Frankenstein

Contrary to popular belief, Frankenstein is not a book about a savage monster created by a crazed scientist who escapes to wreak havoc on unsuspecting nobodies. If anybody is the monster here, it's Victor Frankenstein himself, who has been given the power of a god to create a life, but doesn't consider the psychological flaws in the experiment. I see Frankenstein as more of a social novel than a horror novel in this respect. Shelley wants for the reader to sympathize with the Creature, not to condemn him like the cottagers do, who do so just because he's different. Frankenstein depicts the anti-Eden of new birth, a lonely soul without a companion, which is why the Creature rebels. The Creature is but a child without maturity or show more experience, summoned into a world which despises him, so how can we expect him to behave any differently? show less

We're all monsters here, some of us are just in denial.
Also, parenthood (whether biological or artificial) should require a permit.

Victor Frankenstein is a naïve twenty-something with a (very misguided) cause. Plagued by daydreams of greatness, he sets out to outright build himself the perfect human being. Armed with a disturbing lack of foresight, inadequate planning, and all-round narcissism, he ends up giving life to a hideous-looking creature. Faced with what he saw as utter failure, Frankenstein then very sensibly runs away. Because let's face it: owning up to one's mistakes is soooo three centuries ago.

The universe has, of course, very different ideas. Human cruelty gets exposed, accusations are bandied about, and a whole lot of show more (innocent) people die. Nobody learns a thing from all this.

Full disclosure: I'm a complete philistine when it comes to the classics. I don't praise trailblazing ideas. I rarely appreciate effort in the face of adversity. And I actually tend to break out in hives at the mere whiff of melodrama. Especially when it comes wrapped in lyrical prose.

I was initially hoping to get into the whole avenging ange-- erm monster aspect , on reading about Frankenstein's refusal to feel even a shred of empathy for his creature. I was so horrified that I even started raging at the Audible app. It reminded me of someone once suggesting I return my newly adopted kitten for not learning manners fast enough. If that thought had me fantasising about angry mobs waving rusty old pitchforks, you can imagine how Frankenstein made me feel.

I basically spent the rest of the book rooting for the creature to do as much damage as (in)humanly possible. And I have to admit that I was rather disappointed by what he (it?) achieved. Frankenstein got off way too easy. To be fair, his constant victimising coupled with my general dislike of the writing style may have just tired me out sooner than expected.

Score: 3/5 stars

This book may very well be a trailblazer from both a historical and cultural point of view, but that still doesn't make me like it. show less

A lonely English sea captain sets sail for the North Pole from his base in Russia. As he grows closer to his destination, his crew rescues an emaciated form from the icy waters. Their mysterious guest slowly recovers his strength, then relates (to the captain, at least) an incredible story: he is chasing a monster - a demon - of his own creation, with a mixture of fear, vengeance, and determination.

I was surprised to find a frame story; though why, I'm not sure - quite a few novels from this time period are constructed thus. There is a hint of Dracula as well, with the epistolary style of this frame. But of course the meat of the work is in the 23 chapters between these letters, one in which Victor Frankenstein confronts quite a few show more existential questions around the idea of what it means to play god.

This is quite a compelling tale, not the least reason being that its written in such a manner as to suggest that Frankenstein is insane, and has been for most of his adult life. The fact that he falls into illness the very same night that he gives his horrible creation life, and continues to have these spells of illness any time he has a 'confrontation' with the creature, gives pay to that idea. The fact that he, alone, is aware of the creature's existence and is the only one who ever speaks with him is another reason for thinking thus. I spent most of the book trying to decide if this was some sort of phantom delusion or if his personality had somehow split into two conscious entities. Either way, the idea that he was blaming himself for his monster's crimes from the start, and pursuing him to the literal ends of the earth, makes the idea of him literally chasing himself into craziness all the more likely.

I'm no great critic of literature, so I suppose no matter how you interpret it, there are still lots of thought-provoking ideas and questions here. What does it mean to create another sentient being? Do you have a charge to care for it? Can you really close Pandora's box after opening it? What does it mean to be an outcast on the basis of qualities you can't control? Does a complete absence of love or support lead to a life of evil and vengeance? There's certainly lots to chew on.

I never read this book when I was a kid, and have grown up with the popular culture ideas of Frankenstein('s monster). I'm not sure I would have truly appreciated it without a bit of life experience behind me, so I'm glad I'm reading it for the first time as an adult. show less

I’m almost ashamed to admit that I didn’t read this book until I got to second year of university. I know it’s a classic, but I didn’t actually get my hands on a copy until I was doing it for a class called ‘Sensibility and Romanticism’, and even then I didn’t actually appreciate this book for what it was. Younger me read it, but I don’t think she enjoyed it as much as I did this year.
Here’s the thing – I’m a firm believer in the maxim that you enjoy certain books more when you’re older. Some books require a certain outlook on life to be able to appreciate them, and I think this is one of them. There are a lot of heavy themes in it and even though a twenty year old is technically an adult, I don’t think that show more somebody who has just started to learn how to think critically can be tasked with understanding how amazing and thought-provoking this book is.
I’m sure that most of us have heard the story in some iteration or other – Victor Frankenstein, brilliant young scientist, embarks on an academic journey to discover the secrets of life and create life himself like God would. He succeeds and is immediately horrified by his creation. He shuns everything that he ever did, trying hard to stray away from the work that consumed him for so many years, but eventually the Creature (as he calls it) catches up to him.
The Creature, you see, has very much been evolving and learning on his own. The Creature has learned how to speak and how to read, and has read stories that have made it realize that it was abandoned by its creator. The Creature, still naïve, tried to find shelter with a family who it was doing kind deeds for in exchange for it leaving in their shed that they never used (without them knowing about it, of course). However, when he reveals himself to them, they chase him out of the area where they live and the Creature realizes that he can never be loved. Enraged, he goes on a quest to find his creator, Victor, and then gives him an ultimatum – either Victor makes him a companion, a female Creature that he can live with and not be so lonely, or he will kill everyone that Victor loves and then, finally, kill Victor.
Honestly, this novel is at its heart about two main things – man’s struggle with a god who has abandoned us, and god’s struggle with a creation that has gone too far. It also raises a lot of scientific and philosophical questions about life and creation. But mainly, the novel addresses the two sides of the same coin – a creation that never wanted to exist in the first place, and a creator that is starting to regret it.
In today’s day and age, with our impending environmental doom looming above us (we all know we’re causing the death of our own planet here, people!), this book feels even more prevalent. If we go by the Bible version of the story, God created Man to have him name all the animals and live with them and nature in perfect harmony in the Garden of Eden. We fucked that up (no need to go into the details of that…) and went against our original purpose of being able to live beside nature harmoniously. Now, we’ve fucked up the planet almost to the point of no return, and if we don’t stop soon it’s going to get worse, and it almost feels like God has lost all faith in us because of our actions. But it also feels like us raising a giant middle finger at God ourselves, because we feel like he abandoned us a long time ago and this is our retaliation to that.
It’s a back and forth between the Creature and Victor. The Creature gives Victor many chances, and yet Victor decides that he doesn’t want to help the Creature time and again, abandoning him and causing the death of everyone he loves – friends, wife, siblings, father. Victor is responsible for all of this simply because he doesn’t care enough for the Creature to actually help him; the Creature, knowing full well that his Creator has abandoned him, still tries to get his attention like a child vying for the paternal affection it always wanted (only a bit more murderously, I would say).
So, who’s in the right? The Creature who just wants to feel loved or the Creator who realizes the mistake he made and doesn’t want to repeat it?
Basically, I love this book for making me actually think about things. I give it 5/5 stars! show less

I had been meaning to read this book for the longest time. It had been sitting on my shelves for years until I finally resolved to read it this year. I am so glad I did!

First off, it was interesting that the book was a story within a story and had three different narrators (Walton, Frankenstein, and the Creature). That was something I wasn’t expecting but it worked well.

The star of the story was the Creature (aka Frankenstein’s monster). The Creature was the epitome of being othered. He was so misunderstood and just wanted to belong and feel loved. I really felt for him and his suffering.

Shelley’s writing style is amazing. Her prose beautifully captured the eerie and gothic atmosphere while still being so accessible. Her writing show more is easy to understand and the short chapters make it simple to digest. If you are one of those people who avoid reading classics because of the language, this is a great classic to start with.

My one critique is that I did want a little bit more towards the end. The last chapter spans quite a bit of time and it just flew by. I wanted it to be fleshed out a little more.

Overall, this classic lived up to its hype. I am still in awe that Shelley wrote this when she was just 19. show less

Together with Dracula (and perhaps a few others?) here's a classic few people think they need to read. We all know the big green lug with the bolts in his neck, so what's to learn from reading the novel? Plenty, as it turns out. The novel is missing many of the elements you've seen at the cinema or on television, versions which created their own set of tropes. On the whole it's much more conventional, basic conceit aside. Of the greatest surprise was the fact this monster may be the best-spoken ever created.

I was pleasantly surprised by the framing story. I didn't find the writing to be especially good at first, but later there were large sections of dialogue that I thought were excellent. Ultimately it's the story that has made this a show more classic. The reader is thrust into Victor Frankenstein's shoes. It made me live through the fevered creation of a monster, then knowing the acts it committed but feeling powerless to reveal the knowledge as this tragedy plays out with domino effect. The novel's horror element stems not from gruesome scenes or depictions of the monster, but from the chain of events that arise from Frankenstein's heedless pursuit. A particularly effective scene comes when Frankenstein and his monster first confront one another in their pain and grief, each decrying and blaming the other for their mutual course of destruction.

I've two editions of the novel (1818/1831) and played "spot the differences". The first three chapters were condensed into two, and throughout the novel Shelley added numerous flora to her descriptive passages. The most significant differences come when Victor travels to the area of the glacier alone, or in the company of his father and Elizabeth. The monster plants evidence on Justine in her sleep, or is sneaky enough to drop it in her pocket while she is awake. The endings of both versions are entirely the same.

The moral about science didn't speak to me, but I viewed the novel as a more general metaphor for addiction: the wild pursuit of a particular regardless of danger or cost, and the eventual toll it takes on self and family. Taken either way, the novel's cautionary note applies just as well to today's society as it did two hundred years ago. show less

The one star is solely for Mary Shelley who, at age 18, created a story of such originality and power that it has seeped into the collective consciousness, has remained there for 200 years, and with the help of whatever contemporary devices continue to re-make it, will likely remain there for many more.

But I cannot drum up more than one star. I disliked the book. I winced at the laughable coincidences and improbabilities. I rolled my eyes reading page after page of florid writing and overwrought speech. I loathed listening to the cowardly and self-pitying ramblings of the sickly protagonist who hardly seems deserving of having a book, much less a monster, named after him. Then there was the clunky plot and silly devices to plod show more through. Oh and worse! During 90% of the book, I was bored out of my head.

The one star is for the inner core that has spawned an icon, which was good. The rest, I'm sorry to say, was a hideous monster. show less