Peter,

My thoughts on the gendering of the 'monster' have been guided by what have
seemed to be the likely purposes Shelley 'mingled' with the original the original
two. Among such are an experiment (or exercise) in human perfectibility by means
of mystery. Crabb Robinson's letter to his brother, in which religion is identified
(by Clemens Brentano) as philosophy taught through mystery, examination
of the mysteries which begin the Hebrew Bible and end the Greek Bible, along
with examination of Roman religious propaganda, suggest the Son of Man is
the first of the 'new species'  or the 'many happy and excellent natures'. So my
answer is that the male 'monster' (and with any mystery aimed at the question
of human perfectibility, isn't it reasonable to begin with a monster?) is so
because that is the way it is in the first mystery, the Hebrew Eden. I have to admit
that the strength of my conviction here is derived to an extent I would prefer it not
be from the astonishing way the clock mechanism works. My e-mail address
reflects this profound effect. Shelley's clock shows an economy rare and so
Roman. When butchering the pig, nothing is wasted, not even the squeal.
Yet, this view does not in anyway I can see preclude the autobiographical
element you suggest. Indeed, the views compliment one another. What do
you think of the Slip before the Fall mystery? It seems to me very appropriate
for any consideration of Wollstonecraft's Vindication.

My interest in New Lanark does not surpass my interest in seeing the edits
of Percy you mention. Charles Robinson several years ago spoke on NPR's
Book Club of the Air (see advertisement hail Mary site) of his editing the
original. I have been disappointed at not finding it available, though I have not checked
its availability lately. Of course, I am particularly interested in Mary's authorship
of those most interesting 'errors'. Her 1831 introduction strongly encourages
my continued conviction that the design ('machinery of the story') is hers.
My friend, Valerie of Sussex, has many suggestions as to things to see so that  I
am certain that a visit inadequately prepared for would cause regrets.

I am delighted that I will soon be able to read your essay at 'desert-fairy'.
As you have no doubt determined, my site represents a view out of the ways
in which Frankenstein is usually approached, though they be various. Yet, it
is not that I am opposed to those views, but rather that I see no reason to
exclude one so marvelously masterful. I don't see mine and those of others as
mutually exclusive.

Peter, your observations regarding how the novel is fitted into the succession
of scenes of our evolving cultures are important. It seems to me that more
myth about the myth is produced, revealing much about our fears etc. This
is useful as a parallel to the myth which, to a lesser extent in your country than
in mine, also has significant secondary myth development. The mistake Plutarch
warns of in Isis and Osiris is the very one Shelley provides so much help in
exposing, exploring, and avoiding in our future life. If you have the time and
inclination, I would be honored to post anything you would care to offer.
 

Tom