August 30, 1997
Mary Shelley's Bicentennial Cake & and
Little Martin Moore
A reader expressed the view that "that everything that
happens is the result of subconscious,
contracts, between people and between people and things".
&
"Frankenstein is not reflective of the enlightenment,
but the end of it, because it is a dialogue
of contracts - every type of contract that can be considered.
business contracts, marriage, property,
judicial, etc., but ultimately it is about the contract
between creator and created, but also about, the
contract between created and creator."
&
"For Victor did not just make a life, he made a chain
reaction of events that would return and
envelope him etc.Ý The contract that he broke was the
responsibility that the creator owes created,
but also the responsibility that created [Victor] owes
his own creator."
This makes me wonder about implied contracts between Mary
Shelley and her Creator and between
Mary Shelley and her reader. She says in the preface
that she has the primary purpose of avoiding
the "enervating effects of present day novels".
Does this suggest an end of a contract she is committed
to upholding? Does it perhaps also suggest the
view of the reader stated above regarding what it is
that Frankenstein is reflective of? Does Mary
Shelley's use of language about her novel in 1818 and
1831 suggest that she is aware that the number of people
who find the contractural connection within
the novel will be few?
And what do you think? Is the dialogue of contracts suggested
by the parable of the ship's master?
The Parable of the ship's master is told in Walton's second letter to
his sister, dated March 28, 17__
Some years ago he loved a young Russian lady, of
moderate
fortune; and having amassed a considerable sum
in prize-money,
the father of the girl consented to the match.
He saw his mistress
once before the destined ceremony; but she was
bathed in tears,
and throwing herself at his feet, entreated him
to spare her,
confessing at the same time that she loved another,
but that he was
poor, and that her father would never consent to
the union. My
generous friend reassured the suppliant, and on
being informed of
the name of her lover instantly abandoned his pursuit.
He had
already bought a farm with his money, on which
he had designed
to pass the remainder of his life; but he bestowed
the whole on his
rival, together with the remains of his prize-money
to purchase stock,
and then himself solicited the young womanís father
to consent to her
marriage with her lover. But the old man decidedly
refused, thinking
himself bound in honour to my friend; who, when
he found the father
inexorable, quitted his country, nor returned until
he heard that his
former mistress was married according to her inclinations.
Isn't there a conflict of contracts or what are thought
to be contracts in the parable?
Does the happy solution and the rather odd means of achieving
it suggest that the
novel itself might do somethings other novels don't?
Martin, in particular among us, is interested in your
thoughts along the lines of the
dialogue of contracts view expressed by hailmaryshelley's
visitor. email: hailmaryshelley(symbol for at)yahoo.com