Close Reading Post #2 — Frankenstein
Since the beginning of the book, I took notice of the many instances in which letters served an outstanding purpose throughout the story. These letters served to not only tell parts of the story itself, but to show the reader the innermost thoughts of the writers of these, allowing for us to better understand their emotions and role within the story. These letters, or texts, that we see overflowing throughout the story are an important aspect to the manner, or structure, in which the author chose to convey the tale of Frankenstein. These letters also help us to better understand the characters of the story. The letters are Mary Shelley’s hugest literary device, or technique, as the story of Frankenstein is told.
Language is huge, serving as the very foundation for these written texts, as language is the most direct tool for communication. This is because obviously, without language, letters and texts could not be written. Furthermore, language is a large part of the development of the monster and in the way it was able to communicate, as well. I feel that Shelley used the letters as a way of “telling a tale within a tale”, embedding large parts of Frankenstein within them.
The letters serve to parallel some of the most important concepts of the book, such as the dangers of having a thirst or obsession for knowledge and the consequences of it. I feel that Shelley’s choice of using letters has a unique and powerful impact on the way the story was structured and told.
You are so right that the circulation of letters throughout the story is immensely important. Indeed the story is itself a part of a long letter. I actually think that letters is such a huge point (given that it constitutes the frame of the narrative) that it might be a little to big to do a follow the trail on just the letters. I think you might have to narrow your scope by identifying something specific in the letters or about the letters (the address, or the salutations, or certain kinds of details, etc).
Right now you don’t really get into a close reading. You are kind of giving us an overview of a potential paper project in which later you would go and provide a textual analysis of the various letters in the text. It would be a great project; it’s just that I want to see you already in this post engaging the work of close reading/textual analysis.
I’m fascinated by some of the claims I think you’re making in the middle paragraph. I’m particularly interested in what you are getting at with the relationship between language, creating a monster, and the circulation of letters. To be honest, I’m not quite sure I follow your point as it is stated right now, but the connections are compelling, and I’d like to see you flush out the idea more. Similarly what are the stakes of her telling tales within tales. The whole tale is a tale within the letter tales, but yes we receive many more tales within that one tale. What do you make of this choice? What are the stakes? Particularly what are the stakes in relation to this theme of language and monstrosity that I think you’re hinting at?