3.00

0

Oct 06, 2009

No stars. That's right. Zero, zip. nada.

It's been almost 30 years since I've detested a book this much. I didn't think anything could be worse then Kafka's The Metamorphosis. Seems I'm never too old to be wrong. This time, I don't have the excuse that I was forced to read this for high school lit. class. Oh no, this time I read this of my own volition and for fun. Yeah, fun. Kinda like sticking bamboo shoots between my fingernails type of fun. Watching paint dry fun. Going to an Air Supply No stars. That's right. Zero, zip. nada.

It's been almost 30 years since I've detested a book this much. I didn't think anything could be worse then Kafka's The Metamorphosis. Seems I'm never too old to be wrong. This time, I don't have the excuse that I was forced to read this for high school lit. class. Oh no, this time I read this of my own volition and for fun. Yeah, fun. Kinda like sticking bamboo shoots between my fingernails type of fun. Watching paint dry fun. Going to an Air Supply concert fun.

OK, to be fair, I need to tell you what I liked about this....

Well, Mary Shelley was a teen when she wrote this. Color me impressed. At 19 I was just looking for my next college boyfriend, not penning the great English classic. Kudos to Mary for that.

Otherwise, I can't think of anything to admire in this book, apart from the fact that it's the only book in my reading history where I actually noted EVERY SINGLE PAGE NUMBER and mentally counted down the time I'd be finished.

Why did I persist, you may ask? Well, at the point where the pain became mind numbing, I decided to channel my inner John McCain and just survive the torture. Figured it would make me a better, stronger reader. Might even make me enjoy a re-read of Breaking Dawn....(well, no it wouldn't, but you get the idea).

Frankenstein is a classic alright. A classic melodrama. Complete with a wimpy, vaporish, trembling prima donna main character and a pseudo monster whose only sin is being uglier then Bernie Madoff in cell block D. After the upteenth tremble/jerk/gasp/faint/start from our mad scientist Victor Frankenstein, I could only sign in relief that he wasn't a Rabbi about to perform a bris circumcism - oy vey!

Were we supposed to be outraged at the monster's killing spree? By the books end, I was merely miffed that the creature murdered the wrong Frankenstein sibling. He would have saved himself a good deal of traveling (and saved me a good deal of suffering) had he snuffed out his maker before he could high-tail it out of the birthing room.

I'm sure that the fans of this book will say that I didn't understand the deeper, symbolic nuances of this book, and I'm sure that they are right. At this point in my life, all I know is what I like and don't like in a book, and as far as I'm concerned, this book is unadulterated, mind-numbing crap. But that's just me. Your mileage will vary (as I sincerely hope it does). As for my own mileage, it can best be compared to driving a Ford Pinto in the Indy 500...


EDIT
Due to the efforts of a few Kool-ade drinking trolls who have gotten their big girl/big boy panties in a wad over an almost 200 year old book and can't comment nicely on my review, I am suspending all future comments.

Don't like it? Blame the navel grazing trolls for not accepting the concept of a PERSONAL OPINION. ...more

5

Feb 16, 2009

My apologies, but this review is going to be a bit frantic due to my brain being so oxygen-starved by the novel’s breath-stealing gorgeousness that I'm feeling a bit light-headed. So please forgive the random thoughts.

First: Mary Shelley…I love you!!

Second: Dear Hollywood - you lying dung pile of literature-savaging, no talent hacks…you got this all wrong. Please learn to read and get yourself a copy of the source material before you FUBAR it again.

Third: My heart shattered for the “monster” My apologies, but this review is going to be a bit frantic due to my brain being so oxygen-starved by the novel’s breath-stealing gorgeousness that I'm feeling a bit light-headed. So please forgive the random thoughts.

First: Mary Shelley…I love you!!

Second: Dear Hollywood - you lying dung pile of literature-savaging, no talent hacks…you got this all wrong. Please learn to read and get yourself a copy of the source material before you FUBAR it again.

Third: My heart shattered for the “monster” and I haven’t felt this strong a desire to “hug it out, bitch” since reading Grendel and Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter. The “wretch” is so well drawn and powerfully portrayed that he form the emotional ligament for the entire story. He is among the finest creations the written form has to offer.

Fourth: As surprised as I am to be saying this, this novel has ousted Dracula as my all time favorite of the classic horror stories…sorry Bram, but the good/evil, sad, desperate loneliness of the orphaned monster trying to find a purpose and to define himself in the world trumps The Count.

Five: No one can conceive the variety of feelings which bore me onwards, like a hurricane, in the first enthusiasm of success. Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world. A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs. Pursuing these reflections, I thought that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time (although I now found it impossible) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption. As gorgeous as the prose is, I thought it a crime not to include at least one quote.

Six: The “non-explanation” for the process that Victor uses to create the monster is thing of genius. No other approach could have possibly conveyed the majesty and significance of the achievement, because we would have known it was bullshit. Shelley did it perfectly…which leads me nicely into…

Seven: The corny, slapdash lightning scene is entirely a work of Hollywood? There’s …NO…lightning…scene? Are you kidding me? Even Kenneth Branagh’s supposedly “true” adaptation had electric eels providing power to the “it’s alive” process. All of it bunk. I’ll say it again, Hollywood is a bunch of useless tools. . LIARS!!!

Eight: Speaking of tools, Victor Frankenstein is a giant one. As far as I am concerned, he is clearly the villain of the piece. However, what I found so squee-inducingly magical about Shelly’s writing was my degree of vacillation when it came to Victor’s character. I liked and even admired Victor in the beginning of the story and found his personal journey compelling. He was a genius driven by his desire to unlock the secrets of the universe and had that manic, “mad scientist” focus necessary to the accomplishment of such a lofty goal. However, once the “birth” of the monster came, I found myself waffling back and forth throughout the rest of the story. Ironically, his moment of success and his reaction to life he had conjured was when he began to lose his humanity in my eyes.

His treatment of the monster was abhorrent. Despite this, Shelley was able to get me to see over my disgust and appreciate Frankenstein’s position and understand why he was so unwilling to continence the existence of “the wretch.” Not enough for me to forgive his lack of compassion, but enough for me to see him as a tragic figure. Huge propers for Shelley as that is excellent writing.

Nine: I would place the monster among the finest literary creations of all time. This singular manifestation of humanity’s scientific brilliance and callous indifference to the consequences thereof is masterfully done. Frankenstein’s “wretch” became the prototype of the literary outcast and every “misunderstood” creature since has been offspring from his loins. His character profile is phenomenal, and just as Victor’s actions garner sporadic moments of understanding for his cruel treatment of the monster, so the monster’s wanton acts of vile cruelty severely test our compassion for him. Tested, bent and stretched, but, for me at least, never broken. I understood his pain…I understood his anger…I understood.

Ten: No spoilers here, but the final resolution of the relationship between Victor and the child of his genius was…stellar. Everything was reconciled and nothing was resolved. The final reckoning occurs and it is both momentous and useless.

Eleven: I expected the prose to be good but, having never read Shelley before, I was still surprised by how exceptional and ear-pleasing it was. Her writing really resonated with me and I loved her ability to weave emotion, plot momentum and a high literary quotient seamlessly together. Good, good stuff.

Twelve: The novel is structured as an epistolary nesting doll using the frame story of Captain Walton corresponding with his sister about his expedition to the North Pole. While at the top of the world, Walton finds Victor Frankenstein stranded. This sets up the dovetail into Walton relaying Victor’s story which takes up the bulk of the novel and includes within it the incredibly poignant story of the “monster” in the creature’s own words. It is superbly executed and I thought the framing device was very effective.

Thirteen: Despite my trashing of the movie versions earlier, there was one scene that I thought was handled far better on screen than in this story. Kenneth Branagh’s portrayal of (view spoiler)[ the murder of Elizabeth by the monster (hide spoiler)] was far more chilling than Shelley’s more subdued recounting. I actually anticipated this segment being far more shocking and I was a tad let down as a result. This is probably my only gripe about the book.

Fourteen: On my list of all time favorite novels. The writing, the story, the characters, the emotion, the imagery, the power…all off the charts.

6.0 stars. HIGHEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION!

P.S.(or Fifteen:) I listened to the audio version of this read by Simon Vance and his performance was extraordinary, especially his portrayal of the “monster.” Definitely check it out if you are a consumer of audio books.
...more

5

Dec 05, 2010

“I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other.”
-From the 1994 movie
The worst thing about this novel is how distorted it has become by constant movie adaptations and misinformed ideas about the nature of Frankenstein and his "monster". For years, like many others, I thought Frankenstein was the name of that slightly green dude with the bolts in his neck. Nuh-uh.

Did “I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other.”
-From the 1994 movie
The worst thing about this novel is how distorted it has become by constant movie adaptations and misinformed ideas about the nature of Frankenstein and his "monster". For years, like many others, I thought Frankenstein was the name of that slightly green dude with the bolts in his neck. Nuh-uh.

Did Frankenstein scare me? Did it have me staying awake and sleeping with the light on, jumping at every slight creak in the house? Was I terrified of the monster and technology and the dangers of playing God? No. Because the beauty of this story is that it isn't the one so many people think it is. Which is almost my favourite thing about it. This book is not a Halloween kind of story with Halloween kind of monsters. This story is heartbreakingly sad.
“...once I falsely hoped to meet the beings who, pardoning my outward form, would love me for the excellent qualities which I was capable of unfolding.”
The book offers many interesting avenues of philosophical exploration if one wishes to ponder such things. For example, allusions to religion and Genesis, possible criticisms of using science to "play God", and the relationship between creator and creation. All of these things interest me, yes, but it is the painfully human part of this book that has always so deeply affected me.

Because the sad thing, the really sad thing, is that pretty much everyone has heard of Frankenstein's monster... but so many don't know how human the character is. Created as a scientific experiment by an overly ambitious man, he comes into a frightening and hostile world that immediately rejects him on sight. Even the man who made him cannot look upon his creation without feeling horror. It's that same thing that gets me in books every time: things could have been so different. If people had just been a little less judgmental, a little less scared, and a little more understanding.

This being, created from different parts of corpses, seeks love and finds hatred, so he instead decides to embrace it. Fuelled by his own rage at the unfairness of the world, he gradually turns towards evil.

He belongs in my own little mental category with the likes of Heathcliff and Erik (aka The Phantom of the Opera). Scared, angry villains who were made so by their own unfortunate circumstances. The kind of characters you simultaneously hate and love, but most of all hope they find some kind of peace.

So call it science-fiction, if you want. Call it horror, if you must. But this story is brimming with some of the most realistic and almost unbearably moving human emotion that I have ever read.

Blog | Leafmarks | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | Tumblr ...more

1

Mar 11, 2014

So.
I finished it.

Warning:
If you are a fan of classic literature and/or are utterly devoid of a sense of humor this review may not be for you.
Also:
Yes, I realize that I'm a moron with zero literary credibility. So, stop reading right now if the sound of an idiot whistling out of their asshole bothers you too terribly. Sure, you can comment below and tell me how stupid I am, but it probably won't make me a better person. Or will it...?



I've always wondered what the real Frankenstein story was So.
I finished it.

Warning:
If you are a fan of classic literature and/or are utterly devoid of a sense of humor this review may not be for you.
Also:
Yes, I realize that I'm a moron with zero literary credibility. So, stop reading right now if the sound of an idiot whistling out of their asshole bothers you too terribly. Sure, you can comment below and tell me how stupid I am, but it probably won't make me a better person. Or will it...?



I've always wondered what the real Frankenstein story was like...and now I know.
Sadly, sometimes the fantasy is better than the reality.
And the reality is, this book is a big steaming pile of poo.

It's an old-timey horror story, right?
Not so much.
I mean, I wasn't expecting it to actually be scary, but I thought it might be slightly creepy. Unfortunately, the only horror in the story centered around me having to keep turning the pages.
Unless...
Beware mortal! You will DIE of boredom! Oooga-Booga-Booga!
Yep. Truly frightening.



It starts like this:
An upper-crust guy sails off to the Arctic to make discoveries, and to pass the time he writes to his sister. Supposedly, he's been sailing around on whaling ships for several years. And he's been proven an invaluable resource by other captains.
So I'm assuming he's a pretty crusty ol' sailor at this point.
Pay attention, because this is where Shelly proves that she knows nothing about men...
So this guy goes on and on in these letters to his sister about how he wishes on every star that he could find a BFF at sea. After a few (too many) letters, they pull a half-frozen Frankensicle out of the water.
Aaaaand here's what our salty sea dog has to say about the waterlogged mad scientist...
"Blah, blah, blah...his full-toned voice swells in my ears; his lustrous eyes dwell on me with all their melancholy sweetness...blah, blah, blah..."
Lustrous eyes?! No (straight) sailor ever, in the history of the world, EVER referred to another dude's eyes as lustrous.
Ever.
And I know what you're thinking.
Well, Anne, maybe this character was gay. Didn't think about that, didja?!
Actually, yes. Yes, I did.
The only problem with that theory is that NONE of the male characters in this book sounded remotely male.
Ladies, do you remember that time in your life (probably around middle or high school), when you thought that guys actually had the same sort of thought waves running through their heads that we do? You know, before you realized that the really don't care about...well, all of the things that we do? You thought that while they were laughing at the booger their idiot friend just flicked across the room, something deeper was stirring in their mind. It just had to be!
I'm not sure when it happens, but at some point, every woman finally realizes the (fairly obvious) truth.
Men aren't women.
That booger was the funniest thing ever, and nothing was stirring around in them other than maybe some gas.
And that's ok.
Fart-lighting and long distance loogie hawking contests aside, they can pretty darn cool.
But this author was too young to realize that.
My personal opinion is that Mary was probably fairly sheltered when it came to real men. She was a teenage girl apparently running around with a bunch of artsy-fartsy dudes. Much like today, I would imagine these junior emos were probably blowing poetic smoke up her young ass in the high hopes of getting into her pants.
Although it's possible I'm totally misreading the situation.



Anyway, Frank tells his story, and Sea Dog writes it all down for his sister.
In excruciating detail.
Rivers, flowers, rocks, mountain tops...agonizingly cataloged. And the weather? God forbid a breeze blows through the story without at least a paragraph devoted to the way it felt on his skin or affected his mood!
And speaking of Frankenstein's mood.
I don't think I've ever had the pleasure of reading about a character this spineless before. What a pussy! He didn't talk so much as he whined.
And the swooning!
He was like one of those freaking Fainting Goats!
I can't even count how many times he blacked out and fell over. Of course, then he would get feverish and need "a period of convalescence" to recover.
Again, every episode was recounted with incredible attention to detail.
I'm thrilled that I never had to miss a moment of his sweaty brow getting daubed with water!

Randomly Inserted Fun Fact:
The monster quoted Milton in Paradise Lost.
Shockingly, I only know this because it was in the appendix, and not because I have any real-life experience with reading that one.



Was this the most painfully unnecessary book I've read this year?
Yes.
Is there a deeper moral to this story?
Yes.
Some would say, that the monster is a product of a society that refuses to accept someone who is different. Or maybe that Victor Frankenstein was the real monster for not realizing that he had a duty to parent and care for his creation? Perhaps it is meant to point out our obsession with perfection, and our willingness to disregard people who don't meet the standards of beauty as non-human?
Some might say any of those things.
I , however, learned a far different lesson from Frankenstein.
And it's this...
Trust no one.
Not even someone who (just an example) has been your Best Friend for decades!
Let's read a classic, Anne. It'll be fun, Anne. We can call each other with updates, Anne. It'll be just like a book club, Anne. Tee-hee!
Liar, liar! Pants on fire!
I read this whole God-awful book, and you quit after 10 pages!
I'm telling your mom!

Anyway.
Here's the quote that sums up my experience with Frankenstein:

"Blah, blah, blah...in all the misery I imagined and dreaded, I did not conceive the hundredth part of the anguish I was destined to endure."

...more

5

May 12, 2007

It's been fifty years since I had read Frankenstein, and, now—after a recent second reading—I am pleased to know that the pleasures of that first reading have been revived. Once again--just as it was in my teens--I was thrilled by the first glimpse of the immense figure of the monster, driving his sled across the arctic ice, and marveled at the artful use of narrative frames within frame, each subsequent frame leading us closer to the heart of the novel, until we hear the alienated yet
It's been fifty years since I had read Frankenstein, and, now—after a recent second reading—I am pleased to know that the pleasures of that first reading have been revived. Once again--just as it was in my teens--I was thrilled by the first glimpse of the immense figure of the monster, driving his sled across the arctic ice, and marveled at the artful use of narrative frames within frame, each subsequent frame leading us closer to the heart of the novel, until we hear the alienated yet articulate voice of the creature himself. In addition, I admired the equally artful way the novel moves backward through the same frames until we again reach the arctic landscape which is the scene of the novel's beginning...and its end.

This time through, I was particularly struck with how Mary must have been influenced by the novels of her father. The relentless hounding of one man by another who feels his life has been poisoned by that man's irresponsible curiosity is a theme taken straight out of Godwin's Caleb Williams, and the cautionary account of a monomaniac who gradually deprives himself of the satisfactions of family, friends and love in pursuit of an intellectual ideal is reminiscent of the alchemist of St. Leon. Her prose also is like her father's in her ability to make delicate philosophical distinctions and express abstract ideas, but she is a much better writer than he: her sentences are more elegant and disciplined, and her descriptive details more aptly chosen and her scenes more effectively realized.

The conclusion of the novel seems hasty and incomplete, but perhaps that is because the concept of Frankenstein is so revolutionary that no conclusion could have seemed satisfactory. At any rate, this fine novel has given birth to a host of descendants, and—unlike Victor Frankenstein—is a worthy parent of its many diverse creations. ...more

4

Oct 16, 2017

This was awesome. I listened to an audiobook on YouTube (as it is under the public domain). You can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuyEa.... It was great. The narrator did a great job of building the atmosphere and excitement in the story. I always love reading the original stories behind some very iconic pop culture figures. Frankenstein is obviously incredibly popular. It was great to read and do a little bit of a personal independent study on (major nerd here). The perfect This was awesome. I listened to an audiobook on YouTube (as it is under the public domain). You can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuyEa.... It was great. The narrator did a great job of building the atmosphere and excitement in the story. I always love reading the original stories behind some very iconic pop culture figures. Frankenstein is obviously incredibly popular. It was great to read and do a little bit of a personal independent study on (major nerd here). The perfect Halloween read! ...more

5

Jan 17, 2014

"My food is not that of man; I do not destroy the lamb and the kid, to glut my appetite; acorns and berries afford me sufficient nourishment. My companion will be of the same nature as myself, and will be content with the same fare. We shall make our bed of dried leaves; the sun will shine on us as on man, and will ripen our food. The picture I present to you is peaceful and human.”

The Creature’s diet is unmistakably vegetarian. Vegetarianism becomes a way for the creature to renounce his "My food is not that of man; I do not destroy the lamb and the kid, to glut my appetite; acorns and berries afford me sufficient nourishment. My companion will be of the same nature as myself, and will be content with the same fare. We shall make our bed of dried leaves; the sun will shine on us as on man, and will ripen our food. The picture I present to you is peaceful and human.”

The Creature’s diet is unmistakably vegetarian. Vegetarianism becomes a way for the creature to renounce his creator by demonstrating his more inclusive ethics. Indeed, he includes within his moral code animals as well as man, but learns through his experience with the world that both he and animals are excluded from the moral compass of humanity: they are not on the same level.

I find this entire representation fascinating, that much so I wanted to add to my review here. I spent a very long time last year researching Percy Shelley’s poetry and how his politics are ultimately shaped by his diet choice. Some of that content is latent in Mary’s work; it does not take the forefront of the narrative, but it is certainly there for a reader who is willing to look for it. There’s much here to use for a proper developed argument, arguments I am eventually going to explore fully in my eventual PhD project. One of my chapters will be a critical address of Frankenstein and The Last Man in conjunction with politics and diet.

Indeed, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein mirrors her husband’s discourse in A Vindication of a Natural Diet. In the essay Percy Shelley directly references the promethean myth; he states that it is a prime allegory for man’s lost nature (his fall from the golden age), as when Prometheus applied fire (for culinary purposes- Percy Shelley states) he created a disgusting horror. His liver was wrecked by the “vulture of disease” and all tyrannical vice, this unnaturalness, was born from the despoiling of innocence as it “consumed his being in every shape of its loathsome and infinite variety.” The Creature, after trying cooked offal left by a campfire in Frankenstein, decides to adhere to his own diet; he rejects the promethean fire that humanity has taken, and instead develops a mode of morality separate to the norms of humanity; he wishes for the opportunity to live this peaceful picture away from the corruptions of human company: he wishes to be better.

Orginal Review from 2015

Let’s have a party Victor. Let’s get together and celebrate all things Gothic, and dark, and wonderful. Let’s have it in an attic in an old house in the middle of a thunderstorm, and then afterwards let’s go to the graveyard with our shovels and our body bags. Sounds good doesn’t it Victor? We could then create our own doppelgängers from the corpses of criminals and geniuses. Then we can abandon our marvellous creation to fend for itself with his childlike innocence, and then wonder why it goes so horribly wrong and blows up in our faces.

Ahh..Victor you silly, brilliant, man. On second thought we probably shouldn’t have that party.

Because if we did it would end in blood



Yes, lots of blood: the blood of everyone you love, the blood of all your family Victor. You blame the monster, but you are his creator. You should have taught him the ways of the world and guided his first steps. The things you two could have accomplished together. So I ask you this Victor, who is the real monster? Is it the creature that has gone on a murderous rampage or it you? You are the man who played at god and was horrified at the consequence. You judged your creation by his physical appearance, which was more a reflection of your vain soul. Ahh..Victor you silly, brilliant, man. Surely you don’t wonder why the monster revenged himself upon you?

“I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel...”

Indeed, the real monster of this novel is Victor Frankenstein, and not his monstrous creation. The creature is a monster on the outside but Victor is on the inside, which is a form much worse. By abandoning the creature he has taught him to become what his appearance is. The first human experience he receives is rejection based upon his physicality. His own creator recoils in disgust from him. He cannot be blamed for his actions if all he has been taught is negative emotion, he will only respond in one way. He is innocent and childlike but also a savage brute. These are two things that should never be put together. Woe to Victor Frankenstein’s family.

“There is love in me the likes of which you've never seen. There is rage in me the likes of which should never escape. If I am not satisfied in the one, I will indulge the other.”



Mary Shelley raises questions of the danger of knowledge, and shows a probable consequence of trying to play god; the novel portrays nineteen century fears for the rising field of science and knowledge and questions how far it could go. Indeed, in this case Victor takes on the role of a God by creating new life. She also shows us what can happen to a man if he so driven by this thirst for knowledge and how it will ultimately lead to a fall. Victor reminds me somewhat of Doctor Faustus (The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus) in this regard. Faustus is a man who sold his soul to Lucifer for unlimited knowledge in the form of arcane magic. Victor, like Faustus, has stopped at nothing to gain his goal, but in the end is ultimately dissatisfied with the result.

Suffice to say, I simply adore this book as you may have gathered from my ramblings. I think this, alongside Dracula, are amongst the strongest representations of Gothic literature. Furthermore, I have a real soft spot for epistolary means of storytelling. I’m not sure why, perhaps it’s the stronger sense of intimacy you fell with the characters as you see their words on the page rather than an impartial narrators. You see inside their heads more and understand their motifs and feelings.

My favourite quote:

"This was then the reward of my benevolence! I had saved a human being from destruction, and as a recompense I now writhed under the miserable pain of a wound which shattered the flesh and bone. The feelings of kindness and gentleness which I had entertained but a few moments before gave place to hellish rage and gnashing of teeth. Inflamed by pain, I vowed eternal hatred and vengeance to all mankind.

Listen to the passion, to the intellect and witness such a wasted opportunity. Victor, you’re a silly, silly, man. ...more

5

Mar 06, 2014

REREAD UPDATE - September 2018:

One of my bookclubs (Click to check out Reading List Completists) is reading this for September 2018. I figure it was a good time for a reread since it was one of my favorites and it has been over 20 years since I read it.

I did enjoy it again this time and it stands up to the 5 star review and designation of classic. There were a few slow parts - mainly when Dr. Frankenstein would stop the narrative to wax poetical about something - but, not enough t take a way REREAD UPDATE - September 2018:

One of my bookclubs (Click to check out Reading List Completists) is reading this for September 2018. I figure it was a good time for a reread since it was one of my favorites and it has been over 20 years since I read it.

I did enjoy it again this time and it stands up to the 5 star review and designation of classic. There were a few slow parts - mainly when Dr. Frankenstein would stop the narrative to wax poetical about something - but, not enough t take a way from my overall enjoyment.

I still recommend this for everyone and be sure to check out my full original review below.

ORIGINAL REVIEW:

This is definitely one of my favorite books I was required to read in High School. Also, it is my favorite of the classic horror novels. It is perfectly written, suspenseful, and is a bit more thought provoking than scary. One of the best ways I can compare it to other classic horror novels is to Dracula - which I read recently. Dracula has so much repetitive filler that you do not find in Frankenstein, which is the main reason I find Frankenstein to be a more enjoyable book.

Also, I would say that this is more a novel of the human condition than an actual horror novel. Some terrifying things happen, but it is the monster within all of us that may end up being more terrifying!

Funny side story: when I read this in High School, it was around the same time that the Kenneth Branaugh adaptation came out at the theaters. We were all encouraged to go see it and found it pretty close to the source material. What was amusing was that Time Magazine had a review of the movie bashing it as untrue to the source material and how disappointed Shelley would be that the Boris Karlovian depiction of a lurching, flattop monster with bolts in its neck was ignored for a more serious drama movie. WHAT!? Time Magazine, for goodness sakes, published an article that claims to know the content of the book but is completely wrong and does it while bashing a movie that did a pretty good job with it!? I mean, it it is okay if you prefer the old time movie version of Frankenstein - and it is a classic - but to make definitive statements that are completely wrong in what is supposed to be a well thought of publication (not your typical tabloid supermarket checkout fodder), that is just too much!

We need a copy editor over here! ...more

4

Dec 18, 2018

The anecdote is legendary: Mary Shelley, a teenager at the time, was spending a vacation in Switzerland with her fiancé, Percy Shelley, their mutual friend, Lord Byron, and a few other people. Was the weather gloomy that summer of 1816? Were the companions bored to death? For amusement, one evening, they challenged each other into writing the scariest ghost story they could come up with. No one remembers what the fellows wrote on that occasion. Everyone has, at least, heard of the creation of The anecdote is legendary: Mary Shelley, a teenager at the time, was spending a vacation in Switzerland with her fiancé, Percy Shelley, their mutual friend, Lord Byron, and a few other people. Was the weather gloomy that summer of 1816? Were the companions bored to death? For amusement, one evening, they challenged each other into writing the scariest ghost story they could come up with. No one remembers what the fellows wrote on that occasion. Everyone has, at least, heard of the creation of the young woman and the misfortunes of Victor Frankenstein.

Since then, and mainly since the invention of cinema a few decades later, what was only meant to be a chilling yet entertaining story, rose to the dimensions of a myth. So much so that the original novel itself has been covered up by layer upon layer of external imagery which has very little to do with it — in particular, the heavily made-up face of Boris Karloff in the 1931 unfaithful film adaptation of this book. Nowadays there are all sorts of adaptations (e.g. Kenneth Branagh’s movie, with De Niro), parodies (Mel Brook’s Young Frankenstein being a famous one), and probably even porn versions.

However, Mary Shelley’s novel is not so much about ghosts or monsters, as it is a meditation on the Biblical theme of Creation and Fall. Naturally, the idea of creating a living being — using some human technique instead of natural reproduction —, comes from the 16th-century Jewish narrative of the Golem of Prague. Just as noticeable is the sheer amount of subtle hints and overt references to Milton’s Paradise Lost. The “daemon”, rejected from the start like an ugly duckling, learns to read with a copy of this book (seriously?). Take it as you will, Frankenstein is a brilliant and existential reverie on the theme of God and Satan (Frankenstein and the “daemon”), Adam and Eve (Frankenstein and Elizabeth / the monster and the potential lady-monster).

Another striking aspect of Frankenstein’s narrative is the Russian dolls, nested structure of the tales: first Captain Walton’s letters, which frame the whole novel, then Victor Frankenstein’s account and, finally, a tale within the tale, the “daemon”’s story. This echoes back to the One Thousand and One Nights, to which Mary Shelley might have had access, through Antoine Galland’s translation into French — perhaps she had a copy of the Grub Street edition or the Jonathan Scott translation of Galland into English… I do not know. Also, Safie’s story, around the middle of the novel (another embedded tale within a tale) has clear oriental undertones.

It has been said over and over that Mary Shelley’s book might have been the first Science Fiction novel. This is a bit of a stretch since there is not much science or technology to speak of in Frankenstein, apart from a few mentions of Paracelsus and a couple of other alchemists and astrologers. The minor references to electricity, magnetism and galvanism were in the spirit of the times, but Michael Faraday, who would soon bring significant breakthroughs in these fields, was about the same age as the precocious author of Frankenstein.

The way I see it, the presence of electromagnetism is not only a reference to the myth of Prometheus and the stolen fire but is also linked to a pervasive and typically Romantic fascination with landscapes: now sunny, beautiful and pleasant, now stormy, sublime and menacing, ghastly thunderbolts ripping the clouds apart. Mary Shelley had a few predecessors in this field — Coleridge is quoted more than a few times in her novel —, but that sort of imagery was, by and large, a novelty at the time. It might be interesting to note that while Mary Shelley was writing Frankenstein, Caspar David Friedrich was painting his famous Wanderer above the Sea of Fog (see below). This obsession with ominous landscapes would soon become a trope within the Gothic literary tradition.

It has also been alleged that Frankenstein was at the inception of the modern Horror genre, years before Bram Stoker's Dracula. However, the general impression, when reading Mary Shelley's book, is not so much a feeling of terror conveyed to the reader, as a Romantic, and quite often bombastic expression of strong emotions on the part of the narrators: despair, anguish, despondency, melancholy, misery, wretchedness, affliction… are words that come back again and again under Mary Shelley’s pen. All this might have been sincerely felt by Mary herself, who had gone through a few hardships in her life. Moreover, both Frankenstein and the monster go from bad to worse throughout this tragic novel. However, to a modern reader, this accumulation of epithets probably feels quaint, affected and difficult to relate to. I, for my part, found this unrestrained schmaltzy and emphatic tone rather tedious.

To conclude, while I found Mary Shelley to be more of a typical Romantic figure than a prophet of Horror or Science Fiction, I will gladly concede that she has probably been a significant inspiration to crime mystery novels, such as Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and later avatars of serial killers on a murderous rampage. It has probably also exerted a strong influence on scary adventure stories, such as Poe’s Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym, Wells’ Island of Doctor Moreau, or Lovecraft’s At the Mountains of Madness. It might, in the present day, become once more a significant source of inspiration, as humanity is possibly on the verge of creating new forms of sentient and intelligent beings (AI, cyborgs, etc.), out of GMO, silicon or some weird combination of the two.



Edit: The recent Mary Shelley biopic (2017) by Aifaa al-Mansour, with the excellent Elle Fanning, is primarily a romance, recounting the complicated situation in which the young woman met her husband and how she got to write her masterpiece. The portrayals of Percy Shelley and Lord Byron are rather unflattering, to say the least.

Second edit: Recent rewatch: after releasing his box-office hit Bram Stocker’s Dracula (1992), Francis Ford Coppola, riding the wave of success, embarked on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994), directed by Kenneth Branagh (at the time a young and acclaimed director of Shakespeare adaptations). The cast of this movie is imposing: De Niro, Branagh, Hulce, Bonham Carter, Holm, Cleese… all at the top of their game. The screenplay (written by Frank Darabont, who would later develop The Walking Dead TV show) is, for the most part, faithful to Mary Shelley’s novel. However, while Coppola’s Dracula was darkly luxurious and decadent, the style of Branagh’s Frankenstein is loud and vehement, at times stomach-churning or downright laughable. Well worth a shot anyway. ...more

4

Nov 09, 2017

This was such a nice surprise! I've been meaning to read this book for AGES, and I've built it up in my head as this super dry, boring book, but boy was I ever wrong. This book is juuuust about 200 years old, yet it feels incredibly timeless, more than many other classics I've read. It was so interesting, and the character of Frankenstein's monster was so tragic (and he can speak! I didn't see that coming thanks to Hollywood ruining the image of "Frankenstein") that there just wasn't time to be This was such a nice surprise! I've been meaning to read this book for AGES, and I've built it up in my head as this super dry, boring book, but boy was I ever wrong. This book is juuuust about 200 years old, yet it feels incredibly timeless, more than many other classics I've read. It was so interesting, and the character of Frankenstein's monster was so tragic (and he can speak! I didn't see that coming thanks to Hollywood ruining the image of "Frankenstein") that there just wasn't time to be bored! I also listened to the audiobook narrated by Dan Stevens, and he did an amazing job. Highly recommend! ...more

3

Aug 21, 2015

I have a favourite Kate Beaton strip framed up in our book room:


(Full-size image here.)

Mary was – what? – eighteen years old when she went on this famous holiday to Lake Geneva with Percy Bysshe Shelley and Byron and Byron's physician. She was calling herself ‘Mrs Shelley’, though they had not yet married – Percy was still married to someone else.

The surroundings were familiar. The last time Mary and Percy had come to Switzerland had been during their elopement a couple of years earlier, I have a favourite Kate Beaton strip framed up in our book room:


(Full-size image here.)

Mary was – what? – eighteen years old when she went on this famous holiday to Lake Geneva with Percy Bysshe Shelley and Byron and Byron's physician. She was calling herself ‘Mrs Shelley’, though they had not yet married – Percy was still married to someone else.

The surroundings were familiar. The last time Mary and Percy had come to Switzerland had been during their elopement a couple of years earlier, accompanied by her sister, who was also in love with him; Mary had got pregnant, but the baby girl was born prematurely and died in February 1815. Now they were back, trying to put the past behind them and enjoy a holiday with Byron, who at the time was sleeping with Mary's stepsister. Percy's first wife would soon be out of the picture, found drowned in the Serpentine in an ‘advanced state of pregnancy’ before the year was out. Mary's other sister Fanny also drowned herself that year, 1816, also pining for Percy.

So it was in the midst of this complex love-dodecahedron that the holidaymakers, their festive plans foiled by constant rain, held their famous competition to write a ghost story. The result is something very different from its image in popular culture. Instead of the smoke of Victorian London, we have the Swiss Alps and the Orkney Islands; instead of Igor and bolts through the neck, we have meditations on personal autonomy, scientific responsibility and eugenics.

Frankenstein is overwritten and the narrative structure is a bit odd – she was still a teenager when she wrote it, let's not forget – but thematically, it's fascinating. I'm surprised by how few reviews I've read touch on what seems to me to be the intensely female experiences that it obliquely comments on. The confusion of bringing a creature into the world only to feel horror and revulsion towards it. The stress of releasing it into a hostile and uncaring world. And perhaps most of all, the deep sympathy shown with someone who feels that their body is not their own, that it is somehow owned and regulated by others. A body that one is taught by society to hate. The monster's feelings are unimportant, because he was created by a man for the man's own gratification.

Mary quotes her beloved Percy Bysshe Shelley, unattributively, when Dr Frankenstein first spots his creature up on the Mer de Glace. She uses the final two stanzas from ‘Mutability’. For me though it's the beautiful first stanza that better expresses the ferocious intensity of Mary and her circle of friends and lovers, surrounded as they all seemed to be by imminent, premature death:

We are as clouds that veil the midnight moon;
    How restlessly they speed, and gleam, and quiver,
Streaking the darkness radiantly!—yet soon
    Night closes round, and they are lost forever…

As they all were. But the writing they left behind will last as long as English literature is read, and for all of its problems Frankenstein is among that select group. ...more

5

Jun 30, 2019

In the early 1800’s the author Percy B. Shelley, the poet Lord Byron, and Percy’s wife, Mary Shelley, challenged each other as to who could write the best horror story. Mary Shelley won (to put it mildly) by creating one of the earlier gothic horror novels. Some also consider ‘Frankenstein’ to be one of the earliest Science Fiction novels. H.G. Wells and Jules Verne didn’t come along until the late 1800’s.

I’m astonished when I think that this work was written and published over 200 years ago. In In the early 1800’s the author Percy B. Shelley, the poet Lord Byron, and Percy’s wife, Mary Shelley, challenged each other as to who could write the best horror story. Mary Shelley won (to put it mildly) by creating one of the earlier gothic horror novels. Some also consider ‘Frankenstein’ to be one of the earliest Science Fiction novels. H.G. Wells and Jules Verne didn’t come along until the late 1800’s.

I’m astonished when I think that this work was written and published over 200 years ago. In the early 1800’s, Napoleon was invading much of Europe expanding its territory until he met his Waterloo. Gas lighting was only recently improved and deployed in many cities in Europe. Luddites were destroying machines in Britain over concerns about losing their jobs. Antarctica had yet to be discovered. It was a tumultuous time of war and discovery.

Obviously, the work has inspired countless movies, plays, and television series. The Frankenstein monster remains as one of the most familiar images in horror. Often the retellings depict a brutish, awkward, mute creature, which is quite different than Mary Shelley’s monster, who was agile, intelligent, and well-spoken.

The story has its flaws. The various narrators (Victor Frankenstein, the monster, etc.), all have a similar voice and most of the book is ‘telling’. However, it’s an extremely emotional story and much of the narration focused on Victor’s Frankenstein exploration of his sentiments concerning the creation of the monster as well as a series of tragedies in his life. If all you know about Frankenstein is based on movies and TV shows, this original novel will likely surprise you.

I enjoyed the read, often wondering about word choice – what was common usage at the time, verses Shelley’s literary chops. It’s incredibly quotable, pick almost any page and you can find an intriguing, evocative quote. It’s not a perfect novel in today’s standards, but it’s expressive and rich with allegory. I easily give it five stars not only for its cultural impact, but also for the pioneering exploration which allowed future horror and science fiction to progress. If you are a horror or science fiction fan and you've never read it, you must! ...more

4

Oct 07, 2017

Click here to watch a video review of this book on my channel, From Beginning to Bookend.



A sorrowful tale of lost love and self-loathing conveyed with divine prose.

5

Nov 02, 2018

Frankenstein follows Victor, a scientist on a mission to create new life from old carcasses – until his plan, of course, backfires. What ensues is perhaps fairly well-known in popular culture: the killing of his brother, the framing of his tutor, Justine, and the murder of his wife Elizabeth. With the help of his wife, Elizabeth, and his loving family, he must find a way to save not only his family, but his soul.

It is amazing that such a basic plot, written in literally 1818, can be so Frankenstein follows Victor, a scientist on a mission to create new life from old carcasses – until his plan, of course, backfires. What ensues is perhaps fairly well-known in popular culture: the killing of his brother, the framing of his tutor, Justine, and the murder of his wife Elizabeth. With the help of his wife, Elizabeth, and his loving family, he must find a way to save not only his family, but his soul.

It is amazing that such a basic plot, written in literally 1818, can be so compelling and so subversive.

I DIDN'T WRITE A TWELVE-PAGE PAPER ON THIS FOR NOTHING
I analyzed this book, in my twelve-page (yes, I know) term paper, as both an anti-Romantic and pro-Romantic work, so if I can just summarize my opinion on that for you:

1) The sublime, an aesthetic category of the Romantic era that I happen to adore, is a especially key element of Shelley’s work, especially in its use of imagery.

2) The romantic reemphasis on the irrational is of course a major element of Frankenstein, yet even the creature’s being has come to pass through Enlightenment ideals – Frankenstein forms his creation through rational, scientific thought.

3) This book believes that science gets us some answers, but not all the answers – even when science gaves us the rational result of an experiment, it may still go horribly wrong. As the voice of Victor’s professor backs up: “The ancient teachers of this science… promised impossibilities, and performed nothing” (30).

4) However, one of my favorite sources instead read Frankenstein as “a critical questioning of both anti-Enlightenment Romanticism and anti-enlightenment science.” (Thanks, Kim Hammond.) In this reading, the book would be in favor of a balance between the irrational and the scientific.

5) The book is very pro-getting help from other people!! Elizabeth and Henry, the "good" characters, both help others, while Victor, who is a dick, does nothing. This is surprising and not entirely in line with the Romantic-individualist spirit. Universalism stays winning.

6) For what is arguably the first-ever science fiction book, this book has nothing to do with any romantic-era science.

7) The fact that people debate about this is perhaps a good indication of a wider truth: that the novel does not necesarily take a strong stance on how we are meant to interpret the creature.

WHAT IS THIS BOOK ABOUT DISCOURSE
Writing about Frankenstein is perhaps more challenging because women of her time had very little voice. According to Jill Lepore’s piece for the New Yorker, Shelley was even forced to change her own voice for the 1831 edition: in answer to the question, as she phrases it, “how I, then a young girl, came to think of, and to dilate upon, so very hideous an idea,” she made up a story in which she virtually erased herself as an author, insisting that the story had come to her in a dream (“I saw—with shut eyes, but acute mental vision,—I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together”) and that writing it consisted of “making only a transcript” of that dream. When Boris Karloff played the creature in a 1931 adaptation, the formerly eloquent, sympathetic monster was not only nameless but all but speechless, too, as if Shelley’s ideas were too radical to be heard – an “agony unutterable.”
To quote Jill Lepore's incredible The Strange and Twisted Life of Frankenstein:
Shelley herself had no name of her own. Like the creature pieced together from cadavers collected by Victor Frankenstein, her name was an assemblage of parts: the name of her mother, the feminist Mary Wollstonecraft, stitched to that of her father, the philosopher William Godwin, grafted onto that of her husband, the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, as if Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin Shelley were the sum of her relations, bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh, if not the milk of her mother’s milk, since her mother had died eleven days after giving birth to her, mainly too sick to give suck—Awoke and found no mother.
1988 biographer Muriel Spark reached the conclusion using information from Shelley’s diaries that Frankenstein was partially inspired by Shelley's own experience with losing her children. Lepore’s New Yorker article points out how close the loss of her baby was to Shelley’s first published work: pregnant again only weeks after the death of her first baby, she was most likely nursing her second child when she began writing her first novel; she would lose this second child as well only a year after publishing the book. In this reading, the monster could perhaps be viewed as her lost child, a creation born off the fantasy of bringing back the lost. Whether this was intentional subtext or not, the novel is certainly fasinated with the idea of child death: the creature’s first victim is Victor’s little brother, and his caretaker – who poses somewhat of a motherly role – is framed for her alleged role in the death and killed as a result. Justine’s ‘false confession’ of guilt over William’s death could almost be read as a representation of Shelley’s feelings of guilt over her dead baby; Elizabeth’s transitition to a “grave” (71) personality upon losing her child, her transition to no longer being “that happy creature” (71), could be seen as similar to Mary’s feelings upon losing her child.

WHY DOES THIS BOOK WORK SO WELL?
Frankenstein is surprisingly still horrifying in today’s world, but not in the slasher-and-gore horror movie way we are perhaps accustomed to: it is a deeply psychological read. There is a unique horror in thinking you’re safe, in thinking the storm has ended, and then seeing it rise again, in a slow descent into madness as your family dies around you, in realizing that just when you thought you were safe, everything can change. Some of the more hair-raising aspects come in small detail – that the crew of the original ship sees the creature and unknowingly let it pass is bone-chilling; that Justine is not only prosecuted and killed for the crimes of the monster, but hated by her whole family, is absolutely horrific.

All of these elements to the novel are interesting. But what makes the horror of Frankenstein so compelling is this: we are not combating a mindless horror, but a tragic figure, unnamed but still deeply human.

A less imaginative writer would have reduced Frankenstein to a one-note character, yet Shelley refuses this route with her characters. The creature does not lack in the fundamental humanity of us; he uses long words and is shockingly articulate; he acts on both instinctual thought and logical thought. In fact, his one desire is a mate, companionship of his own, to not remain unloved and alone and to find human connection of his own. He attempts to help the first strangers he encounters, bringing home logs “sufficient for the consumption of several days” (88) with no expectation of credit, only of making a family’s life easier. He is by nature highly empathetic, telling Victor that “when they were unhappy, I felt depressed; when they rejoiced, I sympathized in their joys” (89). It is Victor alone who refuses to humanize the child; when he first comes in contact with the creature, he emphasizes his “unearthly ugliness” (83) above his humanity. This forms the character of the monster into a sympathetic character, despite his flaws; it turns the story into one of the failure of human compassion, rather than one of an evil monster.

I am so sorry this was so long winded but I absolutely refuse not to use at least some of my prowess and writing from this very heavily researched term paper. The point is, whatever her intent, whatever she would say had she a further voice, it is undeniable that Shelley’s work has kept significant staying power through every medium from film to original fiction. Yet perhaps more importantly, she has created a long-discussed work in every genre from horror to sci-fi and on every theme from feminism to Romanticism. And just as it has remained a prime subject of criticism, it has remained a fantastically enjoyable book for reading.

Blog | Goodreads | Twitter | Instagram | Youtube ...more

3

Jul 30, 2014

Beware; for I am fearless, and therefore powerful.

Well, finally I read the original novel after watching infinite film adaptations, variations of the theme and even odd approaches to the topic.

I was sure that I would enjoy a lot the novel but sadly, compelled to write an honest review, I have to say that barely I was able to give it a 3-star rating, that I think it's the fairest rating that I can give to the book.

The original premise is astonishing, the following impact in popular culture is Beware; for I am fearless, and therefore powerful.

Well, finally I read the original novel after watching infinite film adaptations, variations of the theme and even odd approaches to the topic.

I was sure that I would enjoy a lot the novel but sadly, compelled to write an honest review, I have to say that barely I was able to give it a 3-star rating, that I think it's the fairest rating that I can give to the book.

The original premise is astonishing, the following impact in popular culture is priceless and certainly the story "behind-of-the-scenes" of the creation of the novel is fascinating.

However, the actual writing of the book is tedious, the narration style is odd and the rhythm of the story is too slow.

THE GOOD

The creation of life has been a subject that captured the imagination of man, along with the chance of beating death and/or getting back from the dead. Mary Shelley, the writer, was able to show an impressive premise that not only is one of the early instances of horror novels but also easily one of the first examples in science-fiction/steampunk works since the process to give "life" to The Creature is through science instead of recurring to magic or some kind or paranormal force.

The socio-cultural impact of this novel has been monumental in all kind of media. Some remarkable examples are the 1931's film adaptation with Boris Karloff; the filmed sequel Bride of the Frankenstein of 1935, the 1974's fantastic parody Young Frankenstein with Gene Wilder, Mel Brooks and Peter Boyle; the 1985's twist movie The Bride with Sting and Jennifer Beals; the 1994's film adaptation with Robert De Niro; the two adaptations of Frankenweenie by Tim Burton in 1984 & 2012; and even the outstanding current TV series (2014- ) Penny Dreadful which includes this theme on its merged story.

How the novel was created could be covered as a "reality TV show" nowadays: "So You Think You Write Horror: Pros versus Rookies"...watch it only here on GRTV!!! Since all began with a friendly contest, of who can write the best ghost story, between four friends: Percy Shelly (Mary's husband, a famous poet & novelist), Lord Byron (another famous poet), John Polidori and of course, Mary. And the winners are... The rookies!!! Since while Percy Shelley and Lord Byron were acomplished writers, they weren't able to come up with something to compete against Polidori's The Vampyre and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Also, there is the tale of how Mary Shelley came up with the basic idea of the book. She claimed that she had a dream showing the lab with the mad scientist giving life to a hideous creature through the power of a lightning. I won't question her version. I only want to point out the existence of an actual Frankenstein's Castle, located in a town of Germany where, besides several paranormal stories about it, there is a local rumour, that a fellow with the name of Johann Conrad Dippel was a supposed alchemist that created a monster using a bolf of lightning (Where did I heard something just like this? Where?!), even a related rumour tells that this legend was told to Mary's step-mother by none other that the very Grimm Brothers!!! (Ah? Ah?! Try to came up with a cooler legend!). However, Mary always declared that she wasn't aware of that castle and the legends tied to it. Let's take out the part of the step-mother and the Grimm Brothers. It's virtually impossible to believe that Mary Shelley never heard, in some way, about the existence of Frankenstein's Castle and the particular tale of Dippel.

Without irrespecting the memory of Mary Shelley, this is just like the story of Diablo Cody, winner of an Oscar for Best "Original" Screenplay for the film Juno of 2007. The main theme of this film is about a teen pregancy. However, in 2005, there was a South Korean film titled Jenny, Juno that it was a romantic dramedy movie about teen pregnancy too. Diablo Cody declared that she never heard before of that South Korean film. Sure, because Juno is such a common name in America that it was an innocent coincidence. (By the way, Juno is the name's boyfriend in the South Korean's movie, instead of the female Juno performed by Ellen Page).

American Juno and South Korean Jenny, Juno have totally different stories, different approaches to the subject and even different reactions to the event along with different endings. The only dang similarity is that both are about teen pregnancies. I am not accusing Diablo Cody of plagiarism. That's not the point. I only say that was so hard for her to admit that she watched or heard about the South Korean film and that gave her an inspiration for her own screenplay?

In the same way, was so hard for Mary Shelley to admit that she got in contact in some way with the legend of Dippel and the Frankenstein's Castle and she used it as inspiration for her own original book?

TIP: If you are using legends, books and/or movies as your own inspiration for your work... change the dang names!!! At least that will make harder to make the connections and even making a more plausible deniability!!!

I could not understand why men who knew all about good and evil could hate and kill each other.


THE BAD

The writing of the book is tedious, or to be more accurate is a too slow burner that it took too much to get into the real story and even worse, once the "action" started, you have again intervals of tedium. It's indeed a roller coaster but in a bad sense, since you took too much time in the tedious way up and the moments of intensity are like split-seconds on the way down.

The narration style is odd since the book begins with some letters written by a ship's captain, and the first four letters are boring filler stuff non-relevant to the actual story, and until the fifth letter the story really started. However, later of that, the narration changed to the "voice" of Dr. Victor Frankenstein, but again, our good mad scientist takes too much time to get to the point telling a lot of non-relevant boring details, even worse, it's told in the most tedious "tone of voice" that you can imagine. Without emotion or trying to entertain to the reader. The chapters of the Creature are more entertained but also, sometimes you wonder how possible is that this monster so submitted to rage and murder is able to articule so well his part of the story.

So, between that the novel is slow burner, and the moments of real horror with awful deaths are so scarce and presented so quick that you can't even develop the proper emotion on that moments, I wasn't able to enjoy this book as I expected that I would. However, I can't deny the relevant place that this novel has in the history of literature and its impact in multiple ways of the spectrum.

Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust?


...more

5

Apr 24, 2012

...and so I was born! A man, and not a man; a life, and an un-life. Hair and lips of lustrous black, skin of parchment yellow, watery eyes of dun-colored white. The stature of a giant. A horror among men! And so my creator fled me, horrified of his creation. And so I fled my place of birth, to seek lessons amongst the human kind. My lonesome lessons learnt: man is a loving and noble creature; learning is pathway to beauty, to kindness, to fellowship. And this I also learnt: to witness what ...and so I was born! A man, and not a man; a life, and an un-life. Hair and lips of lustrous black, skin of parchment yellow, watery eyes of dun-colored white. The stature of a giant. A horror among men! And so my creator fled me, horrified of his creation. And so I fled my place of birth, to seek lessons amongst the human kind. My lonesome lessons learnt: man is a loving and noble creature; learning is pathway to beauty, to kindness, to fellowship. And this I also learnt: to witness what differs, to meet what may be noble under the skin but ugly above it... is to then reject that other, to cast him out! Man is a brutal and heartless creature. And as I was rejected, I do so reject: turn from me and you shall find my cold hands, seeking some bitter warmth...

O wretched creature am I!

My tale is told by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, in the loveliest and most vivid of flowing prose. A wise writer is this Mary Shelley - and at such a young age! The narrative is as three nesting Russian dolls, a thin one to contain them all, a second of weightier proportions, and a third one within - its gentle and broken heart. That inner story, the smallest, is of my youth - a life of fear, but also of learning, of growing into myself, of witnessing the beauty around me. Of spying upon the family De Lacey - their unknown son. Their own tale is one of bravery and gentleness, of humanity at its weakest and strongest, of survival. But mine is of friendship spurned, kindness returned with terror, a stark rejection, and then a house in flames. And with that burning house burned all the love within this scarcely beating un-heart... all that love, burnt clean away, never to return! The middle story is of my creator, Victor Frankenstein: spoiled child, spoiled man, dreamer, visionary, coward; the foolish instrument of his own despair. A curse upon him, and a blessing, and a curse again! The outer layer is a story of wintry landscapes, an exploration of the icy reaches and the final doom of my creator. It is as well a tale of longing: for justice and for revenge, of course... but also for a companion, for a brother who can never be found. Alas, Captain Walton, a sensitive and lonely soul... I could have been your own brother, such was the depth of our shared yearnings...

O wretched are those who walk the earth alone!

My father and mother both: Victor Frankenstein. Curse the man who rejects his offspring! Curse the man who seeks to forget his own creation! I was the fruit of his mind and of his labors, born rotten, and thus cast away. The tale of my maker is the tale of a parent suddenly fearful of his young, terrified of what he has wrought. It is a tale of responsibility rejected. The record of his actions are of criminal neglect, of shameful weakness, of a man who lives so much in his thoughts that the world around him crumbles, and the people in that world become abused. My wretched self most of all! And yet I am more than his cast-out son. I am the Frankenstein's shadow self: capable of the sublime, yet enacting the abominable. What is dear to him shall be mine to destroy. His precious ideals shall be the instrument of his destruction. As he would embrace his youngest brother, his dearest friend, his beloved wife... so shall I! And as his shadow self, I will follow him as he will follow me, I will lead him to his destiny, on a terrible trail he has forged himself. I shall spare him, and all others, only the faintest pity...

O wretched are those who cross my path!

My story is not simply one of thoughtless cruelty or hideous revenge. It is also one of beauty, and of ugliness. Behold the many descriptions of the natural world, the myriad and vivid wonders of nature, of mountain and forest and lake and ocean. There is true beauty. It is a fact upon which we three - Victor Frankenstein and Captain Walton and I - are truly of one mind. In nature there is true transcendence! But alas, it is not simply nature that is judged as beauty, or as ugliness. Inspect the story closely. Note the good fortune of the child Elizabeth, raised in squalor and then lifted into comfort. Why was she so chosen? Because of her fortunate beauty, her golden hair... so different from the children around her, who remained in poverty. A typical act for the human species: forever embracing the fair and turning away from what their eyes call foul. Terrible human nature, that judges the surface alone. Study Victor's reactions to his professors, both steeped in wisdom: one kindly and elegant in appearance, the other misshapen and coarse... his fondness for the former and his displeasure with the latter. See Victor's uncaring and hysterical flight from his own child - myself! Watch his descent into illness at the mere idea of such ugliness. Witness the family De Lacey, and their rejection of one who sought only to ease their burdens, to bring their kindness back upon them - a being who only craved love! Myself! Again and again, the pleasant surface is favored over the ill-formed; the unknown depths to remain unknowable. Foolish humans - victims of their conceits, forever enchanted by what they call beauty. Foul and petty humans - they are villains of their own making. A curse upon them! And so rejected and abandoned, I shall bring ugliness back to their doorstep. I become nemesis; and shall live forever as your deadly child, a perilous inheritance, a nightmare of your own creation...

O wretched are you all! ...more

4

Sep 22, 2016

I read this years ago and Loved it!
Great story and will need to read again soon.

2016 - Listened to the audiobook version and loved it.

4

Oct 26, 2019

Frankenstein by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley is an 1818 publication. (This book is a 2013 e-artnow publication)

I thought that I had read this book at some point during my early teens- maybe in junior high? Even so, I couldn’t remember anything about the book and knew that if I ever re-read it, it would be like reading it for the first time. Every year I consider reading Frankenstein for Halloween, but it never seemed to make the cut- until now.

Once I finally settled into reading the book it Frankenstein by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley is an 1818 publication. (This book is a 2013 e-artnow publication)

I thought that I had read this book at some point during my early teens- maybe in junior high? Even so, I couldn’t remember anything about the book and knew that if I ever re-read it, it would be like reading it for the first time. Every year I consider reading Frankenstein for Halloween, but it never seemed to make the cut- until now.

Once I finally settled into reading the book it became immediately apparent that the book was completely unfamiliar to me. I’m still not sure If I ever truly read this book all the way through, and I’m waffling on how clear my memory is on that- but- I did finally take notice of the blurb/synopsis for this edition of Frankenstein, which clearly states that this book is the original 'uncensored' 1818 version, the one submitted by an ‘anonymous’ author as Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus. According to the blurb, Shelley heavily edited the book in 1831, under pressure to make it more conservative.

So, even if you have read this book once before, this original version may be worth your time. If you have only seen the countless films based on the book, you really should read the book for a greater understanding of Shelley’s true intent when writing the book.

The novel is controversial for its time, and I think it still gives one a lot to ponder over. It is a Horror novel, but maybe not in the way you have been conditioned to think of it. The story is also told by the narrators, (Walton, Frankenstein and the Monster), with the benefit of hindsight, giving them the ability to see their errors and the consequences they wrought.

Several weighty themes are addressed in the story and people have theorized and analyzed the symbolism and pontificated on these subjects, searching for all manner of possible allegory, for ages.

In this case, the subtitle Shelley gives the book, suggests a parallel with the Greek mythological figure- Prometheus the Titan- who created humanity with clay. The quote by The monster to his creator- “Remember, that I am thy monster; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed" seems to be a reference to the creation depicted in Genesis.

The scientific ramifications suggest a cautionary tone-perhaps bordering on alarmist territory, in my opinion, but certainly raises questions- ones that are still being considered today.
John Milton’s- Paradise Lost’ is also thought to have influenced Shelley as the theme of alienation and isolation are prominent throughout the book.

For me, the motives behind Frankenstein’s experimentation, which, despite some arguments suggesting his grief played a role in his decision, were in my opinion, wholly egotistical and arrogant, spurred on by his raw and naked ambition. He attempts to sway the reader, at once claiming he is the devil, while at the same time, rationalizing his actions. His work backfires spectacularly, when his creation turns out to be so ‘hideous’, he is unable to acclimate himself within a normal society. He is abandoned by his creator, which leads to intense bitterness and anger, leading to his demand for a mate.

The conclusion felt a little bit abrupt, maybe a bit vague. Unlike Frankenstein, Walton’s choice is one that considers the overall effect of his ambitions- but, does the monster follow through on his promise?

Looking at the various points lined out here it hard to find too many similarities between the book and the various movie adaptations. The revised version of the book is the most commonly read, but still I hardly recognize the story compared to Hollywood’s interpretation of it.

As for the writing- compared to what we are accustomed to today, the prose may take some getting used to, but I had no trouble with it. As to whether the book stands the test of time is perhaps debatable. I couldn’t help but notice many recent three- star ratings for the book compared with tons of five- star ratings from years past.

I think this book has more merit than it is given credit for, and still raises many valid questions. Today’s world is full of Victor Frankenstein prototypes- ambitious to the point of obsession, and the consequences of personal achievement be damned- and they never seem to fully learn from their mistakes either.

For a book synonymous with the horror genre for centuries, I’d say it does stand the test of time. It is much more thought provoking than I had anticipated, and even if I had read this book from start to finish in my youth, I no doubt missed out on the various messages implied throughout. All of that would have sailed right over my head as I’m sure my only goal was to read a scary story.
I’m glad Frankenstein finally made it to the top of my Halloween reading list. Someday I may read the edited edition, and compare notes, but I doubt I’ll ever be tempted to watch a movie version again, with the possible exception, of Young Frankenstein. ????????


4 stars


...more

4

Dec 07, 2015

Frankestein = The Modern Prometheus, Mary Shelley
Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus is a novel written by English author Mary Shelley (1797–1851) that tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who creates a grotesque but sapient creature in an unorthodox scientific experiment.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: نخستین خوانش: هشتم ماه دسامبر سال 1995 میلادی و سپس دومین بار در روز نوزدهم ماه نوامبر سال 2011 میلادی
عنوان: فرانکشتاین (پرومته مدرن) ؛ نویسنده: مری شلی؛ مترجم: جعفر مدرس صادقی؛ ‎Frankestein = The Modern Prometheus, Mary Shelley
Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus is a novel written by English author Mary Shelley (1797–1851) that tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who creates a grotesque but sapient creature in an unorthodox scientific experiment.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: نخستین خوانش: هشتم ماه دسامبر سال 1995 میلادی و سپس دومین بار در روز نوزدهم ماه نوامبر سال 2011 میلادی
عنوان: فرانکشتاین (پرومته مدرن) ؛ نویسنده: مری شلی؛ مترجم: جعفر مدرس صادقی؛ تهران، نشر مرکز، 1374؛ متن کوتاه شده در 224 ص؛ شابک: 9643051064؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان انگلیسی - سده 19 م
مترجم: محسن سلیمانی؛ تهران؛ قدیانی، چاپ چهارم 1392؛ در 326 ص؛ شابک: 9789645366184؛
دیگران نیز متن کوتاه شده این رمان را ترجمه کرده اند
ویکتور فرانکنشتاین، دانشمند جوان و جاه طلبی ست، که با استفاده از کنار هم قرار دادن تکه‌ های بدن مردگان، و اِعمالِ نیروی الکتریکی، جانوری زنده به شکل یک انسان، و اندکی بزرگ‌تر از انسان معمولی، می‌سازد. موجودی با صورتی مخوف و ترسناک، که بر همه جای بدنش، رد بخیه‌ های ناشی از دوختن به چشم می‌خورد. این موجود تا بدان حد وحشتناک است، که همگان، حتی خالقش، از دست شرارت‌های او فرار می‌کنند. هیولایی که خالقش نیز نمی‌تواند آن را کنترل کند، و خود مقهور آن می‌شود. ...؛ ایده ی نگارش این داستان را به مری شلی، دوست خانوادگی آنها، لرد بایرون ارائه داده است. ا. شربیانی ...more

2

Feb 26, 2008

I don’t really know what I was expecting – though ‘more’ comes to mind. Let’s start with what I liked about this book. I liked the idea that the monster is ‘made’ a monster by the treatment he receives from humanity. He is ugly and humanity does like to punish the ugly - this is a universal truth about us that in itself is also fairly ugly.

The other thing I liked was that standard ploy of gothic novels – the multiple Chinese whisper narration. In this the story is all written in a series of I don’t really know what I was expecting – though ‘more’ comes to mind. Let’s start with what I liked about this book. I liked the idea that the monster is ‘made’ a monster by the treatment he receives from humanity. He is ugly and humanity does like to punish the ugly - this is a universal truth about us that in itself is also fairly ugly.

The other thing I liked was that standard ploy of gothic novels – the multiple Chinese whisper narration. In this the story is all written in a series of letters and then continuous prose to the sister of a sea captain who hears the story on a journey to the North Pole from Frankenstein himself, even though much of the story is also told to Frankenstein by his monster. I do like stories like this -that are like Russian Dolls – where it is hard to tell who is telling the story and just how reliable they could be as a narrator. I'm not sure I would trust anything an adventurer sea captain told me about anything - and in the end he is the only source.

Unfortunately, that is about all that I did like. I would have said I know this story well before I read the book. There have been endless films made of this story – so there are elements to the story that are etched into our collective memories. It comes then as a bit of a shock that many (most) of these elements are not in the story at all. No bolts in the neck, no Igor, no organ playing – isn’t it funny how all of these are so strongly associated with the monster and the story, when none of them are in the story at all? I guess that is yet another example of the power of images.

The other difference is that in films the monster is a slow moving automaton, whereas in the book he is much swifter, stronger and agile than people. Frankenstein may not have made a very good looking monster, but in every other respect he did a much better job than God did. Frankenstein is a very fast learner - he learns to speak in less than a year. And given the poverty of instruction Chomsky would really be proud!

Coincidences rarely work in fiction – and while they bring delight when they happen in life, in fiction they tend to stop us in our wilful suspension of disbelief. As Frank Smith points out somewhere – we don’t find it hard to suspend disbelief, it is something we quite like to do. The problem is that this story seems to go out of its way to make us do tutting noises at the improbabilities and constantly strained plotting twists.

My problem was that many of these weren’t really necessary to the story itself. You know, hint - if telling me something silly isn't going to improve the story, don't tell me something silly.

I thought there were some interesting comments about the obligations Gods have to their creations. In this case the ‘god’ is the scientist. He spends most of his time swooning – it seemed the slightest problem has him rushing to his bed for months on end. A friend dies and he is almost at death's door himself. About the only things he never did was tear at either his hair or his clothes – but that is hardly high praise. I guess I’m supposed to say that in these days of genetic engineering and such this is a tale more cautionary now than when it was originally written – but I won’t say that because it is too boring and too obvious.

If it is horror you want, Stephen King is much more frightening, never tells you how scared you are supposed to feel at any given moment in the story and is basically a better writer. But this is a seminal horror story, so I guess for that reason alone…


...more

4

Nov 18, 2014

Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, Mary Shelley
Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus is a novel written by English author Mary Shelley (1797–1851) that tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who creates a grotesque, sapient creature in an unorthodox scientific experiment. Shelley started writing the story when she was 18, and the first edition of the novel was published anonymously in London on 1 January 1818, when she was 20. Her name first appeared on the second Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, Mary Shelley
Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus is a novel written by English author Mary Shelley (1797–1851) that tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who creates a grotesque, sapient creature in an unorthodox scientific experiment. Shelley started writing the story when she was 18, and the first edition of the novel was published anonymously in London on 1 January 1818, when she was 20. Her name first appeared on the second edition, published in France in 1823.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: هشتم دسامبر سال 1995 میلادی؛ تاریخ خوانش دوم: نوزدهم نوامیر سال 2011 میلادی
عنوان: فرانکشتاین؛ مری شلی؛ مترجم: جعفر مدرس صادقی؛ تهران، نشر مرکز، 1374؛ متن کوتاه شده در 224 ص؛ شابک: 9643051064؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان انگلیسی سده 19 م
مترجم: محسن سلیمانی؛ تهران؛ قدیانی، چاپ چهارم 1392؛ در 326 ص؛ شابک: 9789645366184
عنوان: فرانکنشتاین یا پرومته نوین؛ نویسنده: مری شلی؛ مترجم: کاظم فیروزمند؛ تهران، نشر مرکز، چاپ دوم 1389؛ در 262 ص؛ شابک: 9789642131037؛
فرانکنشتاین دانشمند جوانی ست جاه‌ طلب و جویای نام، که جانوری زنده به شکل انسان، و با ابعاد کمی بزرگ‌تر از یک آدم معمولی، و با ریخت و قیافه‌ ای زشت و مخوف می‌سازد؛ که همه، از جمله سازنده‌ اش، از دست او و شرارت‌هایش می‌گریزند. اما به تدریج خود آن هیولا، به فرانکشتاین معروف شده، و این نام، اسم عامی شده، برای مخلوقات ویرانگری، که از اختیار آفریننده‌ ی خویش نیز، خارج میشوند، و حتی خالقشان نیز توان مهار نیروی مخرب آنها را ندارد. «مری شلی»، نویسنده‌ ی این اثر، همسر «شلی»، شاعر بزرگ رمانتیک انگلیسی بودند، و رمان‌های دیگری نیز بنوشتند، اما تنها همین اثر ایشان بود که شهرت ماندگار و جهانگیر یافت. ا. شربیانی ...more

4

Nov 16, 2019

What a great reading experience this was, I loved the story, the writing and vivid descriptions. Completely different from the film that I remember and the audible version with the narration by Dan Stevens (Downton Abbey) was an added bonus.

It’s difficult to believe that this gothic fiction story was written in 1818 by Mary Shelley when she was only eighteen Years old and while the writing style is formal and literary the story is so engaging and thought provoking and after a few pages I was What a great reading experience this was, I loved the story, the writing and vivid descriptions. Completely different from the film that I remember and the audible version with the narration by Dan Stevens (Downton Abbey) was an added bonus.

It’s difficult to believe that this gothic fiction story was written in 1818 by Mary Shelley when she was only eighteen Years old and while the writing style is formal and literary the story is so engaging and thought provoking and after a few pages I was totally absorbed with the atmosphere and the Tale of the monster.

At once a Gothic thriller, a passionate romance, and a cautionary tale about the dangers of science.

I had a copy of this book sitting on my real life shelf for years and never felt drawn to it as I had seen Frankenstein Movies on Tv and felt it was pointless at this stage reading the book as I knew the story and only when I came across an audible version narrated by Dan Stevens did I feel a pull towards this classic. I read and listened to this one and was totally suprised by how much I Enjoyed this Novel.

What an imagination this eighteen year old girl had in the beginning of the 1800s, the setting and the characters are so brilliantly depicted and you feel like you are part of the story as you follow follow Frankenstein on his travels. It’s dark and atmospheric and perfect November reading.

I love when a book like this surprises me and while I had to suspend disbelief a little with some elements of the story and the happenings, it was worth it for the entertainment and reward I got from this novel.

A memorable and thought provoking read and a book that keeps it’s pride of place on my real life bookshelf <\b>

I think readers who have enjoyed books like The Woman in White might well enjoy this one too. ...more

4

Oct 29, 2009

If you have not read the book, then you do not know Frankenstein or his monster. Certainly, there is a creature in our modern mythology which bears that name, but he bears strikingly little resemblance to the original.

It is the opposite with Dracula, where, if you have seen the films, you know the story. Indeed, there is a striking similarity between nearly all the Dracula films, the same story being told over and over again: Harker, bug-eating Renfield, doting Mina, the seduction of Lucy, Dr. If you have not read the book, then you do not know Frankenstein or his monster. Certainly, there is a creature in our modern mythology which bears that name, but he bears strikingly little resemblance to the original.

It is the opposite with Dracula, where, if you have seen the films, you know the story. Indeed, there is a striking similarity between nearly all the Dracula films, the same story being told over and over again: Harker, bug-eating Renfield, doting Mina, the seduction of Lucy, Dr. Van Helsing, the sea voyage from Varna, the great decaying estate--it's all there, in both book and cultural myth. Even the lines tend to recur, as almost every retelling has some version of the famed "I never drink--wine."

But think of Frankenstein's story, the moments that define it: the mountain castle, the corpse-thieving, the hunch-backed assistant, the silently shambling monster, the pitchfork-wielding mob, the burning windmill--none of these things appear in the original story. The first puzzlement comes when the story begins on a swift ship in the arctic, told in letters between the captain and his beloved sister.

The structure of the story as it follows is, in many ways, not ideal. It is not streamlined, focused, or particularly believable. It seems that every picturesque cabin in the woods is inhabited by fallen nobility, that every criminal trial is undertaken on false pretenses to destroy some innocent person, that an eight-foot-tall monstrosity can live in your woodshed for a year without being noticed, and that that same monstrosity can learn to be fluent and even eloquent in both speaking and reading an unknown language merely by watching its use.

The style itself is ponderous and florid, as Shelley ever is, which is fine when she has some interesting idea to communicate, but bothersome when she finds herself vacillating--which is often, since our hero, the good doctor, is constantly sitting about, thinking about what he might do next, and usually, avoiding actually doing anything. I understand the deep conflict within him, but it might have been more effective to actually see him act on some of his momentary urges before switching instead of letting it all play out in his head.

But then, it's hard to think of him as the hero, anyways, since his activities tend to be so destructive to everyone around him. Sure, he is aware of this tendency--hyper-aware, really--and constantly blames himself, but he doesn't come across as especially sympathetic.

The monster, on the other hand, is truly naive and hopeless, unable to change his fate though he often tries to do so, while the doctor tends to avoid doing anything that might improve the situation. There is a very Greek sense of tragedy at hand, in that we have a man who, though combined action and inaction, drives himself inevitably to utter ruin.

As Edith Hamilton defines it, tragedy is a terrible event befalling someone who has such deep capacity for emotion that they are able to recognize and feel every awful moment, and Dr. Frankenstein certainly has this capacity. In fact, he seems to have an overabundance of such feeling, to the point that he spends most of his time wallowing and declaring his woe--which is not always endearing.

But the tragedy remains the most interesting and engaging part of the book, overcoming the sometimes repetitive details of the story. It is an entwined tragedy, a double tragedy between the man and his creation, and it's never quite clear who is at fault, who is the villain, and who is the wretch. The roles are often traded from moment to moment, and there is no simple answer to wrap up the conflict.

Of course, the classic reading of this is an exploration of the relationship between man and his universe (often personified by 'god'). As human beings, we see our lives as a narrative, ourselves as the hero, and we look for villains to blame for our short-comings. the way Shelley lets this story play out between these two entangled lives, each justifying himself and blaming the other for every hardship forces the reader to look at how he does the same thing in every day of his own life.

Looking at the tale as it is presented, it is easy to read Dr. Frankenstein as the figure of 'god', the creator and authority, the author of life. We see the monster's pain and suffering and on one hand, it is all the result of his being created in the first place, and of his creator not planning well enough. But beyond that, there are also the actions and choices the monster makes that make him a monster--his own will.

But I began to look at it in the opposite way: the doctor creates a monster for which he can blame all of his problems, a force which dictates every moment of his life, which causes all of his pains, which haunts him, powerful and unseen, at every moment. Frankenstein has created a god. He has made a force which can lord over him, a god which resembles man, only more powerful, indestructible, inescapable, terrible. In the end, who is the real 'modern Prometheus'?

For almost the entire book, the only person who ever sees the monster is the doctor himself, and since the doctor is present for all of the killings, it isn't hard to interpret this story as the self-justification of a madman: the doctor, himself, could be doing all of the killings, causing all of the malice, and then explaining it away as the acts of a horrific creature that only he can see, that only he can speak to.

However, I am not willing to carry this 'unreliable narrator' reading to its bitter end, since the story itself does not quite support it--but the fact that the monster can almost be read this way intensifies to the degree to which it is a story of two intertwined egos, each one blaming the other, like so many toxic relationships between people, or even between one half of a troubled mind and the other.

But for all that the core idea of the story is strong and thought-provoking, it is still long-winded, unfocused, and repetitive. It is certainly impressive for the first novel of a nineteen-year-old, and demonstrates splendid imagination, but it does not benefit from her literary affectations. However, her style is still thoughtful and refined, unlike the halting half-measures of Stoker's small-minded Dracula , there is a great expanse here, a wide vista which well-reflects the Victorian artist's obsession with the horror of 'the sublime'. ...more

5

Oct 20, 2016

Goodreads, Oct 20, 20__

TO Mr. Frankenstein,

"Oh, Frankenstein! Generous and self-devoted being! What does it avail that I now ask thee to pardon me."

Dear Frankenstein!
When your monster said these lines in the last, I asked myself also why did you behold the accomplishment of your toil on that dreary night of November!

Yes! He repented!
But your creation did not remorse before he had urged his diabolical vengeance to such an extremity.

What a wonderful man you were, Frankenstein!So ambitious, sharp Goodreads, Oct 20, 20__

TO Mr. Frankenstein,

"Oh, Frankenstein! Generous and self-devoted being! What does it avail that I now ask thee to pardon me."

Dear Frankenstein! 
When your monster said these lines in the last, I asked myself also why did you behold the accomplishment of your toil on that dreary night of November!

Yes! He repented!
But your creation did not remorse before he had urged his diabolical vengeance to such an extremity.

What a wonderful man you were, Frankenstein! So ambitious, sharp and determined.

How wonderfully you created, one day, such an animated creature from lifeless matter. you became the creator that day! What had been the study and desire of the wisest men since the creation of the world was now within your grasp. You perfectly knew then that the real elixir of life was chimera!

You felt exquisite pleasure dwelling on the recollection of your childhood, of your knowledge and invention, of your adventure, of your grief, of your fear and of your remorse. When I was listening to you, I thought of you as the most sagacious researcher of your time. But when I started listening to the evolutionary saga from the mouth of your own creation, I doubted you're being the best mind of your time. The powers of learning or I would say, more explicitly of deceiving, of your creation, were far ahead of you.

When a strong multiplicity of sensation seized your monster and he saw, felt, smelled and heard at the same time, I was also pressed upon by a strong light on my imaginative nerves at that very same moment. When your monster unsuccessfully tried to imitate the pleasant songs of birds, the uncouth and inarticulate sounds which broke from him frightened me as well.

From his hovel, where he lived secretly for a long time, watching cottagers, learning human emotions, name of cottagers, the language and then about slothful Asiatics, wars of Romans and stupendous genius of Grecians, I tried to recollect the beginning of my existence as if I too had learned such things in similar fashion.

Your monster made me curious about the Werter's imaginations of despondency and about the high thoughts of Plutarch from whom he learned such traits! Finally, I too felt my flesh tingled with excess of sensitiveness and my pulse beat rapidly, though not as rapidly as yours, every time when your monster came out of his hide to present himself. Though you had benevolent intentions towards humankind, how terrible it turned out to be!


“Of what a strange nature is knowledge! It clings to the mind when it has once seized on it like a lichen on the rock. I wished sometimes to shake off all thought and feeling, but I learned that there was but one means to overcome the sensation of pain, and that was death—a state which I feared yet did not understand"


Your affectionate reader,
-------------------------------------------
I loved the beautiful writing of Shelley in this book. You may be aware of the story, but I think she deserves the reading of this wonderful piece of fantasy and science fiction work and when you know that she wrote this novel in her early twenties, your admiration for her writing will enhance for sure.

It is written in a very unique style and I liked the way, the first few letters started the story and then it was ended in a similar fashion. Multi-layered narration, all perfectly synchronized with one another, makes it a nice reading experience. The natural imagery in the exploration in the North Sea region, Arctic ice and narrator's delightful and full of warmth relations with his family and friends will touch you. The portrayal of the devil is extraordinarily plotted in two entirely opposite ways. Some time he will frighten you through his corpse like hideous horror and at some places you will be filled with compassion towards this wretch monster.

“I endeavored to crush these fears and to fortify myself for the trial which in a few months I resolved to undergo; and sometimes I allowed my thoughts, unchecked by reason, to ramble in the fields of Paradise, and dared to fancy amiable and lovely creatures sympathizing with my feelings and cheering my gloom; their angelic countenances breathed smiles of consolation. But it was all a dream; no Eve soothed my sorrows nor shared my thoughts; I was alone. I remembered Adam's supplication to his Creator. But where was mine? He had abandoned me, and in the bitterness of my heart I cursed him"

 So a brilliant piece of work! ...more

4

Nov 08, 2016

I’d forgotten the epistolary underpinnings here. It’s certainly past due for a rereading. Published 201 years ago, it’s hard to believe how honeyed the language is, how spare. Only the old fashioned vocabulary dates it, but that in a good way. I recall how Iain Pears so adeptly evoked the 17th century by way of a bit of judiciously used archaic vocabulary in An Instance of the Fingerpost, which is exquisite, being his Rashomon. Shelley’s writing stays on the surface; one doesn’t get lost in I’d forgotten the epistolary underpinnings here. It’s certainly past due for a rereading. Published 201 years ago, it’s hard to believe how honeyed the language is, how spare. Only the old fashioned vocabulary dates it, but that in a good way. I recall how Iain Pears so adeptly evoked the 17th century by way of a bit of judiciously used archaic vocabulary in An Instance of the Fingerpost, which is exquisite, being his Rashomon. Shelley’s writing stays on the surface; one doesn’t get lost in introspection or endless digressions. Fascinating to see again how the dark possibilities of science concerned Shelley. This foreboding is still with us as China begins using CRISPR to create GMO people. And check out this headline from CNN: “It's 2019, and scientists can now revive brain cells in a decapitated pig hours after death.” So Shelley’s cautionary tale has not dated. If anything it’s more pertinent now.

The speed with which the story unfolds is key to its success. My admiration is only renewed as I read. I mean, the focus of the story is faultless, and as it runs on it also, quite apart from the horror story, has a way of charming one such is the tidy economy with which it proceeds. Edmund White would call this a Chinese box narrative: a story (the monster’s) inside a story (Victor Frankenstein’s), inside a story (the arctic explorer Robert Walton’s). Now I see what I did not before, that the monster is epistemologically inconsistent. His fine diction and vocabulary have no source; how were they learned and when? He speaks of how miserably lonely he is, how wretched. This presumes a past, socialization, lived experience; if so, these may be inklings of his former life, which reanimation has blurred, as in a palimpsest.

It turns out that all the creature’s language was learned by eavesdropping on a family of cottagers. One is an Arab and as she is taught English so the monster learns too. Then he finds Plutarch, Goethe and Milton lying in the woods. It’s a wearying contrivance; yet somehow one is dragged along out of sympathy for the monster—especially when he rhapsodizes about reading. The parallels between the monster’s situation and Adam’s in Paradise Lost is brilliantly contrasted. The creature has no Eve. When we return to Dr. Frankenstein’s narrative, after his promise to the creature on the glacier, that he will create a female monster, we feel as we read that the the doctor’s dark mood and general depression and misery, effectively echo that espoused by his creation. This is deftly done. Nothing separates the two men in their basic need for companionship and love. The creature seems the more rational of the two, but he is also desperate in his loneliness, thus his threat against the mad doctor’s loved ones.

The doctor is clearly in denial throughout about the implications of his work. He’s naive and underestimates the cunning of his creation again and again. As for the monster, he is, after reading Milton, in rebellion against an unfair and cruel god—Frankenstein. But unlike human beings who believe in God, the monster’s god is of flesh and bones and all too responsive to the displeasure of his creation. Sustained throughout is the ability of both men—creature and creator—to suffer what is at bottom the same misery, though in the creature’s case it is the solitariness enforced by his monstrousness, for the doctor it is the personal loss of loved ones. Finally, in the doctor’s mad pursuit of his tormentor, onto the frozen Arctic Ocean, we see that he has indeed become what the creature wanted all along, a companion, though one borne of rage and vengeance. Still, one thinks, it’s more than the monster’s ever known before. ...more