‘Plainly stitched together’
Frankenstein, neo-Victorian fiction, and the palimpsestuous literary past
in Adapting Frankenstein
Abstract only
Log-in for full text

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

manchesterhive requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals - to see content that you/your institution should have access to, please log in through your library system or with your personal username and password.

If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/extracts and download selected front and end matter. 

Institutions can purchase access to individual titles; please contact manchesterhive@manchester.ac.uk for pricing options.

ACCESS TOKENS

If you have an access token for this content, you can redeem this via the link below:

Redeem token

Examining two pieces of revisionary historiographic metafiction, Peter Ackroyd’s The Casebook of Victor Frankenstein and Paul Di Filippo’s ‘Hottentots’, this essay suggests that the special relationship existing between neo-Victorian fiction and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein owes a great deal to the manner in which adaptation functions in both. Neo-Victorian fiction, which places nineteenth-century characters and tropes within retrofuturistic settings, relies on the principle of the palimpsest. In a palimpsestuous multiple texts remain visible within the primary text, which re-visions earlier pieces of literature in much the same way that adaptations of Shelley’s novel do. Di Filippo’s and Ackroyd’s texts – both of which allude to, appropriate, or adapt Shelley’s Frankenstein – demonstrate how the ‘hideous progeny’ of Mary Shelley’s imagination becomes an embodiment of the palimpsestuous narrative production central to both neo-Victorian fiction and adaptation.

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 196 59 2
Full Text Views 43 9 0
PDF Downloads 17 6 1