No Subject

[Unregistered]

You teach English?! I noticed a few basic grammatical mistakes in your piece that a five year old would understand. "She may of intended it to be allegorical" "She may OF"???? You might want to try "She may HAVE"<br><br>A couple of basic spelling mistakes in there too. <br><br>"I would just like to finish of by saying..." "Finish OF"??? <br>"...Raymond is trying to find out who is one first base..." "Who is ONE first base"?<br><br>Sort it out, Jack, before you get fired!!!

[M & M]

No offense Jack, but arguing is not absurd. I am a high school senior reading Frankenstein for the first time in my AP Literature class. Of course I loved it and have my own opinions on the novel. However, debating what Shelley meant in her novel is the only true way to become more fully educated on her ideas. Why not have an opinion and argue it than straddle the debate fence. It is in my opinion, and that of my peers as well, that if you have an opinion and you can support your ideas then by all means let the rest of the world know. Those who have interpretations and are willing to share them are far more useful to society than the college professor who shuns students from it.

[Unregistered]

I find it hard to believe that you have been teaching Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" for years when you misspell her name. I do believe that she wrote this book for discussion, it seems to be meant as a commentary on the times and her feelings on the topic. Im no college professor, im a high school senior, but thats what i got out of this book.

[Unregistered]

My, what is this country coming to when a "college professor" asserts his literary competency with such inaccuracies of grammar as "may of?" Or when the self-same "professor" uses such a pitiable argument to settle another. That the former comment of this "credible" source has any actual credibility is highly doubtful. In all my years (though few they may be) I've never had the misfortune to read such an adolescent view of literary disputes. Indeed, Mary Shelley wrote a story. Humpty-Dumpty sat on a wall. Am I free to contest his mental stability for being of such a fragile nature and sitting atop a high structure? Or, to satiate the afore-mentioned "source," shall I watch idly while the King's horses and men clumsily put him together again? Admittedly, I've not read the argument that sparked this chain of events, and honestly, I've no desire to do so. I certainly hope that when the time comes for me to embark upon my adventure of high learning that I stray far from the likes of "professors" of shaky natures. Unless of course they happen to be foreign, in which case I rescind my caustic remarks.<br>(I must sincerely apologize for my wanton use of quotation marks, but I do deem them necessary)

[Jack]

After reading all of these "reviews" or perhaps "opinions" I decided I would add my own. I teach Frankenstein and other allegorical stories at a university (I will not state which one), and have done so for over twenty years (I am simply stating my credentials so that I am credible). Frankenstein is open to many interpretations. Mary Shelly wrote a story. She may of intended it to be allegorical (that is my opinion). Maybe she didn't. Perhaps there is nothing behind it. Only she knows what her real intentions were. So the idea of arguing over what she really meant is absurd. And I see that between two people. Maybe both of you are wrong or right. Allegorical stories are open for interpretation. That is the idea. So you can argue for years and never accomplish anything. It actually reminds me of the movie Rain Man when Raymond is trying to find out who is one first base (or whatever base it is).<br> Now to get back on track I would just like to finish of by saying enjoy the book for what you (you being who reads it) think of it.