As a psychology professor and author of a series of books examining various psychological elements at play in some of the most recognized pop culture mainstays in the science fiction genre, Sherri Ginn seems more who is qualified to offer an in-depth analysis of both the scientific facts and science fiction found in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein narrative. This insight is showcased almost completely in her essay "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: Science, Science Fiction, or Autobiography?" In the end, however, the essay does not keep its promise of satisfying the suggestive thesis contained in the title. Ginn's thesis is that all the trappings of scientific reality and fiction found in Frankenstein serve to mask or distract the reader from interpreting the text within an autobiographical framework. Unfortunately, Sherri Ginn's enticing title fails to fully deliver on its provocative promise by retreating from total commitment to the belief that the novel can be read autobiographically. As an essayist, Ginn steadfastly refuses to make the most obvious connection connecting Mary Shelley's biographical story with the fictional narrative of the novel. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayIn a classic example of disappointment, at the exact moment when Ginn could have made a truly challenging proposal for his thesis, he gives in to the standard conservative phallocentric interpretation of the text that was the engine that drove the consideration of the scholars for two centuries. Having built a case based on rather solid and thematically coherent evidence in support of the possibility of reading Frankenstein as a thickly veiled autobiography, Ginn commits the unpardonable sin of declaring this evidence inadmissible on the grounds that "while in many respects Victor Frankenstein is modeled on Percy Shelley, there is no evidence that Percy resented such a portrayal. And Mary never repudiated her father or her father's treatment of her” (Frankenstein: Science, Science Fiction, or Mary's Autobiography. Shelley?) Like so many critics before her, Ginn herself is guilty of interpreting Mary Shelley's work, albeit through an autobiographical lens, as having a patriarchal center the model for Doctor Frankenstein, expressed by inexplicably linking Frankenstein's rejection of the creature with Mary's famous philosopher father, unnecessarily shifts the focus of an autobiographical interpretation away from the author and towards, once again, the brilliant men who surrounded the young author. What is particularly frustrating about Ginn's failure to carry out the autobiographical aspect of his thesis is that he actually manages to get in touch with the central piece of thematic evidence that most strongly supports the argument. When Ginn notes that reversing certain stages of Erikson's framework for men's development makes it more suitable for a woman's development, she seems poised to deliver a direct blow on Frankenstein's potential to be read as an autobiographical tale. Remarkably, the following turns out to be only a superficial jab: "women are socialized to pursue intimate relationships, and these relationships are more important concerns for female adolescents than is the development of an identity" (Frankenstein: Science, Science Fiction, or by Mary Shelley). Autobiography?). This ability to overlook the obvious, which seems downright shocking when the perpetrator is a writer in the 21st century, is considerably.