June 17, 2010 4:43 am

posted by C. Scanlon

This is a low level attempt to cash in on home schooling Christian paranoia and fear of health care. This turns a gothic horror story into a theological textbook condemning any fruit of the scientific method (explicitly mentioned) of the past (and next) two hundred years.

For a far more scholarly examination of the work of Mary Shelley (dismissed here as the product of a feminist mother and a poet husband) try the necessary The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley (Cambridge Companions to Literature). And although the hyperventilating advertising matter on the product page here dismisses it as a “popular textbook series” (calling themselves a “tradition-oriented alternative” as if OXFORD and NORTON are NOT the one and only tradition in upper education!) read the essential Frankenstein (Norton Critical Editions) for far more academic and peer-reviewed pieces about this still disturbing novel.

The only reason the Opus Dei right wing publishing (or reprint) house is selling this novel is to milk the home school market and to support its own bizarre bioethical ideology, which Mary Shelley nearly invented here: Science is bad and only produces monsters beyond our control; in vitro fertilization is to be banned and condemned as sin against God Almighty; stem cell reserach and the rest are abominations which cannot be permitted to go on; contraception is a sin and AIDS the fruit of sin.

FOr good solid Roman Catholic moral theology on bioethics, please turn to the good solid accepted Roman Catholic moral theologians in Health and Medicine in the Catholic Tradition: Tradition in Transition (Health/Medicine and the Faith Traditions) as well as Theology and bioethics.: An article from: The Hastings Center Report or To Treat or Not to Treat: The Ethical Methodology of Richard A. McCormick S.J., As Applied to Treatment Decisions for Handicapped Newborns, etc. The Reverend Father Richard McCormick, SJ, is the renowned leader of Roman CAtholic Moral Theology in the field of bioethics in the USA. Those bombasts speaking here outside their field of expertise but eager for tenure and publication by the bizarrely ideological Ignatius Press are merely associate professors of English literature, not theologians.

Despite the lengthy daitribe condemning Oxford, etc., as non-traditionalist (!) given as an “Editorial Review” upon this product page, very little information is forthcoming about this unfortunate and redundant publication in itself. We see it is edited by a certain Joe Pearce, writer in residence at Ave Maria College in Naples, Florida. We wonder has the original text been edited, and which version is presented, the original or the much altered later edition. And even though there is no way of knowing from the product page, Joe has assembled an odd batch of essays to accompany the text, which do not represent the promised “traditional readings of the Classics of world literature” but a radical re-reading of the text from a tightly constrained and unique ideology. For truly “tradition-oriented criticism of these great works” read the Norton and the Cambridge (here most wrongfully accused of having “succumbed to the fads of modernism and post-modernism”);

here from Ignatius you find unsupportable, unacademic and unreviewed right wing political rant, which is why its authors and titles are here concealed. We do not find “traditional moral readings of the works” as advertised, but radically untraditional perspectives trying to inculcate in our youth a certain political position. Yet we are promised a traditional reading, unlike the alleged “feminist, or deconstructionist readings that often proliferate in other series of ‘critical editions’” of which the old faithful Norton and Oxford have been specifically named. Notice the quotation marks pointedly placed around ‘critical editions’ as if Norton and Oxford are the frauds rather than Ignatius itself.

Yet Ignatius claims to “represent a genuine extension of consumer-choice, enabling educators, students and lovers of good literature to buy editions of classic literary works without having to ‘buy into’ the ideologies of secular fundamentalism.” SECULAR FUNDAMENTALISM!! Oh, so that is what Oxford and Norton have been up to all of these yeares of literary criticism!! Whereas Ignatius claims innocence of any form of ideological fundamentalism! Bless those traditional minded English literature professors who save us from such brainwashing!

Please notice the works published in this series are public domain, as are most of the works published by Ignatius. But to claim the title of Critical Edition they tack on a few tedious and ideologically correct essays. So who are these essayists superior to Norton’s and Oxfords and free of deconstructivist feminist secular fundamentalism, experts so august Ignatius should want them mentioned on their product page yet are nowhere to be seen? Here is a listing:

Jo Bath, science historian at England’s Open University (some sort of on-line thing?) writing about The Spark of Life: The Science Behind Frankenstein, a title quite similar to some of her sources, e.g., It’s Alive! The Science Behind Frankenstein’s Art. Her scientific view is full of laden descriptive adjectives such as gruesome and dissing the French, but of this more later.

Philip Nielsen, an architectural grad student at Notre Dame who has a degree in English and contributes: Frankenstein as Mythic Tragedy: The Horror Story of the Culture of Death (originally published in sometihng called the Saint Austin Review or StAR, v. 6, n.2, 2006). He fails to define what is the Culture of Death; presumably it goes hand in paw with deconstructivist Secular Fundamentalism, but more on this later. He turns to CS Lewis and John Paul II to define myth rather than Jung or Joseph Campbell. He apparently finds it tragic Victor does not marry his creation as in Pygmalion, but fails to pursue Mrs. Shelley’s own indication of the Promethean myth.

Thomas Stanford II, associate professor of English literature at something called Christendom College in Virginia, editor of Faith and Reason, who adds: Will the Real Monster Please Stand up? Creator and Creature in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. On page 248 of this volume he notes “a challenge to God’s supremacy” and a “seeking to go beyond the bonds that define and circumscribe material creation.” Is not God’s creation infinite? What then not only bonds but also defines, and also circumscribes? Perhaps we find a clue in this earlier statement from page 254 on the “destructive nature of actions uninformed by knowledge of moral principles.” May we note this as well in our occupation of Iraq? Or are we bound and circumscribed merely to specific applications in the field of bioethics?

Finally from the Southern Catholic College in Dawsonville, Georgia who writes on page 274 of his “You have read . . .” that “Frankenstein has become the dominant metaphor for our cultural weariness in the realm of techonology and bioethics.” If so only because we refuse to study our dominant Roman Catholic moral theologians who write so eloquently on God and bioethics, such as Catholic Moral Theology in the United States: A History (Moral Traditions).

Briefly, Jo on page 225 calls the “details of the experiments gruesome indeed” and this from our scientific and medical expert in the book. She hypothesizes on page 227 that good old Benjamin Franklin is the actual inspiration for Victor Frankenstein(!): “Franklin lived i a house with more than ten illegally anatomized corpses buried under it. It has been suggested that the name of Frankestein draws upon that of Franklin.” Is this what they call tradition minded criticism??!! ANd as scientific expert in the house, she contributes Pastor Joseph Priestley’s “conclusion that it is very dear for philosophical discoveries to purchase them at the expense of humanity.” So much for stem cell research and a cure for Alzheimer’s!

Nielsen provides a radical new reading of Shelley as “pro-life” prophet clarifying “fundamental truths and first principles.” Dude, it’s a horror novel, okay? Take a breath already! This architectural grad student proposes “an incarnational reading that deals with fundamental questions of the relationship between man and the divine ( . . .) an issue at the heart of Frankenstein.” He raises a horror novel to the level of bioethical theological guide, easily dismissing such encumbrances as “form and historical fact” by calling it myth. Thus we have Reagan’s invented anecdotes (myths) about Cadillac welfare queens dictating and permitting cruel public policies.

As Nielsen warns of unspecified “fundamental perversions that are the foundation of a culture of death” we wonder where is the tradition-minded textual criticism. Please note Nielsen’s hubris in this: “Aristotle’s answer in his Poetics would undoubtedly be hubris and if this answer is not entirely correct it at least provides a starting point.” Get this: He poses himself a question, he inserts a nearly irrelevant answer from Aristotle, just to drop a name, and then blames Aristotle for not giving a complete answer?? This is the hubris of the architectural grad student! He then goes through misapplying the Scholastics in order to condemn any scientific reserach as evil, and finds this horror in Frankenstein: “The second horror of Frankenstein is that of a man creating without a woman, the horror of reproduction without spiritual cooperation . . .” Well, there goes in vitro fertilization . . .

He calls Pygmalion okay as a creator, because he is an artist and begs the aid of Venus and has wonder; Victor is a mere technician. He thereby easily and explicitly condemns the whole process and philosophy of the scientific method, inclduing apparently that needed by grad students to get their dissertations done. He finds therefore the third horror of Frankenstein the ugliness of the creation. It ain’t purty. He concludes on page 242 that Frankenstein is ultimately “the tragedy of the man who cannot see others as persons, but only as objects.” and opines “If Frankenstein haaad ever given his creation any consideration as a person he could have in all likelihood averted the suffering.” Earlier he wrote of “his crude materialism that in turn produces his failure either to consider the soul of his creation or to plan for his betterment (page 241).”

With this taste of the essays, we may now determine whether the editor has successfuly achieved the stated claim this old public domain work which he says is “one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted. It has been vivisected critically by latter-day Victor Frankensteins who have transformed the meanings emergent from the novel into monsters of post-modern misconception. Meanwhile Franken-feminists have turned the novel into a monster of misanthropy. Seldom has a work of fiction suffered so scandalously from the slings and arrows of outrageous criticism. This critical edition, containing tradition-oriented essays by literary scholars, refutes the errors and serves as an antidote to the poison that has contaminated the critical understanding of this classic gothic novel.”

I don’t think so, and gratefully turn now to my authoritative Norton Critical Edition of King Lear!
Rating: 1 / 5

June 17, 2010 9:51 am

posted by Saman Mehdi

i ordered my item jan 5, and didn’t get it until feb.2 slowest turnaround ive experienced yet.

it even says that it may take up to 21 days. it was well over 21 days.
Rating: 1 / 5

June 17, 2010 11:54 am

posted by Anonymous

UMMM CAN WE SAY “SUCKY” ? SORRY, BUT THIS BOOK DID NOT ENTERTAIN ME AT ALL, I THOUGHT IT WAS NOT EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD CALL “HORROR” WICH IS WHAT I WAS EXPECTING.. I THOUGHT IT WAS SAD AND PATHETIC
Rating: 1 / 5