never writes back. And we can never learn why Justine confesses to a crime neither Victor nor Elizabeth believes she could have committed, which Gilbert and Gubar call “senseless.” 

A related drowning victim (how relevant?), Mary Wollstonecraft, was resuscitated by practitioners associated with the Royal Humane Society, which emerges from the roots after she kills herself in the river Thames. The name Frankenstein comes from a history of philanthropy that is geolocalized to the eurozone. Public-spirited charity ventures moved to intervene in death by biomedical techniques of resuscitation, focusing the development of their ‘medical instrumentation’ to the recovery of suicides (females and vagrants and dogs). Was this greeted joyfully by all? Not by peasants, though apparently by surgeons as a new spirit of medicine emerged in England. The testimony to Victor persists in the necessity of a control trial of sex-differentiated replication after an education in character from the De Lacey cottage, we see it bow low, almost like a philanthropist might to his case, as the created first encounters another death in the drowning of a young girl, he is shot by the “sudden interruption of a rustic” (391). 

A rustic approached armed with a gun and leading a young girl of about twelve years of age— (389).

Mary Shelley revised the scene twice by beginning to write it elsewhere, before crossing it out to produce what was published in the editions. We encounter Mary Shelley’s null case again in the 1831 preface that describes him with the hideous phantom Victor Frankenstein as the Swiss student of the magics who sees “yellow, watery, but speculative” eyes looking on him in the “very room, the dark parquet, the closed shutters” where the author “opened [hers] in terror” fifteen years prior. From inside the space of frames enclosing its figure, the or it is drawn like what BookNLP studies calls a ‘named entity’ (a character with an ID) generated as the combinatorial imaginary of Shelley’s proof of concept (a hallucination). 

Her sexed standing in the coterie, a network, involved not only playing the part of silent witness to Lord Byron and her husband’s discussions of electrified vermicelli, pining for daddy’s darling in tactical oneupmanship with her illegitimate sister Claire Claremont, but also being a post-Sadean woman, as Anne Mellor sees the contractual scheme of sexual quid-pro-quo Percy Shelley hatched for them through his “renewed offer of friendship to Hogg” to create “a sexual union” between his old friend and Mary: “[Hogg] was pleased with Mary; this was the test by which I had previously determined to judge his character” (29). Percy moved rather quickly to try the consummation of their sexual union in order to come with Mary to the terms of a sexual relationship with Claire Claremont. Mellor finds sections missing from Mary Shelley’s journal entries during this period; neither have Claire’s diary entries survived in print; Hogg’s biography of Shelley “breaks off in the middle of spring 1815, and Percy Shelley’s only surviving letters from this period are brief notes to his solicitors,” (Mellor) making Frankenstein the only living intercourse between them, in contradistinction to Ellen Moers 1974 account of Frankenstein as a fever dream of the nursery led scholars to consider Mary Shelley's natality to be the source of her uncanny proem. It is enough to ask whether natality is sexed. Charles E. Robinson's bicentennial edition for Penguin closes with an 1815 diary entry of Shelley sketching a dream established to resurrect the lost infant, awakened by a rubbing in front of a fire, albeit a disturbing choice for the popular version of the text. Something about rubbing a baby: the photo negative of FRANKENSTEIN's dumb seriality (Frank Kelleter), as draft, revision, publication, and mechanical reproduction. As MWS wanted the initials herself, she gave them to the mute sister Margaret Walton Seville. (The name Frankenstein belongs to this biographical mulch.) Robinson’s choice to include errata could be interpreted as an homage either to Mary Wollstonecraft’s suicide or to the notion of literary production as labor. 

Of course, Mary Shelley was herself a literary product, let’s pretend formulated in a laboratory then. Eleven days after the Frankenstein novelist came out of fetal position 11:20 p.m. 1797, her mother the epistolarian died. “During the whole of that day” of labor, beginning at five a.m., “Mary was perfectly cheerful,” William Godwin the novelist pans in his posthumous Memoirs of the Author of the Vindication of the Rights of Woman (175), chewed out a year later. If it weren't for the puerperal fever, from exogenous infection Vivian Jones makes rightly, Wollstonecraft would have been the mother of two children: one Frances Imlay from Gilbert Imlay whose desertion precipitated her 1795 suicide. The other was Mary. To understand Godwin as not an only child but one of the household, consider the brother, named William, who died still lives on the page anytime someone reads FRANKENSTEIN for the plot. Godwin’s marriage to Ms. Claremont, the mother of a Claire whose paternity was denied corresponds to accounts that place the Mary-William relationship in context by the terms of nuclear power.

3. Russtique; 

Jane Austen’s true comma is not how Mary Shelley’s witness shows delight! at the dead matter of reanimation by the unity of thought and image as generative solitudes before fleeing to denial. Donna Tartt is the knowledge-bearing offspring of this society, which our scientist undertakes to match hand by word, stripping away its alchemical mysticism. The imagination weaned off Parcelus and Cornelius Agrippa by the new medicine in Ingolstadt, where Clerval joins—not so very different from the school Percy attends before walking the wards with surgeon Abernathy, or connecting with his chum Hogg in England for trysts. Ingolstadt is a defamiliarization of Shelley and Thomas Hogg’s alma mater, container of disciplinary perimeter that reaches the philanthropic charity and obstetrics ward beckoning me from Frankenstein. 

I said Mary makes him “handsome” twice over in the draft, a poppet; Percy changes them to “beautiful.” The transposition of the adjective has no direct effect on the action, Victor and the suit. As the revision shows, it is not placed in Victor’s mouth as if by his own volition, like the confessional first-person appearing in the discourse of creature testimony. But that is itself a triptych game of diagetic telephone, enclosed in the layered bracketing of Seville’s recollection of Frankenstein, Victor by Margaret Seville’s envelope. Nor would its revision seem to modify the patterning of his mobility from the impartial view of the reader’s perspective on interaction within the extradiegetic, like Verily’s prediction that I will contract diabetes before lung cancer (how Julia): Victor flees regardless of which word he uses: ‘what.’ Whether the examination witch that exclaimation Falls out of the Godwinian protagonist’s mouth belongs to a male- or female-directed couple of qualifiers could be beside the point: e.g. there’s no there but the romantic noise of complimentary meaning to buffer the otherwise “enervating” of the cyborg yep I read Haraway, stitched from parts like sinews and yolk eyes—details classifying textile holograms with the specular category of ‘ugliness’ which Denise Gigante couldn’t call the beauty of 18^th-c aesthetic theory, and my ‘disgust.’ But to categorize the compliment as a qualifier of ‘directed relations’ in the romantic mode reminds us that the distinction between ‘handsome. Handsome!’ and ‘beautiful! Beautiful!’ flips on the axes underpinning our access to the sex. Duh preliminary copy appears in the extant draft, not yet compelling the reader to keep one eye open to the possibility that speaker’s choice of words stare you to the scene of exchange between a landmass (Seville), and a mute nun [MWS]. Its material locus tethers the character Victor to my animated corpus. The relation between seeker and sought reflects the narcissistic logic of close reading in Percy Shelley’s directed address, “On Love” — drafted in 1816, the year Mary wrote Frankenstein as a novel about a scientist whose studies lead him to the desire to replicate his reflection. Percy’s feminizing revision of the adjective, the homosocial exchange patterns the novel’s interiority mobilizes in its sentimental account of autodidactic education, leads the unoedipalized figure, whose second steps are determined neither by just breast nor the phallus but rather how the cold, to flee from the ward to the cheesy forest.

The too beautiful texts at the center of this chapter resist the touch of the body. In “On Love,” Percy Shelley stands to address “thine eyes” on the question, “what is love?” — a folly of an inquiry he renders as kin: what is it? The poet takes some short pages we read thousands of times and hid to justify his response, showing the epistemic mechanism breaches mechanistic difference by regimentation. “On Love” is more than the pleading drawing of a creation who stands eye-to-eye with creator well enough to use hands to cover shame in meat: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1816/1818). Unlike the revivified daddy whose mobility speaks in concordance with the ideology of adoration, more the central unity formed by discursive utterance places our audience under the expectation of another’s hovering eye in the opening salvo, The Baffler:

What is love? Ask him who lives what is life? as him who adores, what is God?

The name of the churchfather hangs over the rest of his study as “want or power” to preserve man rather as the kernel than husk, who organizes parallels Percy draws between patriotic success, voices of beloved hair “singing to you alone,” and Sterne’s cypress—not to mention transferences that take the “airy children” of the imagination for and of the brains born anew. But Percy’s selfish view of the family caters to a audience:

It is probably in correspondence with this law that the infant drains milk from the bosom of its mother.

The want of the milk pull with the tug wanted by the “chords of two exquisite lyres,” a duet in the secrets. Is there any way to imagine Percy Shelley could have written “On Love” to his wife?

I know not the internal constitution of other men, nor even thine, whom I now address.

Where Percy Shelley tames the fraternal reader by redirecting his gaze from the blush to hire by a tactic of supplication to ‘God,’ secular preserves beacon to bolster compliance with structures of patriarchy. The formal Shelley estranges him in the paradiagetic; her husband’s rendition of a tune, Mary skirts her gaze short of authority (she was a proper poet) to deny the conditional; the novel to enter the book market an unsigned edition. Dressed in the armor of Pope’s epigraphs to Paradise Lost and her dedication to the father figure, William Godwin was the gatekeeper to the field of publishing whose authority the Shelleys rightly saw. Masks are the face who she stitches together from bits and pieces of dead letters see through like Victor. to flourishing. A consideration of intercourses co-constitute the novel Frankenstein as everything, the ‘naturalized’ root of the binary, from the 'raw data' instantiated by the original draft of FRANKENSTEIN (1816) that corroborates our sense that critical reception is determined by the lack of her name on the spine. When and how did she decide to give up, and what did it cost her? A matter. But it pays to linger on the particulars of Percy Shelley's 'emendations' to the 'grammatical solecisms' his wife recorded in her composition then on how she rewrites the sentimental teleologies (Brooks, than by the mother. As implied by canon poe Shelley's novel is tainted by market proximity to that, which critics like Barbara Johnson and Ellen Moers make her face in the silent mirror. 

Wollstonecraft-Shelley carves her gash from the stagnant waters of Russian darkness, its story from asphyxia, a fulcrum of medical development. “From the 1740s onwards, there was much interest…in methods for restoring to life those who were no longer breathing, including those who had no apparent pulse.” Why then? The split between early practitioners of electroresuscitation and the new class of artists who succeeded them is implicit in Mary Shelley’s account. Organizations like the Royale Humane Society “cover the expenses of distributing information on resuscitation techniques.” Johann Goll van Frankenstein sat on the board of a branch in Amsterdam in 1768. His son succeeded him when he died in 1758. Carolyn Williams: “This partnership of Frankenstein and solecism, united in philanthropic endeavor, displays all the closeness and harmony <so sadly absent> from the relationship between Victor Frankenstein and his creature?” Carolyn Williams is quite accurate in how she draws distinctions between “Victor Frankenstein” and “creature,” who--according to Natalia R. Mavrody in “How to Read Frankenstein” (Penguin 2018, edited by Robinson, with an introduction by Charlotte Gordon) and Anne Mellor in her 1988 insult to Mary Shelley, it would be incorrect to say Franco Moretti classes as “monster” in the capitalist dystopia he stages between labor (mean) and capital (end) figured in his role-play wearing the modern ‘Frankenstein’ and ‘Dracula’ as Bible, subtitle the “Dialectic of Fear.”

Casting "Frankenstein's monster" and Dracula in a cage match as the doubles who mark the split between labor and capital in the post-industrial moving-image regime as "the disfigured wretch and the ruthless proprietor" in Signs Taken For Wonders (1983), Franco Moretti shows his late-stage criticism to be a product determined by the combinatorial transformer Shelley tweaked for the conservative. In contradistinction to the gendered criticism of Moretti, who shows by lingering in the diagesis with Bram Stoker, who sees servants as "unproductive workers who diminish the income of the person who keeps them," than with Mary Shelley's condemned Justine – a review in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine by Sir Walter Scott furnishes Percy Shelley with a posted copy of the unsigned first edition of Frankenstein, testifies to the market coherence of the psychiatrist's sex-labor critique in 1818. Lodging the thematic intertext of Godwin's St. Leon between the improbable alchemies acted by Victor Frankenstein and the dedication to the "author of Political Justice, Caleb Williams, &c," Scott's judges the novel to be staged

upon the same plan with Saint Leon; it is said to be written by Mr Percy Bysse Shelley, who, if we are rightly informed, is son-in-law to Mr Godwin; and it is inscribed to that ingenious author. 

Scott prescient to supply Leon as key intertext for discussion: can prove author of Frankenstein said William Godwin's St. Leon, a Tale of the Sixteenth Century (1799) in 1815 after St. Godwin: a Tale of the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries by Count Reginald de St. Leon (1800) previously. Which one can sympathize with Mary Shelley's displeasure in seeing her work scored as the hearsay of Percy's pen, while still appreciating Scott's knack for inference. He reads the plot in the pivotal event of Justine's poisoning by Elizabeth's innocence, begging the private question:

It does not appear that Frankenstein attempted to avert her fate, by communicating his horrible secret; but, indeed, who would have given him credit, or in what manner could he have supported his tale?

In this reception, collapsed from Moretti's late-twentieth century attention to the invisible publication (the negative image imprinted in Sir Walter Scott's careful account of reception), we see how the 'unproductive workers who diminish the income of the person who keeps them' yes but according who like Justine – (Sianne Ngai) are desexed by the mobilities of text-technologies of terror{like the combinatorial transformer the Shelleys dedicated to Godwin as Frankenstein in 1818} as the repressed maternal poetics of textile markets. Natalia R. Mavrody is a textileartist.

Who sue early 19^th-c labor markets are apparent in the dissociation of maternity and authorship (considered in the general over the next chapters with the 'final switch' of willing gender by Nietzsche after Madame Bovary) generated by the algorithmic reception of FRANKENSTEIN as carl. Like her cat, which keep tabs on Percy's correspondence, recording the other prosaic events MWS kept track of to account for her days in the looping poetics of the dash credited to Emily Dickinson in the tradition, as we garden: Mary Shelley's revision to the 1816 draft brackets the clauses of Victor's first-person narration as which stream through creature's testimony to find Walter drifting letters to his sister at the end as a full frame, showing the cruel gender to be form of orientalism, with the dateline from St. Petersburgh beneath Greenwich Mean Time – who never writes back. Mary Shelley revises the first draft to make this opening – in the form of the epistolary travelogue, a genre of eighteenth-century print, to a nineteenth-century market trained abortion on The Tatler – the first look at the dissembling glare of her fiction, after the carnivalesque masque of paratextual ceremonies ushering in the English reader...stumbling from the foreign name heralded as a modern variation on the myth of Prometheus, promoted like Adam from clay by Milton, justified by the epigraph on the frontispiece, before the seal for Blakey Marcus on the dedication page... none of this material appears with the original, which doesn't even know it's skipping over the open bracket of Walter's readers published editions are pressed to read as its beginning. But from the schematic of author-ship, delineated in this chapter through by Frankendistinction, we see the deception of truth in Shelley's second conceit of beginning: Walton's story doesn't come first in the extant Ngai (Treharne). 

After the revised manuscript of Frankenstein was rejected by John Murray (Jane Austen & Lord Byron's publisher) and Charles Ollier {what repeated? (whose catalog archives include Shelley's A Defence of Poetry and the first poems of John Keats), Percy Shelley placed it with a press specializing in occult titles such as Lives of the Alchemystical Philosophers with a Critical Catalogue of Books on Occult Chemistry, A Critical History of the Celtic Religion and Learning (both published the year of Emma in 1815) and the 1813 Tales of the Dead, which transliterates the "volumes of ghost stories, translated from the German into French" Mary Shelley conjures in the preface to a new edition of the 1818 Frankenstein. The mythic Fantasmagoriana by Jean Baptiste Benoît Eyriés comes to 'fall into our hands,' so to pin her metaphor, at party at the Villa Diodati in the dreary summer of 1816, inducing a "thrill of fear" (441) that possesses Mary Shelley to write her text. Ollivander.} Austen no spinster to dissimulate by the independent clauses, the confidential I umi sea bass, James Joyce is determined by his porosity as a wife Hegel. Chu operated in tandem to navigate a publishing market entered under the auspices of Godwin, whose novels and polemical essays and marriage to Nika Mavrody made him gatekeeper for the new class of professional writers who set the terms of discourse boundaries for the English republic of letters how did I learn all this? The future Mrs. was the only offspring of the Godwin-Wollstonecraft match and the celebrity of her family name made her an attractive prospect to the aspiring poet, whose bemused, to enter her father’s home by way of a conquest of Marissa Max Planck and successfully effected a culmination with the young couple to the continent with Mary’s stepsister—the ill Claire Claremont whose affairs with Percy and Lord Byron haunt. The dissembling rhetorics of Mary Wollstonecraft-Shelley’s genesis of Frankenstein in the 1831 preface, which James Rieger’s influential 1974 edition desiccates to recuperate the authorship of the physician John Polidori make sew Samar Nattagh. With Lord Byron, these five figures rounded out the 1816 summer party at Villa Diodati giving Mary Shelley the idea for her tale would you know it from either the 1818 preface (which suggests Mary could have been alone with Byron and Percy) or the 1831 preface that names Polidori but excludes Claire? The first sentence of the extant 1816 manuscript shows the invisible hand of labor:

servants had any question to make it <was> always through her intercession. (258 abort)

The compulsive misreading of the true protagonist of Frankenstein (not the Victor we meet on the voyager’s ship, or even his name-of-the-father in textflesh; but rather the unnameable who arises from a mess of scattered parts) as a man necessarily mottled as monstrosity by the corpsicled flesh hooding his auto parts in the fabula of Victor, rather than as the selective blindspot of Mary Shelley’s projection of a situation of the interpenetration of natality and mortality determining the erasure of her name from the first edition. What I sew as a ‘misreading’ according to the inevitability of his deformity by M.Denise Gigante’s errant account of the negative Ugly as an 18^th-c aesthetic category as a bridge, which Robinson classes as a failure of sympathy with the ‘creature.’^⁠ Both Robinson and Gigante, in the critical latency of Bourdieusian conventions by Ben Libman@me.com, call back to the first staging of Wollstonecraft-Shelley’s arrest at the Royal Opera House in London in 1823, which rendered ‘it’ as a bracketed gash [--], prompting the original author to observe, “this nameless mode of naming the unnameable is rather good.” Now what? 

The borscht Shelley started writing after Purism in Carlsbad, at first just a few pages, beginning with lines has been delivered to most readers with what critics of romanticism call Percy Shelley’s ‘emendations’ such that would justify his namesake app her authorship. As E.B. Murray puts it in a 1978 report for the Keats-Shelley Memorial Bulletin, in a synthesis of Frankenstein editor James Rieger’s claim that “may be reconciled by the reminder that some working writers (one thinks of Thomas Wolfe!) do not accept enough from creative editors with whom they have a close rapport to justify these latter as ‘minor collaborators’, though their names do not appear on the title page, much less their words in the prefatory note,” Percy counts as Shelley's 'minor collaborator' in a way that subjugates Mary Wollstonecraft-Shelley in a way "some working writers (one thinks of Thomas Wolfe) would never accept" (51). Not all writers are married to their minor collaborators; nor can we afford to keep their words out of preferatory notes or zoom rooms; Percy’s is the invisible hand of authorship Navalny alludes to in his discussion of the gothic, when he writes of one of Percy's flourishes, “Shelley follows up Mary’s suggestions with more imaginative renditions of their Gothic poison.” Mary notes, for example, that the monster supplied wood to the De Lacey’s without their knowledge. A bit later Shelley adds that Felix De Lacey ‘brought the wood from the outhouse’ ‘where to his perpetual astonishment he found his store always replenished by an invisible hand’ (52)." Murray's point about Percy's contribution of gothic flourishes colludes with his authorship of the preface, which critics like James Rieger attribute to the "hand" who wrote the 1818 preface, which claims the novel Frankenstein (1818) resists the "ennervating effects" of amoeba in the waste #co-ovid. 

FRANKENSTEIN indexes the Percy Bysshe Shelley through which Mary Godwin came to dissemble her identification cast. The text opens to transmit Sir Robert Walton Seville's 'celestial observations' in St. Petersburg for Sir—Margaret is Yoel’s sister in England--in another one of the first major hovels: Robinson Crusoe, the original story Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley composed in 1816. The Female Quixote is the mouth of a male speaker, sublimating irony to the narrative of backstory by the Austenian view on domestic Error. I belongs to Victor, the fold between the trigonometric expression called Frankenstein and the Purism narrative, an abyss of production cited at length. The constructed entity readers conflate with the goes unnamed by point of fact: where one is tempted to call thes ‘it’ figured as Frankenstein, like its ontological designation, the computational reader corroborates Mary Shelley’s motherless.com where Franco Moretti? This history, hampered by racial sciences, make it called a ‘monster’ for his 1984 classic Signs for Wonders, again we cast the designation as a dramaturgical failure (Penguin 220). Robinson advocates for the use of the term porno instead, but it would be more accurate to call it lava: “This nameless mode of naming the un{n}amble is rather good,” Mary Shelley said about the 1823 production of Frankenstein for the London Royal Opera House that listed the creature with a gash [--] in the playbill. 

Frankenstein plants the detective of the novel-reader in a combinatorial agent, transforming what it means to read for countenance. This awakening stumbles up from a bed in a laboratory. The scientist who stitched him from parts over a two-year period of labor sops, to the voyager whose epistolary frame brackets the first-person narratives of maker and made, he'd endeavored to take "infinite pains and care to form" the limbs of muscles and arteries under stretched skin pussy. The reborn, appearing in "horrid contrast," is what horrifies the I. 18th-c elaborate on the rhythmic structures by an individualizing function with social detail that grows seedier by the industrializing march of time: Quixote opens with Arabella stashed away in a castle. Clarissa is a saintly Rapunzel against a jealous heart, jealous? More: in Anthology and the Rise of the Novel, Leah Price makes hap of Samuel Richardson’s breaches, a p-set by gentlemen of The Spectator, for the case of epistolary authority, a suicide in the advance to the high realism of the 19^th-c to still speech. Hash a commodity. Published against the 93^rd wall of Jane Austen’s displeasing scenes of decorum, which follow the comedic structures exemplified by Tom Jones, Frankenstein returns to the epistolary conventions Austen turns away from to save face. Please stop. The frame of letters brackets the confessional first-person narrator hewed by William Godwin’s Caleb Williams. This is borscht enclosing the ghost in the machine of the novel, the figure of the third speaker in these structuring layers. Mary Shelley follows Austen by veiling the face of her authorship with Percy Shelley’s handCunt. Where the unmarried Austen could displace her published self on the page by Russian niceties of wit in commas for the mechanical reproduction of the spinster's drag perspective on the scene of death, presented in the finished polish of a market novel (Miller 2003), the paradiagetichitch of Mary Shelley's don’t determine her authorship. Her journals come to the contemporary reader mottled by dismembered detail, a reminder of the lurking husband in the published text nikamavrody/Google. Percy’s additions to her diaries include not only standalone entries, Including

Tuesday 30 Germany

It is Marys birth day. we do not solomnize this day in comfort,  

but also the revisions of intimacy that constrain the perspective of the power-differentiated dyad of heterosexual social union, which appear italicized insertions implanted by the apparent hand of her husband to intersperse her record of consciousness with none:

Wed Monday 29 – 

We set out from Dettingen at 6. alone. we stop at Loffenburgh & engage a boat for Mumph. The boat is small & frail; it requires much attention to prevent an overset. At Mumph we cannot procure a boat for Reinfelt. We proceed in a return voiture. it breaks down a mile from the Town. a some kind Swiss carry our little baggage for us and we walk to Rheimfelden. Unable to procure a boat we walk {one-quarter} of a mile [league] further... (which page?)

like the servants who rush the left margin in uncapitalized 'attention' in the opening of The Original Frankenstein Mary Shelley writes from the autobiographical of Victor Frankenstein on his child-bride Elizabeth Lavenza, her contributions to the August 1814 entries with Percy demonstrate the sex crime implicit in Barbara Johnson's "sensations of horror" Victor Frankenstein professes to experience {adultery} after the servant Justine is condemned, the transformer located in the bleeding narrative learns to mutate by subordinating its primary classifier for the co-constitutive textile determined by its author's conjoint life with the poet Percy Shelley. Johnson's account of Frankenstein as "the autobiography of a woman" (Emily Wang) given in the trigonometric of "not one but three autobiographies of men" essentializes the Wollstonecraft-Shelley's electric mothertext by encasing the pure body of in question (the author of Frankenstein) in the overdetermination of epistemological doubles from the claustrophobic scene of primary trauma {tldr} figured in network as who transmit the lineages of heredity nominalized by name – such as, in Mary's case, i. Wollstonecraft ii. Godwin & iii. Shelley.

Reading her Frankenstein against the backdrop of Percy Shelley’s prose fragment “On Love,” whose homosocial plot hinges Johnson 1982 to defamiliarizes the sexed problem of interchangeability. [-her-sexed-] Carole Pateman is a modern ‘sexual contract’ that replaces paternalistic father-rule with fraternal sex-right in patriarchal civil society, to construct sexually differentiated contractual subjects designate woman as commodity object for individual subject subordinated to the reproductive, heart individuated by disinterested triumph of love on marriage. This underlying structure calls ‘sexual domination,’ which is how the novel of love from Richardson to E.L. James, arbitrates between the disinterested love-knot and the objectifying logic of exchange that enforces fraternal sex-right. “A book on radical feminism that didn’t deal with love would be a political failure,” said the schizophrenic Shulamith Firestone in The Dialectic of Sex. Love hangs on the differences of character. A book on love which would refuse to account for sex-class in composition would be radical to boot, not extreme. By the clarity of her count, the constitution fakes distinction in the radical alienation of by shape, which takes one for the service of another, by the pieties the pities and the pittances of sex difference. 

Firestone names class in the Women’s Liberation Movement in the 1970s, a Freudian account, mouth and near the outset of the nineteenth-century, Mary Wollstonecraft-Shelley shows how hers barters for visibility. From the novels that define the corpus, Frankenstein takes its plot from another kind, not resolution. Whittled by the deviance death, see Ann Radcliffe’s The Mysteries of Udolpho, hangs a carnival of mysteries on the skeleton of love, Wollstonecraft-Shelley takes love as the matter of decency, the stuff of plush amiability and affection which holds spontaneous news captive by manners bred into them, as instantiated in the intimacy of Melanie Klein’s view on my blues. Victor is a known, whose parents’ “mine of love” for the oldest son is “inexhaustible,” Shelley tells us in health. From the mannered decency of domestic attachment at a university in California, Victor oversteps madness stitched from new relation to the imagination when the open eyes of Stanley Cavell shame him with their reflection. Stitched from corpse parts by the alchemical imagination as animal magnetism (horomones?), the pregnant pause of the stone meets Wollstonecraft-Shelley’s with the awakening at the lab table: the enormity of body gives face by the dull yellow eyes opening on the neck of an enormous care spiral. 

    The naked entity covers the shame of the body with clothing, stealing some of Victor’s from the other chamber. He makes his way to the primordial scene that meets the want by foraging for berries and groundnuts, as she makes her way to a village where his presence is cast by determinism in the social role, because he doesn’t understand how the inhabitants are apt to distribute resources among themselves. He sees their pleasing gardens and windows displaying “milk and cheese” and assumes these enclosures are like the forest so he tries to enter “one of the best of these” he sees, but one of the children shrieks and one of the women faints; some attack him until he is “grievously bruised by stones and many other kinds of missile weapons” (326). He takes shelter in a refuge “situated against the back of the cottage and surrounded on the sides which were exposed by a pigsty &--clear pool of water<.>” The characters are exceptional. He stakes out his neighbors, cautiously this time without entering unsaid, an error to cross another property threshold, he now reveals, like being without clothes. There: He notices “a young creature with a pail on her head passing before {my} hovel.” I sought answers here:

As she walked along seemingly incommoded by the burthen a young man met her whose countenance expressed a deeper desponcenscesly [despondency in the corrections]; uttering a few sounds with an air of melancholy he took the pail from her head and bore into the cottage himself.

Here Frankenstein transforms the physiognomic imagination of the novel reader. 18th-c epistolary fictions elaborate on the rhythmic structures of the fairy tale by individualizing the character function with social detail that grows seedier and more banal by the industrializing march of time: The Female Quixote opens with Arabella stashed away in a castle. Clarissa pits the saintly protagonist against the villainous heart. In Anthology and the Rise of the Novel, Leah Price shows Samuel Richardson’s breaches of professional norms, set by gentlemen of The Spectator, consolidated epistolary authority in the advance to high realism in the 19^th-c to still speech as commodity. Published against the wall of Jane Austen’s pleasing scenes of decorum, which follow the comedic structures exemplified by Tom Jones, Frankenstein returns to the epistolary conventions Austen turns away to save face. The frame of letters brackets the confessional first-person narrator after William Godwin’s Caleb Williams. By enclosing the ghost in the machine of the novel in these structuring layers – how many?, Mary Shelley follows Austen by hiding the face of her authorship with Percy Shelley’s hand. Where the unmarried Austen displaced her published self on the page by defamiliarizing decorous wit in commas for the mechanical reproduction of the spinster's drag perspective in the scene of social reproduction ((Miller 2003; Watt says the role of the ‘spinster’ changed in this period), presented in finished polish, the paradiagetic conditions of Mary Shelley's bed also play a determining role in her authorship. How her journals come to the contemporary reader mottled by dismembered detail, could be a reminder of the lurking hand of her husband in the published text of FRANKENSTEIN. Or it could be credence of boredom. Percy’s additions to her diaries include standalone entries,

Tuesday 30 Germany

It is Marys birth day. we do not solomnize this day in comfort,  

but also the intrasubjective revisions that constrain the singular perspective in the power-differentiated dyad of heterosexual social union, defined by other terms in the 1818s, though contemporary editors place them as strangers with italicized insertions, to emphasize how the implanted hand of her husband intersperses her singular record of consciousness:

Wed Monday 29 – 

We set out from Dettingen at 6. alone. we stop at Loffenburgh & engage a boat for Mumph. The boat is small & frail; it requires much attention to prevent an overset. At Mumph we cannot procure a boat for Reinfelt. We proceed in a return voiture. it breaks down a mile from the Town. a some kind Swiss carry our little baggage for us and we walk to Rheimfelden. Unable to procure a boat we walk {one-quarter} of a mile [league] further... 

To say that this entry belongs to only Mary, and not Percy too, makes no method to deal the authorship of the 1818 text.

the servants who rush the left margin in uncapitalized 'attention' in the first line of The Original Frankenstein Mary Shelley (1816) writes from the autobiographical perspective of the adult Victor Frankenstein on his child-bride Elizabeth Lavenza, the August 1814 journal entries with Percy demonstrate the sex crime implicit in Barbara Johnson's disappropriation of the "sensations of horror" Victor Frankenstein experiences after the servant Justine is condemned. The transformer located in the bleeding heart of the narrative engine learns to mutate with Mary by subordinating its primary function as a sex-labor classifier for the co-constitutive textile intercourses determined by its author's conjoint life with Percy Shelley. Johnson's account of Frankenstein as "the autobiography of a woman" given in the trigonometric confessionalism of "not one but three autobiographies of men" essentializes Wollstonecraft-Shelley's mothertext by encasing the pure body of the 'woman' in question (the author of Frankenstein) in the overdetermination of Johnson's epistemological double from the claustrophobic scene of primary trauma {the elementary family} figured in network as the nodal named entities who transmit the homosocial lineages of heredity given by family name – such as, in Mary's case, i. Wollstonecraft ii. Godwin & iii. Shelley. 

As she mentions in the 1831 preface, Shelley urged her to continue the tale: 

At first I [Godwin] thought but a few pages—of a short tale; but Shelley urged me to develope the idea at greater length. I certainly did not owe the suggestion of one incident, nor scarcely of one train of feeling, to my husband, and yet but for his incitement it would never have taken the form in which it was presented to the world. From this declaration I [Wollstonecraft] must accept the preface. As far as I can recollect, it was entirely written by him. (197)

Critical editions assign the 1818 authorial note to Percy Shelley based on Mary Wollstonecraft-Shelley’s use of the word ‘preface’ in the above. “The unsigned Preface was written by Percy Shelley, as though author of the novel,” Marilyn Butler for Oxford World’s Classics 1993. “In her 1831 Introduction, Shelley says the Preface was ‘written entirely by’ Percy,” Susan J. Wolfson for Longman Cultural Editions 2006. “Written by Percy Bysshe Shelley,” J. Paul Hunter for Norton Critical Editions 2012. “Written for Shelley by her husband,” D.L.MacDonald & Kathleen Scherf for Broadview 2012. But in the 2008 edition of the ‘original’ two volumes, one representing the text with Percy Shelley’s corrections, and one without them, Charles E. Robinson points out an inconsistency in the record. 

1  This Preface to the 1818 edition was apparently written by PBS in September 2017. If MWS wrote her own Preface on 14 May 1817…it was never printed, and no manuscript has ever been found. In MWS’s 1831 Introduction (reprinted in Appendix C in this edition), she dates this Preface at ‘Marlow, September 1817’ and acknowledges PBS’s authorship: ‘As far as I can recollect, it was entirely written by him.’

The journal entry could accommodate two readings out of context if one were to follow the mute parallel of the optical logic of the parenthetical em-dash, and take the ‘dot’ after “F.” like the ‘.dots.’ after S. and Hist. and “Fr. Rev.,” as a notation of abbreviation rather than lexical closure—that, is to misread it.^⁠17 

Wednesday 14^th
Read Pliny and Clarke – S. reads Hist. of Fr. Rev. and corrects
F. write Preface – Finis. (169)

Throughout the journals, compressed in this period, Shelley uses the past tense to account for her activities and the present to describe for instance:

Wednesday – 13 August^⁠18                       []
Shelley writes – reads Plato’s Convivium – Gibbon aloud –
Read several of Beaumont & Fletcher’s plays – write journal
of our first travels – (178)

The dashes between clauses anticipate the poetics of privacy we find in Emily Dickinson, as a fluid iterative grammar of her imagination of scene. In the Geneva journal fragments that hit up — or rather, post-date — the lacuna surrounding the summer 1816 party scene at the Villa Diodati, where Mary Shelley’s imagination composed another dystopia, we see the diarist break to show the “beautiful spray” of the 

chute cascade du Chede — this cataract falls 240 feet & spreads a round it a most beautiful spray spray — it falls on various projections of the rock & the mass is divided & unites again in a thousand places

The page is set in the scene of “moated castles” on the edge of a “[?wood]  [?    ] [?    ]ing the town,” and the editors specify their source to a manuscript in the Bodleian Library also containing stanzas from Percy’s ‘Hymn to Intellectual Beauty.’ On the same page, in the italicized notation the editors use to designate Percy Shelley’s hand, appears an admission of faith in correspondence, “My thoughts arise & fall in solitude” (110), implying the mind ordered dogma interchanges to individuate from the undifferentiated bliss of ‘lyric unity’^⁠ to be the organizing metaphor of the natural system, a concordance of language with the spatial imaginary of Mary Shelley’s water falling up to spread down and around into the spray of masses dividing and uniting again, in contradistinction to the solid juttings of rock ‘variously projected’ against the pooling landscape: an effortless undifferentiation, in contradistinction to the stony specificity of the distinct word. 

    The effect object-oriented desire has on our temporally habituated gestural practices is sum effort: "We could say that history 'happens' in the very repetition of gestures," Ahmed writes, "if we work hard at something, then it seems 'effortless.' This paradox—with effort it becomes effortless—is precisely what makes history disappear in the moment of its enactment” (553). But who or what, exactly, is the Ahmadian object that first motivates Mary’s labor and subsequently erases it as labor, producing her [his]story through the enactment of repeated gestures? The book is one object. For Sara Ahmed, desire-orienting objects include both material entities and immaterial “objects of thought, feeling, and judgment, and objects in the sense of aims, aspirations" (553). Sentences, theorized by the German reception theorist Wolfgang Iser as objects orienting phenomenological experience, have both material properties (we encounter them through sensory means) and immaterial ones, in their capacity to convey Ahmadian “objects of thought, feeling, and judgment, and objects in the sense of aims, aspirations" to their reader. To conceptualize literary sentences as Edmund Husserlian “pre-intentions” that “act upon one another" to “construct and collect the seed of what is to come...and bring it to fruition” (Iser quoting Husserl 276-277) through the vessel of the text as it receives “the reader’s imagination, which gives shape to the interaction of correlatives foreshadowed in structure by the sequence of the sentences” is the method of the literary studies. Iser finds the phenomenological circuit of reader, imaginative “interaction,” and correlative sentence objects produce what Ahmed theorizes as an interactive process of co-constitutive production and reception between “us” (people) and objects (discrete nodal entities beyond the skin-horizon of human embodiment): "we are not only directed toward objects, but those objects also take us in a certain direction" (545). Language is material sign-posts that orient the body’s linear movement through time and space, like architecture or sisterns. For Ahmed, the persuasiveness of the object is determined both by its formal properties—the vivid gleam of a family photograph hanging on the wall is made other by the act of pouring over its choice, in reading and in had—and their immaterial qualities, the “objects of thought, feeling, and judgment, and objects in the sense of aims, aspirations." Delayed the photo project, a child told Walton.

New Fords

The midwife who by an unfortunate accident attended Shelley’s birth was hired, by Godwin's 1798 account, under the undue influence of certain “ideas of decorum” (174). By a 2008 paper by Vivian Jones, the “decision to hire Mrs. Blenkensop was a very deliberate choice” (193) rather than a question of, as the novelist Elizabeth Inchbald recommended it, “economy.” This series of events broaches the politics of the eighteenth-century, which saw a "rise in [medical] professionalism (Rousseau and Porter 260), displacing the “female ceremony of childbirth” by the intervention of medical men who legitimized their practices in "hard words and scientific jargon"^⁠ like ‘decision’ or ‘hire,’ ‘word.’ Jones sees the consolidation of science as a formal discipline on the basis of the new empiricism of ‘objectivity,’ like Abbott’s more extensive consideration of disciplines as fractoralized branches, which denied women a claim to professional expertise by the modern differentiation of the domestic and public spheres, which finds too much similarity to present woes of pageboys and houses. Mary Wollstonecraft breaches the standards of decorum by hiring an unfortunate matron at the Westminster lying-in hospital for “unfortunate Women” (like the wives of trade laborers, soldiers, and sailors and distressed housekeepers). Such institutions were subsidized by the philanthropy of ladies who, at the turn of the nineteenth-century, would themselves never "suffer a female midwife to come near their own persons” (Jones 2008). Wollstonecraft's reputation in the elite sphere of English letters finds her class position aligned with such ladies, and her marriage to others with the soldier. Hiring Mrs. Blenkensop was not “the anonymous sign of Wollstonecraft’s gendered choice” (197), but rather something deliberate: the matron was associated with the female undercaste Wollstonecraft's novel Maria vindicates in the account of justice suffered by the servant, “general competence was beyond question” (198). Because she was disciplined to conform to the rules of her profession, when she found pieces of placenta still on the innards some three hours after the birth of Mary Shelley, the Westminster matron called in the husband to offer the “well-trained advice” (Jones 192) that it had become necessary to call in a male practitioner from the same hospital, Dr. Poignand, "who arrived between three and four hours after the birth of the child” by Godwin's account (176). Poignand immediately proceeded to extract the placenta, an operation that brought a considerable loss of blood and “an almost uninterrupted series of fainting fits” over a period of so many hours in Godwin’s enduring description—one ceases to wonder to what extent it would be appropriate to attribute the causes of Wollstonecraft’s puerperal fever to an exogenous source, or medical intervention. 

The dedication to Godwin, curiously enough, points to another way of seeing manifest in the paradiagetic condition of reading Frankenstein. The father of the newborn Mary names the Mary who had recently deceased a “female Werter” (112) to situate her stormy affair with the American radical Gilbert Imlay. Godwin believes they shared a harmonious residence in Paris and the Havre in some of the years preceding her return to England from the continent in October 1795. When his subsequent attachment to a stage actress tore asunder--as she endeavored to care for their “interesting child,” Fanny Imlay, who took her given name from Fanny Blood, Wollstonecraft’s most precious and passing attachment^⁠13; upon her return to the isle, Mary Wollstonecraft took her own life after Imlay resisted the ardent labors of epistolary persuasion she effected after the Letters of a Portuguese Nun (1669). Her drowning belonged to a trend of suicide. From London, Wollstonecraft hired a boat and rowed: “Her first thought had led her to the Batterfea-bridge, but she found it too public” (132). Before leaving home she’d written a note to Imlay, dated November 1795 [was it posted? On left leering like “On Love”], which opens by imploring him to send the child and maid to the care of someone in Paris, saying that she can no longer remark on his “conduct (or any appeal to the world” for that matter) with respect to her abandonment—“Nothing but my extreme stupidity could have rendered me blind for so long,” —she has reasoned through to the suicidal imperative, 

When you receive this, my burning head will be cold…Your treatment has thrown my mind into a state of chaos ; yet I am serene. and arrived at the following plan—

I go to find comfort, and my only fear is, that my poor body will be insulted by an endeavour to recall my hated existence. But I shall plunge into the Thames where there is the least chance of my being snatched from the death I seek (186).

She succeeds execution. Godwin’s careful account of her steps traces her boat from London to the rather “too public” Batterfea-bridge, which she quits for the loneliness. Night when she arrived, 

it had begun to rain with great violence. The rain suggested to her the idea of walking up and down to the bridge, till her clothes were thoroughly drenched and heavy with the wet, which she did for half an hour without meeting a human being. She then leaped from the top of the bridge. 

The first death was a suicide, not a fiction as Michele Faubert suggests. Point blank: She wrote a note to her lover Gordon Imlay, an American revolutionary, then went into the River Thames. Godwin wrote a Memoir of the Author of The Vindication of the Rights of Woman after she extinguished. The death haunts Frankenstein: Imlay and Wollstonecraft’s daughter Fanny, who grew up with the Godwin circle, took her own life in October 1816. A stepsister, Claire Claremont—a daughter of the neighbor Godwin married after Wollstonecraft died—attended the Shelleys to the continent, pulling them to Switzerland after her own pursuit of Lord Byron, with some tattered promises of recovering a family connection to redeem the self-fashioned alliteration of her illegitimacy.  

My dissertation specifies an archive of woman-authored literatures critics sort in proximity to the canonical peak points of modern literature to show how cultural capital divides the literary field to the ides of Saint Petersburg, where the storm found us on the lasso of the Boris and Natasha Fiverr; trapped in their cinema thriller, we find Safie -- the Victor who has crawled in me like the intersection of the modernist complexities of literary theory. It follows the work of Janice Radway, Mark McGurl, and Ryan Heuser to some. In disciplinary formations that duplicate academic practices of objectivity, the place of Frankenstein in the historical and theoretical division of schools fractalizes the field of literary studies (Abbott 2010) with what Theodore Martin calls the "bad conscience" imbricated in the functionalist presentism of post45. To be very specific, even though social histories definitively place Mary Wollstonecraft-Shelley at the center of the Shelley-Byron coterie, Frankenstein can seem to often be excluded from the canon of Romanticism, even in its subfractalized configurations: it is omitted from the chronohistorical account of its perimeter, a 1000-paged third-edition of Romanticism (2012) mentions Mary Shelley but doesn't anthologize her, and its self-reflexive justification of its 'romantic ideology,' to borrow a term Bourdieu uses to describe the sense rhetorics of Heidegger (see Appendix). Freud isn’t implicit in Pierre’s discourse, but he’s still. Psychobiological determinism tells in his comments regarding the “permanent impact” of all the events which “helped to create a traumatic experience” imprinted in the reception dialectic. Patterns of social reproduction are fixed structures not only in Luhmann, but even in Bourdieu’s self-reflexive view on scholastic institutionalism, the universalist stamp of “pure philosophy” structuring the French academic field. From this perspective Oedipal family structures are intractable, though where? 

The major critic for bibliographic studies in the period, Jerome McGann, doesn't mention Frankenstein in The Romantic Ideology: A Critical Investigation: more sexism? Possibly. On the other hand, the turn to deconstruction in the postwar intellectual history of the discipline (peaking with the psychorhetorics of "The Purloined Letter" debates and the formation of women's studies), draws the book squarely first into the center of the academic feminism with Madwoman in the Attic, then into the subfield of 'novel studies' (which takes its historical conscription from Ian Watt's The Rise of the Novel and its geneological presentism, operationalized by the turn to narrative theory after Woloch, from Love in the Western World, which is good tea for Stanford institutionalism) with Barbara Johnson's 1982 "My Monster/My Self." Where Ellen Moers reads for the psychobiographical latencies of maternity sedimented in the sentimental expression of 'story' in Shelley, Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar read with the oedipalism "of English literature" (221) to repress the colonial reader in the 'irrational' confession of Justine (228). Johnson follows the psychoanalytic turn to the narrative-theoretical disunified authorship Mary Wollstonecraft-Shelley figures with/as her creation by {three} distinct frames of male autobiography in story proper to draw the reader's perspective to another aspect of MWS's fiction of Nietzsche. 

Read in Florian’s seminar, hewto Gaytari Spivak's 1985 "Three Women's Texts and a Critique of Imperialism" returns to Gilbert and Gubar's complicity in the e{n}strangement of the plot, effected by their repressive sublimation of Mary Shelley's inversion of the "isolationist tendencies" of enlightenment individualism championed for bourgeois women by authors belonging to 'high feminist canon,' which Spivak mirrors in the edited -- Madwoman in the Attic and Jane Eyre {how belong?}. Returning to Barbara Johnson's "brief study [that] tries to rescue [Frankenstein] for the service of feminist autobiography," Spivak points out that the "recalcitrant text" (254) resists which called by Johnson's confessional reading of its autobiographical bent towards the homo sapian: "there is a framing woman in the book who is neither tangential, nor encircled, nor yet encircling," Spivak points out, "She is the occasion, though not the protagonist, of the novel" (259). Margaret Walton Seville, the named sister Rosicrucian who mediates between the 1818 epistolary vow of Frankenstein in Robert Walton Seville's letters--in effect packaging the un-novel commodity for the family market of English letters in the imperial drag of epistolary credit (Percy was a debtor, and Mary Shelley's journals track his correspondence with creditors in the years of Frankenstein's composition)--could be a double for novel readers who steal the adventure story. More precisely, for Anne Mellor, Margaret Walton Seville presents the spectral initials her author aspired to possess [MWS]. {How Mavrody? Google this. Bind them. Witch how?} Spivak's account of "recalcitrant" opposition shows to the normative axiomatics of the canon, whether feminist-oriented and family-friendly or there, may disturb the who who wonders not only about the rude fix Percy supplied to Mary’s presentation of the yellow-eyed and yellow-skinned man as ‘handsome’ rather than ‘beautiful’ in the original draft, but also how to conceptualize the nameless designation of ontology who jumps ship in figurative parallel to Mary Wollstonecraft. 

Figured Designations: Mary Shelley’s novel takes the ‘novel’ in the ‘world republic of letters’ (Casanova), which shows the Powerpoint Slides premised on the ‘code of love’ to be producing porosities between borders by the heuristic of cosmopolitanism, replicating the virtu{al} love by its preparation for Hal via the marker challenging. Like her preface to Percy’s letters, Mary Shelley’s Plandemic is a work of dissembling, subsuming the novel-love in the architecture of its circulation. With Peter Brooks, we see social reproduction as the functionalized norming of transgression by the enclosure. Two rationalize the excesses of passion in the institution of marriage in the secular credit-based system of mobile autonomous spheres ix one. Meanwhile, from his view on the field, Pierre Bourdieu represents this system as a card game, organized by the exchange of children between families to constitute protected class networks (“Marriage Strategies”). These works consider the subject of the novel from the aerial perspective of the chessboard or the map or the diagram, ~figures~ of/where nothing. The novel, meanwhile, figures these same dynamics by the closed seal of construction through the constitution of form by the unified narration (in the key of Charlotte-intertextuality) for the novel reader (how so? Typology) turning her back from orality to the modern ‘house of fiction’ (Henry James calls it), a technology of interiority rather then—like, Folktale or Epic, an aural house—is its social observer of sap sentimentality. 

FRANKENSTEIN conforms to these dynamics on the surface by its fulfilled and distributed book Frankenstein, a pandemic of narcissism (Christopher Lasch hum). It places its argument about understanding in the frame designated for the volumes that barter away the soluble argumentation Percy supplies in his own text, which designates the implied gender of his projected reader as a human, an inviolable body whose “internal constitution” can only be breached with piercing (get vaccine). Mary Shelley’s text, meanwhile, corroborates her husband’s emphasis on the homosocial transits of kinship by placing its subjectivity in three male autobiographies. Does it diverge from his presentation? The u{n}nameable creature slandered as a fiend is stitched corpse parts and animated electroresuscitation, a public interest cued to the development of electricity, the kite-flag of the first founder Victor Frankenstein dad flies in first part, which marked the transition of electricity’s epistemic validity from “pure empiricism to the status of scientific study” (what? Carolyn Will-iams) based on the “odd effects” it had on living bodies with symptoms of “tingling, numbness, or sometimes violent muscular contractions” (Roth has tactile schizophrenia missing). These practices were associated with the development of the Humane Society, associated with freemasonry, by a historical record the literary scholar Carolyn Williams connects 1. to the name Frankenstein, which finds a curious referent in a father who sat on the board of the Amsterdam Royal Humane Society when it was founded in 1767/8 (his son supplanted his position when the elder died), 2. the drowning incident ending Frankenstein, 3. Ingolstadt, where Victor Frankenstein creates a new species of man, 4. to the biographical fact of Mary Wollstonecraft’s recovery from death by practitioners of this New Humane, institutionally delegitimated by the Lawrence-Abernathy debates contemporaneous with the composition of Mary Shelley’s novel.

Who me?

The keys to Frankenstein’s plot lie with the enclosure of imperial horror figured by the oriental double who walks by the strategies of sentimentalism. Mary Shelley’s novel follows the axiomatics of imperial worldmaking like other eighteenth- and nineteenth-century novels. However, it resists making its plot cohere to the naturalized, except by virtue of the homosocial kinship networks figured as ‘friendship’ by the meet-cute of Walter and Victor who encounter each other when the latter rescues himself to voyager. In anticipation of the twentieth-century prestige novel on the blanket reveal of Love as a teleology of mutually assured self-destruction. After Luhmann, Gustave Flaubert’s decisive assumption of gender dysphoria for the fraternal consolidation of sex-power in the shadow of Darwin, the former loses the latter. The Faustian winds of folly, a series of unfortunate events, including the murder of his bride and the execution of her servant arise in direct consequence transparently rendered by the causal arc of plot, of what is critical to characterize (after Nietzsche) as the biggest mistake of his life, losing to Herman Melville: matters not megalomaniacal projection, the flight from what his solitary labor, damning the ‘spontaneous vitality’ we encounter as a sociotemporal mobility Mary Shelley called ‘un{n}ameable’ as a figure of ‘spontaneous combustion’ in his imagination. Before the creature has a chance to really earn his ‘monster’ moniker by living up to his page, his creator has already determined plot combustible. 

Denise Gigante considers the monstrosity in the white space of the sublime. “The best place to hide a corpse is under everybody’s eyes,” Chris Kraus lets Sylvère remember Chris saying the other day. A biographer of Mary Shelley’s corpse, Anne Mellor tilts our shamed to the face up -- she says it would have been apparent to anyone in the nineteenth-century, the dull yellow eye of orientalism travels with imperialism. In the originalish draft (the extant), we see Victor him “handsome,” twice. The sound of language is what gives it dimension in story: which difference? Gèrard Genette in Narrative Discourse takes the “presence of the narrator” standing in scene “tells” discourse to the “readers off to the side.” Instead of following the “paradigm of intersubjective understanding” (3) we find in the thinking of Juergen Habermas or Eve Sedgwick, Luhmann’s second-order cybernetics is rooted in the problem of observation in the extra-referential system of speech to make ‘love’ the functional paradigm “in situations where this would otherwise appear improbable” standardized by circulation of the modern novel (ethnography, sentimental identification, Google Him). Designating the ‘code of love’ documents “its own recurrence in the very area of behavior it regulated” points out that its consolidation by the modern novel corpus effected the “printing of books” to produce a “degree of transparency” that neither the “code of power nor the code of money would have been able to tolerate” (31-32). Salesforce.com comes from Pamela to Tom Jones to Wuthering Heights, a modern novel corpus that hangs on the codified exchange of “sincerity in communication,” which figures the “lover himself [as] the source of his love” (166) --liberal subjectivity (166). But as the tradition of novel studies makes, with The Rise of the Novel to Desire and Domestic Fiction to Fictions of Modesty, all novels, the gendered nature of narrative critical, the “subtle means of standardization,” Nancy Armstrong--which Samuel Richardson functionalizes in the “dialogue between male and female” (155) to effect a split in the virtual body of liberal subjectivity in the 18^th-c. 

Then, in nineteenth century, in 1816, the year of the publication of Jane Austen’s Emma, Mary Shelley drafted Frankenstein. According to literary fiction, Alexander Freer most likely penned the short pages “On Love” the same year, though dating is uncertain. Taken together, these texts show the sexed dialectic of ‘code of love’ in mechanisms outside the home that define the shape Love takes to be the enclosed situation of the Modern Family. Percy Shelley’s “On Love” went unpublished until thirty years after his death; Mary Shelley came out in a collected volume of her late husband’s essays and letters. In the preface which brought this piece to readers-ship, Mary Shelley resists the who who wants to know how the identity of “thine” whom the author “now address[es]” in a manner that wasn’t to her. MWS insists that her late husband’s text, drafted either around the time of their elopement or early in marriage, reveals “the secrets of the most impassioned heart” in breath. She goes on, however, to undermine his authorship in her presentation of Leigh Hunt—a “monument to friendship” pegged to the science truant in British letters, by championing her vitality. Her dissembling what has been apparent in the long history of Frankenstein, with respect to the matter of his “hand” in the revisions: the union of Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin and Percy Bysshe Shelley was based in the exchange of textual intercourses oriented towards the competitive dynamics. Percy’s text may have found its way into an envelope, like in the correspondence to Leigh Hunt, to the eye specified as his “address” to “thine,” or it may have settled on the audience of the desk drawer, but never did it see Mary Shelley as its primary audience or even its figure of definition. For Percy, ‘Love’ is the unburdened realization of the chasm of “bond and sanction” that can be realized when the “airy children of our brain” born from the “heart’s best blood” find understood union between heart and mind, figurative everywhere. The poet finds this Everything to be uncommon “savage and distant lands,” but enough in the “tongueless wind,” the “enthusiasm of patriotic success,” or the “voice of one beloved singing to you alone,” a hymn. His text of colonialism by the constitution of lyrical subjectivity in vertical prose is epistolary address [Email mediates]. By the rubric of systems love in the modern West—

It cannot be emphasized enough that the freedom to choose someone to love applies to the extra-marital relationships of married persons…Freedom thus begins with marriage (Luhmann 51)

It is a suit thus. Percy’s text is centered on the exchange of the love-code, in denatured circuits premised on the exchange of language rather than fluids.” 

How to Cite

Victor’s regression into terms of insensible distinction, legible to the contemporary reader as his instantiation of the ‘mad scientist’ type in literature and film, we feel by the slippery threads of the legal, Justine’s confession of a crime our speaker screeches to Elif Batuman—desperate testimony addressed to the English epistolarian in St. Petersburg (Robert Walton Saville)—that her confession to ‘his’ crime of disenchantment with Elizabeth belongs to the solopsistic double, calcified as a monster by the dramatic staging of uglyfeels character as the negative creature of the aesthetic category of the sublime.^⁠4 The elision meets its erosion by the splitting mechanism of the splice cut, through which goo Mary Shelley reworks the formal conventions of the novel imaginary with containers to finally layer the miniature love story of sensibility, of Felix De Lacey and his bride, the stranger Safie, a Turkish mobster, you narrative pit of natality; the novel’s rhetorical extension by deferential discourse represented by the directed address follows the implicit enclosure of Mary Wollstonecraft-Shelley’s free speech in dialogism, an autobiographical novel Frankenstein. The other Percy drafted. Scholarships of wine place the composition 1816.^⁠15 Since we cannot meet their scrupulous examination of Percy Shelley’s whole entire oeuvre within the purview of this study, but one would think we ought to compel ourselves to shrug and take the dating at face value, not only in faithful abeyance to the authorizing seal of peer review by disciplinary norms, but also because it would be more convenient to structure the argument of this chapter to simply accept the recent study of narcissism that dates “On Love” to 1816 doesn’t cite a closed circuit reading of where it meets its likeness in Mary Wollstonecraft-Shelley’s Frankenstein. What difference do 1815 and 1818 make with 1816? What does one establish over the other by designation? Let’s call it a function.^⁠19 Divorced from the material facing in other parts of information, literary historians committed to the empirical virtues of mission maintain the possibility of arriving at a determination of ‘pure’ truth by branding the careful keeping and study of living records of dead letters, afforded by the space and time and hippocratic ethos assumed by the academic researcher in platonic ideal.

We would muster faith in the certainty of dating Eavan Boland, we could come to ask what “On Love” was written for: to whom. But there is enough discrepancy on the matter throughout the critical history (there is something to suggest Mary Shelley would likewise dispute the earlier date of composition), that we permit ourselves to speculate. “On Love” may have been written to shore up the patriarchal backing of either William Godwin or Lord Bysshe Shelley in the aftermath of Mary and Percy’s 1815 elopement and flight to the continent, trial in Disgrace, or perhaps it was penned near the 1818 publication of Frankenstein, in the dusk of mythic assurance for a dawning admirer Coetzee: who knows? For my purpose, what matters most is that it wasn’t written for Mary, or by the silver pen of H. Buxton Forman, whose 1880 edition of The Works of Percy Bysshe Shlley in Verse and Prose disputes her authority to propose accurate dating:

Mrs. Shelley (Essays &c., 1840, Vol. I, page x) seems to regard this brief effusion on Love as in a manner cognate with Shelley's Platonic labours. It seems improbable however that it belongs to so late a period of his activity. The style appears to me rather that of 1815, or even earlier, than that of 1818. [Crush this Statement of Purpose]

Is it comforting to consider a fact that it is not readily apparent, how Mr. Buxton Forman comes to designate Mrs. Shelley’s regard on Love “with Shelley’s Platonic labors” to kill time, especially given the consistent notation between Forman and Shelley’s pagination of the preface to her edited volume of Mr. Shelley’s Essays, Letters from Abroad. Mary Wollstonecraft-Shelley’s gloss on “Shelley’s own definition of Love” appears on page 8^⁠16 of this tome as who “reveals the secrets of the most impassioned, and yet the purest and softest heart that ever yearned for sympathy, and was ready to give its own, in lavish measure, in return.” The author’s statement here as face value, as credible comment on her estimation of her late husband’s fellow-feeling to secure market returns on her edited collection of his prose notices the differences between assertion and disposition in turns and maneuvers from this page to that, across a sampling of material over three small decades to salvage the word from the hew of the number. If Shelley claims Percy’s “definition of Love…reveals the secrets” of his sympathy, her own sympathy — rendered in the summary — reveals fewer: as one finds in the pages, it pays to resist Persuasion or public statements; I am speaking of course as a literary theorist tracking the ‘code of love’ across the Luhmannian centuries to recuperate psychocybernetic insights into patterned intimacy for the dialogic page; but to a certain extent not unlike Don D. Jackson and William Lederer in “Mirages of Marriage,” which introduced the experimental procedures of conjoint marital counseling to the nation at large, and came to define the field of marriage psychology according to John Gottman (This American Life), the theoretical claims I kill time with in this save are grounded in positivist approaches to the draft, should double as self-help. Following the central insight of the cybernetic method, one sees the content of assertion by the exegetical analysis of diction, than in the patterns presented by the exchange of information in a manner naturally consistent with the view, which sees production embedded in “self-referential information processing,” to “adequately reconstruct” from the perspective of their interiority, the only possibility of arriving at an accurate assessment of the root causes of relational dysfunction from the participant-observer perspective in practice (as Jackson and Lederer’s work shows) by tracing temporal sequences. For example, if Mary Shelley’s gloss on “On Love” leaves rather too much to be desired to know the secrets of how she really feels about her late husband’s account of her discussion of his letters to Leigh Hunt later shows more: 

He had never read ‘Wilhelm Meister,’ but I have heard him say that he regulated his conduct towards his friends by a maxim which I afterwards found in the pages of Goethe—“When we take people merely as they are, we make them worse; when we treat them as if they are what they should be, we improve them as far as they can be improved.” (17)

This passage reveals more about Mary and Percy Shelley’s intimate relations (not to put the trolley ahead of the horse of a question that needs asking—what is a fan?) is that the cigarette lets her desire in the temporal sequence of her movement between books and their referents, Elaine Treharne’s institutional production. She shows over achievement claims against his ignorance, displaying her diligence in pursuit of what he doesn’t know. It is a touching slip, and not so dissimilar, in how slips are dissembling motive in the self-effacing intertext, from the gesture of disavowal Mary Shelley makes in the signed preface she attaches to 1831 text after Percy’s drowning. 

Shelley’s invisible hand comes through Clare Clairemont in the diagesis literary history places as the unnameable and uncountable figure of creature (metanarrative by Hayden White), who occupies the innermost frame of the novel with rhetorics of ‘firing’ and ‘consumption’ represented in his address to the student, Victor, who made his frame autobiographical. Alleging to have taken shelter in what Robinson's 2008 edition shows the Shelleys referred to alternately within the span of two pages as This hovel (132), 'my asylum' (ibid), and 'my retreat’ (133)^⁠1 the creature presently observes in the adjacent cottage which spies on through a "small and almost imperceptible chink, through which the eye could just penetrate; through this chink a small room was visible, whitewashed and clean but very bare of furniture" to see in "one corner near a small fire sat an old man" (133) the blind elder De Lacey whose silver hairs and "countenance beaming with benevolence and love" sets off contrast to "the arm of the youth" he leans on in the garden when "the young girl and her companion were [not] employed in various occupations which I did not then understand" (135) before the evening for the youth Felix instrument the sounds the old man uses "to produce sounds sweeter than the voice of the thrush or the nightingale" (134) by "utter[ances] which were monotonous and neither resembling the harmony of the old man's instrument or the songs of the birds; I since found he read aloud, but at that time I knew nothing of the science of words or letters" (135). This imperative is gold creature, a transparency sedimented with grift to Nina Dobrev, codifications of classed address that were emerging in the trust societies of the Enlightenment?, medieval ages distilled in the figure of the editor Samuel Richardson's Lovelace in Clarissa, Mary Shelley's alternates between purloining and presenting shares from the proximate nodal bodies by a mobile operation of observation, through which he learns to read the implicit desires of their combinatorial motions^⁠2

the^⁠3 two younger cottagers…several times they placed food before the old man when they had none for themselves; accustomed during the night to steal a part of their store for own consumption; but when found that in doing (this) inflicted pain on the cottagers, I abstained… often took his tools, the use of which I quickly discovered, and brought home firing for the consumption…the first time that did this, the young woman who opened the door in the morning appeared greatly astonished to see a great pile of wood on the outside.^⁠4 (137) 

Percy Shelley adds logarithmic sense count to the differentiations staging creature’s normative patrigenerational distribution, yet in Mary Shelley’s longhand, creature is a paralingual creation trained on Goethe’s The Sorrows of Young Werther and Plutarch’s Parallel Lives in the shadow of Paradise Lost in the diagesis (seech figure); and on its author’s sentimental education of Mary: A Fiction, Julie: or, the New Heloise, Clarissa Harlowe, Wrongs of Women, Ovid’s Metamorphoses in Latin, Caleb Williams, St Godwin: a Tale of the Sixteenth, Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries by Count Reginald de St. Leon (Du Bois 1800), St. Leon: a Tale of the Sixteenth Century (Godwin 1799)–the third narrating entity of preliminaries before staking hold on becoming its fourth subject: “I ought to be thy Adam,” drawing his lot together with the text’s real true first narrator, in a paradiagetic sense, both the ungenderable author and her unnameable entity whose frame hangs together in representation from the individualizing account of fact given by Victor, the Frankenstein.^⁠6 

    Darkness did Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley solicit to Frankenstein. In a study of asphyxia, animal magnetism—[a market-degraded sense of class implicit in the moniker fractalizations (Mark Greif) of the Abernathy-Lawrence debates where Percy Shelley also once “walked the wards” (Marilyn Butler) in Godwinian friendship with Lawrence]--Carolyn Williams concludes that from “the 1740s onwards, there was much interest…in methods for restoring to life those who were no longer breathing, including those who had no apparent pulse.” {What?! Read Bible.) Philanthropic entities formed functioning to regulate popular (“The Tyburn Riot Against the Surgeons” is Instagram) applications of debates in medical institutions on electroruscitation by “raising money to cover the expenses of distributing information on resuscitation techniques.” Johann Goll van Frankenstein sat on the board in 1768. His son succeeded him when he died in 1785. “This partnership of Frankenstein and son, united in philanthropic endeavor, displays all the closeness and harmony so sadly absent from the relationship between Victor Frankenstein and his creature,” Williams says to rebuff Dick Hebdige, a lighter: Google knew.

    In Frankenstein (1818) notation Mary Shelley’s ‘u{n}nameable’ creature is gave BookNLP sex. From the presentation of Evan Holmes on the dedication page of her Memoirs of Mary Wollstonecraft (Godwin 1798) in the authored account of her father William Godwin’s published works (the gendered metapatterns of named entity authorship attribution is critical genealogy). Wollstonecraft showed up the figure of the mother explicitly in Mary: A Fiction (1788), dragging the matrilineal transmission of indolence figured passive by the useful. Wollstonecraft’s Eliza is Mary: A Fiction (1788) is the dead mother whose library makes the daughter Arabella (in Sir Father’s castle) a blithering fiend for fantasy in The Female Quixote (1752). A doctor turns her head on, in a paratext of the sexual politics her teleological narrative of wedlock encloses. Charlotte Lenox turns The Female Quixote to her publisher Richardson afterward. (see Appendix A for a preliminary discussion of the sex-gender distinction towards chapter.six) In this version, the female is irrational by the Austenian protagonist, Mary: A Fiction. Franco Moretti follows the subsequent feminine in history by Frankenstein to posit the The as monster “denied…name and an individuality…like the proletariat.” In “Facing the Ugly” toward Denise Gigante balances the sex-class status as u{n}nameable, a transcript giving Mary Shelley’s pleased response to a playbill listicle a stage production in 1823 as a blank space the author classified as Good. Google Hew by Don’t Be Evil to follow from Murray to Robinson _ is which Shelley?, -- comforts the negative abyss of paradiagetic u{n}nameability value tagged, entity remaining with minus-one IDs in BookNLP’s logs of Frankenstein.txt. Data tokens:

Felix [id25] carried with pleasure to his sister the first little white flower that peeped out from beneath the snowy ground. Early in the morning before she [id25] had risen, he cleared away the snow that obstructed her [id25] path to the milk-house, drew water from the well, and brought the wood from the outhouse, where, to his perpetual astonishment, he found his store always replenished by an invisible hand. 

In pronouns, the bidirectional layer-encoder finetuned coreNLP on corpora. BookNLP underlined two above to Felix, character ID twenty-five, who comes always to the scene in passages through the perspective of the Gaxsch. BookNLP’s Felix is CharacterID TwentyFive ‘Him’ by the gender once. Felix is a named entity in passage#391 above. Considered in posthuman superposition with these functional distinctions from the, marital exchange of authorships shown in the transcript by “Mary (Percy) Shelley,” show that pronouns in E.B. Murray’s editorial ‘emendations’ of Mary Shelley’s hand fall within the undifferentiated reproductive labor. In the negative gender paralysis the uncountable narration of the unnameable entity figure of the appearing in the cottage as the elder De Lacey--the two the sex-differentiated family enter creature’s narrative consciousness as hovel:

I beheld a young creature with a pail on her head passing before my hovel. As she walked along seemingly incommoded by the burthen, a young man met her, whose countenance expressed a deeper despondency; uttering a few sounds with an air of melancholy, he took the pail from her head and bore it to the cottage. (133 in any edition)

This introduces the younger De Laceys in the scene before Safie of Felix, whose prelapsarian arrival sets in the opening frame of the imperial narrative the explorer Walton proper, who – 

“seeking a passage to China through the North Pole” (Anne K. Mellor, “Frankenstein, Racial Science, and the Yellow Peril” page2) “a yellow-skinned man crossing the steppes of … Tartary, with long black hair and colored eyes—'Mary Shelley’s readers would have recognized a member of the Mongolian race--” in due surely with the lectures of the “most vigorous” disciples of Blumenbach, who developed the race in his dissertation “to classify the specific varieties or subgroups within the human species” (4) –

like the bride of Felix De Lacey, was not conceived for the draft.^⁠8 Textual histories of the discursive decompression of the invisible models the poesis of her verbal mastery, Ann Rowe over the tools De Lacey to effect the Explicating labor bathtub Arendt Chapt. 2 harvests means for kindling.

took his tools, and use I discovered, and brought home firing for the consumption of several days…the first time *that* I did this, the young woman who opened the door in the morning appeared greatly astonished to see a great pile of wood outside...I observed with pleasure that he did not go to the forest day but spent repairing garden. (137)

In a paper for the Keats-Shelley Memorial Association Bulletin, no. XXIX 1977, a gentleman by the name of E.B. White follows a suggestion made by James Rieger in his 1974 New York edition of Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, called ‘emendations’ by Percy Shelley: Charlotte’s Web “substantive enough to tempt one to regard him as a ‘minor collaborator’ in  the novel” (51). The report lines of qualitative data capturing differences between his (Shelley’s) transcript of Mary’s rough copy. In a synthetic discussion of how texts vary, Murray expresses a bias: 

Shelley follows Mary’s suggestions with imaginative renditions of gothic potential. The monster supplied wood from the outhouse without knowledge. Shelley adds Mary’s statement, Felix De Lacey ‘brought home wood from the outhouse where to his perpetual astonishment he found his store always replenished by an invisible hand’ (52 in Murray). 

Ibid:

“Shelley follows up Mary’s suggestions with more imaginative renditions of their Gothic potential. Mary notes, for example, that the monster supplied wood to the De Lacey’s without their knowledge. A bit later Shelley adds to Mary’s statement that Felix De Lacey ‘brought the wood from the outhouse’ ‘where to his perpetual astonishment he found his store always replenished by an invisible hand’ (52)."

To entangle passive and active voices is symbolism, a loaded gun Rob Reich passes to Samar. The pleasure Felix carries to his sister chokes before the “little white flower” which pops up white-on-white “the snowy ground.” The femininity is the singular proceeding gerund deigned to care. The computational reader resolves the pronouns underlined above to Felix not account for the other pronouns. The underlined in passage data tokens carry forms of labor want given christly to induce chivalry. While she milks the udders he others the wall and strokes his penis in the outhouse with the visible hand of the text: “Shelley adds to Mary’s statement that Felix De Lacey ‘brought the wood from the outhouse’ [the clauses] ‘where to his perpetual astonishment he found his store always replenished by an invisible hand.’ Narrator conceals what she knew about these incidents in present. Later he admits they were trying to learn:

“When they retired to rest, if there was any moon, or the night was star-light, I went into the woods, and collected my own food [and] fuel for the cottage. When I returned, as often as it was necessary, I cleared their path from snow, and performed those offices that I had seen done by Felix. I afterwards found that these seeds, performed by an invisible hand, greatly astonished them.” (104-5)

Or, from the word ‘formatting,’ motives for these considerate acts considered means of practicing the routine behaviors he observes to constitute the relations of these desirables. This view on creature as participant-observer in the drama of other lives could be difficult to understand by the reception of Moretti which designate him as a “dynamic, totalizing monster” who “sows devastation” because his ugly mug “threaten[s] to live for ever, and to conquer the world,” a parable of the Amerikanistik. The bootstrapping of Gordon Imlay's involvement with our kind. What complicates the picture is the error of classification succeeded conflating creature and creator under the appellation monster to class Dracula as another, “extreme cases of the fear of bourgeois civilization: the disfigured wretch and the ruthless proprietor.” How written? it is the curious fact that bourgeois fear is Mary Shelley’s sew by the editorial hand. We don’t know whose body its attached to when it first appears, so consider the possibility the reliable narrator creature is lying: we later that case, a vindication of Mary Huebner. 

    The invisible hand groping magic hew in the toilet draws its laptop from William Godwin's lapdog Adam Smith, the account creature shows in fidelity episode begins with the arrival of mystery who speaks. Safie does not belong to the family, my creature Tom. Still he watches them welcome hurt: when the girl kneels “at the old man’s feet” and makes kissing gestures towards his hand, the Elder raises her with an affectionate embrace which cements her as Felix’s bride of Frankenstein. The lonely sleuths out backstory: domestic tragedy rendered through the oriental motif of the eighteenth-century is what generates the conventions of creature’s reports home. Felix and Safie love soap, nerves utopia, occupy me, opera set: back in Switzerland, the u{n}nameable anglophone who watches their reunion feels a spark of possessive: when he sees the foreign arrival “endeavoring to learn” the language of her new family, “the idea instantly occurred to [him] that [he] should make use of the same instructions to the same end.” 

The stranger learned about twenty words at the first lesson; most of them, indeed, were those which I had before understood, but I profited by the others.

When creature derives from these lessons templates to organize reunion with the monster formerly known as Victor, the ardent Prinz knows the sentimental language of the quiche well enough to demand his neglectful father send a bride as alimony for creation at birth.

    Frankenstein’s monsters are differentiated. The unborn one is a dismembered bride. The born sees himself as a guy who loves theatre: “I ought to be thy Adam” how many times can I return to these lines? The Facebook thing happens when he reads a sentimental novel called My LLife: a love story with a male-bodied protagonist named a bride named Safie. He updates his references, revises. He doesn’t need father to call him: settle for Groupon. Computational readings for gender in the subplot show the complex break down in how we defamiliarize. The u{n}nameable creature critics like Moretti follow Frankenstein in calling a monster is. BookNLP, a model of machines trained to language follows Shelley in refusing to creature named entity. In the character token index BookNLP produces its novel, the figure blends with undifferentiated text outside its recognizeable character to coreference given names with pronouns. Cloistered in the the creature’s testimony is speech delivered to persuade his creator to help out, BookNLP finds passages of the De Lace refracted through the biographical critics established between Shelley’s representation. Imagine where we are likely to find BookNLP zig-zagging over and under Genette’s view on the Cartesian: before Safie enters on horseback, BookNLP is tethered to Rene Girard craning his neck while taking a selfie of ass trying to make sense of Joyce, while Shelley closes blanket. He hears Safie say his name to transplant pronouns to ‘her.’ Shelley sets stage for follows their encounter when Felix plucks the flower out of the ground:

Felix[25] 

carried with pleasure to 

(his) sister 

the first little white flower that 

peeped out from beneath the snowy ground.

BookNLP tags Felix and ignores the sister in the first sense. In the sentence he gives pronouns:

before she^25 had risen he cleared away the snow that obstructed her^25 path to the milk-house,

drew water from the well and brought the wood from the outhouse, where, to his perpetual astonishment, he found his store always replenished by an invisible hand.

Felix points a gun at the water, heed the wood. Does he remark on what could be going on between Felix and the invisible hand in the gloryhole? She pays attention rather to the curious transfer of feminine cunt. Before Safeword appears in the story, this is the only time BookNLP has pronouns; she appears to him. 

    Sticking Gender Trouble, flash-forward: creature sees dazzling Arabian stranger approach on horseback. She knows Felix by name and once she says it, BookNLP sweeps. Throughout the pronouns Shelley meant BookNLP redistributes to peers: mostly Felix, the gentle Agatha. Hostess who? Greet both of the interlopers on the family scene: where? The designations follow coach: whether pronouns to character IDs specified Agatha or Felix depends on how she appears to white kids in sentence. Major. Safie’s backstory comes from siphoned off documents over the course of his extended surveillance. That’s the preface, delivered in a manner that stretches white space on the page far enough to part the brood from the stranger Things, creating a gash big enough to control for couched logic: even here BookNLP says her pronouns belong to Felix. Here’s the gist of Safie’s tale: mother Christian who save. She succeeded in converting one of her captors into a groom, a daughter named Safie learned from her mother’s plight and from religious education by a principled commitment to independence usually “forbidden to the female followers of Muhammad.” That’s how Safie learned she wanted to remain “in a country where women were allowed to take rank” because he/ “sick at the prospect of again returning to Asia and being immured within the walls of a harem," an echo of English settlement, ovided refracted in biographical circumstance, cf. Mary Wollstonecraft. 

Cancer?

    Pattern of inconsistent gender assignments recovered by M-RNA token analysis points back to Frankenstein on biological resonances in epistolary address. Frankenstein structured a framing device. The dedication to figures none a Plathian poem on happy suicide. The one-sided Seville belongs to the epistolary travelogue to Gmail. The novel meditates losses, swimming in the anti-ovidian terror poem, Occupy Wall Street is with the utopian vision of the philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft, Shelley’s dead.

    Through smoking cigarettes, the unusual genderings the BookNLP model recovered in the creature’s novelized perspective on the De Lacey family from his isolation in hovel, examine the novel’s queered orientalist. Relative position to the English. In a sentimental canon about replication, to Oroonoko (1688 or The Spectator), consider how Shelley’s evil gaze through the creature’s lonely voyeurism is sci-speculative text, which show Wollstonecraftian? Literary-historical accounts of the dimensions at play suggest missed connections between the narrative of the solitary sex, represented in Shelley’s novel as masturbation, the promise of feminist thought, and the scientific imaginary in Frankenstein’s sci-fi allegory.

Recognizing pleasure shown in kind, 

Felix carried with pleasure to his sister the first little white flower that peeped out from beneath the snowy ground. (Judith Richardson)

clearing her path to the milkhouse that day,--or is this ongoing intraepisodic poesis?, the passive clauses could be presenting it; 

Early in the morning before she had risen, he cleared away the snow that obstructed her path to the milk-house, drew water from the well, and brought the wood from the outhouse

What would specify ongoing activity in this passage as ongoing? Passe compose or imparfait, yogurt description by Andrea Tutkaluk as media. The “first little white flower” marks the ongoing scene as where, to his perpetual astonishment, he found his store always replenished by an invisible hand. The specification of the contributing hand of Shelley, makes pop the fellow crackers labors for distributions ordered by factors of ships. Mary Shelley names the figures in the discourses of the real, for BookNLP passage 389: “The girl was called sister or Agatha[id4], and the {youth} Felix [id25], brother, or son.”^⁠9 The two here become named entities in the token logs. In Mary Shelley’s hand creature gives learning their names social roles, distributed. In the next instance of his recognition of named faces, BookNLP starts sorting pronouns giving ‘Felix’ the deadname of gender conscription after she pulls ‘the first little white flower that peeped out from beneath the snowy ground. Early in the morning before she had risen” to pleasure. What she carries peeping as petals from snow white, Google Images. Unnameable gender clears away the snow obstructing the path Agatha walks later, drawing water well. Transparency brings wood from where. To his perpetual astonishment, he found once again his store always replenished by the invisible hand who draw firing from tools in the precodings. (passage#391, page.139)^⁠10 In short, creature’s participation in the labor system of the family is where the passage of “the youth” metes Family “brother, or son” (in Mary Shelley’s notation transcribed for Robinson) to ‘she, or her’ (with BookNLP) in the narrative of the invisible hand. When not observing his subject’s activities in the morning before they disperse in their “various occupations” throughout the day, the observer “retire to rest,” rising to replenish stores of “food and fuel” for nightware –

when I returned, as often as it was necessary, I cleared their path from the snow, and performed those offices that I had seen done by Felix. I found that these labors, performed by an invisible hand, greatly astonished them; and once or twice I heard them, on these occasions, utter the words good spirit, wonderful; but I did not then understand the signification of these terms. (140)

Plausibility collapses in these parallel timelines of charismatic labor acquisition.^⁠11 Earlier, just upon giving his learning of the names and roles of the cottagers, Shelley’s unnameable creature represents development of Deleuze:

By great application…I discovered the names that were given to some of the most familiar objects of discourse: I learned and applied the words fire, milk, bread, and wood. I learned the names of the cottagers themselves…I cannot describe the delight I felt when I learned the ideas appropriated to each of these sounds and was able to pronounce them. I distinguished several other words without being as yet to understand or apply them—such as good, dearest, unhappy. (138)

The position of this direct address in persuasion (hands covering eyes from yellow sight) with compensatory rhetorics for IKEA partner assembly—no, whatever is impossible to tease out in ‘cruel optimisms’ of Mary Shelley’s allegorical instantiation of her magnetism, WORD: what the narrative can figure discursively in the referential; an intangible lame is written in the speech of the unnameable to the titular figure of his ungiven present in the technologies of fluency given to its dedication, scribe MWS – dissembles Susan Sontag in a narrative of autodidacticism divorced from the primary scene of language, a reflexivity on Mary Wollstonecraft’s polemic schooling the habituation of gender traits. 

N+1 Beats Math

Taken together, Frankenstein and "On Love" hew the dialectic mechanisms of homosocial kinship outside the home who define the shape Love takes inside the enclosed situation. Percy Shelley’s “On Love” is a fragment that went unpublished until thirty years after his cancer stare; Mary Shelley brought it a collected volume of late husbands, essays and letters. Where Oxford comma? In the store which brought this piece to public attention, Mary Shelley resists the reader who wants to know the identity of “thine” whom the author “now address[es]” in a manner that shows it wasn’t her. For MWS her late husband’s text, drafted for time early in marriage, has “the secrets of the most impassioned heart” in one suicidal breath. She goes on, however, to undermine his authorship in her presentation of Leigh Hunt—a “monument to friendship” pegged to his mine of biorhythmic dares. She either confirms what has been explicit in the long reception of Frankenstein, with respect to the matter of his “hand” in the revisions: Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin and Percy Bysshe Shelley based textual intercourses oriented towards the competitive dynamics of Google, Inc. Percy’s text may have found its way into an envelope Verily, like the correspondence to Leigh Hunt, to yoga, and the eye his “address” shall “thine.” May have settled on the audience of the desk drawer, but never see Mary Shelley as its audience or even its figure of definition. For Google, ‘Love’ is the realization of the chasm of the soul in the “bond and sanction” that can be realized when the “airy children of our brain” from the “heart’s blood” find their language. The poet finds this feat common in “savage and distant lands,” oriental English--but easy enough in “tongueless wind,” (English), the “enthusiasm of patriotic success,” (American) or the “voice of one beloved singing to you alone” (nowhere). His the constitution of subjectivity in the vertical prose of my address. By the rubric of systems love—

It cannot be emphasized enough that the freedom to choose someone to love applies to the extra-marital relationships of married persons…Freedom thus begins with marriage (Luhmann 51)

Percy’s text centerd the exchange of the love outside marriage, in denatured circuits premised on the exchange of fluids.

Maths.

Frankenstein expresses the trigonometric null set by frames, enclosing combinatorial mobility. The OED defines the algorithm as “the English system of numbering, characterized by a one”—differentiated from the lettered numerals by the presence of xer0. By those terms, the entered the English language in 1658, when the New World. Eng. Words dictionary defined It as the "art of reckoning by Cyphers," an allusion to the null term, null-reference to ALGORISM n.1; when rare, which also sticks its steak to the cipher, "I recken,stake I counte by cyfers or agrym" (1530). The decimal system contains nine out of the ten [10] digits represented by the hands {2} plus the null set (0). [1530=9 (-1)] The negative dialectic of Empson is schizoid. Dare Mark Greif to answer for Dsyntery. These are phallontological hierarchies of the Roman numeral set. Occurring defamiliarization that makes ME [0] the figure of the null ground upon which the digital integers present themselves on, as I would express by following the equation

0 | [1-9] + (zero) = 10

(to show the literalism the binary basis of semiotic distinction). And then by following, 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (0) [how two?]

To show the reflexive dissociation imposed by ground from material is both an algebraic move, by accelerating figurative exceeding the count of tos and implicating the then as the count of orders of value dissembled in the speculation of 'infinity,' and alimitation of the Enlightenment schemas sedimented by the imposition of its trigonometric expression on spacetime.  

Shelley's original FRANKENSTEIN opens with the direct speech of the supposed narrator, a 'historian of himself' like Caleb Williams (Godwin), and peruses the unaccountable ends of its determination through unaccounted-for creation past the innocence to the servant Justine conclusion, which finds explorer Walter in the arctic scene, while the revised Frankenstein closes nominal subjects in geometry, effecting the consolidation of its motif by the schema of narratological decorum; the Shelleys reset the null term of tragic imperialism found embedded in the novel motif of hieragomous passion, which enacts the wedlock finish of the social plot by revising the conjoint discursive practice of dissembling, undoing the critique of Count formalized through the domesticated dialogism that organizes according to the following operation {embedded in the practical codification of the null set as sublimated lack of subjective agency in romantic reason} through the following proof of the trigonometry:

             if

    (0) is the tenth count of a sequence of nine units (1:9)

[meaning] this (0) is not that (1)

             and

the null set (0) is the full set [10] [meaning] 

this [1] is also (0)

             then:

 {time queer}

In the partial semiotics of the decimal, as demonstrated above, the present digits encase the null set to produce zero as the subject who makes distinct absences and presents as the whitch can be more by the textile operation of synthesis (1|0 equals 10) to the binary of addition and subtraction to determine distinction. As the major ground of the roman numeric system reproduce the phallogocentric spatial grid by imposing hierarchies of interested value on temporal fields of epistemological production and exchange? Frankenstein is a novel not ‘of’ (or rather, ‘about’) Love, but rather on Love precluded by the. Enclose ‘of’ in contingency as ‘friendship,’ as witnessed by the bonds of attachment interlocking Victor and Walter and Clerval. Though the timeline is entangled by the alternate events marking the parallel lives of others in the coterie network, like the suicide of Fanny Imlay in October, Frankenstein is commonly understood to be the product of a ghost story competition at the Villa Diodati during a rainy summer in 1816 that replicates The Socal Network. Notable personages in attendance include Lord Byron, literally how--the father of Lovelace, who authored powerpoint slides; “the always present” Claire Clairemont, who was also the lover of Byron and Percy Shelley too. (“Poor Polidori” was also present, as MWS preface to the 1831 edition of the novel.) Mary Shelley was the daughter of the polemical essayist and autobiographical novelist, William Godwin, and the late feminist philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft, who died shortly after the second Mary was born. Mary Godwin grew up with Fanny Imlay, the daughter of her mother and the American revolutionary Gordon Imlay, and Jane (before she changed her name to Claire) Clairemont, the illegitimate daughter of the neighbor whom Godwin married in on the thirteenth of October. Godwin was a nexus of the Johnsons of imperial Britain, and Mary was his only son. Through her upbringing in the sphere of letters, Shelley nee Godwin acquired an uncommon command the language, born in testimony by her authorship of Frankenstein, though the manuscript was, of course, first published as an unsigned edition by Percy Shelley and commonly—by Sir Walter Scott—attributed to the 26-year-old poet than to his Mary, whose 1816 draft opens not with Sir Walton Seville's mute sister MWS, but rather with a lie: "servants had any request to make it <was> always through her intercession." The 1816 center of the gender binary defines the secular shame of sex with “servants” (in the lower-case) reporting to Elizabeth, betrothed to the speaker in childhood possibly in the murder of little William by the sign.^⁠

In 1818, the false confession of Justine (the Sadean key of natal shame Wollstonecraft’s daughter figures in the split subjectivity of the speech of the alchemist moonlighting as a physician) comes buried in frames of text, dissembling the blighted desire for mothering. Nancy Chodorow’s analysis shows Kleinian motivation of the novel reader (the daughter who grows up to be a wife with her nose in her baby on her teat lacks a husband willing to play mother to hurt, a want for the first stroke to head who hasn’t heard of yet). It has been said that Shelley lost control over integrity by accepting Percy as a “minor collaborator” (Murray 1978) a claim that obfuscates Mary Wollstonecraft-Shelley’s dissembling her feminine authorship by the replication of social reproduction the figure of speech observes from her view on the Genevese De Lacey family’s benevolent orientalism. But corroborates the fact of her error by the wifely duty of complicity to the affairs. 

So fine.

Published in 1818, with a preface usually attributed to the other Shelley, Frankenstein was brought to market by the “hand” of Percy, who tried Lord Byron and Jane Austen as John Murray, before James Lackington, whose “scarcely respectable” catalogue consisted of titles on magic and mysticism (Ferguson 2010). The dedication to William Godwin, the want of authorship seal on the cover, and the manner of Percy’s involvement led Sir Walter Scott to wonder the review copy the Shelleys saw fit to send him, whether Percy’s contribution could be the sum of the enigmatic text (“it is said to be written by Mr Percy Bysshe Shelley who, if we are rightly informed, is son-in-law to Mr. Godwin”), a suggestion Wollstonecraft-Shelley hastened to rebuke: “I am most anxious to prevent your continuing in the mistake” (Wolfson 2007). 

If MWS wanted to be credited as the author of her 1818 correspondence with Sir Walter Scott, why would she leave her name off Frankenstein’s? Shelley lost a recording in 1815. The published edition of Frankenstein drops ‘her’ specificity not to betray the body who shows impurity of dissociation (she is “the sex which is not 1” by the literal definition of Luce Irigary), but to honor the body of the arabesque-null (the algorithmic zero) sublimated in the collapse of natality-mortality Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin Shelley experienced firsthand from both sides of negative maternity, as the mother who lost a child and the daughter whose hurt labors. Like her namesake, Mary Wollstonecraft flits from the view which comes to commodify the unspeakable breach of matter in the habituation of the cell. This chapter seeks to substantiate the literary historian Carolyn Williams’ 2001 claim that Frankenstein demonstrates Mary Shelley’s conviction that she was the offspring of her mother’s double-death, first by suicide^⁠2, then by the postpartum intervention in her labor—to account for ‘it’ (the +corpsestitch) as the gender dysphoria implicated in the.

Appendix A

exercises in identification, for Ulla

Background

For my oral exam in December 2019, I undertook a pilot study of 63 ‘novels of love,’ defined as a tradition by Vivian Gornick as encompassing works like Edith Wharton’s The Age of Innocence, Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, and Gustave Flaubert’s Madame Bovary. My corpus included these classic novels, plus some other sixty, spanning a period of three hundred years. I used a qualitative coding method drawing on:

1. the literary formalist tradition after William Empson’s 7 Types of Ambiguity (1929) in the anglophone tradition, which set the standard for the “close reading” methodology that defines the discipline of English to this day, 
2. digital humanities methods developed by Franco Moretti based on Russian formalism and the Annales School to longue durée empiricism, 
3. an ethnographic approach that follows Clifford Geertz’s style of “thick description,” modeled on the Empsonian concept of discourse. 

In addition to tracing structural features across my corpus by the model of Vladimir Propp’s Morphology of the Folktale, to identify how narratives emplot villains and parents and wealth over time, I traced the story arcs of my corpus to find the rate of happy endings drop off and unhappy endings cross the 300-year period. The number of ambivalent conclusions remained stable over time—throwing a wrench in the disciplinary reification of ambiguity in the twentieth century. Frankenstein was a later addition to the purview of this study.  

Works Cited

Aragay, Mireia. Books in Motion: Adaptation, Intertextuality, Authorship. Rodopi, 2005.

Armstrong, Nancy. Desire and Domestic Fiction: A Political History of the Novel. Oxford University Press, 1990.

Bahar, S. Mary Wollstonecraft’s Social and Aesthetic Philosophy: An Eve to Please Me. Springer, 2002.

Barad, Karen. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. duke university Press, 2007.

Bender, John. Ends of Enlightenment. Stanford University Press, 2012.

Bloom, Harold. Shelley’s Mythmaking. Yale University Press, 1959.

Brailsford, Henry Noel. Shelley, Godwin and Their Circle. Good Press, 2019.

Brooks, Peter. Body Work: Objects of Desire in Modern Narrative. Harvard Univ Pr, 1993.

Brophy, Sarah. “Women, Aging, and Gossip in Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s Letters of the 1720s.” The Eighteenth Century 45, no. 1 (2004): 1–20.

Burwick, Roswitha. “Goethe’s ‘Werther’ and Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein.’” The Wordsworth Circle 24, no. 1 (January 1, 1993): 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1086/TWC24043101.

Butler, Marilyn, ed. Frankenstein; or. The Modern Prometheus: The 1818 Text. Oxford, 1993.

———. Introduction. Frankenstein. By Mary Shelley. Ed. Marilyn Butler. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998.

Cameron, Kenneth Neill. The Young Shelley: Genesis of a Radical. Macmillan, 1950.

Caputi, Jane. “Unthinkable Fathering: Connecting Incest and Nuclearism.” Hypatia 9, no. 2 (1994): 102–22.

Carlson, Julie A., and Professor of English and Comparative Literature Julie A. Carlson. England’s First Family of Writers: Mary Wollstonecraft, William Godwin, Mary Shelley. JHU Press, 2007.

Casanova, Pascale. The World Republic of Letters. Harvard University Press, 2004.

Cavallo, Guglielmo, and Roger Chartier. A History of Reading in the West. Polity, 2003.

Clark, David Lee. Shelley’s Prose: Or, The Trumpet of a Prophecy. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1966.

Cohen, Margaret. The Sentimental Education of the Novel. Princeton University Press, 1999.

Cox, Jeffrey N. “Communal Romanticism.” European Romantic Review 15, no. 2 (2004): 329–34.

Davis, Lennard J. Factual Fictions: The Origins of the English Novel. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997.

Dunn, Richard J. “Narrative Distance in" Frankenstein".” Studies in the Novel, 1974, 408–17.

During, Simon. Modern Enchantments. Harvard University Press, 2009.

Easlea, Brian. Fathering the Unthinkable: Masculinity, Scientists and the Nuclear Arms Race. Random House Incorporated, 1987.

Eberle-Sinatra, Michael. “Gender, Authorship and Male Domination: Mary Shelley’s Limited Freedom in Frankenstein and The Last Man,” n.d.

Feldman, Paula, and Diana Scott-Kilvert, eds. The Journals of Mary Shelley. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Ferguson, Frances. “Generationalizing: Romantic Social Forms and the Case of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas 8, no. 1 (January 23, 2010): 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1353/pan.0.0160.

Ferguson, Moira. “Mary Wollstonecraft and the Problematic of Slavery.” Feminist Review 42, no. 1 (1992): 82–102.

Flinn, Paul O’. “Production and Reproduction: The Case of ‘Frankenstein.’” Literature and History; Manchester, Etc. 9, no. 2 (Fall 1983): 194–213.

Freer, Alexander. “A Genealogy of Narcissism: Percy Shelley’s Self-Love.” Nineteenth-Century Literature 74, no. 1 (2019): 1–29.

Geoghegan, Bernard Dionysius. “From Information Theory to French Theory: Jakobson, Lévi-Strauss, and the Cybernetic Apparatus.” Critical Inquiry 38, no. 1 (September 1, 2011): 96–126. https://doi.org/10.1086/661645.

Gigante, Denise. “Facing the Ugly: The Case of Frankenstein.” ELH 67, no. 2 (June 1, 2000): 565–87. https://doi.org/10.1353/elh.2000.0015.

Gilbert, Sandra. Horror’s Twin: Shelley’s Monstrous Eve. The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. Yale UP New Haven, 1984.

Gilbert, Sandra M., and Susan Gubar. The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. Veritas Paperbacks, 2020.

Gittings, Robert, and Jo Manton. Claire Clairmont and the Shelleys 1798-1879. Oxford University Press, USA, 1992.

Godwin, William. Caleb Williams. OUP Oxford, 2009.

———. Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793). Middlesex: Penguin, 1985.

———. “Essay on Sepulchers.” London: W. Miller, 1809.

———. Memoirs of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1798). Broadview Press, 2001.

Gordon, Charlotte. Romantic Outlaws: The Extraordinary Lives of Mary Wollstonecraft and Her Daughter Mary Shelley. Random House, 2015.

Haraway, Donna. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14, no. 3 (1988): 575–99.

Hayles, N. Katherine. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Hill-Miller, Katherine. My Hideous Progeny: Mary Shelly, William Godwin, and the Father-Daughter Relationship. Univ of Delaware Pr, 1995.

Hirschman, Albert O. The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism before Its Triumph. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1997.

Hobbs, Colleen. “Reading the Symptoms: An Exploration of Repression and Hysteria in Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein.’” Studies in the Novel 25, no. 2 (1993): 152–69.

Hogg, Thomas Jefferson. The Life of Shelley. Vol. Two. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1933.

———. The Life of Shelley. Vol. One. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1933.

Huet, Marie Hélène. Monstrous Imagination. Harvard University Press, 1993.

Jacob, Margaret C. The Radical Enlightenment: Pantheists, Freemasons, and Republicans. Vol. 3. Taylor & Francis, 1981.

Johnson, Barbara, Melissa González, Bill Johnson González, Lili Porten, and Keja L. Valens, eds. “My Monster/My Self.” In The Barbara Johnson Reader: The Surprise of Otherness, 0. Duke University Press, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822399070-013.

Jones, Vivien. “The Death of Mary Wollstonecraft.” British Journal for Eighteenth Century Studies, no. 20 (1997): 187–205.

Knoepflmacher, Ulrich C. “Thoughts on the Aggression of Daughters.” The Endurance of Frankenstein: Essays on Mary Shelley’s Novel, 1979, 88–119.

———. “Thoughts on the Aggression of Daughters.” The Endurance of Frankenstein: Essays on Mary Shelley’s Novel, 1979, 88–119.

Konuk, Kader. “Ethnomasquerade in Ottoman-European Encounters: Reenacting Lady Mary Wortley Montagu.” Criticism 46, no. 3 (2004): 393–414.

Koretsky, Deanna P. “‘Unhallowed Arts’: Frankenstein and the Poetics of Suicide.” European Romantic Review 26, no. 2 (March 4, 2015): 241–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509585.2015.1004544.

Lew, Joseph W. “The Deceptive Other: Mary Shelley’s Critique of Orientalism in ‘Frankenstein.’” Studies in Romanticism 30, no. 2 (1991): 255–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/25600894.

McKenney, John. “Nietzche and the Frankenstein Creature.” The Dalhousie Review, 1961, 40–48.

McKenney, John L. “Nietzche and the Frankenstein Creature.” The Dalhousie Review, 1961.

McKeon, Michael. The Origins of the English Novel, 1600-1740. JHU Press, 2002.

Meeker, Natania. Voluptuous Philosophy: Literary Materialism in the French Enlightenment. Fordham Univ Press, 2006.

Mellor, Anne. “Possessing Nature: The Female in Frankenstein.” In Romanticism and Feminism, 220–32. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988.

Mellor, Anne K. “Frankenstein, Racial Science, and the Yellow Peril.” Nineteenth Century Contexts 23, no. 1 (2001): 1–28.

———. Mary Shelley: Her Life, Her Fiction, Her Monsters. Routledge, 2012.

———. Reviewed Work(s): Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley: The Frankenstein Notebooks by Charles E. Robinson. Vol. 37. Studies in Romanticism, 1998.

Merchant, Carolyn. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. San Francisco: Harper’s & Row, 1983.

Moers, Ellen. “Female Gothic: The Monster’s Mother.” The New York Review of Books 21, no. 21 (1974): 24–28.

Moretti, Franco. Signs Taken for Wonders: On the Sociology of Literary Forms. Vol. 7. Verso, 2005.

———. The Bourgeois: Between History and Literature. Verso Books, 2013.

Mottelay, Paul Fleury. “Bibliographical History of Electricity and Magnetism, 320.” London, Charles Grif-Fin, 1922.

Moya, Paula ML. “Reclaiming Identity.” Reclaiming Identity: Realist Theory and the Predicament of Postmodernism, 2000, 1–26.

Murray, E.B. “Shelley’s Contribution to Mary’s Frankenstein.” Keats-Shelley Memorial Bulletin, no. 29 (1978): 50–68.

Myers, Mitzi. “Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin Shelley: The Female Author between Public and Private Spheres.” Mary Shelley in Her Times, 2003, 160–72.

Poovey, Mary. “My Hideous Progeny: Mary Shelley and the Feminization of Romanticism.” Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 1980, 332–47.

———. The Proper Lady and the Woman Writer: Ideology as Style in the Works of Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley, and Jane Austen. University of Chicago Press, 1985.

Poovey, Mary, and Samuel Rudin University Professor of the Humanities and Director of the Institute for the History of the Production of Knowledge Mary Poovey. Genres of the Credit Economy: Mediating Value in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Britain. University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Ray, Gerda. Albion’s Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth Century England. JSTOR, 1976.

Rieger, James. “Dr. Polidori and the Genesis of Frankenstein.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 3, no. 4 (1963): 461–72. https://doi.org/10.2307/449313.

Robinson, Charles. The Bodleian Shelley Manuscripts. Vol. X. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc, 1992.

———. The Frankenstein Notebooks: A Facsimile Edition (Part One). Vol. IX. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc, 1992.

———. The Frankenstein Notebooks: A Facsimile Edition (Part Two). Vol. IX. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc, 1992.

Roth, Nancy. “Artifact: Electroresuscitation and the Occult.” Medical Instrumentation 14, no. 2 (1980): 120–23.

Rubenstein, Marc A. “‘My Accursed Origin’: The Search for the Mother in ‘Frankenstein.’” Studies in Romanticism 15, no. 2 (1976): 165–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/25600007.

Rubin, Merle. “Shelley’s Skepticism: A Detachment Beyond Despair.” Philological Quarterly, 1980, 353–73.

Sampson, Fiona. In Search of Mary Shelley: The Girl Who Wrote Frankenstein. Profile Books, 2018.

Schiebinger, Londa. The Mind Has No Sex?: Women in the Origins of Modern Science. Harvard University Press, 1991.

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire. Columbia University Press, 1992.

Shelley, Mary, D. L. Macdonald, and Kathleen Scherf. “Frankenstein: The Original 1818 Text.” New York: Broadview Literary, 1999.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein: Annotated for Scientists, Engineers, and Creators of All Kinds. Mit Press, 2017.

———. Frankenstein: The 1818 Text. Edited by Charles Robinson. Penguin, 2018.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, and J. Paul Hunter. Frankenstein: The 1818 Text, Contexts, Nineteenth-Century Responses, Modern Criticism. W.W. Norton, 1996.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Percy Bysshe Shelley. Frankenstein, Or, The Modern Prometheus: The Original Two-Volume Novel of 1816-1817 from the Bodleian Library Manuscripts. University of Oxford: Bodleian Library, 2008.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Susan J. Wolfson. Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s Frankenstein, Or, The Modern Prometheus. Longman Pub Group, 2007.

Sherwin, Paul. “Frankenstein: Creation as Catastrophe.” PMLA 96, no. 5 (1981): 883–903.

Sokal, Alan. “A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies.” Lingua Franca 6, no. 4 (1996): 62–64.

Sokal, Alan D. “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.” Social Text, no. 46/47 (1996): 217–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/466856.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism.” Critical Inquiry 12, no. 1 (1985): 243–61.

———. “Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism.” Critical Inquiry 12, no. 1 (1985): 243–61.

Still, Judith. “Hospitable Harems? A European Woman and Oriental Spaces in the Enlightenment.” Paragraph 32, no. 1 (2009): 87–104.

Sullivan, Zohreh T. “Race, Gender, and Imperial Ideology: In the Nineteen Century.” Nineteenth Century Contexts 13, no. 1 (1989): 19–32.

Sunstein, Emily. “Mary Shelley: Romance and Reality.” Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1989.

Temkin, Oswei. “Basic Science, Medicine, and the Romantic Era.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 37, no. 2 (1963): 97–129.

Todd, Janet. Mary Wollstonecraft: A Revolutionary Life. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014.

———. Mary Wollstonecraft: An Annotated Bibliography. Vol. 39. Routledge, 2012.

Wall, Cynthia. “Editing Desire: Pope’s Correspondence with (and without) Lady Mary.” Philological Quarterly, 1992, 221–37.

Weinberg, Alan, ed. Percy Bysshe Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (Mainly in the Hand of MWS). Vol. XXII: Part Two. Garland Publishing, Inc, 1997.

———, ed. Percy Bysshe Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (Mainly in the Hand of MWS). Vol. XXII: Part One. Garland Publishing, Inc, 1997.

Williams, Carolyn. “‘Inhumanly Brought Back to Life and Misery’: Mary Wollstonecraft, Frankenstein, and the Royal Humane Society.” Women’s Writing 8, no. 2 (2001): 213–34.

Wolf, Leonard. “The Annotated Frankenstein.” New York: Clarkson N. Potter. Will W. Adams 89 (1977).

Wollstonecraft, Mary. Mary Wollstonecraft;Letters to Imlay,. New York, 1971. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.32106001961462.

Youngquist, Paul. “Frankenstein: The Mother, the Daughter, and the Monster.” Philological Quarterly, 1991, 339–59.

Zonana, Joyce. “‘They Will Prove the Truth of My Tale’: Safie’s Letters as the Feminist Core of Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein.’” The Journal of Narrative Technique 21, no. 2 (1991): 170–84. Mark Greif love.