Frankenstein’s Daughter

A review of Theodora Goss’ The Strange Case of The Alchemist’s Daughter (Saga Press, 2017)

By Derek Newman-Stille



The Strange Case of the Alchemist’s Daughter is Theodora Goss’ conversation across time with creators of enduring literature that explored things like what it means to be human through the figure of the outsider, the monster. But, more prominently, it is Goss’ conversation with Mary Shelley – a sharing of ideas and perspectives and an opening of dialogue about scientific exploitation of bodies, hegemonic control, the outsider, and the restrictive nature of the category “human”.

Goss resurrects literary monsters of the past by creating a narrative about their daughters, weaving narratives of the abjection of bodily difference with the oppression of women. Like monsters, the women in her narrative resist easy categorization, standing up against subjugation, typification, or any kind of restraint. They speak back to the social pressures and literary tropes that have historically sought to limit them.

Goss draws characters from works by Mary Shelley, H.G. Wells, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Robert Louis Stevenson into an adventure mystery novel that is primarily about the way that people come together in unique ways and draw strength from difference. She brings together the daughters/creations of Dr. Frankenstein, Dr. Moreau, Mr. Hyde, Dr. Jekyll, and Dr. Rappaccini to bring attention to the potential danger of depersonalization in medical sciences, the oppression of bodies that don’t conform, the profound isolation that comes with difference, and the power of found family to create a sense of belonging.

As much as this is a brilliant and exciting tale in itself, it is also a discourse on storytelling and Goss’ characters regularly interrupt their own story in order to interject critiques of the writing process, give details left out, and add insights that expand on the perspective given. The characters briefly interrupt the story to say things like “Now you really do sound like a penny dreadful!” These women want to tell their own narratives, tired of being silenced by literary tropes or having their stories told by others. They are active participants in constructing their own narratives, literary partners with their writer, Theodora Goss, who offers them a space to speak.

Goss interweaves Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein throughout her narrative, resurrecting characters from Shelley’s tale, but also having characters critique Shelley’s 1818 narrative, challenging the limitations it places on the characters and expanding upon the potential of Shelley’s tale. But she also plays with thoughts that Shelley began to explore in Frankenstein like the meaning of “monster” and the interplay with the sympathetic outsider. She complicates the notion of the monster just as Shelley does, engaging the reader in a process of remapping the potential boundaries of the human.


An Academic Discussion on Frankenstein and Colonialism by Ashley Caranto Morford

In the first of our Kickstarter stretch reward academic discussions of Frakenstein, Derek Newman-Stille interviews Ashley Caranto Morford from the University of Toronto about a decolonizing perspective on Frankenstein. Morford applies a queer decolonizing lens to the study of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and its antecedents. Morford also runs the Digital Humanities project Frankenstein’s Creature: Troubling Understandings of the Other.


Click below to explore Ashley Caranto Morford’s discussion. Make certain to allow time for the video to load.

Terms of Agreement – We Shall Be Monsters

By submitting to this anthology, you agree to the following, should your story be selected for publication :


In this document,

“Publisher” designates Renaissance;

“Editors” designates the editors of the anthology (Derek Newman-Stille and Kate Story);

“Author” designates the author of the short story entering into this contract;

“Anthology” designates the work currently known as We Shall Be Monsters

“Work” designates short story being submitted by Author.


Author guarantees that:

A. The Work is free and clear of any counts of libel, plagiarism, breach of privacy or misrepresentation of facts;

B. The Work does not infringe upon any copyright or proprietary right, common law or statutory law, and does not contain any material of libelous nature;

C. The Work is not in the public domain and the Author is the sole owner and copyright holder of the work with full power to enter into this contract.


A. The Author, on behalf of themselves and their heirs, executors, administrators, and successors, agrees to grant the Publisher exclusive English language rights to produce, publish and sell the Work in print and electronic format, including bound books, digital books, email, download, disk, CD, or any other digital format known or to be invented.

B. Adaptations to other media (such as, but not limited to, film, television, graphic novel): should the publisher negotiate for adaptation rights to be sold to a third party on behalf of the author, the publisher shall be entitled to 5% of the proceeds of said sales. Author will have to give written permission for adaptation to be made, and Publisher shall endeavour to ensure the Author is as involved as he or she wished to be. Should the Author independently secure and negotiate the sale of the rights for an adaptation to be made, Publisher will not request compensation but will ask to retain the rights to sell the Work for a minimum of one (1) year following the release of the adaptation.


A. Print and Electronic Rights

A.1 Print and Electronic Rights will be exclusive for one (1) year commencing on the date of print publication of the Anthology. After such time, Publisher retains the non-exclusive right to sell the story in the anthology for four (4) years, during which time author is free to resell or reprint the Work.

A.2 Non-exclusive rights will automatically renew afterward each year unless Author requests their rights back. If the Author does request them back, they must do so in writing, and Publisher will revert the rights within thirty days of receiving written notice.

A.3 Print rights refer to the first edition of the anthology, in paperback and hardcover format. Electronic Rights refers to digital book, audio, CD, or any other format yet to be invented.

A.4 Non-exclusive, limited rights allow the publisher to keep selling the anthology in its current form. It does not give the Publisher rights to print the story by itself or in a new anthology.

B. Publisher may terminate contract at any time for reasons such as lack of cooperation or resolution of disagreements between author and publisher including but not limited to editing. Publisher also reserves the right to terminate based on slander or libel against the publisher, staff, or other authors, or failure to meet reasonable editing deadlines without notifying the publisher of a problem. In such an event, publisher will provide author with a first written warning before terminating the contract. Publisher must provide author with written notice of contract termination and author is not responsible for paying any editing, promotional, marketing, or book making fees.

C. Anthology production is subject to financing. Should financing fall through, Publisher reserves the right to terminate contract, after avenues are exhausted.


A.     Author and Editors must work together to adhere to the Renaissance Press in house style guide. Publisher will not be held liable for lost manuscripts or defective disks. It shall be the responsibility of the Author to maintain back-up copies of any and all work(s).

B.     The Publisher shall make no changes in, additions to, or eliminations from the manuscript without Author’s consent. However, the Publisher may copyedit the Work in accordance with its standards of punctuation, spelling, capitalization, usage, and grammar. The copyedited manuscript shall be sent by the Publisher to the Author, who shall make any revisions and corrections and return it within two weeks of receipt. Any other edits will be requested of the author and agreed upon between the Author and the Publisher prior to preparation for sale. If the complete manuscript for the Work delivered by the Author is not acceptable to the Publisher, the Publisher shall give the Author a written request for changes and revisions for such Work.

C.     Should the work not be deemed fit for publication by the Publisher and the Author is unwilling to make the requested changes, Publisher reserves the right to declare this an unsolvable disagreement as per III.B, and terminate the contract. Publisher will not publish an altered version of the Work without Author’s consent.


A. The base rate offered is 0.03 cents per word, based on final word count of ready-to-print story.

B. The Author is responsible for paying their own taxes on payments received from Publisher and is advised to keep accurate records for tax purposes. It is the sole responsibility of the Author to attain all proper documentation according to their federal laws governing taxes.

C. Author shall each receive one (1) print copy of the anthology as a contributors copy.


A. Authors shall provide Editors and Publisher with biographical information and author photos. Author gives Publisher the right to use Author’s name, likeness, title of work and biographical material for publishing, advertising and promoting the Work and the anthology.

B. Author agrees to participate in promotions which the publisher arranges, such as, but not limited to, blog tours, interviews, discussions, sales table at events, etc. Publisher will schedule them around the Author’ availability, which the Author agrees to provide. Such promotional activities are voluntary and will not put an undue burden on the Editors’ health, work, or family obligations.

E. For the first year of this agreement, during which rights are exclusive, Author may use up to 20% of the work (but no complete short story) to post on their website or to give away as “teasers” to promote the work, provided it includes a link to the Publisher’s website. After that year is up, Author is free to distribute Work as they please.

G. Author grants Editors and Publisher permission to include excerpts and bios in press releases to other industry resources for marketing purposes.


A. Renaissance Press may at any time sell itself, or the majority of itself, its holdings, or licenses. Current contracts would transfer to the new owner.

B. Bankruptcy: If Renaissance Press is legally judged bankrupt or liquidates its business, this Contract shall be terminated effectively and all rights granted to “Renaissance” shall revert back to Authors.

C. Rights: If Publisher suspends operations, removes website from the internet or fails to respond to any written or electronic correspondence, other than a temporary suspension for technical difficulties such as a loss of Web Server or other suspensions not lasting more than sixty (60) days, all rights outlined in this agreement are terminated and all rights are immediately reverted to the Author, as of 30 days after last successful contact.


A. These terms hereby constitute the entire agreement between Author and Publisher and supersedes all previous agreements regarding the Work, whether oral or in writing. Modification of these terms may only occur in writing, signed by both parties.



Monstrous Minds – Psychoanalysis of Frankenstein’s Monster

Monstrous Minds
A review of Michael Bishop’s “The Creature on the Couch” in The Ultimate Frankenstein (Simon & Shuster, 1991)

By Derek Newman-Stille

There has been a history, particularly in films, of silencing Frankenstein’s monster, but, of course, Mary Shelley’s creation spoke with incredible eloquence and self awareness, interrogating its own motivations, feelings, and impulses. Michael Bishop’s “The Creature on the Couch” puts Mary Shelley’s monster into the modern era, having him psychoanalyzed. The monster illustrates his ability to be self aware in his interviews with the psychologist, able to speak back to the questions and even, at times, to interrogate the psychologist about his own motivations, thoughts, and behaviours. This is not a silent or passive monster, but a creature who creates his own narratives. 

Bishop’s monster is one who knows about his impulses and the psychological factors that motivate him, but is still unable to resist his actions and choices, compelled to act out of violence, particularly when he encounters feelings of abandonment. The creature’s central, shaping moment was his abandonment by his creator, which continued to shape his fear of loss and rapid change.

The psychologist in this narrative has to face his own biases and assumptions about the monster as well, particularly his assumption that the monster is a man who is experiencing a psychotic episode and believes himself to be the monster, rather than embracing the potential that the monster could exist. The monster hand him Mary Shelley’s text as a way of introducing his complex background and history, adding in the needed details, but still acknowledging Shelley’s narrative as his shaping story, as an accurate portrayal of himself and his motivations. The monster is shaped by the stories told about him.

“The Creature on the Couch” reveals the complexity of the monster’s feelings, impulses and behaviours, allowing him to be more fleshed out than most explorations of Shelley’s creature have been.

Of Humps and Monsters

Of Humps and Monsters
A review of Young Frankenstein (1974) dir. Mel Brooks. Distributed by 20th Century Fox

By Derek Newman-Stille

Humour has an important role in social critique. People generally don’t consider humour threatening to their values, but humour relies on its ability to upend social mores, twist audience assumptions, and invert the expected. Young Frankenstein presents itself as a nostalgic play with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein text, inserting sexual puns and body humour into a story that is already so much about the body. But, it is also a commentary on medicine and the power of doctors.

Frederick, a descendant of Victor Frankenstein wants to break out from his ancestor’s shadow to distinguish himself as a medical researcher who has nothing in common with the other Frankenstein. He even pronounces his name Fronkensteen to differentiate himself from his family legacy. But, his history haunts him and I would suggest that it is not his family legacy that draws him into conducting the same experiments as his ancestor, but rather his medical legacy. He feels drawn to greater and greater medical pursuits, no longer just interested in neuroscience, but instead in biological conquest – controlling the barrier between life and death. Medicine becomes his obsession.

Where Mary Shelley’s text focusses on the morals around creating life and ideas of paternity, Young Frankenstein focusses on the figure of the brain, bringing attention to the brain as a central idea at the start of the film by making Frederick a neuroscientist who is lecturing to students about how the brain is an unconquerable question. This focus on the brain is later augmented when Frederick is given the wrong brain for his monster by Igor. Igor observes that the brain was from Abby something… Abby Normal. By inserting an abnormal brain into the body of his monster, Frederick ends up with a monster who is inarticulate, controlled by emotion, and prone to violence. Rather than a single neuro-atypicality, the monster is given a constellation of different neuro-atypical behaviours, illustrating the simple divide between normal and abnormal as a social fixture that is not given to further exploration. As is characteristic of a lot of films that feature disability, the monster is immediately subject to a search for a cure by the doctor, who is interested in illustrating that his monster can be “civilized” (read here normalized). The doctor even gives part of himself to the monster in a transference procedure (for which he gains some of the monster’s genital girth) to make the monster more like himself. Despite this, neither monster nor doctor fully conform to social expectations of normalcy, subtly critiquing the idea that there can BE a ‘normal’. The film even tries to display the monster in a state of domestic normalcy, talking to his wife about various parties they need to go to, and even this element of normalcy is constantly disrupted by the monster’s body and his wife’s evocation of the classic Universal Studios Bride of Frankenstein hair. 

But by far the strongest resistance to normalcy and the medical imposition of a normal body is Igor, who Frederick immediately notices has a hump on his back and offers to “fix” it, citing his credentials as a medical doctor. Igor displays absolute comfort with his hump by being entirely unaware of what the doctor is suggesting he will fix, illustrating that he doesn’t consider his hump to be something in need of repair or change. He resists the homogenizing of the body by medical science simply by disregarding any difference between himself and any other bodies.

Young Frankenstein shows its fascination with the body and ideas of normalcy through its focus on the idea of the body fragmented, but also through the ability for the body to be sexualized. In denying bodily normalcy, Young Frankenstein also questions normative sexualities and invites ideas of unbridled passion.


A review of Lakeshore Entertainment‘s I, Frankenstein (2014), dir. Stuart Beattie.
By Derek Newman-Stille

I, Frankenstein takes Mary Shelley’s monstrous creation and plunges him into a battle between demons and gargoyles, mythologizing him and positioning him between two opposing forces – evil and good.

I, Frankenstein follows a history of narratives that try to position the monster in a redemption narrative, exploring the idea of the monster as a being without a soul, separated from humanity because of his artificial manufacture, but also containing a seed of potential to develop a soul. This is a tale about the division of soul and body and the question of what the soul means.

I, Frankenstein explores ideas of the authenticity of humanity and positions science as a threat to authenticity, portraying demons as capable of replicating Victor Frankenstein’s research and creating an army of soulless monsters.

Set in the present, this Frankensteinian story sets the monster in the present day, urban setting, mixing gothic sensibilities with modern complexities.

Like Shelley’s creation, the monster from I, Frankenstein is formed from anguish, loneliness, and a feeling of loss as much as he is formed from knitted together flesh. 

Our Kickstarter is LIVE

It’s Aliiiiiiive

Check out our Kickstarter for this project at

We Shall be Monsters: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein Two Centuries On

Edited by Kate Story and Derek Newman-Stille

Published by Renaissance Press

“It is true, we shall be monsters, cut off from all the world; but on that account we shall be more attached to one another.” Mary Shelley, Frankenstein

Mary Shelley published Frankenstein in 1818, sparking the genres of horror and science fiction. On this, the 200th anniversary of its publication, the narrative is more relevant than ever. We live in an age where we need to ask critical questions about the limits of science. How do scientific pursuits relate to the body? Attention to issues of disability leads us to consider how identity relates to the body, and how the body can shift and change over time. Shelley’s bodily assemblage – a collective of parts given life – still shapes our ideas about ourselves, and about what we create to be our monsters. This anthology will gather together tales inspired by Shelley’s strange alchemy, lightning strikes of inspiration from Frankenstein.

We Shall Be Monsters: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein Two Centuries On will feature a broad range of fiction stories, from direct interactions with Shelley’s texts to explorations of the stitched, assembled body and narrative experiments in monstrous creations. We Shall Be Monsters is a fiction collection that will feature explorations of disability through Frankenstein, queer and trans identity, ideas of race and colonialism. Shelley’s story provides a space for exploring a multitude of identities through the figure of the sympathetic outsider. Frankenstein’s “monster” is a figure of Otherness, and one that can tell stories of exclusion and social oppression.

Although this anthology will feature some established authors, we also hope to add a good mix of emerging and underrepresented voices to the anthology. For that purpose, we are running a call for submissions to which you can participate right here:

About the Editors 

Derek Newman-Stille is a 7-time winner of the Prix Aurora Award, the highest award in Canadian Science Fiction and Fantasy. He is currently also editing Over the Rainbow: Folk and Fairy Talesfrom the Margins (Exile, 2018), and has written for publications like Quill & Quire, Accessing the Future and The Playground of Lost Toys. He has published academic works in works like The Canadian Fantastic in Focus, Mosaic: A Journal for the Interdisciplinary Study of Literature, and Misfit Children: An Inquiry into Childhood Belongings. In his academic life, Derek is a scholar of disability and queer studies, examining how popular media portray oppressed identities. In his role as a critic, writer, and interviewer, Derek seeks to open up discussions about speculative fiction, fantastica, and the imagination.

Kate Story is a writer and performer. A Newfoundlander living in Ontario, her first novel Blasted(Killick Press) received the Sunburst Award for Canadian Literature of the Fantastic’s honourable mention. She is the 2015 recipient of the Ontario Arts Foundation’s K.M. Hunter Award for her work in theatre. Her short stories have been published in World Fantasy and Aurora Award-nominated collections. This year her third novel This Insubstantial Pageantcomes out with ChiZine Publications.

About the Project 

The Kickstarter project for We Shall be Monsters: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein Two Centuries On seeks to raise funds to support our authors and the publishing costs of the project to ensure that authors get fair compensation for their work.



Pledge to support the project at