This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Frankenstein article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Frankenstein. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Frankenstein at the Reference desk.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Frankenstein was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 14, 2006 Good article nominee Listed June 13, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 11, 2004, January 1, 2006, January 1, 2007, January 1, 2009, January 1, 2015, March 11, 2017, and January 1, 2021.
Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Novels: 19th century Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by 19th century task force (assessed as Top-importance). Veganism and Vegetarianism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Fiction Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Horror Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

We need to divide up the reading list. Some of these books I have already read, so I just moved those to my list. Laser, why don't you choose first and then I'll read the rest.

Awadewit:

• Behrendt, Stephen C., ed. Approaches to Teaching Shelley's Frankenstein. New York: MLA, 1990. ISBN 087352540X.
• Bennett, Betty T. Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley: An Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. ISBN 080185976X.
• Clery, E. J. Women's Gothic: From Clara Reeve to Mary Shelley. Plymouth: Northcote House, 2000. ISBN 0746308728.
• Ellis, Kate Ferguson. The Contested Castle: Gothic Novels and the Subversion of Domestic Ideology. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1989. ISBN 0252060482.
• Forry, Steven Earl. Hideous Progenies: Dramatizations of "Frankenstein" from Mary Shelley to the Present. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990.
• Gilbert, Sandra M. and Susan Gubar. The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. 1979. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. ISBN 0300025963.
• Hoeveler, Diane Long. Gothic Feminism: The Professionalization of Gender from Charlotte Smith to the Brontës. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998. ISBN 0271018097.
• Knoepflmacher, U. C. and George Levine, eds. The Endurance of "Frankenstein": Essays on Mary Shelley's Novel. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. ISBN 0520046404.
• Macdonald, D.L. and Kathleen Scherf. "Introduction". Frankenstein. 2nd ed. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1999. ISBN 1551113082.
• Mellor, Anne K. Mary Shelley: Her Life, Her Fiction, Her Monsters. New York: Methuen, 1988. ISBN 0416017614.
• Moers, Ellen. Literary Women.
• Poovey, Mary. The Proper Lady and the Woman Writer: Ideology as Style in the Works of Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley, and Jane Austen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. ISBN 0226675289.
• Rieger, James. "Dr. Polidori and the Genesis of Frankenstein". Studies in English Literature 3.4 (1963): 461-472.
• Rubinstein, Marc A. ""My Accursed Origin": The Search for the Mother in Frankenstein". Studies in Romanticism 15.2 (1976): 165-94.
• Schor, Esther, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ISBN 0521007704.
• Seymour, Miranda. Mary Shelley. New York: Grove Press, 2000. ISBN 0802139485.
• Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.
• Skal, David. The Monster Show: A Cultural history of horror. Faber and Faber, 2001. ISBN 0571199968.
• Smith, Johanna M., ed. Frankenstein. Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 1992.
• Spark, Muriel. Mary Shelley. London: Cardinal, 1987. ISBN 9780747403180.
• St Clair, William. "The Impact of Frankenstein". Eds. Bennett, Betty T. and Stuart Curran. Mary Shelley in Her Times. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. ISBN 0801863341.
• Sunstein, Emily W. Mary Shelley: Romance and Reality. 1989. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991. ISBN 0801842182.
• Vasbinder, S. H. Scientific Attitudes in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: Newtonian Monism as a Basis for the Novel. Kent State University Press, 1976.
• Williams, Anne. The Art of Darkness: A Poetics of Gothic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. ISBN 0226899071.

Laser brain:

• Aldiss, Brian W. "On the Origin of Species: Mary Shelley". Speculations on Speculation: Theories of Science Fiction. Eds. James Gunn and Matthew Candelaria. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 2005.
• Baldick, Chris. In Frankenstein's Shadow: Myth, Monstrosity, and Nineteenth-Century Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
• Bann, Stephen, ed. "Frankenstein": Creation and Monstrosity. London: Reaktion, 1994.
• Bohls, Elizabeth A. "Standards of Taste, Discourses of 'Race', and the Aesthetic Education of a Monster: Critique of Empire in Frankenstein". Eighteenth-Century Life 18.3 (1994): 23–36.
• Botting, Fred. Making Monstrous: "Frankenstein", Criticism, Theory. New York: St. Martin's, 1991.
• Butler, Marilyn. "Introduction". Frankenstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. ISBN 0192833669.
• Donawerth, Jane. Frankenstein's Daughters: Women Writing Science Fiction. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1997.
• Dunn, Richard J. "Narrative Distance in Frankenstein". Studies in the Novel 6.4 (1974): 408–17.
• Freedman, Carl. "Hail Mary: On the Author of Frankenstein and the Origins of Science Fiction". Science Fiction Studies 29.2 (2002): 253–64.
• Gigante, Denise. "Facing the Ugly: The Case of Frankenstein". ELH 67.2 (2000): 565–87.
• Heffernan, James A. W. "Looking at the Monster: Frankenstein and Film". Critical Inquiry 24.1 (1997): 133–58.
• Hindle, Maurice. "Vital Matters: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Romantic Science". Critical Survey 2.1 (1990) 29-35.
• Hodges, Devon. "Frankenstein and the Feminine Subversion of the Novel". Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature 2.2 (1983): 155–64.
• Holmes, Richard. Shelley: The Pursuit. 1974. London: Harper Perennial, 2003. ISBN 0007204582.
• Kiely, Robert. The Romantic Novel in England. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972. ISBN 0674779355.
• Levine, George. The Realistic Imagination: English Fiction from Frankenstein to Lady Chatterly. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. ISBN 0226475514.
• Lew, Joseph W. "The Deceptive Other: Mary Shelley's Critique of Orientalism in Frankenstein". Studies in Romanticism 30.2 (1991): 255–83.
• London, Bette. "Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, and the Spectacle of Masculinity". PMLA 108.2 (1993): 256–67.
• Marshall, Tim. Murdering to dissect: grave-robbing, Frankenstein and the anatomy literature. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995. ISBN 0719045436.
• Miles, Robert. Gothic Writing 1750–1820: A Genealogy. London: Routledge, 1993.
• O'Flinn, Paul. "Production and Reproduction: The Case of Frankenstein". Literature and History 9.2 (1983): 194–213.
• Moers, Ellen. "Female Gothic: Monsters, Goblins, Freaks". New York Review of Books 21 (4 April ?).
• Rauch, Alan. "The Monstrous Body of Knowledge in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein". Studies in Romanticism 34.2 (1995): 227–53.
• Stableford, Brian. "Frankenstein and the Origins of Science Fiction". Anticipations: Essays on Early Science Fiction and Its Precursors. Ed. David Seed. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1995.
• Tropp, Martin. Mary Shelley's Monster. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976.

Notes

Talk:Frankenstein/Notes

An article which may be of interest to editors of this page—Frankenstein's Promethean dimension —has been proposed for merging with Victor Frankenstein. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. —Alalch E. 23:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC) —Alalch E. 23:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an incredible stroke of happenstance that it was published New Year's Day -- that, probably not having the same significance, the same holiday recognition as today -- or was that just slapped on there because the actual date has been lost to history, with only a 0.27% chance of being correct? Why not 2 June which is the exact middle of the year, thus, the same chance, but the least furthest wrong randomly selected date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.51.124.4 (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was published on the first of January not on the second of June. If there wasn't a source for a specific date, it wouldn't have been given. Umimmak (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]