When Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was first introduced in 1818, many people had contrasting views on the fictional tale. These conflicting perspectives are presented in a piece from The Quarterly Review and Sir Walter Scott’s review in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine. In the Quarterly Review, the writer characterized Frankenstein as a story of absurdity, stupidity, and craziness in order to portray the author with a sense of insanity. In contrast, Sir Walter Scott describes the fantasy with marvel and beauty to portray the author with a sense of appreciation.
The difference between the piece from The Quarterly Review and Sir Walter Scott’s review not only lies in each authors opposing feelings about the story but also in each authors ability to support and prove their reasonings behind their beliefs. In The Quarterly Review, the author fails to build …show more content…
The author opens up the article with a summary of a scene from the novel and later makes a remark expressing his feelings about the writing. In passage 1, the writer states, “Our readers will guess from this summary, what a tissue of horrible and disgusting absurdity this work presents”. The writer does not refer to content within Frankenstein in order to prove why the story is so absurd. The writer simply states his opinion without providing support behind his feelings. In Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, Sir Walter Scott does give reasoning behind his beliefs by appealing to ethics and building credibility. In the article, Scott quotes textual evidence from Frankenstein in order to verify his interpretation of the story. In Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, Scott quotes Frankenstein in order to further express his non-terrorizing qualities. In passage 2 Scott quotes Frankenstein,