---

In “The Theory of the “Formal Method” Eichenbaum advocates a factual scientific approach to literature. To the Formalists, theory acts as a working hypothesis to discover facts and test their validity in a trial-error method, similar to the empirical nature of science. Formalists tend to neglect the socio-aesthetic aspects of literary work and or only concerned with the literariness of a text. Ignoring the content of a work, they study techniques, artistic form, and the phenomena of language. These they treat as independent from content and meaning. For instance, formalists consider that poetic devices such as rhyme, meter, and alliteration do not only enforce the theme of a poem, but have their own autonomous, self-determining, and genuine meaning. Form, in the same sense, does not merely function as a frame or container for content, but also functions as a dynamic entity. Therefore, formalists focus on the historical sense and significance of form. Eichenbaum’s study is very influential as it fore-grounds the Formalist theory by tracing its evolution and influences.
Applying the Formalist approach to Frankenstein, we cannot deny the function of the form in enforcing the meaning of the story; however the question is if it can stand on its own regardless of the content. The narration structure is very complicated as it passes from Walton to Victor to the Creature- whose story is a segment of Victor’s story which is framed by Walton’s overall narration. There are also much smaller stories, the story of Justine that is narrated by Elizabeth in a letter to Victor, as well as the story of the cottagers that the Creature narrates. We must not also neglect that the novel is epistolary- taking the form of letters that Walton writes to his sister Mrs. Saville. The function of Walton’s narration I believe is an attempt from Mary Shelley to distance herself from the story, so that no one thinks that there are any personal connections or similarities between her and Victor if the story was only told from his viewpoint-so as not to be mistaken with the writer’s viewpoint. Walton’s perspective helps us see Victor and the Creature from an objective perspective that offers some kind of sympathy to them both. Walton’s narration also serves as a dual plot device that allows for gaps in Frankenstein’s story, such as that of the actual and detailed biological creation of the beast, by asking Frankenstein the questions we as readers might have in mind, whereas Frankenstein dismisses these details for their horror and for fear that another monster may be created. The other function is filling the gaps that Frankenstein cannot, like the descriptions of his charisma that makes Walton want to befriend him, thus making him more humane and appealing to us. I noticed in most movie adaptations of Frankestein Walton’s narration is omitted, which I think makes Frankestien a static character- rather than a full dimensional one, who is the basis of the stereotype of the mad scientist. Breifly discussing the form of Frankestein, I believe that it is plausible to study only the form of this novel, a whole book can be written about the form alone, but still I am skeptic about separating it from content as I believe they go hand in hand. After all, what is a frame without a picture?

Wimsatt and Beardsley in “Intentional Fallacy” and “Affective Fallacy” share a formalist view of literature by undermining the role of the author as well as that of the reader in reading a literary work. They claim that an author’s intention is not important and that his or her work is no longer in their realm them as it becomes a public utterance. Wimsatt and Beardsley also believe that the focus of a literary work should be internal evidence rather than external. Therefore, the author’s biography tends to lead away from the work, thus impairing our understanding. I strongly disagree with this claim as I believe that the author’s intent rather augments our understanding of his or her work. For instance, I remember a long time ago reading a surrealist poem by Hugh Davies, which I couldn’t grasp until I read about the Surrealist movement and their methods in writing poetry that uses language in unconventional ways.
Wimsatt and Beardsley also dismiss judging a work based on its emotional impact on the reader, and between what a work is and what it does. I get the impression that, like jurors in a courthouse, we are not to allow our feelings impair our judgment. Yet that is not the case, and many literary classics survive the passing of time because of their emotional appeal and their implications in life. The Greek tragedies aimed to move their viewers into catharsis- a purgation of feeling- by stirring in them the deepest emotions that still has the same effect on modern readers.
Mary Shelley also appealed to her readers emotions: she declares in her introduction “what terrified me will terrify others” (172). Yet her intent was not what made Frankestein a success , it was the effect it had on the genteel Victorian sensibilities. Although the appeal to affections is not a basic pillar of literary works, yet it is what leads readers to appreciate a certain work.
It seems to me that Stanley Fish would go up against Wimsatt and Beardsley’s affective fallacy, yet he is similar to them in disregarding the role of the author. Fish’s “Interpreting the Variorum” is a reaction against the formalist notion of an autonomous self-contained text. He supports a subjective reading of a text rather than an objective one. He argues that meaning exists, not in the text, but rather in the reader and the interpretive community. The interpretive community encourages a collective reading of a text in which knowledge for the individual is socially conditioned. According to Fish everything a person knows is determined by the social context he lives in. The author of a work is also socially conditioned his time, belonging to a world different than the reader. Therefore, a reader’s interpretation of a work clashes with the intent of the author, who must be taken out of the interaction.
For example, a reading of Frankenstein in today’s culture would not have the impact it had at the time it was written. I doubt that it will strike fear and woe in the readers of today, where the idea of vampires, zombies, werewolves, and other supernatural creatures have infiltrated culture. Add to that the fact that Frankenstein’s monster has been the object of parody, comedy, and satire. To tell the truth, whenever I think of the creature, the popular image of a green –skinned monster with green skin (although he really has yellow skin) and two bolts on the sides of his forehead is what comes to my mind. I wonder if anyone else is fixated on that image.