1​ ​Martin-Meza

Carlos​ ​Martin-Meza

Ms.Winslow

AP​ ​English​ ​Language​ ​and​ ​Composition

30​ ​October​ ​2017

Frankenstein​ ​Comparison​ ​of​ ​Critics

When​ ​Mary​ ​Shelley's​ ​Frankenstein​ ​first​ ​published​ ​in​ ​1818,​ ​her​ ​writing​ ​style​ ​first​ ​came​ ​as

a​ ​shock​ ​to​ ​everyone​ ​so​ ​when​ ​the​ ​new​ ​writing​ ​style​ ​was​ ​presented​ ​it​ ​caused​ ​many​ ​different

emotions​ ​to​ ​come​ ​out​ ​of​ ​different​ ​people,​ ​some​ ​positive​ ​others​ ​not​ ​so​ ​much.​ ​These​ ​emotions​ ​can

range​ ​from​ ​both​ ​sides​ ​of​ ​the​ ​spectrum​ ​ranging​ ​from​ ​disgust​ ​to​ ​delight.​ ​These​ ​two​ ​opposing

feelings​ ​can​ ​be​ ​represented​ ​by​ ​two​ ​critics​ ​one​ ​being,​ ​the​ ​anonymous​ ​author​ ​from​ ​The​ ​Quarterly

Review,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​other​ ​being​ ​(Sir)​ ​Walter​ ​Scott​ ​from​ ​Blackwood's​ ​Edinburgh​ ​Magazine.​ ​The​ ​two

critics​ ​use​ ​language,​ ​diction,​ ​and​ ​style​ ​elements​ ​differently​ ​to​ ​convey​ ​their​ ​point​ ​of​ ​view​ ​on​ ​the

writing​ ​Frankenstein​ ​in​ ​a​ ​positive​ ​and​ ​or​ ​negative​ ​manner.

In​ ​this​ ​case,​ ​the​ ​two​ ​critics​ ​views​ ​are​ ​complete​ ​polar,​ ​the​ ​anonymous​ ​author​ ​thinks​ ​that

Frankenstein​ ​should​ ​not​ ​even​ ​be​ ​read​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​fact​ ​that​ ​the​ ​contradicting​ ​feelings​ ​it​ ​presents

leave​ ​the​ ​reader​ ​in​ ​doubt​ ​of​ ​what​ ​to​ ​come​ ​next.​ ​You​ ​can​ ​also​ ​presume​ ​that​ ​he​ ​did​ ​not​ ​enjoy​ ​the

writing​ ​because​ ​he​ ​states​ ​in​ ​(line​ ​32)​ ​“our​ ​taste​ ​and​ ​our​ ​judgment​ ​alike​ ​revolt​ ​at​ ​this​ ​kind​ ​of

writing.”​ ​ ​Conversely,​ ​Scott​ ​enjoyed​ ​it​ ​and​ ​thinks​ ​that​ ​Shelly​ ​(Line​ ​34)​ ​“discloses​ ​uncommon

powers​ ​of​ ​poetic​ ​imagination”​ ​which​ ​he​ ​thinks​ ​makes​ ​her​ ​writing​ ​interesting.​ ​They​ ​both​ ​use

loaded​ ​words​ ​in​ ​these​ ​statements​ ​to​ ​convey​ ​their​ ​strong​ ​view​ ​on​ ​Shelley's​ ​work,​ ​for​ ​example.

The​ ​anonymous​ ​author​ ​used​ ​the​ ​word​ ​“revolt”​ ​to​ ​exemplify​ ​his​ ​negative​ ​connotation​ ​towards​ ​her
 2​ ​Martin-Meza

writing.​ ​Similarly,​ ​Scott​ ​uses​ ​loaded​ ​words​ ​like​ ​“uncommon”​ ​to​ ​express​ ​how​ ​astonished​ ​he​ ​was

while​ ​he​ ​reading​ ​her​ ​work.

Another​ ​difference​ ​in​ ​the​ ​way​ ​the​ ​two​ ​critics​ ​use​ ​language​ ​to​ ​convey​ ​their​ ​point​ ​of​ ​view

is​ ​the​ ​type​ ​of​ ​writing​ ​they​ ​use,​ ​whether​ ​it​ ​be​ ​formal​ ​or​ ​vernacular​ ​writing.​ ​The​ ​anonymous​ ​critic

uses​ ​more​ ​vernacular​ ​writing​ ​when​ ​presenting​ ​his​ ​opinions​ ​on​ ​Shelley's​ ​work​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​fact​ ​that

when​ ​he​ ​criticises​ ​her​ ​work​ ​he​ ​just​ ​generalizes​ ​his​ ​hatred​ ​instead​ ​of​ ​explaining​ ​it​ ​and​ ​addressing

the​ ​topic.​ ​Conversely,​ ​Scott​ ​uses​ ​more​ ​of​ ​a​ ​sophisticated​ ​style​ ​of​ ​writing​ ​to​ ​convey​ ​his​ ​opinion,

he​ ​differs​ ​from​ ​the​ ​other​ ​because​ ​he​ ​reviews​ ​her​ ​choices​ ​in​ ​literary​ ​conventions​ ​and​ ​does​ ​not​ ​just

state​ ​his​ ​feelings​ ​towards​ ​the​ ​piece.

The​ ​summaries​ ​the​ ​critics​ ​present​ ​on​ ​Frankenstein​ ​are​ ​also​ ​completely​ ​different​ ​from

each​ ​other​ ​and​ ​are​ ​made​ ​so​ ​they​ ​convey​ ​their​ ​opinion​ ​differently.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​summary​ ​written​ ​by​ ​the

anonymous​ ​critic,​ ​he​ ​presents​ ​the​ ​summary​ ​in​ ​a​ ​biased​ ​view​ ​by​ ​narrowing​ ​down​ ​the​ ​negatives

and​ ​cutting​ ​the​ ​summary​ ​short​ ​causing​ ​it​ ​to​ ​be​ ​bland​ ​and​ ​boring.​ ​He​ ​then​ ​transfers​ ​into​ ​a​ ​post

comment​ ​where​ ​he​ ​starts​ ​to​ ​bash​ ​the​ ​writing​ ​instead​ ​of​ ​analyzing​ ​it.​ ​On​ ​the​ ​other​ ​hand,​ ​Scott

includes​ ​a​ ​longer​ ​more​ ​descriptive​ ​summary​ ​and​ ​fills​ ​it​ ​with​ ​more​ ​exciting​ ​content​ ​to​ ​present

both​ ​sides​ ​of​ ​the​ ​argument​ ​and​ ​then​ ​states​ ​his​ ​joyous​ ​opinion​ ​on​ ​her​ ​writing​ ​style​ ​and​ ​her​ ​uses​ ​of

literary​ ​devices.

The​ ​main​ ​contrasting​ ​elements​ ​between​ ​the​ ​two​ ​reviews​ ​is​ ​their​ ​use​ ​of​ ​language,​ ​in​ ​the

writing,​ ​it​ ​can​ ​be​ ​clearly​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​the​ ​post-summary​ ​comments​ ​and​ ​the​ ​ending​ ​paragraphs.​ ​In​ ​the

post​ ​summary,​ ​the​ ​anonymous​ ​critic​ ​uses​ ​strong​ ​negative​ ​phrases​ ​like​ ​“Horrible​ ​and​ ​disgusting

absurdity”​ ​to​ ​present​ ​his​ ​displeasure​ ​with​ ​Shelley's​ ​work.​ ​However,​ ​when​ ​Scott​ ​presents​ ​his

post-summary​ ​comments​ ​he​ ​uses​ ​positive​ ​phrases​ ​like​ ​“Extraordinary​ ​tale”​ ​to​ ​present​ ​his
 3​ ​Martin-Meza

positive​ ​connotation​ ​towards​ ​Shelly's​ ​work,​ ​he​ ​also​ ​uses​ ​contradicting​ ​terms​ ​like​ ​“​ ​exiting​ ​terror”

to​ ​exemplify​ ​his​ ​feelings​ ​towards​ ​her​ ​work.​ ​Around​ ​the​ ​ending​ ​of​ ​their​ ​reviews,​ ​they​ ​both​ ​use

negative​ ​and​ ​or​ ​positive​ ​loaded​ ​words​ ​depending​ ​on​ ​what​ ​they​ ​are​ ​trying​ ​to​ ​convey​ ​and​ ​declare

about​ ​their​ ​opinion​ ​on​ ​the​ ​writing​ ​style​ ​by​ ​Shelly.​ ​The​ ​difference​ ​that​ ​could​ ​also​ ​be​ ​found​ ​is​ ​in

the​ ​audience​ ​that​ ​they​ ​reach​ ​with​ ​the​ ​type​ ​of​ ​diction​ ​that​ ​they​ ​use​ ​for​ ​example.​ ​The​ ​anonymous

critic​ ​reaches​ ​out​ ​to​ ​the​ ​more​ ​cosmopolitan​ ​sector​ ​whereas​ ​Scott​ ​sound​ ​like​ ​he​ ​reaches​ ​the​ ​more

educated​ ​section​ ​of​ ​society.

Even​ ​though​ ​the​ ​two​ ​pieces​ ​have​ ​many​ ​differences​ ​they​ ​have​ ​likewise​ ​many​ ​similarities

in​ ​the​ ​sense​ ​that​ ​they​ ​both​ ​use​ ​allusions​ ​to​ ​further​ ​convey​ ​their​ ​ideas.​ ​For​ ​example,​ ​the

anonymous​ ​critic​ ​uses​ ​the​ ​allusion​ ​of​ ​“​Bedlam​”​ ​to​ ​convey​ ​his​ ​opinion​ ​on​ ​the​ ​author,

Correspondingly​ ​Scott​ ​uses​ ​the​ ​allusion​ ​of​ ​“​Macbeth​”​ ​to​ ​further​ ​exemplify​ ​his​ ​ideas.​ ​They​ ​both

are​ ​alike​ ​because​ ​they​ ​both​ ​used​ ​well-known​ ​allusions​ ​that​ ​correspond​ ​with​ ​their​ ​time​ ​so​ ​their

idea​ ​is​ ​easier​ ​to​ ​convey.​ ​They​ ​also​ ​compare​ ​because​ ​they​ ​both​ ​look​ ​at​ ​the​ ​author's​ ​literary

devices​ ​and​ ​explain​ ​what​ ​impression​ ​it​ ​left​ ​on​ ​them​ ​whether​ ​it​ ​be​ ​positive​ ​or​ ​negative.

​ ​The​ ​two​ ​reviews​ ​written​ ​by,​ ​the​ ​anonymous​ ​author​ ​of​ ​The​ ​Quarterly​ ​Review,​ ​and​ ​(Sir)

Walter​ ​Scott​ ​from​ ​Blackwood's​ ​Edinburgh​ ​Magazine​ ​had​ ​differing​ ​views,​ ​the​ ​anonymous​ ​author

being​ ​the​ ​one​ ​on​ ​the​ ​negative​ ​viewpoint​ ​while​ ​Scott​ ​views​ ​it​ ​from​ ​a​ ​positive​ ​perspective.​ ​Even

though​ ​both​ ​critics​ ​had​ ​completely​ ​opposing​ ​views​ ​over​ ​Shellys​ ​Frankenstein​ ​they​ ​both​ ​used

language,​ ​diction,​ ​and​ ​literary​ ​devices​ ​to​ ​convey​ ​their​ ​idea​ ​to​ ​a​ ​whole​ ​new​ ​level.