One Or More Essays on Writing and Frankenstein and Deleuze And

Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education

Volume 19 Issue 5 The Messy Affect(s) of Writing in the Article 9 Academcy

December 2020

The Frankenpaper: One or More Essays on Writing and Frankenstein and Deleuze and . . .

Joshua Cruz Texas Tech University, [email protected]

Holly Corkill Texas Tech University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/taboo

Recommended Citation Cruz, J., & Corkill, H. (2020). The Frankenpaper: One or More Essays on Writing and Frankenstein and Deleuze and . . .. Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education, 19 (5). Retrieved from https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/taboo/vol19/iss5/9

This Article is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Article in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself.

This Article has been accepted for inclusion in Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Joshua Taboo,Cruz &Fall Holly 2020 Corkill 133

The Frankenpaper One or More Essays on Writing and Frankenstein and Deleuze and . . .

Joshua Cruz & Holly Corkill

This work is a rhizome, a burrow. The castle has multiple entrances whose rules of usage and whose locations aren’t very well known. —Deleuze & Guattari, Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature We believe that this quotation situates our paper well; this paper emerges from an email sent from the second author to the first, containing the world “Fran- kenproposal.” Her use of that portmanteau, a combining of “Frankenstein” and “proposal,” provided a fruitful avenue to begin a conversation about the writing process. What are the Franken- qualities of writing, and what are the limits of the Franken- analogy? What exactly is the nature of a Franken(stein)? What is the nature of any creative endeavor? Our conversation became too much to contain; our thoughts meandered. They began to overlap and beget new ideas. The word “Frankenproposal” was an intersection of everything that had been said/ thought/written about Frankenstein and everything that had been said/thought/ written about (de)composition. The word “Frankenproposal” itself is a Franken- monster, a coming together of parts to form a creature that cannot be contained within a single directed conversation; it takes on a life of its own. This paper is the result of our conversational spill-over and a rhizomatic intersecting of ideas. Like Macaully’s (1990) children’s book, Black and White, these pages may contain a number of short independent essays: a literary analysis, an author’s writing biography, thoughts on writing theory; or it may be only one essay. Like Deleuze

Joshua Cruz is an assistant professor and Holly Corkill is a Ph.D. candidate,both in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction of the College of Education at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas. Email addresses: [email protected] & [email protected] © 2020 by Caddo Gap Press. 134 The Frankenpaper and Guattari’s (1986) castle, it has many potential entrances. We leave our readers to discover points of dis/junction among the various ideas that have spilled onto these pages (if they want to), the result of two individual multiplicities engaged in a dialogue about Frankenstein… or writing… or Shelley… or Deleuze… or some or all of these topics, or even more than these. Joshua Cruz & Holly Corkill 135

The Frankenstein Monster: Anti-Oedipus, Body without Organs, a Phenomenon of Bordering Is the Author’s Work Her Own?: “… the strange nature of Intensities, Assemblages, the animal would elude all and anti-Agency pursuit…” in Shelley’s —Mary Shelley, Frankenstein Frankenstein

“What is the Body Without Holly’s Writing Reflection Organs of a Book?” Bringing the Post to Post-Pro- As horror writer Stephen cess Composing King once said (appending on to a quote once written by The post-process movement William Faulkner), “…kill your in composition studies adopts darlings, kill your darlings, even the term “post-” literally: when it breaks your egocentric process no longer explains how little scribbler’s heart, kill writing works, so we move your darlings” (King, 2000, somewhere else. Post- in this p.222). The implications of this sense is “after” (Kent, 1999; metaphor are simultaneously Trimbur, 1994). This version of macabre and grossly accurate. post- does not necessarily leave Writing is an act of creation, and process entirely behind, but it the manifestation of that creation moves the concept of process is a product that beyond the cogito 136 The Frankenpaper

Consider the Frankenstein When Mary Shelley added monster: it is the anti-Oedipus. an introduction to the 1831 Indeed, it has no mother to publication of Frankenstein, Oedipus about, and we cannot she called this insertion say that it was born in any “an appendage to a former kind of Freudian sexual frenzy. production” that she promised Rather, it wasn’t, and then one to limit to “such topics as have day, it was. While the common connection to [her] authorship portrayal of the Frankenstein alone” (Shelley, 2017, p. monster’s beginnings involve 291). The use of the word a body on a slab, scientific “appendage” is apt considering machinery, and harnessing the that the text to which Shelley power of lightening, Shelley’s adds this explanation to a body description of the monster’s of writing that documents the “birth” is far less detailed: the aftereffects of one man’s efforts narrator simply states that one to create life through the

et scribo approach of many refer to as a body of cognitivism that had dominated writing. In the same way that, writing in the 80s; it suggests at the moment of birth, a child’s that matters of context and body exits the mother’s womb audience are paramount in and is suddenly present in a writing and that there can be no place where, only moments one series of steps that produces before there was merely the “good” writing. idea of a child, an author brings But post- as a philosophical forth a body of writing…a child enterprise implies more than a that, for better or worse, enters simple social turn, which seems the world either as a divine to be what the post-process creation or as a monster (maybe movement ultimately boils both). Though it is uncertain down to (Breuch, 2002). Breuch as to whether or not all writers notes that when applied to a experience this sensation, many discipline, post- has the potential writers perceive their work…this to decenter the human brainchild they have Joshua Cruz & Holly Corkill 137 rainy night in November, he cobbling together of a body… saw the accomplishment of his an assemblage of parts sutured toils brought about by collecting together to make a whole. In the “the instruments of life” around appending of the introduction to him. There is no description the 1831 edition of Frankenstein, of these instruments. As such, Shelley insists that she only popular media has taken the did so in an effort to satisfy her Frankenstein creation in any publishers’ concerns that the number of directions: most are body of work as it previously familiar with James Whales’ existed in the 1818 publication 1931 Frankenstein, for instance of the work was not whole; (“It’s alive!”), and there is the however, this explanation more elaborate Kenneth Branagh reinforces the idea that the novel representation of the birth of the Frankenstein is an assemblage; monster, wherein Frankenstein moreover, from a Deleuzian creates what is standpoint, we can use

(e.g. Barnett, 2015; Rickert, 2013); imprisoned in the page to be provide attention to infinitely monstrous from its inception. complex minutiae (Mays, Thoughts of the work’s 2017; Lynch & Rivers, 2015); ineptitude and ignorance plague and express incredulity with the writer. “This paper can’t metanarratives of what writing is possibly be good enough… or should be. However, Breuch everyone who reads this will claims, post-process theory has hate it…please do not read my yet to do this. Similarly, Heard stuff because you’ll think badly (2008) asks what we should do of me once you see just how with the post-process movement wretched, basic, and grotesque in writing. He observes that there my writing skills are.” The writer was something called a post- finishes the writing, and, for a process movement, writing and brief moment comes the feeling composition theorists nodded their of relief at completion, but this heads in acknowledgement, and moment can be fleeting. 138 The Frankenpaper

essentially an artificial womb. Shelley as a kind of case study Harnessing the power of electric to examine how authorial eels, Victor plunges probes agency is, in fact, non-existent into the body of his creature when speaking about the writing (the astute observer will not of a text. To understand any overlook the sexual implications assemblage, one must embrace of probing a body with rods or the multiplicities that exists the phallic imagery of writhing within and around it as well eels in a yonic pool of liquid). as the intensities that inform Shortly thereafter, Robert De it. Deleuze and Guattari posit Nero is expelled in a deluge of that “a book has only itself, amniotic fluid. This tells us that, in connection with other at least in film representation, we assemblages and in relation to cannot move beyond the idea of other bodies without organs” an Oedipal birth. There exists a (p. 4). Frankenstein, therefore, fixation on pinning down has itself in connection with Shelley, the

then nothing happened. As How relatable this passage from late as 2017, Newcomb and Frankenstein: “I had desired it Leshowitz observe that writing with an ardour that far exceeded studies has become “stuck” in moderation; but now that I had a space between process and finished, the beauty of the dream post-process, unable to fully vanished, and breathless horror move into the realm of post- and disgust filled my heart.” process. It seems that post- Upon beholding the finished process, as a compositional body of work, the writer feels movement, never had a chance the exhilaration of “I really to blossom to full potential, as did it! I finished,” but this is it has been both undertheorized followed by, “Oh God—what and underutilized. Barnett have I done?” (2015) claims that composition, If the body of writing as a field, is only just beginning manages to make it past this to think of the place that initial rejection by its creator, nonhuman actors occupy then Joshua Cruz & Holly Corkill 139 the monster with human ori- assemblages that constructed gins and rationality, even while her, and the assemblages that Victor attempted to create a she constructed, a recursive post-human species (Carrete- relationship of monstrous ro-Gonzalez, 2016). We provide generation wherein Shelley the monster with a beginning becomes the vessel, rather than that we can wrap our collective the author, of her magnum heads around, if not ex-(faux) opus. Shelley, we feel, offers utero, then at least with the a particularly interesting case vivacity provided by a lightning given the nature and topic of strike on a marble or metal slab. her writing, and we believe that And why not this neurotic fix- the assembly of a monster, one ation on the Oedipal? We have driven by intensities of passion come to believe that “Oedipus and grief, offers a metatextual is an easy subject to deal with, reading of Shelley’s process. something perfectly obvious, a ‘given’ that is in the discipline; Lynch and revision occurs. The author Rivers’ (2015) work, which strikes the delete key or the houses Barnett’s, is an homage to eraser like the wielding of the complexity, to “extend invitations axe, hacking away sentences, and assemble collectives” (p. 14) paragraphs, and pages like around composition. In this spirit, they were gangrenous limbs. we explore the works of Deleuze Perhaps, along with this act (1990) and Guattari (1983; 1986; of amputating superfluous 1987), thinking about what it prose, the author appends, or might mean to post- process transplants works from another within the field of composition piece into the body of work, studies. cannibalizing one no longer Writing was one of many viable monstrosity to give life to topics discussed by Deleuze another. and Guattari, but it held a For the second author, this special importance for them, idea of cannibalizing one piece given their heavy in the effort to create 140 The Frankenpaper

there from the very beginning” Frankenstein is assembled (Deleuze & Guattari, 1983, p. through Shelley and, in turn, 26). it assembles her own life. This the monster is not: not Traumatic experiences shaped an easy subject, not obvious, not Shelley’s life from birth. Eleven a given (not even a thing with days after giving birth, her a beginning). Thus, we create mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, a neat narrative where Shelley died of a postpartum infection provided none; as we confront that left Shelley in the care of the alien, the philosopher, her William Godwin. Mellor or the monster, we “pinch it, (1988) indicates that, despite probe it, and in the end dissect his biological relationship to his it. Laboriously, bit by bit… infant daughter, Godwin, who cobble together an identity for was a prominent British literary it” (Massumi, 2002, p. 233). We figure in his own right, preferred attempt to provide an “Oedipal Mary Wollstonecraft’s

reliance on examples from another was how the concept literature and the fact that of the “Frankenproposal” writing is intimately connected came to be. In an effort to put to some of their theoretical together a research proposal, developments, such as the she turned to the boneyard rhizome and schizoanalysis. of her hard drive, looking Additionally, within the first for the written equivalent to pages of A Thousand Plateaus “bones from charnel houses… (1983), they ask us to consider profane fingers…tremendous “what is the body without secrets of the human frame” organs [BwO] of a book” (p. so that she might use them 4). And perhaps, whatever the again (Shelley, 1818, p. 55). answer might be, offers us one In the end, she found two entry point into the question suitable corpses among piles of of what it might mean to post- discarded writing. They existed writing studies. There is, of because, at one point, they had course, no one answer to this satisfactorily fulfilled the Joshua Cruz & Holly Corkill 141 organization” (Deleuze and illegitimate first daughter Fanny Guattari, 1983, p.123) for that Imlay. This emotional distance which we do not understand, between Mary Shelley and and as such, an “interminable her father only worsened after proliferation” of psychoanalytic Godwin married Mary Jane readings (Rieder, 2003, para. Clairmont in order to establish 4) appear for the Frankenstein the financial security that his monster. Though Massumi is liberal ideals and lifestyle speaking about the outsider in had deprived him of for many general, his language evokes years. Clairmont and Mary did the same scientific lab present not have an easy relationship in various Frankenstein films (Mellor, 1988), so the theme wherein Victor does his work, of parental absenteeism and providing a scientific rationale rejection emerged for her at for the monster’s being. a young age. Mary Shelley’s However, Massumi criticizes decision to leave home to elope this scientifizing with Romantic poet Percy question, but as we consider requirements of one deadline what a body without organs or another, but, even at the is, as well as what a book is time they had gone out into the and the elements that go into world, the second author had making a book (i.e., writing), we known that they were deformed hope to touch upon one of the and that she would have to rip multiplicities that might compose them apart and mend them back a more serious post-process together again. Products of movement in composition. early journeys into qualitative What we see across research, they had been Deleuze (1990) and Deleuze finished with a knowledge that and Guattari’s (1983; 1987) something in them was flawed work is that they attempt and monstrous. They could have to dismantle individuations very easily been completely between content, writing, discarded into the bone pile had author, and reader, beginning the author not been willing to with the idea that “there is no 142 The Frankenpaper

as a kind of “running in place,” Shelley would place further a “limited and limiting view” (p. strain on the relationship 233) of the world. between father and daughter Despite media (Brackett, 2016). Along with representations, the Frankenstein this lack of parental affection, monster is too free to be bogged she experienced turmoil down by this kind of Oedipal throughout her relationship organization or scientifizing; with Percy Shelley due to his its intrigue is its inability to be desire to engage in a libertine pinned, despite our attempts lifestyle of sexual dalliances to do so, from vague birth to with Mary Shelley’s half-sister equally vague end, appearing Claire Clairmont (Brackett, here and there throughout the 2016). In addition to these novel of Frankenstein, emerging constant tensions, Mary unexpectedly at the top of a gave birth to and lost shortly mountain and, shortly thereafter, thereafter a premature daughter among named Clara in

difference between what a book acknowledge that, though the talks about and how it is made” overall quality of the writings (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p. 4). were something “permeated by Here, the line between process unformed, unstable matters” and content are obliviated. As (Deleuze and Guatarri, 1988, one writes, the content drives the p. 4), the author recognized creation of the writing, and vice viability within parts of each versa—writing creates content. draft and grafted the meat of But Deleuze and Guattari each of these papers into the complicate writing further, new body. stating that “there is no longer Odd that, even now, as this a tripartite division between a paper takes form, the same field of reality (the world) and a exploratory procedure of field of representation (the book) drafting is occurring. A previous and a field of subjectivity (the draft written months ago gets author)” (p. 23). They seek to pored over with surgical Joshua Cruz & Holly Corkill 143 the icy wastes of the near-north 1815. Following the birth of the pole, existing always “at the Shelleys’ son William in 1816 borderline of the village, or (he would die in 1819), Percy between villages” (Deleuze & and Mary Shelley had come Guattari, 1987, p. 246), haunting to reside in Geneva alongside the fringes. It is ubiquitous and Lord Byron. At this point in ever-hidden. Its actions are Mary Shelley’s life, following conflicted and contradictory, this accumulation of traumatic forging friendships on one experiences, she would page, murdering the next. make the wager and have the Indeed, contemporary reviews nightmare that would inspire of Frankenstein treated the creation of Frankenstein. the monster with equal Or, as Deleuze and Guttari amounts of fascination and might put it, her dream was discomfort, stemming from his “externalized, by a indeterminate and independent nature. Walter Scott (1818), obliviate the line that separates precision. There are quotations author from the book as well. and paragraphs within even this The material that one writes draft that had life before, but about, the writing itself, and the the organism they were a part of one who writes—these exist was monstrous in some way, so as a singularity, penetrating the author has cleaved the words and penetrated by one another. from the bones of a previous Writing, they state, exists as an draft. They are their own assemblage with the external assemblage, part of the old draft world, not as a representation of and now part of the new. Should it, but a junction with it. A book revision of this draft occur (and is of the world as much as it is it probably will), they may or of an author, and the author is of may not continue to be a part of the world and of the book: not a the next assemblage. tripartite division, 144 The Frankenpaper

for instance, seemed confused system of relays and plug-ins, by the monster’s freedom, extrinsic linkages” (p. 356). stating that we should “be By 1816, we are able disposed … to question whether to see the various mechanic the monster… could have assemblages that would produce perpetrated so much mischief intensities that could then undiscovered, or passed through externalize as Frankenstein: so many countries without being rejection, trauma, loss, grief secured… (Scott, 1818, n.p.). producing machines. Attach to How in the world, he seems this grief machine a hideous to be saying, does it manage figure within a nightmare…a so well, despite the structures figure whose “success would and strictures that we might terrify the artist” (Shelley, 2017, place on it? On the other hand, p. 299), Shelley began to give a an anonymous review from voice to the nightmare The Edinburgh Magazine and Literary Miscellany appreciated

but a tripartite constituting of The origins of the paper do among all three of these entities. not just come from the fusing And yet another entity together of new words and factors into this writing words of previous drafts. There assemblage: the reader of a are multiple roots spreading piece of writing. Deleuze (1990) across the writing. There is the and Guattari (1983) encourages author, yet there are also all of the reader to approach writing the things that are both beyond as a schizophrenic, not as one and within the author. The first who attempts to derive a precise author and the second author meaning from the words present are simultaneously writing in a piece of writing, but as one separately, yet one has an who attempts to decompose influence on the other. Equally, those words into syllables and the experiences and influences of phonemes. What is left is not an each author are at play as well. They are themselves, yet the Joshua Cruz & Holly Corkill 145 the juxtaposition of the a voice that was, both hers monster’s appearance and and the monster. Deleuze and (usually) kind nature, lauded Guattari (1980) state that, his ability to fit into both the “Each of us is caught up in an Gothic-Romantic sublime and assemblage…we reproduce pastoral setting. The reviewer its statements when we think states simply that “we even we are speaking in our own like a story the better that it is name; or rather we speak in our disjointed and irregular;” the own name when we produce writing style, the monster’s its statement” (p. 6). Though action, and the physical Victor, the monster, and Walton description of the monster would speak each in their own itself contribute to a disjointed names, their statements were irregularity. also Shelley’s statements. The Frankenstein monster Content, author, and process manifests as a “phenomenon of bordering” (Deleuze and effect of language but a “pure sum of everything that has language affect” (Deleuze, brought them to this place. each 1990, p. 88) that plays upon other. Within the lines of this and within the schizophrenic paper, the first author’s Capoeira readers. For “reading a text is instructor and the second never a scholarly exercise in author’s Shakespeare professor search of what is signified, still shout over one another through less a highly textual exercise in the lines of prose, each voice search of a signifier” (Deueluze competing for the territory of & Guattari, 1983, p. 106). It lines on the page until they is a surface-level, neurotic reach a place where they can reading wherein words signify speak in concert with one a particular meaning, being another. expressible and denotable, In a series of letters between and it is this surface that the Deleueze and Guattari about schizophrenic reader is able to the nature of original thought, see beyond: “as Delueze (1977) writes, 146 The Frankenpaper

Guattari, 1987, p. 245), collapse into a singularity, not quite human, not quite manifesting as a book. animal: an anomaly “which Could we ever say that is outside the rules [and] the author was alone with goes against the rules” and her nightmares and affects? an an-omalie, “the cutting Wolynn’s (2016) discusses the edge of deterritorialization” effects of trauma as they work (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, upon genetics. These negative p. 244). Everything about the valences that wrote across monster suggests a bordering Shelley’s body, Wolynn claims, phenomenon. It crosses the can pass through generations border between life and death, in much the same way that one political, microbial, and might physical features from anatomical borders—its body is parents. Trauma did not begin a collective of sewn parts, an arm with Shelley. She represents a bordering a shoulder bordering a head: “bones from charnel

there is no surface, the inside I would imagine myself and the outside, the container approaching an author and the contained, have no from behind, and making precise limit. They plunge into a him a child, who would universal depth” (p. 87). Within indeed be his, and would, this depth, melding occurs. nonetheless be monstrous. Words become utterances that That the child would be his create a space between author was very important because and reader wherein affect and the author had to say, in intensity of language (sounds) effect, everything I made manifest. him say. But that the child What then does reading should be monstrous was a text do? For Deleuze and also a requisite because it Guattari (1983) reading is “a was necessary to go through productive use of the literary all kinds of decenterings, machine, a slidings, splittings Joshua Cruz & Holly Corkill 147 houses,” other parts collected rhizomatic opening into the from “the dissecting room grief machine as we examine and slaughter house,” brought the map of grief through which together not in a lab but a various members of Shelley’s “workshop” (Shelley, 1818, p. lineage had passed: traumas of 55), which implies that unlike parental loss, grief, violence, or in Whale’s or Branagh’s media rejection. They appear again in adaptations, the construction children, undergoing mutations of the monster is not a that manifest as depressive scientific endeavor so much affective states (Wolynn, 2016). as a mechanic assembling of Though born without the body parts over parts over memory of the trauma, a child parts. While this anatomical comes into the world with the bordering is true of every body, parents’ trauma, nonetheless. the description of the monster as What better example of a “uncouth and distorted” (p. 271) productive mechanic draws attention to the very montage of desiring-machines, a secret discharges, which schizoid exercise that have given me much extracts from the text its pleasure (p. 112-113). revolutionary force” (p. 106). This idea of making an author We have already seen the who, in turn makes a monster, various parts that compose is the very essence of what this machine: the author, the it means to teach writing. text, the reader, and context(s) Writers are not just writing surrounding author, reader, and as themselves; they are also text, all assembled in a recursive writing as their teachers. The intermingling; but what is the neuroses of writing is never revolutionary force of a text? one’s own—write in the Deleuze and Guattari (1986) margins…don’t use “I” …don’t claim that the literary machine use “you”…the body of an is a relay for “revolutionary essay is five paragraphs…don’t machine-to-come,” use contractions in academic writing—these are not simply 148 The Frankenpaper

physical bordering that assemblage? Couplings produce occurs from part to part. To grief, but they also produce a “Frankenstein” something is to child, an assemblage in its own cobble together from various right, coupled to a grief engine. components, to overlap the Wolynn posits that one of the boundaries of one object, to take reasons that this epigenetic the cut-up and to reassemble trauma becomes possible is it into an exercise of border because before we are even crossing. The monster’s thought of, we are already part existence rails against political, of our parents: our grandmother vivacious, and bodily territories. carries us as she carries our It is a living embodiment of mother since there is a point in Burroughs’s cut-up, a method our mother’s fetal development designed to de- and re- where her body produces her territorialize (Moore, 2007), to own finitude of eggs. Chemical upset and redefine boundaries; changes occurring in our in doing so, it does indeed, as father’s body and,

(p. 18). During this process, organic instincts a writer is born the author disappears from knowing. One cannot enact view, creating a “collective good or bad writing without enunciation,” an enunciation another first teaching someone of thought that has been (and how to enact it. Writers are the will continue to be) acted sum of themselves, but also upon by all. We might call this their teachers; writing teachers enunciation “kairotic” (Rickert, know this. They fear the idea of 2013), a coming together of their students going forth and time and location that spills over producing monstrous writing as into writing through a writer. much as they fear their own bad But there is no individual, writing. autonomous expression of thought in writing, and the writing is not the writer’s own. Instead, it is to be taken up by other; indeed, the author Joshua Cruz & Holly Corkill 149

Walter Scott observed, “elude impacting his mental health, all pursuit” (Shelley, 1818, p. become a part of the child’s at 85) making itself imperceptible the time of conception. These (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987). affects are networked along We cannot see the spark of life various lines; we do not carry that is given to the monster, our mother and father’s trauma despite Branagh’s or Whale’s within us. We carry the trauma attempts; we cannot see the of our maternal and paternal monster as it crosses from grandparents, their parents, country to country if it wishes and so on, infinitely. Is the to remain hidden; we cannot see trauma really ours? Is fear of the body of the monster as homo fire mine, or does it belong to sapiens (Carretero-Gonzalez, the compositional forces that 2016)—only as an assemblage brought “me” about? We are of overlapping parts. an assemblage not just of our mother’s physical features, but also of the neuroses becomes a “foreigner to Josh’s Writing Reflection one’s own tongue” (Deleuze I think of all of the writing & Guattari, 1987, p. 388), that I have done in the past; subsumed and ultimately it pales to the writing that my disappearing from the writing colleagues have produced, altogether. Joyce writes that and I know it pales to the his “head is full of pebbles and writing that I will produce rubbish and broken matches in the distant future. All that and bits of glass picked up most I have written and all that I everywhere” (Joyce, 1921). will write: are they separate His head is permeated by this instances, each isolated from collection of foreign objects one another? Conventional which spill onto his pages. The wisdom in academia is to create schizoid reader takes up the text, a narrative of your research. and once penetrated by printed Your work should speak to a words, engages in the act of particular interest, all housed “conjuring up the affect, and of within one neat 150 The Frankenpaper

And while the parts overlap, psychoses, and traumas, they also decompose. When always at play with one Frankenstein first beholds another, influencing and his creation, he describes the inscribeing themselves into our creature as having “yellow skin” compositional makeup. that “scarcely covered the work And these affects, these of muscles and arteries beneath” intensities that might be (Shelley, 1818, p. 58). The inscribed within Shelley spill monster’s body cannot contain over, onto paper. Shelley’s first the organs; the muscles and experience of trauma, the loss arteries burst forth from beneath of her mother, is one that is the monster’s skin making the spoken by multiple characters body “permeated by unformed, throughout Frankenstein—or, unstable matters” (Deleuze and rather, it is the experience of her Guattari, 1987, p. 4). We have, characters as much as it is her then, a physical body without own. Consider the monster, for example. In the same

transforming the painful passion story about who you are as a of the body into a triumphant researcher: “I am a qualitative action” (p. 88). A text is not researcher; see how my work is written so much as it writes; it all qualitative? I am interested inscribes itself upon the reader. in writing. See how all of these This is the “revolutionary force” pieces of writing are about that the schizoid extracts from writing?” While I balk at the text: a changing of affect and necessity of this (why should we disposition, a deterritorialization be pigeonholed?), I wonder if of stability, a call to action it is possible to escape. Derrida within the reader, whatever that (1981) talks about the preface— action may be. anything is a preface to anything And now we may begin else. When one reads the end to to think about what the body a novel, it is the preface to the without organs of a book might beginning of the novel were we be. First, it is important to think to read it again, as we will about use of Joshua Cruz & Holly Corkill 151 organs, a body that seems way that the monster suddenly to be refusing the organs becomes present in the story, the inside of it. The body without product of a vague process of organs as described by assembly that readers are never Deleuze and Guattari is at a party to. He, rather, is birthed least partially physical: it is from Mary Shelley’s mind; we “matter that occupies space to might imagine Athena emerging a given degree: to the degree from the head of Zeus. Or corresponding to the degree of perhaps he, an intensity of grief, intensities produced” (p. 153), tears through her head in the as well as something “produced, way that a child tears from the at a certain place and a certain vagina. Many of her characters time in the connective synthesis, are without mothers: Victor as the identity of producing and loses his natural mother at a the product” (1983, p. 8). It is young age. Elizabeth first loses brought out spatially when it is her natural parents and called into the word “of,” as this word begin to anticipate the expected forces us to consider the ending. Or, the end of a novel indeterminacy of language. prefaces the beginning of It is impossible to tell what another piece of work entirely. exactly “of” signifies. On the The end to one novel primes our one hand, it refers to the body affective states, and colors the without organs that composes rest of anything we might read the book, as in “a book made after it. A reading colonizes our of paper.” In this case, the minds, inscribing it indelibly book simply is a body without across, prefacing anything we organs. Alternatively, the body might read afterward. without organs is composed by Why should this not be the the book, in the phrase “of the case for writing? Can it be that land.” It comes from, is created writing is also the preface to by. Likely, it is both. The body anything else I will ever write? without organs is the blank slate upon and through which 152 The Frankenpaper

space by the intensities that then her adopted mother. inhabit it, however it is also the Also, on his letter to his sister, metaphysical body that refuses Walton indicates that he grew to let one intensity dominate. For up under his sister’s “gentle and the capitalist, the body without feminine fosterage” and that his organs is capital (1983), for the father died when he was young masochist it is implements of (Shelley, 1818, p. 9), which pleasure-torture, for the drug suggests that Walton has also user it is a becoming cold; it is grown up without a mother. a way of being for each body Along with a lack of consistent (1987). As these intensities natural maternal influences or write themselves across the affection in the story, the one body without organs, it becomes statement Mary Shelley makes extended into a spatial body, regarding the presence of a that of the capitalist, etc. But the mother figure mirrors her own body without organs prevents a relationship with Mary Jane neurotic tie to

intensities pass, the point of Nearly a decade ago, I wrote 0 intensity itself (Deleuze & my first publication. It was a Guattari, 1987). Imagine a socio-cognitive piece on identity hyper-permeable cell with no and writing. We might see how organelles. The organelles are that is the preface to a piece all outside of the cell. But that like the one I am currently hpyerpermeability would allow writing—concerned about those organelles to enter and issues of writing, about (non) leave as time passed. Perhaps identity, about constructing and only mitochondria passes assembling sentences. But it is through at one point—then also the preface to anything I it is a cell of mitochondria, have written, whether the topic an energy cell. The is writing or not, identity or not, mitochondria is briefly joined assembling or not. Traces of by chloroplasts. It is then an the ideas of that paper (and any energy producing cell and a paper I have written) exist photosynthetic cell. When the Joshua Cruz & Holly Corkill 153 these intensities or desires, act- Clairmont. Though Justine ing as a barrier to desire-produc- Moritz does have a mother, tion (1983; 1987): a blank can- the relationship is strained. vas, a place itself of 0 intensity. According to Victor, “This girl It is not intensity itself, but the had always been the favourite of space through which intensities her father, but through a strange are able to unfold, and as each perversity, her mother could being is a multiplicity, the in- not endure her, and after the tensity of desiring-production is death of M. Moritz, treated her able to erase and re-write itself very ill” (Shelley, 1818, p. 68). across the body without organs. Mary Shelley’s addition of this A capitalist body becomes the record of constant mistreatment masochist body becomes the of Justine at the hands of drug using body and so on. Madame Moritz then becomes the author’s expression of the trauma inflicted upon her by

mitochondria leave, then it in those papers that I currently becomes a photosynthesizing write or ever will write, cell, until other organelles whether they are subtle or pass through and inscribe their overt, apparent or lurking in the actions into this hypothetical background. There is always a cell without organelles, much narrative, even if that narrative like Joyce’s head. does not show progress, even if Within a schizoid reader, that narrative is disjointed and text becomes a howling that is irregular, even if that narrative “welded together in breath… is difficult to thematize. like the bones in the blood of the Perhaps this idea of a body without organs” (Deleuze, perfect narrative also has its 1990, p. 89). The schizophrenic roots in this enlightenment value reader is a body without organs of perfection, which is easy to acted upon by the text, which understand, to recognize, to itself is a locus of pigeonhole. This researcher has 154 The Frankenpaper

Just so, the Frankenstein an indifferent stepmother. monster operates in this This is not an instance of an bordering between the physical author writing from experience. and the point of 0 intensity. Rather, it may be understood The monster is a body without as an experience taking over organs, in the most literal and an author: there is grief in this figurative uses of the term—a instance, one that manifests neutral pile of dead flesh, acting as the absent mother (which as a physically manifest 0 point certainly was within the author’s of intensity upon which the mad realm of experience) but the doctor may inscribe his toils and grief penetrates bloodlines. obsessions. But, just as the body The grieving machine attaches without organs rejects a stable to Shelley: the Shelley-grief production of desire (Deleuze assemblage produces a text. & Guattari, 1983), the monster rejects being the Pygmalion

intensities that has been no ties to any other being inscribed by a nameless author, and, by Kant’s standards, is that inscribes itself upon the “free.” But when we think reader, breathing a life of new about the predictability that affect into the schizoid reader. must accompany this writing As I sit, writing these words, a in the academy, or as a result friend beside me plays a video of a demanding audience or game; currently, she is fighting genre concerns, how far can a monster called a siren, an we actually say that the one ethereal spirit-creature which writing is free? When we must has the ability to reanimate dead pretend that the writing was bodies and call them to arms. neat, tidy, that it began at point The bodies have been wounded, A and ended at point B with no gutted; they too are without meandering thoughts seeping heads, entrails, limbs, and a in, we are putting on a show. force deterritorializes them as When we claim that there is an corpses, making untroubled Joshua Cruz & Holly Corkill 155 sculpture of Victor’s desire— Shelley becomes a vessel Victor must rewrite various for traumatic intensities; it is intensities across his monstrous not she that speaks through body without organs, filling it her book, but those intensities at different times with disgust- that are written upon her via desiring, hate-desiring, and the contexts from which she revenge-desiring. The monster emerges. Along with her lack of sloughs off his role as a being nurtured was her inability physical body without organs to nurture—specifically, the loss for Victor and engages in the of her first child. The motherless act of inscription upon its own child fails to nurture her own. body without organs. Within If we understand grief as an the monster, the two planes intensity that can inscribe itself of 0 intensity come together: across generations, that lurks the monster as Victor’s own and looms in its own monstrous body without organs physically capacity, then manifest, and the them new. As I watch this writing process, we do occurring on the screen, I think disservice to those learning about the siren as a piece of text, to write, making them think creating a revolution within these that they are bad writers when bodies, initially lifeless, points of not every piece falls into 0 intensity, ready to be inscribed place (Lamott, 1994); such by the intensity of the siren. perfectionism kills creativity. The thought within a text, state We attempt to hide or smooth Deleuze and Guattari (1987) “is out the sutures that hold our like the vampire” (p. 377) and writing together, but in doing so, we know that a vampire infects we are being honest with neither (p. 242). The words in a text do our readers nor ourselves. not tell, but they spread, creating Such suturing, I believe, armies of revolting bodies of gets at the real nature of action and affect. Vampires, Frankenwriting. Each individual sirens, undead bodies piece of writing is assembled of various pieces 156 The Frankenpaper

monster as desiring agent acting perhaps it was too much for the upon/with his own body without child to bear; grief transmutes organs. We see such inscription itself from mother to child and as the monster realizes he left Shelley unable to carry her has been abandoned by the first child to term. We might say De Laceys. He experiences a that Mary Shelley’s portrayal of “luxury of sensation” (Shelley, the failed first meeting between 1818, p. 162) that initially father and child in Frankenstein he cannot endure. He allows was her way of processing her himself “to be borne away by trauma and disappointment at the stream” (p. 165) of hatred Percy Shelley’s rejection of their as his body without organs “sets own child, a premature girl who up a counterflow of amorphous, died shortly after her birth in undifferentiated fluid” (Deleuze 1815 (Badalamenti, 2006). We & Guattari, 1983, p. 9) that might just as soon say that this fuels his hate- and destruction- rejection also became desiring. The

without organs, Artaud’s of writing external to it, whether Jabberwocky monster (Deleuze, these pieces actually take 1990): writing is an exercise in textual shape or not. A piece of creating textual monsters and writing has every potential to be (re)animating bodies. something different than what it Monsters, it seems, always is: an idea may be expressed in emerge from darkness or mist— a different way, a sentence may some space of indeterminacy. connect to another sentence with Within these spaces, there a semicolon rather than a period, is always potential. They or on a larger scale, a different exemplify what Deleuze topic may be approached in a referred to as a virtual space similar fashion, or in the case of (Wallin, 2010). Reality may be an academic paper, a different constituted and arranged in a theory may be chosen to situate number of ways, and Deleuze’s a piece of information. These challenge to us are all tools at our Joshua Cruz & Holly Corkill 157 body without organs rejects a part of Mary Shelley’s body the reason of language, rejects without organs, passing through interrupting thoughts and her arm, her hand, her pen, and “utters only gasps and cries into the text of Frankenstein. that are sheer unarticulated As Victor regards his efforts, he blocks of sound” (p. 9). It is goes so far as to call the monster “the reversion of thought and an “abortive creation” (Shelley, perception-action into pure 1818, p. 38). Victor’s rejection sensation” (Massumi, 2002, of his creature may be seen as a p. 109), of which the monster kairotic moment (Rickert, 2013) allows himself to experience a manifestation of all aspects of a luxury. We see the monster, the malformed, miscarried and a body without organs and an misgendered body that Mary actor upon/with a body without had conceived and carried for organs, operating in this state seven months— of aphasiac, fluid, intense sensation: is an “ethical impetus against disposal, used to assemble a the world in advance” (Wallin, piece of text. If enough of the p. 27). Writing is not a given; parts are different, then we can if writing is a monster, then the assemble a different paper. Or author is the obscuring mist we might go through with some from which the writing must of these parts and revise what meander out of. The form the we have written, cutting away writing takes, however, should here, adding there, placing be unknown until it emerges; no certain items in our respective method, no process, no stable or shit-I-cut folders for later use. transcendental structure should Every paper, themselves all tell us what that writing will Frankenthings, constitute a look like. whole body of writing, some And just as Victor pieces of which may be loosely Frankenstein gives us no clue as connected to others, hanging to the method used to reanimate only by a thread, but always a his preface. 158 The Frankenpaper

[the wind] produced a a malformed and unviable being kind of insanity in my passed through her own body spirits that burst all without organs. bounds of reason and Within the writing of reflection. I lighted the Frankenstein, we cannot discount dry branch of a tree others who may assemble and and danced with fury connect to Shelley’s writing around the devoted machine. Deleuze and Guattari cottage … with a loud (1987) open one of their works scream I fired the straw, by stating “The two of us wrote and heath, and bushes, Anti-Oedipus together. Since which I had collected. each of us was several, there The wind fanned the was already quite a crowd” fire, and the cottage (p. 3). Is there any doubt that Shelley could have said the same? According to Badalamenti (2006), one of the

monster, there is no process for In some ways, I wonder if the the spread of ideas in this way Frankenmonster is the best because, like the monster, ideas analogy for writing. Instead, are uncontrollable. Thought it is as though I have a kraken exists “in a smooth space that it with hundreds of tentacles must occupy without counting, inside me; at various points, a and for which there is no tentacle reaches out, comprising possible method, no conceivable a piece of writing; the tentacles reproduction, but only relays, themselves are lines of flight, intermezzos, resurgences” various manifestations of (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, thought that all connect in p. 377). Thoughts—texts— some form. We can follow the encounter readers and form tentacles back to their origin a literary machines, having points only to discover that various effects on those readers they connect to other tentacles, that the author of the text cannot twisting around one another, control. Here, we forming linkages Joshua Cruz & Holly Corkill 159

was quickly enveloped strongest influences on the by the flames (Shelley, novel was Mary Shelley’s p. 165-166). husband Percy who, upon The monster, despite his Mary’s completion of the work, attempts, has not been able to reviewed the novel, revising join the world that would seek to it at points and explicitly place Oedipal barriers of social contributed his own voice to and psychic repression. Anything the story by writing the preface. but autistic, the monster becomes Shelley admits to the infiltration animal, a howling wolfman, of Percy influence into the body a dancing, fire-producing of the novel in the author’s Neanderthal, a monster in its introduction written to append darkest connotations of the term: to the revision of the work she open to intensities of experience, released in 1831. At the time of beyond the reaches of rational this publication, Shelley wrote language, not bound at all by that the “several pages” of the reason or original work begin to think about what a real and overlaps and knots. Then post-process theory might look again, the kraken is its own kind like. A text, a paper, a thought of Frankenmonster, assembled constantly evolves, constantly over hundreds of years of emerges. This flies in the face folklore, borrowing from of more traditional rhetoric and various cultures’ superstitions writing wisdom: the canons about water monsters. of Cicero, the conventions of Whether it be a kraken genre, signposts designed to or Frankenstein, or vampire, lead readers down a particular or ghost that haunts, calling path. What does writing look writing a monster is accurate like when we think of our read- because part of the allure of ers as bodies without organs, 0 a monster is that it cannot be intensities, forming a literary controlled. These creatures are machine with our writing? notoriously difficult to locate and rid oneself of, and that is certainly 160 The Frankenpaper

reflection. He is the schizophrenic reflected “many a walk, visibly resisting Oedipalization many a drive, and many a (Deleuze & Guattari, 1983, p. 52), conversation when [she] was the ‘rational’ being that caves into not alone” (Shelley, 2017, p. absolute irrationality as he burns 300). She further alludes to her the very symbol of the traditional, “companion,” indicating that daddy-mommy-me triangle—the she will see this person “no pastoral, domestic cottage. more” (Shelley, 2017, p. 300). Still, we Oedipalize; we Here, it is not necessarily the see in the Frankenstein films intensities of grief or trauma a kind of accounting for the that spur the text, but another monster: sexualizing it with individual, triangulated into eels and probes, identifying being by his own multiplicities, the spark of life with his own intensities, that further observable lightening. The contributes to the work. Indeed, same is true in the novel; there some of the key aspects of Frankenstein,

While compositionists, the case with the thoughts that those responsible for a post- produce writing, at least within process movement, seem me. I would describe some of to have largely ignored this my most intense moments of question, we find many writing as flow, when I become examples of Deleuzian writing unaware of the world around theory in qualitative research. me, fully enveloped in putting Wyatt, Gale, Gannon, and words to paper. In this case, Davies (2011), for instance, the thoughts behind writing explore how individuated possess me. I can’t not write. co-authors blur and overlap, Or if I refuse, something will bringing various intensities to seem off; I become hyperactive, one another, indelibly shaping squirmy, unable to concentrate one another’s thoughts as they on some other task until the idea wrote together: “instead of is fleshed in writing. And how exploring Deleuze as an abstract interesting that it must be set of propositions, we Joshua Cruz & Holly Corkill 161 is a need to control the monster including names of the via the narrative of its life, character, came directly from accounting for his thoughts Percy’s experience, rather than and actions. At the end of the Shelley’s head. novel, Victor identifies the It is also difficult to read monster, before anything else, Frankenstein without also as “rational” (Shelley, 1818, p. considering the immediate 269). These words fly in the face connections of Mary and Percy of the above passage, wherein Shelley to their Romantic the monster allows himself to contemporaries. Along with be moved by sensation and providing Mary Shelley a place intensity, those affects that into which she could explore inscribe themselves upon his the complicated web of her body without organs, an act of relationships, the novel also anti-rationality, pure intensity provided her with an inlet to explore and problematize the way brought his concepts to life in fleshed out—part of the our collaborating bodies and hideousness of the Frankenstein our unfolding engagements with monster was the fact that it life in its specificity—and in its was not fully fleshed. Its skin Being. We sought to unleash could barely contain itself; this the creative voice of matter appearance created a negative in our engagement in [our] response in those that beheld it. assemblage” (Wyatt et al., 2014, As Victor created his p. 409). Guttorm (2012), reacting monster, he seemed to be in a to Wyatt et al. (2011), writes similar state of flow. He lost about how a paper is never quite track of time, he disappeared under her control—ideas shift from his friends, he stopped and evolve, and she reflects upon eating. He too was fully this experience using poetic enveloped in his composition, language. The poetic language, fleshing out the body of work she states, is designed to open a that he saw as his. And yet, it stream that flows was not until he 162 The Frankenpaper

And this is the nature that many of her contemporaries, of Oedipus: “a fantastic including her husband, placed repression” (Deleuze & excessive faith in “science to Guattari, 1983, p. 3), one which answer questions about life seeks to create an arborescent and nature, expecting scientists singularity in place of the to articulate a consistent rhizomatic multiplicity of the worldview that would help monster (Heymans, 2011). By people understand the vast world the monster’s account, it was, around them” (Hogsette, 2011, p. after all, his exposure to the 534). Along with this reliance on cruelty exacted upon him by science to explain the mysteries the humans he encountered of the world, proponents of that made him the villain his the Enlightenment, such as creator believed him to be. Kant, believed that human The monster’s linear, narrative maturity occurred only when an account is a shame and a individual abandoned the need to rely on

from those authors that she has had produced his body that he read and that have inspired her realized what he had created, thinking—she is an example beheld the ugliness that he of the reader as body without then allowed to wreak havoc organs, being called to action across the world. Though it was by a text. Her call to action is months before any sign of the a revolution of thoughts. More creature would appear again, it recently, a book was released was always in the back of his that examines how we might mind, filling him with sickness use Deleuze to write in the and anxiety. What better way academy and create monsters to describe the process of from our writing (Riddle, Bright submitting or sharing a paper & Honan, 2018). It is strange and waiting for a reader to that so few compositionists respond? At the grade school or seem to have employed Deleuze high school level, we write an and Guattari within their works; essay and await criticism from these the teacher. On Joshua Cruz & Holly Corkill 163 testament to the Oedipalizing another’s intelligence instead of repression that Victor, as well as their own. According to Kant, the DeLaceys, the villagers that enlightenment required only attack him, and the individual freedom, and an individual who shot him, force the monster gained that freedom when they into. The monster is a body sought to “walk alone” even at without organs manifest and a the risk of failure (Kant, 1784, phenomenon of bordering; it is p. 1). For Shelley, the monster this image of wildness which is the embodiment of the creates horror in others as well Enlightenment’s focus on the as a desire to tame and control. pursuit of scientific knowledge The monster’s becoming animal turned monstrous, without any places it into an unrecognizable thought to moral responsibility species (Carretero-Gonzalez, (Hogsette, 2011). Though 2016), and it is not allowed to mentors and teachers such as the operate within a repugnantly described

pieces, largely written by Facebook, a post is submitted, qualitative researchers, might and we wait to see how others offer an excellent place to begin. will like it. Perhaps the stakes But to our original question, are lower than releasing a what does a Deleuzian approach zombie into the world, but to post-process writing look the waiting is the same; we like? And how might we employ anticipate how others will this pedagogically? Pedagogy respond to our writing, we wait has been a bugbear of the post- for the criticism or the feedback, process movement (Kent, 1999; and we dread the mistakes and Heard, 2008, Mays 2017). How errors that we have made, which to make something non-process- only seem to make themselves oriented, non-methodological, apparent after we have finished teachable? Deleuze suggested our toils. We have no control that we adopt an over our writing at that point; we were simply the toiling force 164 The Frankenpaper

space reserved for those that Krempe discourage Victor’s are recognizable. For one interests in alchemy, Victor that is driven by passions and fuses alchemy with the science intensities, one that has no of enlightenment and creates Oedipal beginnings, no physical an abomination. Along with coherence, there is no world to the monster representing Mary live in. The creature must live Shelley’s warning of how among borders and margins, Enlightenment results in the and there is no end but to exile practice of science without the oneself and, perhaps, die. temperance of morality, Mary What might we take away Shelley also uses Frankenstein from all of this? Alkon (2002) to critique the Age of suggests that “the role of Enlightenment’s pursuit of human science in Frankenstein, as in perfection (Cook, 2019). In the so much subsequent science novel, one of the reasons that fiction, is not so much to Victor pursues the creation of

attitude of transcendental that brought the piece of text empiricism (St. Pierre, 2016); into existence (and even then, in line with his concepts of how much credit can we actually difference and the virtual, take? We had no control over the he suggested that we break desires that manifest to drive us with claims about what is in to put pen to paper). The piece the world. An author cannot, itself, then, disseminates its with certainty, determine the own ideas as others come into ways that audience will react contact with it. It is no longer to a piece of writing. Instead, an author-text machine, but a we should focus on what has reader-text machine. Perhaps it the potential to emerge (from will be received well, but there writing). Nietzsche’s writing is always risk. was taken up by the Nazi This leads to some cause, used by the monster that interesting questions which I was Adolph Hitler, although am not ready to answer. For Nietzsche could never have instance, from a Joshua Cruz & Holly Corkill 165 consider scientific realities his creature is that he wishes as to afford a unique vantage to create a perfect human point for contemplation of the being that can defeat death. human condition” (p. 5). Could The monster then becomes a this human condition be one of product and portent of efforts scientization as criticized by to achieve human perfection Deleuze and Guattari (1983; outside of the confines of the 1987) and Massumi (2002)? mentorship of morality; he also The free, detached, a-multiple becomes Shelley’s critique of rationality of Kantian (1784) the Enlightenment’s drive for enlightenment? Certainly a freedom of discovery that it is science that creates the rejects any sort of morality and condition of the monster, a instead relies solely on science condition which may then be in the pursuit of knowledge. reviled as horrific and irrational. However, what we may learn Perhaps Shelley (1818) herself, from this is that ideas do not a close associate of the spontaneously emerge anticipated this (Higgins Deleuzo-Guattarian perspective, & Solomon, 2000). Joyce how responsible is the author acknowledged that his readers for their piece of writing? If an would add more to his writing, author is simply overcome with constantly guessing at its intensities and must produce, meaning, filling in blanks, then we cannot blame the author theorizing, but never entirely for what is written (should we aware of how his work might blame Victor for his creation?). inspire others—only that it And if the text takes on its own would inspire (Ellmann, 1982). life as it comes into contact with In this, there is a potential lesson readers, we certainly cannot to engender within students if blame the author for the way one is to take seriously a post- that the text is taken up. And process pedagogy. That the yet, I feel that there is a weight effects and affects of writing as I write, a need to make sure I will always be uncertain—that express an we can imbue as much 166 The Frankenpaper

Satanic poets, was making within authors’ minds to be a case for the wandering written. We might say, rather, schizoid, criticizing the over that ideas are inscribed within determination that was present an author; they use the author, in the sciences even in the early rather than the author uses them, 1800s. insisting that the author write them. Ideas are negotiated, and they rewrite themselves as they come into contact with other ideas, as others attach themselves to the writing assemblage of author-idea- context-infinity.

meaning into a text as we idea clearly, try to bridge my may want, but it will always mind with my audience’s, escape us as others come into although I do not know who contact with it. But from a will actually be reading my transcendentally empirical work. This is perhaps a neurosis perspective, this is appropriate. on my end, one brought about Writing is not necessarily by years of believing that I have meaningful, but generative. some control. I wonder what a Rather than a post-process different approach to teaching pedagogy, we must ask: how do writing might look like, one that we teach generativity, creativity, allows us to think of our textual works that inspire internal creations as creatures that we and external revolutions while instill with life that will then, on erasing ourselves and static their own accord, leave us and notions of what writing needs to produce their own meaning. be from the conversation? Joshua Cruz & Holly Corkill 167 References Alkon, P. K. (2002). Science fiction before 1900: Imagination discovers technology. New York, NY: Routledge. Badalamenti, A. (2006). Why did Mary Shelley write Frankenstein? Journal of Religion and Journal of Religion and Health, 45(3), 419-439. Barnett, S. (2015). Rhetoric’s nonmondern constitution: Techne, phusis, and the production of hybrids. In P. Lynch & N. Rivers (eds.) Thinking with Bruno Latour in rhetoric and composition (pp. 81-96). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Brackett, V. (2016). Mary Shelley. Ipswich, MA: Salem Press. Carretero-Gonzalez, M. (2016). The posthuman that could have been Mary Shelley’s creature. Relations: Beyond Anthropocentrism, 4(1), 53-64. Cook, A. (2019). Perfecting monstrosity: Frankenstein and the enlightenment debate on perfectibility. Nineteenth Century Contexts, 4(3), 243-253. Deleueze, G. (1977). I have nothing to admit. Semiotexte 2(3), 111-117. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. (B. Mas- sumi, trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1986). Kafka: Toward a minor literature. (D. Polan, trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. (B. Massumi, trans.). University of Minnesota Press. Deleuze, G. (1990). The logic of sense. (M. Lester, trans.). New York, NY: Columbia Uni- versity Press. Derrida, J. (1981) Dissemination. (B. Johnson, trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Ellmann, R. (1982). James Joyce. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Fleck, P. D. (1967). Mary Shelley’s notes to Shelley’s poems and Frankenstein. Studies in Romanticism, 6(4), 226-254. Heard, M. (2008). What should we do with post-process theory? Pedagogy, 8 (2), 283-304. Heymans, P. (2011). The Romantic sublime and Deleuze and Guattari’s theory of becoming in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture. Re- trieved from https://cris.vub.be/en/publications/the-romantic-sublime-and-deleuze- and-guattaris-theory-of-becoming-in-mary-shelleys-frankenstein(d909fea8-6593- 4bb9-972a-ff504fd6b99c).html Higgins, M. K., & Solomon, R. C. (2000). What Nietzsche really said. New York, NY: Schocken Books. Hogsette, D. S. (2011). Metaphysical intersections in Frankenstein: Mary Shelley’s theis- tic investigation of scientific materialism and transgressive autonomy. Christianity & Literature, 60(4), 531-559. Joyce, J. (1921). Letter describing his writing process, 24 June 1921. Retrieved from https:// www.bl.uk/collection-items/letter-from-james-joyce-describing-his-writing-process Kant, I. (1784). What is enlightenment? Retrieved from: https://resources.saylor.org/ww- wresources/archived/site/wpcontent/uploads/2011/02/What-is-Enlightenment.pdf Kent, T. (ed.). (1999). Post-process theory: Beyond the writing-process paradigm. Carbon- dale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. King, S. (2000) On writing: A memoir of the craft. New York, NY: Scribner. Lamott, A. (1994). Bird by bird: Some instructions on writing and life. New York, NY: 168 The Frankenpaper

Anchor Books. Lynch, P., & Rivers, N. (eds.). (2015). Thinking with Bruno Latour in composition and rhetoric. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Mays, C. (2017). Writing complexity, one stability at a time: Teaching writing as a complex system. College Composition and Communication, 68(3), 559-585. Mellor, A. (1988). Mary Shelley, her life, her fiction, her monsters. New York, NY: Rout- ledge. Moore, N. (2007). Nova law: William S. Burroughs and the logic of control. Law and Lit- erature, 19(3), 435-470. Rickert, T. (2013). Ambient rhetoric: The attunements of rhetorical beings. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Riddle, S., Bright, D. & Honan, E (eds.). (2018). Writing with Deleuze in the academy: Creating monsters. Singapore, Malaysia: Springer. Rieder, J. (2003). Patriarchal fantasy and the fecal child in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and its adaptations. Romantic Circles. Retrieved from https://romantic-circles.org/ praxis/ frankenstein/rieder/rieder.html Scott, W. (1818). Remarks on Frankenstein, or the modern Prometheus; a novel. Black- wood Edinburgh Magazine, 2(12), 612-613. Shelley, M. (1818). Frankenstein: The modern Prometheus. Retrieved from: Retrieved from https://www.planetebook.com/free-ebooks/frankenstein.pdf Shelley, M. (2017). The new annotated Frankenstein. L. S. Klinger (Ed.). New York, NY: Liveright Publishing. Trimbur, J. (1994). Taking the social turn: Teaching writing post-process. College Compo- sition and Communication, 45(1), 108-118. Wallin, J. (2010). A Deleuzian approach to curriculum: Essays on a pedagogical life. New York, NY: Palgrave. Wyatt, J., Gale, K., Gannon, S., & Davies, B. (2011). Deleuze and collaborative writing: An immanent plane of composition. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Wyatt, J., Gale, K., Gannon, S., Davies, B., Denzin, N. K., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2014). Deleuze and collaborative writing: Responding to/with “JKSB.” Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 14(4), 407-416.