Classics and the Western Canon discussion

http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/1818v1...

Do you have any ideas why the author should open with Robert Walton rather than with the title character, Victor Frankenstein? What similarities do you see between Walton and Frankenstein?

One theme that really stands out to me in these letters is loneliness, or the longing for a suitable companion. What other themes can you suggest?

How effective are these letters in setting the atmosphere for the story?

What other things do you notice?

Laurele, first let me thank you for asking the question. It's so much easier to answer the question of another and to come up with a guess (which is what I'm going to do)than to develop the question.

What I see initially is that the purpose of the letters is to take us to the arctic where the man on the sled is seen. I assume that man is the "man" we later meet in Chapter 1 or 2 that Victor has made? put together? imagined?. Obviously I didn't this until later.

I saw lonliness in Walton, but I don't see it in Frankenstein. Walton expressly says he would like to have a companion and to me what he meant is someone with whom he could exchange ideas. On the other hand, I saw Frankenstein as choosing to be alone doing his research.

They both have a strong bond with a female sister/cousin. I may see some other things, but I'm going to go back to the book and get my facts straight before commenting.

Reviewing questions and going back to the book is what makes the experience so enriching. Thanks again.

I haven't read the book in its entirety, so I don't know if Robert makes another appearance other than the letters. However, for many people, what is truly scary are things that could really happen, or, in the very least, what they could imagine really happening. Well-written diaries and letters add an element of reality to a fictional story. We give authority to eyewitnesses, so to relay a story as a primary source interview lures the mind into accepting the story as factual enough to step into this story world and be immersed.

I find the frame story a great way to slide into the story of VF on several levels. For several reasons, it would have been much less effective, I think, for MS (we have to call her that, I guess, even though at the time she was Mary Godwin) to just plunge into VF's story.

First, of course, is the element of the great unknown. In 1816 the North Pole was still terra incognito, and in fact it was believed that there was a polar sea beyond the regions of ice [I'll try to post a map later]. It would be nearly a century before any human reached the pole, and the first serious scientific expedition I know of to reach the pole, or at least one of the very first, was Parry's in 1827. So Walton was indeed venturing into the great and mysterious (and dangerous!) unknown, just as Frankenstein himself had. So it sets up the element of venturing where no man has gone before very nicely.

In addition, we get introduced to the mysterious creature from the start. Letter IV talks of the "strange sight" of "a being which had the shape of a man, but apparently of gigantic stature." Isn't it much more dramatic to start with this glimpse of -- what is it? -- in this mysterious, unknown, and in ways terrifying land of ice and brutal cold? How did this being get there? What is it doing in a place no other human should be? We want to know! (And while we, who know the general outline of the story, know, MS's original readers would have no idea what the being was. It would have been a complete mystery to them.) It's a brilliant frame story to open the narrative.

A map from 1595 showing the open Polar sea. Since nobody had ventured there between 1595 and 1818, there was no way to know that this was not the correct understanding of what was up there.



Image from Wikipedia article on North Pole.

I agree that the letters add an element of reality to a story that will become something hard to believe - even the two expeditions across the ice are out of the ordinary. The men on the ship were at first questioning whether they really saw the first sledge ... and presumably they have seen a lot in their travels.

I think Robert allows us to be introduced to someone who is single-minded about learning or experiencing something new before we meet Frankenstein. Robert goes to the extreme of putting together an expedition to the arctic. While this may not be quite as ethically challenging as other activities, the stranger who comes aboard mentions that he sees Robert undertaking actions and espousing the desire for knowledge and wisdom that are similar to actions and desires that the stranger now regrets.

In addition to setting us up for the story to come, IMO, Robert helps us become comfortable with with that intensity needed to take risks, to achieve seemingly impossible goals and to put everything into an effort that others may think is crazy.

In the second letter, it says the captain does not hunt. Here (http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/V1note...) and in the book I am reading, it notes Percy and/or the household was vegetarian. I switched to the '31 version and noticed the reference was omitted. I wonder why the editor took that out?

Icydove wrote: "In the second letter, it says the captain does not hunt. Here (http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/V1note...) and in the book I am reading, it notes Percy and/or the household was vegetarian...."

Good question, Icydove. Let's watch for other mentions of vegetarianism in the book.

Elizabeth wrote: "Laurele, first let me thank you for asking the question. It's so much easier to answer the question of another and to come up with a guess (which is what I'm going to do)than to develop the questi..."

Good observations, Elizabeth. The sister/cousin bond is very interesting. Mary Wollstonecraft's daughter doesn't seem to be giving us very strong females, does she. Or is she trying to make us see how females are treated at the time. Something to watch for.

Everyman and Susan, thanks for showing us how Robert Walton's letter set us up for what is to follow. It's interesting that he takes the eastern route rather than the western. Does anyone know what St. Petersburg was like in the late 18th century? How about Archangel?

Laurele wrote: "Everyman and Susan, thanks for showing us how Robert Walton's letter set us up for what is to follow. It's interesting that he takes the eastern route rather than the western. Does anyone know what..."

It didn't register with me that the route was from east to west. I assumed that he was looking for a northwest passage ship trading route. Did I miss something besides the fact that he took a route to the east rather than the west.

Below is a link to a map showing the location of both St. Petersburg and Archangel (Archangelsk)

This link goes to a map that shows Moscow, St. Petersburg and Archangelsk (Russian spelling): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia...

This link is to information about Archangel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archange...


)

Icydove wrote: "In the second letter, it says the captain does not hunt. Here (http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/V1note...) and in the book I am reading, it notes Percy and/or the household was vegetarian...."

Interesting. I believe that Mary Shelley did most, if not all, of the revisions for the 1831 text, so it seems likely that she took it out. Just speculating, perhaps Percy was the one who was gung ho on vegetarianism and slipped that in editorially, and she wasn't, so took it out. Or perhaps she wanted to leave open for the reader's consideration the possibility that the crew of the ship would take out after the creature and hunt it down.

Laurele wrote: "Does anyone know what St. Petersburg was like in the late 18th century? How about Archangel?"

I don't know what they were like, but I note that St. Peter is reputed to stand at the gates of heaven, and if you pass him, you will (possibly) find archangels. And beyond them...?

A trip to the pole is an ascent. The north pole itself is the axis mundi, where heaven meets Earth. Prometheus, when he stole fire from the gods, had to gain "backstairs admittance to Olympus" (The Greek Myths by Robert Graves)--that is, enter the realm of the gods. I think that in some sense both Walton and Frankenstein are reaching for the stars.

I thought I had read Frankenstein before, but evidently I hadn't. The opening letters from the Pole were a complete surprise to me and provoked feelings of terror, uncertainty and the dread fascination of the void.

I also felt the theme of loneliness in a crowd strongly; Walton is surrounded by his shipmates but has nobody with whom he can really communicate with on an intellectual level.

I agree too that this "scene" primes us for the fantastical events which, I imagine, are to come; Walton's correspondence paints experiences which few people had had, although such expeditions would have been familiar to and greedily consumed via the press by contemporary readers. I also think that the technique of putting the introductory scene in epistolary form adds to the "realness" of the tale. As a previous commenter says: jumping straight in to Frankenstein's account would have severely reduced the level veracity.

Laurele wrote: Do you have any ideas why the author should open with Robert Walton rather than with the title character, Victor Frankenstein? What similarities d..."

Robert expresses a theme of how the thrill and passionate personal drive in the pursuit of scientific discovery has led to isolation from family and close friends and thus, loneliness. His wish for a confidant who shared and understood his enthusiasm for scientific pursuit seem to become fulfilled when he finds Victor. Indeed, it seems Victor is a future version of Robert and has much more experience as we will see from his cautionary tale and the consequences of such scientific pursuits of discovery.

Robert is already beginning to feel the resultant loss of family and friends and laments about it in his letters. This appears to be a setup for the realization to come that man's greatest fear is utter and permanent loss of family or those considered as family and that endeavors to discover mysteries that are best left alone will lead to and result in those very same horrifying losses.

Everyman wrote: "...Letter IV talks of the 'strange sight' of 'a being which had the shape of a man, but apparently of gigantic stature.' Isn't it much more dramatic to start with this glimpse of -- what is it? -- in this mysterious, unknown, and in ways terrifying land of ice and brutal cold? How did this being get there? What is it doing in a place no other human should be?..."

Stream of consciousness thought: reminded me of the frozen very center of Dante's Hell, hence the setting acts as a foreshadowing or foreboding of what is to come.

Elizabeth wrote: "...It didn't register with me that the route was from east to west. I assumed that he was looking for a northwest passage ship trading route. Did I miss something besides the fact that he took a route to the east rather than the west...."

Elizabeth -- I remember getting befuddled by the same concern on some previous reading or another. While I can't seem to recapture the clear explanation I found at the time, this might be helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern...

The article mentions Arkhangelsk as a starting point.

Laurele wrote: "...Do you have any ideas why the author should open with Robert Walton rather than with the title character, Victor Frankenstein?..."

Having just read Ruth Ozeki's A Tale for the Time Being and The Turn of the Screw not too long ago, I have found myself asking when do writers use framing stories and for what purposes, e.g., what would an MFA program teach? I don't have answers or even good insights yet, but while looking I did encounter the following for our Frankenstein, although I'll put it in a spoiler since makes a few implications beyond chapter 7: (view spoiler)[

"Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein is another good example of a book with multiple framed narratives. In the book, Robert Walton writes letters to his sister describing the story told to him by Victor Frankenstein; Frankenstein's story contains the creature's story; the creature's story even briefly contains the story of a family he had been living among."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_story

That's framing four levels deep! I don't know that I have ever encountered such nesting, although TotS can be considered three levels.

(hide spoiler)]

One of the things I find frustrating with framing is whether the author takes the reader back out the nested code or leaves the story only processed in one of the inner do-loops. I don't remember or never noticed what happens in Frankenstein.

Lily wrote: "Laurele wrote: "...Do you have any ideas why the author should open with Robert Walton rather than with the title character, Victor Frankenstein?..."

Having just read Ruth Ozeki's [b..."

"Wuthering Heights" is another nested story like "Frankenstein," Lily. And I was just thinking of "The Turn of the Screw," because it begins, like "Frankenstein," with a challenge to tell a ghost story. I wonder whether Henry James got the idea from Mary Shelley?

Framing definitely provides multiple perspectives on a story as well as exposure to narrators with varying levels of reliability. It can provide alternation between distancing from a story and zooming close-in upon it.

So far, Shelly's narrators strike me as fairly reliable for the scope of the stories each tells.

Lily wrote: "Laurele wrote: "Having just read Ruth Ozeki's A Tale for the Time Being and The Turn of the Screw not too long ago, I have found myself asking when do writers use framing stories and for what purposes, e.g., what would an MFA program teach?"

This is a very interesting idea to consider, Lily. On just a surface search, it appears framing is generally used to give context to the inner stories, to deepen a theme, to join seemingly unlike stories into a group, to offer multiple perspectives, and/or add an element of mystery to a story. You have already referenced some of this in your above comments. I'm going to continue to research this further and keep it in mind as I progress throughout the story.

Icydove wrote: "...I'm going to continue to research this further and keep it in mind as I progress throughout the story. ..."

Icydove -- I hope you'll share your reactions to how and to what purposes Shelley uses the technique. I think Eman touches on some of them @msg4.

Lily wrote: "Framing definitely provides multiple perspectives on a story as well as exposure to narrators with varying levels of reliability."

Excellent point. As you say, so far it seems as though both our narrators are reliable, but time may tell a different story.

Paul wrote: "A trip to the pole is an ascent. The north pole itself is the axis mundi, where heaven meets Earth. Prometheus, when he stole fire from the gods..."

Nice observations. From the very beginning this appears to be a tale about the defiance of nature, disrespecting boundaries, and generally poking one's nose where it doesn't belong.

Thomas wrote: "...From the very beginning this appears to be a tale about the defiance of nature, disrespecting boundaries, and generally poking one's nose where it doesn't belong. ..."

Is that another way of saying testing the boundaries of what it is possible to do or to be as man or creature? Or are you getting at some lack of judgement by...whom?

Do you have any ideas why the author should open with Robert Walton rather than with the title character, Victor Frankenstein? What similarities d..."

In the 19th century having the story told by a character that is not directly involved in the actual story distances the reader and "protects" them from the harsher elements in it, and serves to frame the story. Wuthering Heights is another example of this that comes to mind.

Lily wrote: "Or are you getting at some lack of judgement by...whom? "

I was just thinking about what Paul said -- that the boundaries of the world are tested by the explorer Walton and the boundaries of life and death are tested and violated by VF. And in the background is Paradise Lost, which tells of the most archetypal "testing" of all.

Maybe the question to ask -- though it may not be the right time to ask it -- is what does Walton want? What does VF want? Why are they so driven to discovery? What is so tempting about the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge?

Thomas wrote: "Lily wrote: "Or are you getting at some lack of judgement by...whom? "

I was just thinking about what Paul said -- that the boundaries of the world are tested by the explorer Walton and the bound..."

Gottha! Thx. It is just not clear to me that humankind knows how to set boundaries on the so-called acquisition of knowledge, from Hadron Collider to Voyager 1, from IVF to DNA manipulation to in utero fetal treatment.

Susan from MD wrote: "Robert helps us become comfortable with with that intensity needed to take risks, to achieve seemingly impossible goals and to put everything into an effort that others may think is crazy."

Thomas wrote: "...what does Walton want? What does VF want? Why are they so driven to discovery? What is so tempting about the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge?"

As Susan points out there is a drive in both Victor and Robert, so perhaps one of the reasons for the letters is to show that exploration (in any form, or any field) is quite a human endeavour.

I also think that we could add a question to Thomas' list: What makes Robert's exploration different (and perhaps morally acceptably) and Victor's not?

This second question is based on the assumption that people of the early 19th century had the same reaction to advances in science as people today do (e.g. why is spacial exploration more morally acceptable than cloning?)

Thomas wrote: "Maybe the question to ask -- though it may not be the right time to ask it -- is what does Walton want? What does VF want? Why are they so driven to discovery? What is so tempting about the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge?
"

And isn't your desire to know what they want also at least sipping some apple cider from the Tree of Knowledge? Isn't wanting to know central to the human experience?

These two take it perhaps to extremes, but the question to ask I think isn't why they want to know, but why, as you say, they seem more driven than any other people.

Lily wrote: "Gottha! Thx. It is just not clear to me that humankind knows how to set boundaries on the so-called acquisition of knowledge, from Hadron Collider to Voyager 1, from IVF to DNA manipulation to in utero fetal treatment. "

Yes and no - I think the discoveries tend to be ahead of the ethical guidelines that govern use of new technologies or application of new knowledge. But some boundaries have been set - as a public health researcher, I have gone through ethics training, my work has to be approved by institutional review boards, and I have a lot of questions to answer about risk to human (and animal) subjects.

Pushing the envelope, though, I think is like breathing to some people. It's the difference between just acquiring knowledge or making a discovery and actually moving to action that is challenging. Victor and Robert are free to learn, pose theories, etc., but it's when they start to put people's lives at risk or move beyond accepted limits that raises a new set of questions in my mind.


Tiffany wrote: "What makes Robert's exploration different (and perhaps morally acceptably) and Victor's not? "

I think part of the difference is that other people had mounted expeditions before, so Robert's exploration has, to some extent, known risks, particularly to the men who agree to be on the crew. However, he is putting people's lives at stake without a clearly (at least to me) defined reason.

Victor is doing something for the first time, so there is a lot of unknown. He also is not only avoiding these moral questions himself, but since he is not sharing his work with others, he has no one pushing him to think about the implications or potential adverse consequences. He needs an IRB looking over his shoulder!


ETA: I'm really enjoying the discussion already - this is an interesting book to read with a group. I last read it in college, which was a frightening number of years ago!

Susan from MD wrote: "Yes and no - I think the discoveries tend to be ahead of the ethical guidelines that govern use of new technologies or application of new knowledge. But some boundaries have been set - as a public health researcher, I have gone through ethics training, my work has to be approved by institutional review boards, and I have a lot of questions to answer about risk to human (and animal) subjects...."

Thx for your comments, Susan. Just participated in a discussion on another board of Karen Joy Fowler's We Are All Completely Beside Ourselves, a Nebula and a PEN/Faulkner nominee, that explored the (fictional) impact of animal/human behavioral research on one family. Certainly lack of ethical review boards was one of the hidden issues of the story. But, as you so aptly indicate, it is hard for the institutional safeguards to be ahead of the discoveries. (Many of these themes are even embedded in DeLillo's Underworld: A Novel, if I recall correctly, more on the weapons side of the issues.)

That sounds really interesting, Lily. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is another book that looks at complicated health and scientific issues, and the impact on the family. Having worked with HeLa cells and at Johns Hopkins, that book hit home!

Susan from MD wrote: "other people had mounted expeditions before, so Robert's exploration has, to some extent, known risks...[Victor] needs an IRB looking over his shoulder!"

Susan, I agree that Victor definitely should have had an IRB looking over his shoulder, but (and I'm playing devil's advocate here) considering that virtually no indigenous population has had long term positive outcomes from the European exploration of the Americas and Australia, shouldn't explorers have IRBs as well?

Lily wrote: "it is hard for the institutional safeguards to be ahead of the discoveries"

And to extend Lily's point to the explorers, perhaps (and it's a big perhaps) the current relations between indigenous populations and ruling groups may have turned out differently if there had been some institutional safeguards, even if the safeguards weren't ahead of the discoveries.

You raise a great point. I think there is a distinction between individual and societal responsibility. Were the explorers the problem or was it the immigrant populations that came after them and settled the land and displaced (often violently) the indigenous peoples? IRBs focus on reviewing individual projects and the direct effects of the studies, but broader codes are needed to protect society and to consider the potential consequences (Geneva Conventions, etc).

Back later - have to go to work now!

Susan from MD wrote: "That sounds really interesting, Lily. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is another book that looks at complicated health and scientific issues, and the impact on the family. Havin..."

That is quite a story! One can argue about the quality of the writing, but the story itself is well worth the awareness the author (Rebecca Skloot) has created. When I discussed it with a group, a couple of the participants had particular personal and professional relationships to the story. Challenging environment and questions within which to work.

Thomas wrote: "What does Walton want? What does VF want? Why are they so driven to discovery? What is so tempting about the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge?"

This does seem to be a key question. A few thoughts are simmering in my mind. One is that Frankenstein, and to a much less extent Walton, are obsessive. But what is an obsession? My Webster's says

a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling; broadly: compelling motivation

One thought is that the explorer or researcher, reaching into the unknown, can't know in advance what he's going to find. But in Frankenstein's case, it would seem that a normal, prudent person would recognize at least some potential dangers in seeking to grasp the principle of animation, and might reflect on these and seek counsel beforehand.

It certainly seems there is a desire for power. And I'm reminded of the tale of The Sorcerer's Apprentice. In a way, this is the story of technology: we know enough to get ourselves into trouble, but not enough to get ourselves back out. According to William Hansen in his excellent Ariadne's Thread: A Guide to International Tales Found in Classical Literature, the earliest attestation of this ancient story is in Lucian's The Lover of Lies, a dialogue about the telling of incredible stories; but the folktale is widespread.

Hansen breaks the story down into 7 steps:

(1) A magic object or magic formula (2) comes into the hands of an inexperienced person, (3) who wittingly or unwittingly utters a command for a particular supernatural action to begin. (4) Once the action has begun, (5) the hapless person is at a loss to stop it. At the last moment, however, (6) the magician who owns the item returns and (7) by uttering the proper formula puts a stop to the action.

But with nature, or God's creation, there's no one to step in and save us.

Maybe it's just the same urge that children have to do what they see adults doing: they want to grow up and belong with the big people.

St. Petersburg, Russia, from which Robert Walton's first letter is sent:

http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Places...

Tiffany wrote: "I also think that we could add a question to Thomas' list: What makes Robert's exploration different (and perhaps morally acceptably) and Victor's not? "

Does Victor know that what he is doing is not morally acceptable?

Everyman wrote: "These two take it perhaps to extremes, but the question to ask I think isn't why they want to know, but why, as you say, they seem more driven than any other people."

Why they are so driven is the question, I agree, but maybe we have to see what it is that they want to know in order to see why they are driven. Particularly in Victor's case, because he does not have a purely academic or theoretical interest in his subject. He intends to do something with his discovery, even before he understands what it is. He wants to stop death.

Paul wrote: "It certainly seems there is a desire for power. And I'm reminded of the tale of The Sorcerer's Apprentice. In a way, this is the story of technology: we know enough to get ourselves into trouble, but not enough to get ourselves back out."

Yes, exactly. And at first that's what I was focused on -- the power that Victor wants to exert over life and death. What's interesting about Victor though is that he also wants love.

Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world. A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of the child so completely as I should deserve theirs. Ch. 4

Victor just wants to make friends. Literally.

Susan from MD wrote: "Victor is doing something for the first time, so there is a lot of unknown. He also is not only avoiding these moral questions himself, but since he is not sharing his work with others, he has no one pushing him to think about the implications or potential adverse consequences. He needs an IRB looking over his shoulder!
"

LOL! But of course, Mary Shelley had never head of an IRB. And more to the point, during the explosion of the quest for knowledge, I'm not aware that there was much if any moral or ethical guidance available. Certainly the early explorers of Africa, for example, didn't feel much if any. Nor did the alchemists working in their laboratories to make all sorts of chemical compounds which could lhave done significant harm to them and to others.

While I was reading this first section I kept thinking of the Manhattan Project and its dedication to exploring the bounds knowledge despite nobody knowing what the result would be of this awesome power, if they could harness it, and whether, as some people feared, it would set off a reaction which would replicate around the globe and destroy all life on the planet.

Paul wrote: "Thomas wrote: "What does Walton want? What does VF want? Why are they so driven to discovery? What is so tempting about the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge?"

This does seem to be a key question. A ..."

Very nice post. I think you're right on in saying that " In a way, this is the story of technology: we know enough to get ourselves into trouble, but not enough to get ourselves back out." It is indeed such a story, and it is far from an isolated incident.

But when you go back to Lucien, you could perhaps go even further back to the story of Pandora, though in her case it wasn't technology that got her in trouble but the insatiable curiosity which I think also motivates Frankenstein.

Thomas wrote: "Does Victor know that what he is doing is not morally acceptable? "

If he does, he certainly doesn't say so. But I don't think he does. Did his exemplars, starting with the alchemists, have any sense that what they were doing might not be morally acceptable?

Which is a bit surprising, when you realize that science was considered an aspect of philosophy, along with ethics. But somehow those two don't seem to mesh very well in Frankenstein's life and work!

Lily wrote: "Framing definitely provides multiple perspectives on a story as well as exposure to narrators with varying levels of reliability. It can provide alternation between distancing from a story and zoo..."

Lily, I haven't heard the term "framing" before in reference to writing. Is it sort of like bookends in that letters at the beginning and then letters at the end?

Thomas wrote: "Tiffany wrote: "I also think that we could add a question to Thomas' list: What makes Robert's exploration different (and perhaps morally acceptably) and Victor's not? "

Does Victor know that what..."

I can't figure out what would be morally unacceptable about the adventures of an explorer, especially one wanting the find a shipping lane in the vicinity of the north pole. Would anyone say that Columbus was doing something morally unacceptable? Exploitation of native people after the journey has been completed would be another matter, but trying to discover a passage? What did I miss?

I don't think you missed anything, Elizabeth. I think we're just ruminating on the unintended consequences of scientific (or geographic) discovery.

Elizabeth wrote: "I haven't heard the term "framing" before in reference to writing. Is it sort of like bookends in that letters at the beginning and then letters at the end? "

It doesn't have to be letters. Framing in a novel is a technique where the main story is placed inside another story. Wuthering Heights is another example of a frame story, where it starts with the tenant coming up Wuthering Heights to visit his landlord, and the main story develops from there. My current bedtime book is Wodehouse's Mulliner Nights, which involves a gentler frame story of conversations in a pub to give Mulliner the chance to tell a series of stories within the story. Shakespeare used it (incompletely) in Taming of the Shrew, where the play is performed for a drunk peasant (many modern productions omit the frame entirely, for good reasons).

Here's what the Encyclopedia Britannica says about frame stories:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...

Everyman wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "I haven't heard the term "framing" before in reference to writing. Is it sort of like bookends in that letters at the beginning and then letters at the end? "

It doesn't have to ..."

Wiki's pretty good on frame stories, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_story (Be a little careful -- there is a clue here about the direction Frankenstein is going to take.)

I think of frame stories as often having nested narrators -- one narrator starts off the story then passes it to another narrator who tells a story within that opening story. But there are many variants, as the Britannica and Wiki links will suggest. It is like the "outer" story provides a "frame" around the inner story.