Frankenstein Page 3
Comparison of Two Reviews of the Novel “Frankenstein”
[Your Name]
[Your University or class]
Shortly after the novel “Frankenstein” was published in 1818, two critiques were published of the novel. One critique appeared in The Quarterly Review and was written by an anonymous critic. The second critique was a review written by Sir Walter Scott for Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine.
The contrasts between these two reviews could hardly be greater. There are virtually no points of similarity between these critiques except that both begin by summarizing the ending of the novel being reviewed.
The first anonymous critique is scathing, finding virtually no merit in the novel. The critic’s tone throughout the review is sarcastic, condescending, and mocking. The critic claims that plot points of the novel are impossible and mocks them mercilessly. The critic sarcastically disparages the actions and final doom of Frankenstein’s monster. The tone and language of this review is bombastic, musing on the possibility of madness in the mind of the author. He also uses this review to attack the entire school of writing begun by Mr. Godwin of whom he believes the author to be a devotee. He seems to have a personal grudge against Mr. Godwin and the style of writing that he endorses.
This critic’s review attacked the entire style of the novel and ended by expressing the possibility that the author might be able to create writings of quality if the author changed to a completely different writing style, but then the critic declares that quality writing from this author would still be doubtful, even in a different style.
The critique by Sir Walter Scott is written in a much more temperate style. He finds much to admire in the novel and his review is very positive. He avoids the personal and emotional attacks of the anonymous critic of the other review. He particularly admires the fact that even though the novel is a tale of the wildest fiction, the author writes in plain English, avoiding excessive hyperbole and extravagant language. Scott also writes his review in clear and factual English. Scott provides more actual quotes from the novel and allows the selection from the novel to speak for itself. Scott admires and praises the author for the fantastical elements of the novel, in contrast to the anonymous critic who likens these fantastical elements to the ravings of a lunatic.
Overall, the critique by Sir Walter Scott is much more convincing, based on his professionalism and objective analysis, than the review of the anonymous critic who seems to be overly emotional and which makes the reader suspect that there may be a personal animus involved rather than an objective review.