Critical Reading Two
It is incredibly intriguing that Mary Shelly would open her book Frankenstein with letters written from Walton to his sister. Even more so that the opening line of the first letter is trying to relive Walton’s sister nerves. Walton writes, “You will rejoice to hear that no disaster has accompanied the commencement of an enterprise which you have regarded with such evil forebodings” (Shelly, Letter 1). By reassuring his sister Walton presents the idea that he is on a dangerous task to the reader. He again reinstates this in the ending lines of the first letter writing “If I fail, you will see me again soon, or never” (Shelly Letter 1). This last line however not only permeates a feeling of dread but also, brings up a contradiction. The statement that if he fails at his voyage that she may see him again or may never see him again puts Walton in an almost liminal state between being alive or dead. At least in the eyes of his sister and anyone else who might be reading the letter. In fact he plays on this saying that even if he succeeds it could be months “perhaps years” until they could ever meet again (Shelly Letter 1). That makes years where he, in the eyes of his sister, is both a live and dead and not alive and dead at the same time. Every time she receives a letter from him its almost a little game of Schrodinger’s cat. Before she opens the letter there is a possibility he is alive and is writing her about his adventures or is dead and someone else is writing to inform her of the tragedy. This liminal state of uncertainty is the perfect way for Shelly to start her novel about a monster that in itself is in an uncertain area not sure of what he is.
Side note I’m using the Project Gutenberg version of the book because its online and cheap, but there are no page numbers so that’s why my citations are weird. I’m currently looking for a version with page numbers now.
Poised somewhere between an archaeological dig and a follow the trail, I think you are raising a very intriguing point up about Shelley’s choice to begin (and frame) the novel within a series of letters. I am impressed by your idea that starting the novel in this way places the letter writer in a state of liminality. I think it would have been nice if you had gone deeper in articulating the stakes. Yes you say opening this way is fitting for the uncertainty of the monster later on. But you could push your reading further if Walton is the narrator of the story (the whole story comes to us by way of these letters) then we might say the story is itself a liminal one (told to us by a liminal figure) and in potential transit across waters.
You frame the game of reading the letter as one of not knowing whether the letter will contain Walton’s own descriptions and thus proof of his life or whether it will be the work of another announcing his death. There is also the possibility that it will be Walton’s letter, in his own hand, but that by the time she receives the letter, Walton might in fact have died. This third idea seems important to thinking about what the relation of the letter to the writer’s life says about ideas of liminality and a stable personhood.
You’ve put forth a rather large theoretical claim, and I think your attention to the aspect of the letters and his descriptions is fairly focused. I think you could do more in articulating the parameters of what you’re looking at in the narrative. Does every time Walton express excitement or fear about his trip speak to the liminal for you?
Also I’d like to see you push your self to articulate stakes or a so what … beyond just that it’s fitting. Do we need the story to be in an indeterminate state? Does it discipline the readers to accept certain ideas later on?