What do you think?
Rate this book
In Search of Frankenstein: Exploring the Myths Behind Mary Shelley's Monster by Radu Florescu
Vintage paperback
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1975
2 people are currently reading
161 people want to read
About the author
Radu R. Florescu
38 books37 followersRadu Florescu was a Romanian academic who held the position of Emeritus Professor of History at Boston College. His work on Vlad Dracula includes a series of bestselling books that he co-authored with his colleague Raymond T. McNally. Along with serving as Director of the East European Research Center at Boston College, Florescu was also a philanthropist and an adviser to Edward Kennedy on Balkan and Eastern European affairs.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
November 2, 2016
It's hard to critique this book because I read it after reading research that wasn't around when Florescu wrote it.
Florescu agrues that Mary Shelley based her most famous creation on a real man who lived at Castle Frankestein for a bit. That part of the book is fine, and I am willing even to consider the unprovable fact likely.
Other parts of the book are not fine. Florescu implies (suggests) that Mary Shelley covered this up and was able to get her step-sister Claire to help her. He comes no where near proving this, and in fact, seems to forget that he even suggests it.
There are some problems with that charge of his. He believes his statement has backing because large parts of the ladies' journals are either missing, destoryed or edited during the time period of the book's creation. I've read Mary Shelley's journals and some of her letters. I have problems with this cover up story.
1. The missing journal entries of Mary cover a time when two things were happening the life of Shelley. She was either with child or losing a child at various points during the period. The second thing, as any reader of Shelley's journal can tell you, Percy and Claire Claremont (Mary's step-sister) seemed far too chummy. Constant passages during the time period refer to Mary having to stay in bed while Percy and Claire went off. After the death of her husband, Mary Shelley devoted her time to ensuring his good name and his literary after life. In many ways, it could be said that we owe knowledge of his work in part to her (and her daughter-in-law). Mary destoryed parts of her journal and letters that could be seen to bring discredit upon Shelley. The missing pages could be part of this. We simply don't know what was on them. They could've been shopping lists or games of knots and crosses.
2. Claire's missing pages could just easily be connected to protecting Shelley as covering up something else having to do with her step-sister. There was rumor that Claire had a child by Shelley.
3. Mary and Claire did not like each other, for a variety of reasons outside of Shelley.
Additionally, I do not understand how Florescu can state that Claire felt the loss of her daughter (Byron was the father) far more than Mary felt the loss of any of her children. How would he know? Doesn't he realize how condesending that sounds?
It is also intersting to note that when either Mary or Harriet (Shelley's first wife) could be unfaithful to the poet, Florescu uses the word affair. (Most critics agree that if Mary had an affair, then it was with Hogg. She does not seem to be the true follower of free love that her husband was). Not so when Shelley steps out, then it is fondness. At the very least, Florescu seems somewhat biased aganist Mary as if he finds her the least interesting of the famous group at the Villa.
I also found it annoying when he kept bringing up Dracula. Dude, it was a good two books, but you don't need to keep referencing the subject matter.
Florescu agrues that Mary Shelley based her most famous creation on a real man who lived at Castle Frankestein for a bit. That part of the book is fine, and I am willing even to consider the unprovable fact likely.
Other parts of the book are not fine. Florescu implies (suggests) that Mary Shelley covered this up and was able to get her step-sister Claire to help her. He comes no where near proving this, and in fact, seems to forget that he even suggests it.
There are some problems with that charge of his. He believes his statement has backing because large parts of the ladies' journals are either missing, destoryed or edited during the time period of the book's creation. I've read Mary Shelley's journals and some of her letters. I have problems with this cover up story.
1. The missing journal entries of Mary cover a time when two things were happening the life of Shelley. She was either with child or losing a child at various points during the period. The second thing, as any reader of Shelley's journal can tell you, Percy and Claire Claremont (Mary's step-sister) seemed far too chummy. Constant passages during the time period refer to Mary having to stay in bed while Percy and Claire went off. After the death of her husband, Mary Shelley devoted her time to ensuring his good name and his literary after life. In many ways, it could be said that we owe knowledge of his work in part to her (and her daughter-in-law). Mary destoryed parts of her journal and letters that could be seen to bring discredit upon Shelley. The missing pages could be part of this. We simply don't know what was on them. They could've been shopping lists or games of knots and crosses.
2. Claire's missing pages could just easily be connected to protecting Shelley as covering up something else having to do with her step-sister. There was rumor that Claire had a child by Shelley.
3. Mary and Claire did not like each other, for a variety of reasons outside of Shelley.
Additionally, I do not understand how Florescu can state that Claire felt the loss of her daughter (Byron was the father) far more than Mary felt the loss of any of her children. How would he know? Doesn't he realize how condesending that sounds?
It is also intersting to note that when either Mary or Harriet (Shelley's first wife) could be unfaithful to the poet, Florescu uses the word affair. (Most critics agree that if Mary had an affair, then it was with Hogg. She does not seem to be the true follower of free love that her husband was). Not so when Shelley steps out, then it is fondness. At the very least, Florescu seems somewhat biased aganist Mary as if he finds her the least interesting of the famous group at the Villa.
I also found it annoying when he kept bringing up Dracula. Dude, it was a good two books, but you don't need to keep referencing the subject matter.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 7, 2022
This was really fun.
Do I believe all of the theories present?
Not really, nor do I find it particularly enlightening either way. All authors have a tendency for using elements of their own lives to write their stories, and it doesn't take away their creativity at all.
That being said I absolutely LOVE the autobiographies in this and all of the exploration of long forgotten castles. It delivers a thrill to read the exploits of Mary all those years ago and the efforts to recreate the steps.
I will definitely read this one again.
Do I believe all of the theories present?
Not really, nor do I find it particularly enlightening either way. All authors have a tendency for using elements of their own lives to write their stories, and it doesn't take away their creativity at all.
That being said I absolutely LOVE the autobiographies in this and all of the exploration of long forgotten castles. It delivers a thrill to read the exploits of Mary all those years ago and the efforts to recreate the steps.
I will definitely read this one again.
October 22, 2023
I loved this read. Frankenstein is a classic that has been adapted over and over again for a reason - it's incredible. But the lore surrounding the creation of this story is also fascinating.
I knew some of the lore surrounding Mary Shelley and the fateful summer, but this book is a crash course in "how do writers come up with stories". Sure, it's a lot of speculation, but I feel Florescu approached it with sound analytical techniques.
Now, moving past the creation of the story you also get into the reception of the general public and how they now adapt it. I thought this part would bore more, but it was just as compelling as the history of the story. The public perception and, more relevant in modern times, the film adaptions of the story influence how we picture the story today. It recalls to mind the idea behind the Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco where every copy of something is never a true copy. The "copier" injects it with their own approach and morphs it into something only they will understand. This is later transfigured by the next copier, and the next, until the work may be unrecognizable in it's original form.
Nonetheless, I think the point here is that Frankenstein is Mary Shelleys own creation. Something we love to be terrified of but should be empathetic toward. And it's continuously molded by our own minds and experiences, whether in print or on screen.
I knew some of the lore surrounding Mary Shelley and the fateful summer, but this book is a crash course in "how do writers come up with stories". Sure, it's a lot of speculation, but I feel Florescu approached it with sound analytical techniques.
Now, moving past the creation of the story you also get into the reception of the general public and how they now adapt it. I thought this part would bore more, but it was just as compelling as the history of the story. The public perception and, more relevant in modern times, the film adaptions of the story influence how we picture the story today. It recalls to mind the idea behind the Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco where every copy of something is never a true copy. The "copier" injects it with their own approach and morphs it into something only they will understand. This is later transfigured by the next copier, and the next, until the work may be unrecognizable in it's original form.
Nonetheless, I think the point here is that Frankenstein is Mary Shelleys own creation. Something we love to be terrified of but should be empathetic toward. And it's continuously molded by our own minds and experiences, whether in print or on screen.
March 3, 2024
This is an interesting look at the history and influences behind Shelley's masterpiece novel including links with a real-life family Frankenstein complete with mountain castle and variable history (I now want to go on a great tour to include this and castle Dracula...). Florescu clearly knows the history and geography of middle and eastern Europe and shows the links between these and where it could have inspired Shelley as she wrote Frankenstein. Granted some of the links are purely speculation but they do make for interesting reading as do the subsequent chapters on getting Frankenstein published and the general reaction to it over the years, including the numerous plays, films, and TV adaptations (a term to be applied very loosely). While this may not provide the clearest path to Shelley writing the book that made her famous (eventually), I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and now feel a deep need to go back and re-read Frankenstein to see if I can spot the potential influences and enjoy it with a bit more appreciation for the many factors that went into it.
June 27, 2022
Florescu is extremely thorough in his exploration of the myths behind Shelley's masterpiece, at times perhaps too thorough to remain captivating. His dive into the story of Johann Konrad Dippel and his probable influence on Mary was particularly fascinating. I also loved Florescu's examination of the film adaptations. I could read a whole book about him critiquing the Frankenstein films (I was surprised he didn't touch 1977's Terror of Frankenstein however, which is the most accurate adaptation of the novel I've seen). I would have liked to hear Florescu's thoughts on the novel itself in a more thorough analysis of the plot too. A fantastic read for Frankenstein fans. I even learned a few new words!
May 3, 2024
A must for fans of the Shelley family ! Includes lots of ideas for further reading, and the movies are an added plus!
January 10, 2013
This book is by Radu Florescu, who co-authored the more successful (and still in print) "In Search of Dracula."
In Search of Frankenstein is an investigation of the historical roots of the iconic Frankenstein, a story that was - famously - born in Mary Shelley's nightmare.
Because of the veritable treasure trove of historical and cultural information available to be mined as possible fodder for Bram Stoker's creation, the Dracula book is more likely to be enjoyed by the fans of that novel, whereas, this book is much more likely to be enjoyed by fans of the author, Mary Shelley.
The most interesting elements of this quick read are the character studies of the literary band of travellers consisting of Lord Byron, Dr. John Polidori (author of 'The Vampyre: A Tale"), Percy Bysshe Shelley and Mary Shelley and Mary's stepsister Claire Clairmont. A major source for this aspect of the book is "History of a Six Week's Tour," written mostly by Mary Shelley. The 'History' also contains a poem by Percy Bysshe Shelley: Mont Blanc.
The reasons that this is the most interesting part are (1) The strong impression that Florescu gives that the story of how the novel, Frankenstein, came to be is as much myth-making as the novel itself, and (2) there just isn't that much solid or useful information on any historical foundation of the novel. Yes, there was an aristocratic German family named Frankenstein. Yes, there was a controvertial theologian, doctor and alchemist, named Johann Conrad Dippel, who was born at Castle Frankenstein. The bulk of connecting these things to the creation of the novel is based on the possiblity that the Shelleys MAY have heard about these things during their travels. This is not at all implausible, and of course, the name 'Frankenstein' must have come from somewhere, but that's pretty much the beginning and end of it. Florescu falls back again and again on the relationships between and among the members of the travelling party, as there's really not that much else to write about.
All in all, I enjoyed this book.
In Search of Frankenstein is an investigation of the historical roots of the iconic Frankenstein, a story that was - famously - born in Mary Shelley's nightmare.
Because of the veritable treasure trove of historical and cultural information available to be mined as possible fodder for Bram Stoker's creation, the Dracula book is more likely to be enjoyed by the fans of that novel, whereas, this book is much more likely to be enjoyed by fans of the author, Mary Shelley.
The most interesting elements of this quick read are the character studies of the literary band of travellers consisting of Lord Byron, Dr. John Polidori (author of 'The Vampyre: A Tale"), Percy Bysshe Shelley and Mary Shelley and Mary's stepsister Claire Clairmont. A major source for this aspect of the book is "History of a Six Week's Tour," written mostly by Mary Shelley. The 'History' also contains a poem by Percy Bysshe Shelley: Mont Blanc.
The reasons that this is the most interesting part are (1) The strong impression that Florescu gives that the story of how the novel, Frankenstein, came to be is as much myth-making as the novel itself, and (2) there just isn't that much solid or useful information on any historical foundation of the novel. Yes, there was an aristocratic German family named Frankenstein. Yes, there was a controvertial theologian, doctor and alchemist, named Johann Conrad Dippel, who was born at Castle Frankenstein. The bulk of connecting these things to the creation of the novel is based on the possiblity that the Shelleys MAY have heard about these things during their travels. This is not at all implausible, and of course, the name 'Frankenstein' must have come from somewhere, but that's pretty much the beginning and end of it. Florescu falls back again and again on the relationships between and among the members of the travelling party, as there's really not that much else to write about.
All in all, I enjoyed this book.
February 21, 2016
Much like his previous work, In Search of Dracula, the author works toward making the case that a real life figure was behind the famous fiction. Unlike that work, however, he doesn't quite succeed here. Though the story of the alchemist Conrad Dippel is a fascinating one, and the connection to a real Castle Frankenstein is well established, the author cannot commit more to the connection to the novel other than to say that it is "likely" that Mary Shelley had heard of him.
Toward the end of the book the author examines the possibilities of a real life artificial man and almost wanders away from the subject matter, but manages to come right back even if he does philosophize more than a little pessimistically. The appendix about Saint George and the Dragon barely seems to have a reason to be there.
These flaws I point out are small though. For the most part, this book is exactly what it ought to be: an exhaustive examination of Mary Shelley's novel, the various people and myths that influenced it, and its legacy in culture in the modern world.
Toward the end of the book the author examines the possibilities of a real life artificial man and almost wanders away from the subject matter, but manages to come right back even if he does philosophize more than a little pessimistically. The appendix about Saint George and the Dragon barely seems to have a reason to be there.
These flaws I point out are small though. For the most part, this book is exactly what it ought to be: an exhaustive examination of Mary Shelley's novel, the various people and myths that influenced it, and its legacy in culture in the modern world.
January 20, 2010
Totally, totally interesting. So interesting that I was determined to finish it and kept it out of the library for something close to 9 weeks (renewed twice). I'm interested in analysis of Frankenstein because of it's links to the origins of Science Fiction (this books has an interesting argument over whether or not it qualifies as science fiction). There's a ton of detail about the geography and life events that inspired Mary Shelley. Her life was very, very weird and I'm starting to think that's what it takes to write such lasting fiction. Maybe my life isn't weird or tragic enough to inspire me enough to write.
I gave it 3 stars because it was a little disjointed and I didn't feel like it answered the questions that it promised in the introduction.
I gave it 3 stars because it was a little disjointed and I didn't feel like it answered the questions that it promised in the introduction.
October 20, 2008
Give Radu his props, he went and dug up everything that could be found about Franky (unfortunately there just wasn't that much to find). Unlike his heartfelt familial connection to his ancestor Vlad Tepes Dracul that came through just fine in his 'In Search of Dracula' bestseller, Radu just did this one for the money. Still, it is the first serious book about Frankenstein mythos, the history of the story's creation, and the some of the cultural importance of the big guy. Like I said, give Radu his props. Yo to the Radu, dude.
December 29, 2011
A good introduction to the story of the writing of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley in 1816-18, including her possible influences (travel, science, literature, etc), the role of Percy Shelley in shaping the novel, and the way it has permeated print and film culture since its release. From the author of In Search of Dracula.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews