But the terrible conditions in the Alps failed to deter Britain’s leading romantic poet from heading to Switzerland on summer holiday.
Percy Bysshe Shelley was a precocious young man, filled with great talent, self-confidence and terrible political opinions. Of all dead celebrities, Shelley would probably be the most popular — and annoying — on social media. He once suggested an alliance of “enlightened, unprejudiced members” to resist “the coalition of the enemies of liberty” (🔁 963 ❤ 2.2K ) and declared of his fellow radicals that “You are many, they are few” (🔁 10K ❤ 21K ).
Like many political idealists, Shelley was an awful human being, especially to his first wife, and at this point had run off with the 18-year-old Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin, a talent in her own right, hardly surprising when she was the daughter of Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin, two great left-wing political philosophers of their day.
Sailing along the Rhine during their elopement, Shelley and Godwin had both been inspired by the “monstrous, inhuman appearance of several of the huge German labourers on board”, as Richard Holmes put it, as well as the schlosses they drifted by, one of which was a Castle Frankenstein. That summer their journey to stay at Lord Byron’s rented villa in Switzerland was marked by difficult weather, and impassible roads. Then, upon reaching their destination, they couldn’t row on Lake Geneva because of the rain and wind.
Byron, increasingly gloomy with the weather, was writing a rather downbeat poem at the time, called “Darkness”:
“All earth was but one thought—and that was death,
Immediate and inglorious; and the pang
Of famine fed upon all entrails—men
Died, and their bones were tombless as their flesh;
The meagre by the meagre were devoured.”
And they were going to be stuck with him for weeks.
The freakishly cold weather forced the group, along with Byron’s doctor John William Polidori, indoors where they sat around a fire night after night and began to read German ghost stories. Then Byron suggested they each write one themselves.
Godwin agonised over her subject. The group had previously discussed the ideas of galvanism and Erasmus Darwin’s speculation on the generation of life. There was great excitement, and anxiety, at the time at the deeper questions of life and death, in particular the Vitalism debate, and the question of how life starts. Scientists such as Luigi Galvani in Italy and Franz Anton in France had experimented on animating dead animals with electricity.
Mary Godwin was fascinated by all this and its uncomfortable potential. When she was 14 her father had taken her to see the brilliant scientists Humphry Davy give a lecture on chemistry. Davy spoke of future experiments in which man would “interrogate Nature with Power… as a master, active, with his own instruments.”
A few days after the competition began she had what she described as a “waking dream” in the middle of the night in which “I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half vital motion. Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world.”
Godwin began to write her story.
All the men dashed theirs off relatively quickly. Godwin, though, took 14 months. Three weeks before the birth of her daughter, in August 1817, the now-married Mary Shelley handed in the manuscript – Frankenstein. And when the book came out, almost nobody noticed. It sold just 500 copies, and most people thought it had been written by a man – most likely Shelley’s husband or father.
What a waste of her lockdown — or so she thought.
Among the other stories written in this competition, The Vampyre would have a huge cultural impact on the birth of horror. It was written by neither of the famous poets but by Dr Polidari — and yet when it was published, the magazine incorrectly attributed it to Byron. Eventually Frankenstein, too, would have a huge influence on culture, in this case in the realm of science fiction.
Although the book initially failed to have an impact, over the course of the 1820s, Mary Shelley’s creation grew more and more famous, pushed by often scandalous stage adaptations. One censorious newspaper begged its readers: “DO not take your wives, do not take your daughters, do not take your families!!! – The novel itself is of a decidedly immoral tendency” and called it “PREGNANT with mischief.” Obviously exactly the sort of publicity that will guarantee seats.
Shelley’s lockdown story would become one of the most influential novels in history, encapsulating mankind’s Promethean dilemma, our fears of boundless control over nature (not coincidentally, the novel used weather as a mood-setter). The plays, however, took huge liberties with the story, which came to have more of an influence on our idea of Frankenstein due to subsequent film adaptations. Frankenstein went from being an obsessive but idealistic figure, representative of the radical optimism of the age, into the prototype mad scientist muttering “the fools, the fools” in his lab while thunder and lightning raged outside. Likewise the Monster, an articulate and thoughtful figure in the novel who ruminates on man’s great inhumanity, became a sort of mindless Munster character with bolts on the side of his head.
Two hundred years later, this story in all its incarnations still exercises a powerful grip on the popular imagination, still informs our fears about “playing God” in areas such as genetics and bioscience, and even our concerns about the things we do to nature in the wake of the coronavirus.
The explosion of 1815, and the lost year it caused, brought about all sorts of unintended consequences; just as our lost year will, too. How we live, how we work, how we treat our sick and old. Almost certainly, the huge focus on medical technology necessitated by Covid-19 will have beneficial knock-off on effects.
Millions of lives have been altered in ways we had no control over because of powers beyond on control, and pushed us to explore, and to think, and to write. And out there somewhere is the man or woman who has written the next Frankenstein.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeBertrand Russell wrote an essay about Romanticsism (which he disliked) including this on Franenstein’s monster:
Frankenstein’s creation was just the sort of monster who would do a wonderful interview with Oprah Winfrey.
The only contemporary Frankenstein is the CCP, as the late Richard Nixon so poignantly mentioned shortly before his death.
I’m glad it wasn’t shortly after his death. That would have been worthy of the novel.
I wonder, if social media or the terrible Winfrey show had been around, would we have got Frankenstein or just endless Tweets complaining about Shelley’s ex and complaints that Shelley’s parents were disrespecting her truth. I like to think that the answer is yes but I’m not expecting any great works from ‘Ginge and Whinge’ as someone else called them.
Great piece. It’s funny how everyone seems to love the monster-movie mutation or this atmospheric origin story more than the actual novel itself. The book is next on my list, and I’m curious to see for myself if the disappointment is just or not.
Another interesting article in the ‘Lost Years’ series. In this case, however, the article would benefit from a good copy editor to remove the many typos. And, mirabile dictu, it has nothing to do with Meghan and Harry!
The author concludes with, “And out there somewhere is the man or woman who has written the next Frankenstein.” I wonder if that’s true. So far, I’ve seen very little fiction (novel length or short fiction) that deals with the pandemic. Is it too soon? Is it all too painful to write about? I’m not sure that the 1918 flu epidemic produced much fiction. I suspect people might want to put the latest covid episode well and truly behind them.
The worst typo is “Percy Bushey Shelley”.
I think by the time I came to it, a copy editor had seen J Bryant’s comment, and set to work. I noticed no particular typos, and that you mention has certainly been corrected.
The 2011 film Contagion has pretty much covered it. It is so similar to what has happened, it’s remarkable.
How was there a lockdown though? It was just cold for a year because of the effects of a big volcanic eruption and the daft sods decided that a freezing cold summer would be a good time to visit Switzerland. Lockdown is lockdown because it’s a government enforced law.
Didn’t we have an article two days ago about a volcanic explosion that changed the world?
Yeh there’s a reference to it here, paragraph 5
Any writer worth their salt is working away on what could be the next great book but keeping quite about it. So it could take a while for something of worth to emerge.
I always thought it was “The bells, Igor! The bells!”
Certainly influential though. Frankenstein has the same plot as Blade Runner.
that would have been Victor Hugo rather than Mary Godwin 😉
Indeed, Frankenstein has been endlessly influential on modern Science Fiction and/or Horror. The Replicants of Blade Runner as you rightly say, probably being the most eloquent of the recent variations; “I want more life motherf***er!” Then there’s poor, misunderstood HAL from Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Skynet from The Terminator.
If you want a more cerebral take on the “computer takes over the World” type story watch the little known, and criminally underrated, 70’s film, Colossus: The Forbin Project. In fact if I didn’t know better I’d say Colossus must be the source of the AI driven nightmares of both Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk!
The historial parts of this article were very interesting. The links to our contemporary situation were ridiculous. With all the ‘lockdowns’ referred to, people had freedom of movement and the right to decide how they managed the situation they were in. They found a way to cope or they died. They had no expectation of government support to keep them sitting at home. We, however, are under house arrest and waiting with baited breath to be told when we will be allowed to sit on a park bench. Lockdowns are not a normal, rational or proportionate response to this or any crisis. In terms of outcomes from this, I am expecting some great social history and hope Dominic Sandbrook has been marshalling his information to write about the decline of the West’s capacity to think of risk rationally or maybe it will be about the progressive death of the age of enlightenment. Y2K was an expensive mistake but it has been knocked into a cocked hat by the ‘lockdown is the only way’ response. I am also starting to wonder if we are looking at the seeds of revolution. We have a weak government which has ceded all control to some irresponsible scientists and the secretary for covid. We have a massive and growing debt. We have a population with a large sense of entitlement who is used to being looked after. I am guessing we will be facing an unemployment crisis come the Autumn. What happens when interest rates go up and inflation takes off? I wonder if the passive acceptance of lockdowns is going to suddenly explode into revolutionary anger or we will continue just doing what we are told. If the former, it could be interesting andfrightening. If the latter, then I do not see any room for a great work of creative imagination.
Covidentein