Often I put the book down thinking that I’d had my world changed.Baldick’s no hero-worshipper.He notes the weaknesses in Shelley’s writing (and they are admittedly there), but he does so respectfully.The astonishing part of this study is the sheer breadth of the influence Baldick finds for Frankenstein.A word or phrase, a theme here or there, and yet he makes an excellent case that these can be traced back to their monstrous forebear.His section on Melville made me want to stand up and cheer.(I have to admit to being more of a hero-worshipper than the author.)This is literary criticism done right.It makes you want to read the books you haven’t.
Since the book deals with literature, it doesn’t really address how the creature morphed into something completely different in the twentieth century.I know I grew up thinking Frankenstein’s monster was part robot.I suppose it was the bolts in his neck, according to the Universal script, that convinced me.That, and his stiff-jointed lumbering about.Shelley’s story is, however, very much a human one.In many respects the monster is more humane than his creator.Various aspects of this tale, including that one, are taken up in other classics and turned over, examined, and reapplied.Suddenly quite a bit of what I’d read elsewhere made immediate sense.Interestingly, although I grew up not so much a fan of this particular monster, books on him have become among my favorites as an adult, if I am such.I think Baldick may have had his fingers on that revivified wrist when he wrote this book.It certainly did for me what literary criticism always should. At least for the classics.