Neither the author nor the publisher have given me any remuneration for this review. About Making the Monster The year 1818 saw the publication of one of the most influential science-fiction stories of all time. The years before the book's publication saw huge advances in our understanding of the natural sciences, in areas such as electricity and physiology, for example. Andrew Ure done immediately after the hanging of convicted murderer, Matthew Clydesdale. Making the Monster explores the science behind Shelley's book. So, back to Mary Shelley, when I received a message about Making the Monster I was completely intrigued.
The lion's share of this bo This book is bookended by the life of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. She gave a brief history of surgical methods up to the early 1800s and considered how the various body parts might have been sewn together. And I am so angry about all the ways her novel has been twi 4. This book was a monster. The title is a little misleading as it goes quite a bit in-depth into Shelley's life, as well at a look starting from the Enlightenment era to the beginnings of alchemy and chemistry. However, the idea you may have in your head of an hysterical, obsessive scientist with evil ambitions is very different from the character Mary Shelley created in 1816. Inspired by the rational ideals of the Enlightenment and recent advances in electricity research, Mary writes the short story that she will later develop into the novel we know and love.
The book does explore Shelley's life including her family, education and what might have inspired her writing. However, an electrical spark is the most likely explanation. The lion's share of this book uses Victor Frankenstein as a backdrop to discuss the science of the time. So I was relieved that this book is very much about how Mary Shelley herself knew what she did, and how she might have accessed knowledge of galvanism and resurrectionists and all of those other things that are so vital to the development of this story of the modern Prometheus. Frankly, the descriptions in this part were gory and gross. Making the Monster explores the science behind Shelley's book.
His punishment was to be hanged and then his dead body would be handed over to Aldini for his electrical experiments. So as usual, I'll tell things I liked and didn't like, relating to the stars I gave: +1 The science. The last time I took that long to read a book, I read Roots which took me a month and was back when I was in high school. I don't adore Frankenstein - I've only read it once - but I really enjoyed this historical context. The Shelleys were visiting Lord Byron and his friend Dr.
I was hoping for more Frankenstein and science rather than a complete biography of Shelley and Byron. Harkup is able to show that while clearly a work of science fiction, even in today's world where new medical advances are continuously being made, Shelley's Frankenstein utilizes many of the early 19th century's experimental science to bring to life a monster character that permeates pop culture in ways that are a far leap from the pages of the original novel. The modern ideas around Frankenstein have been polluted by the early screen versions — a mistake repeated through to contemporary adaptations. Rain was falling on the shore of Lake Geneva as, on an evening in mid-June, five young people gathered in a swanky villa for a ghost-story competition. Harkup also outlines the scientific and medical practicalities of the day, many of which have persisted over the years, to explain how the plot of Frankenstein often falls down scientifically.
In short, I love Frankenstein. The century before Frankenstein was written had seen tremendous advances in the understanding of. I found this a much more approachable work than the annotated Frankenstein - in fact the perfect title would probably have been a combination of the two, with annotation based on Kathryn Harkup's words plus the text of the original. It is this revised version that most readers of the novel are familiar with today. Anatomy professors and surgeons passed on their knowledge and skills to eager medical students. Although his resuscitation attempts failed he might have succeeded in inspiring one of the most famous scenes of science fiction.
Some modern scholars dispute this account. Serious men of science had investigated the possibility. It is a curious hybrid, being part biography, part popular science and part literary analysis. The E-mail message field is required. I found this to be a very interesting read and thought that Harkup did a great job at making this interestin When I saw another book by Harkup I immediately requested it, as A is for Arsenic made it to my top reads of 2016.
I also found the book to occasionally drift toward repetitiveness, but this was mainly due to the structure of the chapters and the need to discuss the same scientist or biologist in various areas throughout the book. Is there any science fact behind the science fiction? In the course of these experiments, Dr. All in all, an absolutely amazing book about an amazing group of people in an amazing time, which came together to create the first science fiction novel. The years before the book's publication saw huge advances in our understanding of the natural sciences, in areas such as electricity and physiology, for example. I think I glossed over a lot of it, which is unfortunate because I was generally curious about it. Frankenstein: The First Two Hundred Years. The book starts with a biography of Mary G.
The author also compared the books the original and the 1831 revised version and the books to the various play and movie adaptations of the story. Overall, this book was interesting but more gory in the details than I cared for. The name Frankenstein has become shorthand for both mad scientists running amok and their monstrous creations which also tend to run amok! I found this to be a very interesting read and thought that Harkup did a great job at making this interesting and easily understandable. The name Frankenstein has become part of our everyday language, often used in derogatory terms to describe scientists who have ove. It is unlikely that Frankenstein would have been successful in his attempts to create life back in 1818. I wish I'd had this book when I was studying the Gothic novel at uni. There were attempts to transplant organs into animals and humans and to transfuse blood.