Interesting story. I always assumed as a child growing up that Frankenstein was the monster created by man, or the man created by man, but not that Frankenstein was the actual creator. It made for a more interesting story because I still didn’t know what was going on and had to learn the true tale.

Still, It was yet another story of a man creating some sort of invention/being and running from it as it terrorizes its creators life. Frankenstein travels around the world doing various things and saving people and trying to find his monster, leaving the girl he loves behind. It’s almost Jekyll and Hyde meet Gulliver.

Few who pick up this book will be unfamiliar with the back story: as a young girl, Mary Shelley created this gothic tale after experiencing a vivid dream and writing the opening as part of a ghost story competition between literary friends. We know this because the writer felt compelled to add a preface explaining how such a young girl was able to create such a horrible tale. So, when I finally settled down to read this famous story, I was expecting a fairly gruesome and horrific story – especially after glimpsing parts of various film adaptations. Could the ‘hideous monster’ still shock after nearly two hundred years?

Young Victor Frankenstein, a naturally talented scientist, plays God in spectacular fashion by creating a living creature. This is an act that he immediately regrets: he spends the remainder of his life trying to cope with his actions and their seemingly unstoppable consequences. As the story continues, the body count rises and Frankenstein becomes increasingly disturbed by what he has set in motion.

The story has three main sections: the framing device, Frankenstein’s story, and his creation’s story. I found the framing device exceedingly dull, partly because I wanted to get to the main story, but also because it is so uneventful. A captain sets out on a mission across the ocean towards the pole. He writes to his sister about how he has organised the voyage and eventually about a stranger he meets. It is a relief when the mysterious stranger, who is, of course, Frankenstein, takes over the narration – although there is still a lot of narrative exposition regarding his education before the creature is designed and animated. Personally, I also found this section very dull, but it is ultimately useful in establishing the importance of the limited close relationships that Frankenstein possesses.

I was anticipating the ‘making of the monster’ section so much that I almost couldn’t believe my eyes when I realised that it was encapsulated into a few bare lines. Watching extracts from the various films, and reading Philip Pullman’s excellent adaptation for children, had led me to expect a dramatic, atmospheric scene which would live in my memory for weeks. Instead, the whole focus is on Frankenstein’s horrified response to the monster and subsequent extended illness. I had to reread the relevant paragraph to ensure that I had not missed some lines of importance. Frankenstein’s explanation for this scarcity of detail is that he does not want anyone else to be able to duplicate his work. Shelley’s reason is harder to fathom, but presumably is connected to her desire to focus on the consequences rather than the act itself. I did find this section disappointing because it was so different to my expectations, but the logic is sound. For me, the story lacked any real interest until the third section, when the creature’s story is told.

I found Frankenstein to be a largely unsympathetic character, primarily because he appeared so incapable of recognising any genuine responsibility to his creation. He blames the creature entirely, which may seem acceptable until the middle third of the book where the creature tells his own story and humanity’s – and Frankenstein’s – shameful rejection of him becomes apparent. Indeed, the creature’s story is genuinely compelling: I wished that the young family he helped would be able to see past his deformity to the goodness nestling in his heart. This was the only part of the story that captivated me, as I learned how the creature had survived and struggled to find a way to live with humanity. The creature’s sophisticated grasp of language seems unrealistic when considering his history, but fits with his subtle understanding of culture and morality. Although his creator has rejected him as evil, Shelley makes clear to the reader that the creature’s motivations are not intrinsically awful, and this is what finally gives the story its complexity.

After this interruption, the account of Frankenstein’s final efforts to outwit his tormentor seemed quite dull to me, presumably because I am used to reading more active, less reflective writing styles. No matter how often the characters stated that they were horrified or terrified or felt similar emotions, the lack of description meant that I could never sense their terror, and so I was always listening to the story rather than imagining it. For me, this meant the story was a bit of a failure in terms of enjoyment. I had to really concentrate to keep reading and found the book easy to put down.

However, the ideas in it are still highly relevant today. The creature’s account of his failure to find empathy in mankind is a damning indictment of the kind of communities we tend to live in: insular, cold, making clear divisions between insiders and outsiders, the physically attractive and the less desirable. Frankenstein’s thoughtless creation and helpless repentance encourage us to consider carefully the choices we make too easily in today’s world, always favouring progress above caution. I did enjoy the way the storyline made me consider these issues and feel that this made it worth reading.

I would recommend this story to anyone with an interest in these issues, but would advise potential readers to be aware that such an incredibly dramatic premise is presented in almost stately prose, reducing horror to melodrama. Of course, this is one of the inaugural ‘gothic’ tales, which were originally conceived as melodramatic, Romantic tales, rather than the kind of horror stories we are more familiar with today. Perhaps more empathic readers will still feel a chill down their spine as they read about Frankenstein’s terror and remorse. ( )

There are some glaring technical problems with Frankenstein: information relayed to the reader in a very unrealistic manner for the characters (specifically how we learn about Justine's background) and coincidences that strain the acceptance of even the most acquiescent reader. Overlooking these, though, the novel is quite excellent. I will be digesting the themes for quite some time. Is Frankenstein's creation a sympathetic character? How much responsibility does he hold for his own misdeeds? How much does Frankenstein? Or society at large? Are humans capable of caring for that which their science can create? Or is science outstripping our humanity? This book stays with you, which--to me--is the mark of a truly good book. ( )

There is a LOT to say about Frankenstein. First off, and I'm going to say this rather bluntly: Mary Shelley is trying very, very hard to be a good writer, and makes her writing worse in the process. She uses big words for no other reason than to make herself sound smarter, and it quite honestly becomes incredibly annoying in very short a time. She also seems to be having an affair with the words "endeavor" and "environs": they are used about as often as the word "the".

Her writing style - specifically, cramming a bunch of huge words into a sentence - obscures the meanings she is trying to shove down our throats. Her sentences also seem to last an eternity: every other sentence is a run on. It's confusing and unnecessary.

On to the plot: I must say, plot wise, this book is enjoyable. Not exciting in any way - at least not any more, everyone already knows the entire plot - but interesting. It manages to keep you entertained, as long as you can comprehend what is happening through the mighty shield that is Shelley's writing style. The only real problem I had with the plot was that, even in the parts of the story that aren't as well known, the events are completely predictable. Too much foreshadowing, not enough plot twists.

The characters are completely offputting, although i cede that emphasizing with Elizabeth is easy. Victor, however, I would happily shoot: he is incredibly effeminate, overexcitable, over-the-top, and mentally unstable. He seems to faint at the slightest provocation, and is made ill for months by the slightest harms. While this is a gothic novel and the characters are supposed to be over-the-top, couldn't Victor be like... incredibly violent or something? At least make it fun to read, rather than just somewhat depressing.

I really liked the character of the Monster, or the Creature, which is actually the intention of the novel, and Shelley succeeded fully in that respect. Simply put, the Creature is a pretty awesome guy and I would have totally given him that hug he wanted in chapter 5.

I also enjoyed the story-within-a-story model of the book, and there are many levels of this throughout.

I just have one further complaint, and many people who have read the book will probably groan with me when I say those two simple words: Chapter 19. Chapter 19 must be one of the most boring and pointless chapters I have ever read in my entire life. It pretty much expands the words "England is awesome and really really beautiful, go there" into several pages, and then tacks on "Oh, by the way, Victor found this cottage on this desolate island and he's gonna do some stuff there."

Final verdict? Frankenstein is a classic and I suggest that you read it, but skip Chapter 19 except for the last page, and imagining yourself killing Victor in various ways will make you happy afterward, I promise. ( )

This book is NOTHING like the movies. First of all; Frankenstein is not a doctor who is independently wealthy, living in Germany – he is a student. He discovers the “essence of life” (which we are never told) and he puts together a person from pieces of corpses. He intends the being to be beautiful but it turns out hideous instead (again, we’re not specifically told in what way he is hideous, only that his proportions are all wrong and I admit that I can only think of what I’ve been shown in the movies). Why he turns out hideous when he was made from beautiful parts is not explained. Damn.

Second, the creature is intelligent and articulate. He is immediately abandoned in horror by Frankenstein and left to his own devices. What an incredible coward Frankenstein is. He just leaves the thing. Out of sight, out of mind.

Later, after Frankenstein and the creature meet, we are told that the creature had to learn all basic functions and discernment of his own senses over again and without tuition. He didn’t remember much about what he was before Frankenstein brought him to life. This is an incomprehensible state!! To be made up pieces of different corpses and be cognizant of that fact! Incredible! What he does remember of his former existence must be in bits and pieces; just like his body.

The creature hid himself in a shed near a cottage occupied by a brother & sister & their father. From them, he learns about love, life and family. He learns to talk and attempts to make friends with the family but because of his looks they drive him off. He is drive off by every human he encounters. This causes him outrage & he finds out who made him and begins to kill off Frankenstein’s friends and family.

He demands that Frankenstein make him a mate. He is unique and utterly alone and he feels that this is owed him. At first, Victor agrees and then in a fit of anguish, he relents. The monster watches through a window as Victor destroys the partially assembled mate. The creature vows revenge and warns that he will be there on Victor’s wedding night.

What is interesting is that Shelley made her readers sympathetic to the monster. We realize that he has a great capacity for good. While he watches the cottage family he does little favors for them that make their lives easier (brings them firewood so they have more time to tend the garden and he stops stealing their food when he realizes how poor they really are). He is only driven to crime when he is shunned by humanity. We are mostly shown in movies that the monster is a monster. He has no redeeming qualities and no human emotions of remorse, caring or sympathy in the movies. In the book he is largely a good creature who reveres and cherishes the nature around him.

Frankenstein is incredibly naive. He thinks the monster is going to battle himself on his wedding night & when his wife is killed he is astounded and surprised. Duh. The chase is on that ends up at the North Pole.

Frankenstein dies with Walton on the ship. Soon after the creature arrives, rages and grieves over his death and tells Walton that this has not made him satisfied (it was Frankenstein’s perpetual misery and utter wretchedness that gave the creature satisfaction) and that he will now go and light a pyre and kill himself. Now that Frankenstein is dead he can have the soothing oblivion of death. While Victor was alive, the creature would not give him that satisfaction.

What a story. Despite the lofty language and the elevated emotional content – Frankenstein and the creature are in a battle to see who is in the worst misery – I liked the story and thought it was pretty awful. I do think however that 20th Century life has hardened human beings emotionally. I can’t understand the grinding emotional pain of the people in this book. Also, I don’t understand why Frankenstein didn’t tell people what was happening to him and raise a posse to kill the brute. He didn’t have to tell them that he himself created the being – no one would believe him anyway – all he had to do was say that this horrible beast was stalking him and killing everyone he knew. Even if the creature got a chance to speak he wouldn’t be believed either. Who in their right mind would believe a story like that? The monster would have been killed and the persecution over. ( )