I found this worth reading, not great, but worth reading given that it's such a well known story. I was very much surprised to find how different the actual story is from the typical telling one hears of while growing up. ( )

In trying to create life, the young scientist Victor Frankenstein unleashes forces beyond his control, setting into motion a long and tragic chain of events that bring Victor himself to the very brink.

Thanks to a string of Hollywood’s idiotic executives focused on cheap thrills, decades of bonehead movies have used Frankenstein in their title, but have kept nothing of the original story. As a result, readers that grab this title seeking a horror story (gory or not) stand to be disappointed. Mary Shelley’s story, which must be read in full appreciation of the style and sensibilities of the 19th century, is actually the sad story of a creature rejected by its creator. Love and love denied, revenge and forgiveness, rejection and acceptance, right and wrong – and how human judgment is tainted by appearances. In a century where image is all and beauty is mistaken for intelligence, Frankenstein’s story is all too contemporary. ( )

This book was deep and intellectually stimulating. The writing is very dense, and Shelley has a extensive vocabulary. I found the plot intriguing, but I never really thought of it as a novel. It was more of different characters telling their point of view about a situation. Beyond that, every single character sounded the same in their dialogue, with no distinctive character tics to distinguish them. At times, I became frustrated with Frakenstein(the scientist, not the monster), and his immense stupidity. I never found it thrilling, but I'm glad to have read it. Its a sure classic, and I don't recommend it to those who are not willing to think about it. If you are looking for a quick, easy read, look somewhere else. ( )

Great classic horror novel. Although it gets pretty deep, it could be read multiple times and analyzed from a psychological, socialogical, and literature aspect. I didnt care too much for the ending, and i felt like there were some parts that just bored me. However the good parts it had were REALLY good, plus i love books that have depth and can be analyzed and what not. ( )

D un cote, bravo a Mary Shelley pour son genie creatif! D un autre cote, la narration apparente vraiment a un concours de redaction:lourd! ( )

“Frankenstein” is a book that is extremely hard to follow and is a boring read. Victor Frankenstein’s creation is supposed to be horrifying, but what is really horrifying is this book. Victor is an overdramatic man that seems to fall ill every time a problem comes along. This book constantly left me depressed and bored out of my mind. The plot is all over the place and makes the monster seem like a convicted killer rather than a classic villain. The only people I recommend this book to are unhappy, stiff people that do not enjoy fun. I gave the book a half of a star because Mary Shelly went through the effort to write it. ( )

Classics tend to disappoint me, and this one certainly wasn't any different. This required reading was forced upon me the summer before tenth grade. Frankenstein's complaints continue throughout the drawn out book making it monotonous and seemingly endless. Honestly, one star is being generous. Do you know how difficult it is to read about depression and death while tanning on a beach? Practically impossible. Please, don't bother with this book unless you enjoy sorrow and take pleasure in redundant tendencies. ( )

SPOILER ALERT. This is the dullest most miserable classic I've ever read. I was bored out of my wits but determined to finish it. 90% of the book is devoted to the wonders of the snowy alpines. Then when it comes to the juicy parts, eg1: Victor changes his mind about creating a female companion for the Monster and destroys her - Shelley dedicates one paragraph on this important turn of events! Eg2: Victor was acquitted on charges of causing the death of Clerval - I was really looking forward to a long drawn out court scene and arguments leading to Victor's acquittal but no - Shelley wraps it up in one paragraph. All suspense, dashed.

There are many tragic but likeable characters in classical literature but Victor Frankinstein comes across as an extremely sad and hapless figure, who spends the whole novel crying, indulging in self-pity, reflecting morosely on his 'evil' creation, and his thoughts volley recklessly from horror to empathy for the creature. The tale about the comings and goings of the de Lacey family was melodramatic at best. Victor's failure to warn his family about the Monster's murderous streak and that their lives were in danger, was selfish and negligent. And as for the Monster - I can hardly sympathize with anyone who has murdered a child and innocent women and men, regardless of how badly he was treated because of his ugly face. It's like saying all criminals on Death Row today were born innocent, so let's be lenient on them too. You just have to take responsibilty for your own criminal actions.

I tried to find a reason to like this book, sparknotes quote: "The pursuit of knowledge is at the heart of Frankenstein, as Victor attempts to surge beyond accepted human limits and access the secret of life." If this is really the heart of Frankenstein then I'm sorry but it totally bypassed me. Perhaps it's because Shelley spent only 2 pages (somewhere in Chapters 4 and 5) on describing the night the Monster attained the spark of life.

I was more interested in Shelley's biography, written in the Introduction by herself and Karen Karbiener. Ideas for her story germinates from discussions with other literary and philosophical intellectuals, of which Shelley was often in the company of, (her parents were reknowned radical literary figures during the Romanticism era). Their discussions included Columbus, Darwin and Galvani, the latter developed "the idea that an 'electric fluid' ran through the veins and animated animals". Powerful images of human engineering gone disastrously wrong haunted Shelley one night and she decided to use what she had envisioned as the basis for her story. Shelley had a lot of burden to shoulder in her young life: there were numerous deaths in her family: her mother (died giving birth to her), her stepsister, husband, close friends, several of her own children did not survive infancy. "Invention, it must be humbly admitted, does not consist in creating out of void, but out of chaos". Shelley must've suffered tremendous grief - did she ever recover from bereavement? Did she "feel like a fiend....desperately craves the attention and affection of the remaining parent; and ultimately ..responsible for the death of the one who gave it life." Was Shelley "conscious of how much of herself and her experience she was using to create Frankenstein?"

5* for the movie. Sorry, 1 for the novel. 10+ for women's lib. ( )

Science gives us many wonderful discoveries-machines,computers,weapons-but how do we use these things?
Victor Frankenstein creates a new man, bigger and stronger than any other man.But even monsters need love, and begins to destroy everything. I think love is most inportant thing. Love makes us kind. ( )

The Frankenstein's monster might be different from your image. He has intelligence. He wanted to be loved by someone since he was born, but no one would love him because of his ugly appearance. ( )

The premise: seems kind of silly to discuss the premise of Frankenstein, given the fact that the book and its monster is such a prominent figure in pop culture. But in a nutshell, scientist discovers the secret of life and animates a man made up of various parts of different corpses. The experiment works, but our good scientist, Dr. Frankenstein, is horrified by his creation and rejects the monster. The monster pursues, and Dr. Frankenstein's life is never the same.

My Rating

Glad I Borrowed It: that rating's a kind of cheat, but let me explain: 1) I read my husband's copy, which means I didn't spend money for my own copy and 2) it's hard to rate a re-read, let alone a book that's a classic. I firmly believe that Frankenstein is a book that ALL science fiction and horror fans should have under their belt, because it simply says so much and it has most certainly earned its pedestal in both genres. I'm glad to have re-read it, but I feel the same about it now as I did back in high school: it's a good book, but it's not an absolute favorite or anything. It's the writing style that keeps me from connecting, and now that I've read it once, it's easy to see where the book is going in terms of its message and what happens in the plot. Still, the fact that Shelley tackled such huge and heavy topics in her time astounds me, and I have nothing but respect for her. I can only hope that other fans of the genre do too.

Review style: stream of conscious, with questions for those of you who've read the book for the book club. Spoilers? Uh, yes. In all honesty, considering how old the book is, I really shouldn't have to call them spoilers, but some people want the warning, so here it is. SPOILERS. :) Which may be found in my LJ. As always, comments and discussion are most welcome. :)

REVIEW: Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN ( )

Characters Developed

Forget all the Frankenstein stereotypes you know. Forget Igor, grave robbing, neck bolts, electricity, and mobs of angry villagers carrying torches. Victor Frankenstein is a student of natural philosophy (what science was evidently called back then) who plays with chemicals in order to create life from dead tissue. The monster, which remains nameless throughout the story, so frightens Victor that he runs away and tries to forget about it. The monster, initially gentle but driven to cruelty by the repeated condemnation by mankind, vows to ruin Victor's life in return for creating his misery. It's an interesting story, one that touches less obviously on the ethics of scientific experimentation, but says quite a lot about the unfortunate importance of beauty in society. Victor is more naive and pitiful than evil or mad. Definitely one worth reading, but don't go in expecting anything like those famous old movies. ( )

I did not enjoy this book. I should have and probably would have if I hadn't seen so many Frankenstein movies. I knew that the movies veered pretty far from the actual plot of the book, but still expected something more. While the book was probably very scary and very controversial in 1818, it didn't really translate through the centuries. At least for me it didn't. I rated this book based more for being a horror classic and for basically inventing the creature feature horror genre and less on actual entertainment and merit. ( )

Selected for BookClub, was a little put off by 'classic' status, turned out to be a great read and discussion focus. ( )

Whatever you're expecting, this probably isn't it.

And I don't say this in a bad way. My only experience with Frankenstein prior to this had been one false-start reading it (I was young), and the movies based on the novel. Though I have to say "based on" as loosely as possible.

Mary Shelley's novel is a story about a man who has created life, though it is hideous and disfigured. This life, always known as "the fiend" or "the demon/daemon," laments his existence, cursing the monster who had created him. Unlike the grunting tones of the green-skinned creature you see every Halloween, this Creature develops as a modern Adam, twisted by the egotistical intentions of his maker.

There are murders in the novel, but who is the real murderer is up to debate. Frankenstein, realizing what he's done, has his own opinions.

Not so much a horror novel but instead an almost philosophical debate as to the progression of modern science (in the Introduction or Preface, I honestly can't recall which at the moment, Shelley speaks about the science that lead her to imagine this story). It really is a must read. ( )

Shelley’s dark tale of a scientist with a serious god-complex is one of those stories that has been adapted and referenced in popular culture so frequently that certain expectations inevitably come to the reading. Having seen countless versions of the dramatic, frightening laboratory scene, complete with lightening bolts and Frankenstein’s screams of “It’s alive!”, it was strange to discover that in the original tale the creature’s “birth” takes place off-stage and that Shelley only implies Frankenstein‘s use of cadavers, never describing his methods in detail. This is only one of many examples of how the adaptations differ from and even caricature Shelley’s more subtle and complex novel.

What struck me most about this novel was that despite its well-deserved horror credentials, what I found most compelling and emotionally engaging was the tragic aspect of the story. Shelley manages to describe her characters in such a way that both Frankenstein and the monster evoke both empathy and antipathy in turns. In the end it is up to the reader to decide who, if either, was the real villain. Reading about the two characters’ near simultaneous fall from innocence left me feeling deeply their sense of loneliness and despair. The cover blurb on my edition advocates reading Frankenstein as a cautionary story about scientific experimentation, citing modern issues such as organ-donation and genetic engineering. While scientific hubris is certainly major theme in the novel, I found its lessons had a much more general application in its descriptions of ordinary, everyday bigotry and cruelty. I think that Frankenstein will stay with me for some time, and I highly recommend this haunting and melancholy novel to anyone who loves a good old-fashioned gothic read.

Best novel I have ever read. It has nothing in common with the way in which it is depicted. It is not a horror novel. It is more about how a man can create something and be destroyed by it. This was written at a time when electricity was just coming on the scene and they thought it could work miracles. ( )

Written in the early 19th century, Frankenstein is a novel that is fairly easy to read and find entertainment value in even by today's standards. The rich language and Shelley's authorial style create an environment that allows the reader to totally submerse themselves into Victor's world.

The story itself is presented as a story within a story within a story (an sometimes even a level or two deeper than that) as a ship captain named Walton writes letters to his sister in England about his voyage across the top of the world and the strange tale of the man (Victor Frankenstein) that he encounters there. It is Victor's story that occupies most of the novel, and though most modern readers are aware of the Hollywood version of the famous Frankenstein monster, those unfamiliar with the actual novel version are in for a great surprise in the way that the creature is depicted in the novel. Hollywood has taken so many liberties with this tale and the depictions of the characters that reading the original is almost like opening one's mind to entirely new material. Shelley presents us with an incredibly thought provoking and fleshed out tale requiring the reader to put some serious thought into the morality of intense scientific research in the area of the creation of life.

With this novel, Shelley opened the door to the later development of the Science Fiction genre. In a move that is almost pure genius, Shelley avoids the need for the reader to have to suspend belief in the scientific method used to create another living being from dead tissue by allowing Victor to keep his methods undisclosed for fear that another scientist will follow his direction and make the same mistakes that he did in creating his monster.

All in all a very good novel! ( )

I think I bought my copy of Frankenstein when I was a Sophomore in High School. Pretty sad that it took me until now to finally get around to reading it (I won't tell you how many years it's been *grin*).

Based on my experiences with the multiple Frankenstein movies as well as appearances in cartoons like Scooby Doo and parody's like Young Frankenstein, I thought I had a pretty good feel for exactly what I could expect from the novel. I was rather surprised with the widespread differences I encountered. Looking back on my experience with Victorian literature in general and the Gothic literature of the era in particular, I should have expected what I found, but I had let myself be tainted by the mass media translation of Frankenstein.

Now that I've sufficiently digressed, let me just say that even though the novel was different than I expected, I was far from disappointed by it. I expected a terrifying horror novel filled with invigorating suspense, perilous adventure and chaotic frenzy filled action. What I got was a slower paced exploration of the soul of man, the virtues and vices of science, passion, compassion and revenge.

Initially I was very confused as the first many letters (the book had a LOT of 'correspondence' sections) had nothing to do with Frankenstein, his family or his creation. Instead, I found myself growing attached to a lonely adventure seeker sailing to the far ends of the world in search of something to ignite and maintain his passion. When our good Dr. Frankenstein does enter the story, we then get his very detailed narration of his life from childhood to present.

The novel is laid out with a narrative structure intended to be highly conversational either through letters or through the orally delivered story of the narrator to the listener (who then transcribes it for us, the reader). However, the language used seemed overly detailed and pretentious for a simple conversation, even from a speaker as highly educated as Victor Frankenstein. It had all the flowery and ornate elements of Victorian prose, which feels natural as far as writing goes, but whenever I was reminded that nearly the entire narrative was to have been spoken, I was taken somewhat aback.

The book portrayed very well the details of the exultation and triumph felt by Victor throughout his studies and his discovery of a method to create life. His educational cycle was interesting in terms of his relation with his father and his professors. When the realization of his action finally came about, Victor's agony, fear and despair were equally well realized.

I kept waiting for the mob with torches and pitchforks to appear, led by Victor once he recovered from his initial shock. Instead, the arc of the story presented itself to me and I felt compassion for the poor hated creature even before the novel presented him again for our sympathies. I was certain that Frankenstein had falsely judged the fiend and that we would surely get a type of morality text casting a spotlight on society and our lack of compassion for those less fortunate for whatever reason.

My next surprise came when Frankenstein came face-to-face with his creation and had a lengthy conversation. I never expected an articulate monster, but what I had was a self-educated creature who had a huge wealth of knowledge at his disposal. At that point, it was very clear that his only disadvantage was his ghastly appearance and we were obviously supposed to feel sympathy towards him. Even when his crimes were laid bare, it was a struggle to completely condemn him.

In addition to the commentary on human compassion, I enjoyed the dynamic between creator and creation. Looking at Victor as a god-like person provided an intriguing perspective. As the creator, what should his responsibilities be to his creation? What should his involvement be? I didn't necessarily go down a religious path with my thoughts, but I was curious about the concept of the creator as a provider of compassion, mercy and forgiveness.

Instead, Victor looks "to the good of humanity" and rejects his own creation. The result of which spirals into disaster and makes for a fun-filled ride filled with some degree of the action and suspense that I was expecting from the book (still no villagers with pitchforks, sorry). When the novel finally drew near to its conclusion, I was a little confused as to how it was going to wrap itself up.

The ending was actually strangely satisfying. As it unfolded, we once again gain some compassion for the creature and in a sense look upon Victor as a type of monster. As with anything dealing with humanity, it's not that simple. For Victor was acting in the best interests of the greater good as he perceived them and his logic was sound. Thus, as the novel ends, we can't fully condemn either creator or creation. At the same time, we can't wholly condone the actions of either.

Which is why I was surprised that the ending satisfied me…because it left things unsettled and confused. But after all, that's the way humanity is…a teetering house of cards, balanced precariously on a precipice, just waiting for something to turn emotions and values to chaos.

Overall, I really enjoyed Frankenstein and my only regret is that it took me so long to finally get around to it.

4 out of 5 stars
**** ( )

For anyone who only knows Frankenstein through pop culture, I highly recommend a peek at the original. Roles are reversed as the scientist appears selfish and irresponsible while the monster is a victim of circumstance with a willingness to integrate into human society! The theological, philosophical and social themes are very well brought to light especially by one so young as 18 year-old Shelley. There are many aspects that will make the modern reader roll her eyes (much suspended disbelief) but as an example of scientific ethics at the dawn of modern science, this is definitely a worthwhile read. ( )

I really, really, really liked this book. A lot. Shelley has the ability to create vivid, gothic imagery in her scenes, which sets up the moon in the story. The way she was able to write her descriptions helped make the story so chilling. The whole story is very elegantly written, it drew me in and I couldn’t put it down, as I waited for the “monster” to appear. I read the beautiful descriptions of the moon looming in the sky while a character contemplated his actions. I think it’s safe to say, everyone knows, or at least has some idea of the story of Frankenstein. Whether it’s been in movies, or other renditions of the books, most know the story, which for me, helped make it a little more suspenseful, as you waited for the first glimpse of Frankenstein. You knew he was coming, and waiting, to get your first glimpse….. I was very invested in the book, scared; no, but invested. To the point I zoned out everything around me, and jumped at me knocking something down (surprised by the noise). A great sign of an amazing book, that has you so invested you forget the world.

“The Monster” or Frankenstein is probably my favourite character. I felt so sorry for him, he was a very unique and complex character, and his character really relies on human nature and how humans perceive those who look different then us. I really wish I could say more on why I like Frankenstein, because he is a murderer, but it will ruin the whole book, ruin parts for you, but it is what I love best, I will leave it for the readers to figure out, but being able to experience what he experiences, it is easily understandable. It is easy to understand his motives, his need for affection, for companionship, which links us to all humans and their need for that thing. Again it all goes to human nature and how people react to those who are different then us. Whether Shelley meant to do this or not (I think it may have been more to create a horrific monster) I still find it. I think it is suppose to be more of a “horror” story. I think people are supposed to fear Frankenstein, I found I didn’t. I felt sorry for him, and I wanted to see him more (if we saw him murder, instead of being retold of them maybe it would be more scary). But I felt sorry for him, later loved to hate him. He’s one of those “bad guy characters” but you adore (like Dracula, or Snape) them despite that.

My only real criticism of it, is that we didn’t see much of Frankenstein, you knew he was always there somewhere, lurking (which again, is creepy), but I wanted to see more of this character and the horrors he could bring. Other than that, it is a fantastic book.

Book Review also on my blog: http://juliebooks.blogspot.com/2008/1... ( )

The tale of Victor Frankenstein may be nearly two hundred years old, but as science continues to advance, its material only becomes more relevant. As a biblical and philosophical thought experiment, the essence of this novel makes for fascinating reading. What better way to experience it than to return to the original text? If only the writing lived up to the material . . .

Shelley opens in epistolary format; a sure-fire way to begin a plot-driven novel on the back foot. The letters from Walton to his sister require a not-inconsiderable measure of padding to maintain their authenticity, which nonetheless remains punctured by unrealistic exposition of obvious information. Readers should be able to plough through to the start of the real story without too much trouble, and will be relieved to find the plot moving along more quickly – until the idyllic perfection of Frankenstein’s childhood begins to wear irritatingly thin. The writing style, while always eloquent, is incredibly overblown, and careers without rest from nauseating utopia to risible melodrama.

It is in the dialogue of the creature itself that the novel reveals its strongest writing; not only thought provoking, but deliciously quotable as well. When the book switches to the creature’s point of view, we dare to hope that his more tempered narration may do his fascinating and emotive tale justice – and for a while, it does. Before long, however, Shelley’s melodramatic routine is re-established: one paragraph of substance is followed by three paragraphs of Victor’s feelings about it, and perhaps a description or two of the weather, which, infuriatingly, commands enough attention to be considered a minor character. Since there are only so many ways one can feel morose or woebegone or depressed, we find ourselves treading the same ground over and over, while the parts of the story that might make for the most interesting narrative meat – the creature’s construction, the saving of a drowning girl, Victor and Elizabeth’s wedding – are reduced to a few lines each. The realism, though thin in places, manages to stay intact, until Victor, out of the blue, decides to take a nap in his sailboat four miles off the Scottish coast at three in the morning when the breeze is rising, and winds up in Ireland.

Why has this story been adapted so endlessly? Because if you unwrap the essence of Frankenstein and throw away the prose, you are left with something truly special. In its original form, however, this story is bearable at best. Read at your own peril. ( )

Exposing myself to more classic horror after reading Dracula, I picked up Frankenstein or "The Modern Prometheus" if you will, and read it very quickly. This book didn't give off the spooky vibes like Dracula did and I miss the epistolary style that Stoker used (even though it is used somewhat during certain passages). Nevertheless, Frankenstein is a good read, epecially in October. It's considered a classic, I believe for a good reason. Of all the film versions, the one starring DeNiro comes closest to the original vision of Shelley. The book seemed to drag just a little during some the monster's longer narrations.....(yes he talks, unlike the Karloff monster we are so used to seeing). It seems that most author's during the 19th century are known for that one "masterpiece" and this is Shelley's. ( )