As a psychology professor and author of a multitude of books that examine various psychological elements at play in some of the genre's most recognized pop culture pillars science fiction, Sherri Ginn seems more than qualified to offer an insightful analysis of both the scientific fact and science fiction found in Mary Shelley's tale of Frankenstein. This idea is brought out almost fully in her essay “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: Science, Science Fiction, or Autobiography?” Ultimately, however, the essay fails to deliver on its promise of realizing the suggestive thesis contained in its title. Ginn's thesis is that all the trappings of scientific reality and fiction found in Frankenstein serve to disguise or distract the reader from interpreting the text within an autobiographical framework. Unfortunately, Sherri Ginn's tantalizing title fails to fully deliver on its provocative promise by failing to fully commit to the idea that the novel can be read autobiographically. As an essayist, Ginn flatly refuses to make the most obvious connection by connecting Mary Shelley's biographical story to the novel's fictional narrative. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In a classic example of anticlimax, just when Ginn could have presented a truly thought-provoking proposal for her thesis, she gives in to the standard conservative phallocentric interpretation of the text that has been the engine of scientific thinking for two centuries. Having built a case from rather strong thematically consistent evidence in support of the possibility of reading Frankenstein as a thickly veiled autobiography, Ginn commits the unforgivable sin of declaring this evidence inadmissible on the grounds that "although in many respects Victor Frankenstein is modeled on Percy Shelley, there is no evidence that Percy was unhappy with such a portrayal. And Mary never repudiated her father or the way her father had treated her” (Frankenstein by Mary Shelley: science, science fiction or autobiography?). Like so many critics before her, Ginn herself is guilty of interpreting Mary Shelley's work – albeit from an autobiographical angle – as having a patriarchal center. The simplistic insistence that Shelley's famous husband is the model for Dr. Frankenstein, uttered while inexplicably linking Frankenstein's rejection of the creature to Mary's famous philosopher father, unnecessarily draws attention away from an autobiographical interpretation of the author and focuses – once again – on the brilliant men who surrounded the young author. What is particularly frustrating about Ginn's failure to follow through on the autobiographical aspect of her thesis is that she actually manages to get in touch with the central piece of thematic evidence that most strongly supports the argument. When Ginn observes that reversing certain stages of Erikson's developmental framework for the development of men makes it more suitable for the development of a woman, she seems ready to take a direct hit on the possibility of Frankenstein being read as a autobiographical story. Extraordinarily, the following turns out to be just a glance: "Women are socialized to maintain intimate relationships and these relationships are more important concerns for adolescent girls than the development of an identity" (Frankenstein : Science, Science Fiction, or by Mary Shelley). Autobiography?). This ability to ignore the obvious, which seems downright shocking when the attacker is a 21st century writer, is considerably less shocking.