This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Frankenstein was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
We need to divide up the reading list. Some of these books I have already read, so I just moved those to my list. Laser, why don't you choose first and then I'll read the rest.
Behrendt, Stephen C., ed. Approaches to Teaching Shelley's Frankenstein. New York: MLA, 1990. ISBN087352540X.
Bennett, Betty T. Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley: An Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. ISBN080185976X.
Clery, E. J. Women's Gothic: From Clara Reeve to Mary Shelley. Plymouth: Northcote House, 2000. ISBN0746308728.
Ellis, Kate Ferguson. The Contested Castle: Gothic Novels and the Subversion of Domestic Ideology. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1989. ISBN0252060482.
Forry, Steven Earl. Hideous Progenies: Dramatizations of "Frankenstein" from Mary Shelley to the Present. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990.
Hoeveler, Diane Long. Gothic Feminism: The Professionalization of Gender from Charlotte Smith to the Brontës. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998. ISBN0271018097.
Knoepflmacher, U. C. and George Levine, eds. The Endurance of "Frankenstein": Essays on Mary Shelley's Novel. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. ISBN0520046404.
Poovey, Mary.The Proper Lady and the Woman Writer: Ideology as Style in the Works of Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley, and Jane Austen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. ISBN0226675289.
Rieger, James. "Dr. Polidori and the Genesis of Frankenstein". Studies in English Literature 3.4 (1963): 461-472.
Rubinstein, Marc A. ""My Accursed Origin": The Search for the Mother in Frankenstein". Studies in Romanticism 15.2 (1976): 165-94.
Schor, Esther, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ISBN0521007704.
St Clair, William. "The Impact of Frankenstein". Eds. Bennett, Betty T. and Stuart Curran. Mary Shelley in Her Times. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. ISBN0801863341.
Aldiss, Brian W. "On the Origin of Species: Mary Shelley". Speculations on Speculation: Theories of Science Fiction. Eds. James Gunn and Matthew Candelaria. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 2005.
Baldick, Chris. In Frankenstein's Shadow: Myth, Monstrosity, and Nineteenth-Century Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Bann, Stephen, ed. "Frankenstein": Creation and Monstrosity. London: Reaktion, 1994.
Bohls, Elizabeth A. "Standards of Taste, Discourses of 'Race', and the Aesthetic Education of a Monster: Critique of Empire in Frankenstein". Eighteenth-Century Life 18.3 (1994): 23–36.
Botting, Fred. Making Monstrous: "Frankenstein", Criticism, Theory. New York: St. Martin's, 1991.
Butler, Marilyn. "Introduction". Frankenstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. ISBN0192833669.
Donawerth, Jane. Frankenstein's Daughters: Women Writing Science Fiction. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1997.
Dunn, Richard J. "Narrative Distance in Frankenstein". Studies in the Novel 6.4 (1974): 408–17.
Freedman, Carl. "Hail Mary: On the Author of Frankenstein and the Origins of Science Fiction". Science Fiction Studies 29.2 (2002): 253–64.
Gigante, Denise. "Facing the Ugly: The Case of Frankenstein". ELH 67.2 (2000): 565–87.
Heffernan, James A. W. "Looking at the Monster: Frankenstein and Film". Critical Inquiry 24.1 (1997): 133–58.
Hindle, Maurice. "Vital Matters: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Romantic Science". Critical Survey 2.1 (1990) 29-35.
Hodges, Devon. "Frankenstein and the Feminine Subversion of the Novel". Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature 2.2 (1983): 155–64.
Kiely, Robert. The Romantic Novel in England. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972. ISBN0674779355.
Levine, George. The Realistic Imagination: English Fiction from Frankenstein to Lady Chatterly. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. ISBN0226475514.
Lew, Joseph W. "The Deceptive Other: Mary Shelley's Critique of Orientalism in Frankenstein". Studies in Romanticism 30.2 (1991): 255–83.
London, Bette. "Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, and the Spectacle of Masculinity". PMLA 108.2 (1993): 256–67.
Marshall, Tim. Murdering to dissect: grave-robbing, Frankenstein and the anatomy literature. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995. ISBN0719045436.
Miles, Robert. Gothic Writing 1750–1820: A Genealogy. London: Routledge, 1993.
O'Flinn, Paul. "Production and Reproduction: The Case of Frankenstein". Literature and History 9.2 (1983): 194–213.
Moers, Ellen. "Female Gothic: Monsters, Goblins, Freaks". New York Review of Books 21 (4 April ?).
Rauch, Alan. "The Monstrous Body of Knowledge in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein". Studies in Romanticism 34.2 (1995): 227–53.
Stableford, Brian. "Frankenstein and the Origins of Science Fiction". Anticipations: Essays on Early Science Fiction and Its Precursors. Ed. David Seed. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1995.
Tropp, Martin. Mary Shelley's Monster. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976.
Is it an incredible stroke of happenstance that it was published New Year's Day -- that, probably not having the same significance, the same holiday recognition as today -- or was that just slapped on there because the actual date has been lost to history, with only a 0.27% chance of being correct? Why not 2 June which is the exact middle of the year, thus, the same chance, but the least furthest wrong randomly selected date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.51.124.4 (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was published on the first of January not on the second of June. If there wasn't a source for a specific date, it wouldn't have been given. Umimmak (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]