Frankenstein

This book is like a bad dream.

A passionate scientist in the early 1800s embarks on a mission to create life from non-life, resulting in disastrous consequences.

All I remember from the abridged version, I read as a kid was a man made a monster and may or may not have made a female companion for him. I'd forgotten that Frankenstein was the scientist, not the monster. I haven't watched any of the movies. So I read this with untainted perspective.

For people expecting a sci-fi - there are no technical details. A ‘spark of life' and ‘chemical instruments' are all he needed to make a live being. That was a disappointment. It was clever though. Technicalities would have been pretty soon outdated. It was either none or nonsense. The book is long enough, and I'm glad she chose none.

Passion
The book begins with passion, goes through a lot of emotions and ends in tragedy.
“nothing contributes so much to tranquilize the mind as a steady purpose - a point on which the soul may fix its intellectual eye” -from Robert's letter.

The creature is a direct consequence of the fiery passion of Frankenstein.
“A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father would claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs”
And then when the big guy starts moving, like a switch was flipped, Frankenstein's feelings change. Working on this project for 2 years, and only when it starts moving the dream bubble pops; his heart fills with “breathless horror and disgust”. It was not a deed or a conversation or the countenance that made him loathe it. It was the mere sight of him ‘alive.' When it was merely a science project, a goal to achieve, the ugliness did not matter. Did he foresee the ‘completely understandable havoc', the big guy was gonna wreck? Or was it simply because he was ugly? If the latter is the reason, which is more likely, then that was a pathetic turn of events. He did not even have a chance. With the power to meddle in nature's affairs comes responsibility to deal with the consequences, which I think is the point of the story.

“A human being in perfection ought always to preserve calm and peaceful mind and never to allow passion or a transitory device to disturb his tranquility. I do not think that pursuit of knowledge is an exception to this truth”

It is a socially acceptable psychosis when a scientist puts so much into work or a students prepares really hard for a test and everything around them ceases to matter. Full-on passion levitating you off ground reality is cool until you hit the ground with a thud.

Nature
Throughout the novel, the author spares no words in describing the grandeur of nature surrounding, encompassing our lead character, who is comparatively miniscule - the magnificence of the mountains, the raging avalanches, the torrential downpour, thunder, the winding river and the unrelenting wind, through which this lone man, a dot in the vastness, tries to wade through.
The apparent insurmountability is subtly intended.

Who's right.
Definitely the big guy. What was he to do? He was reasonable. Frankenstein could have atleast made him an infertile partner, they might have happily lived ever after. (If it was in the 21st century there is a slight chance of her going woke and spouting ‘I'm not made for a man' nonsense. Anyway...

How a fully grown ugly looking infant would survive in the wilderness of the society would be an interesting thought experiment. Other than the crash course on everything and anything else, he learns as a peeping tom on a whole family, our big guy has had no parenting. He believes he owes his compassionate personality to his ‘protectors', and if they were soldiers instead of a ‘loving family', he would have had a completely different outlook on life. Frankenstein refuses to believe the effect the nurture on the big guy; he calls him a daemon, a wretch and doesn't believe that his nature will change(?)

Is this just real lifeis this just fantasy
Is any of it real?
If not written as a recording of Robert's experience, this surely could be considered under the heading of ‘unreliable narrator'. Just for the sake of it, if we consider the story without Robert in it, everything following Frankenstein getting sick from too much work could be just dreams and hallucinations.

This book is like a bad dream. Why? Because the story goes everywhere.
There's a guy climbing mountains during rainstorms and avalanches, jailbreaking, enjoying the vista while sailing, a murder investigation, romance, capital punishment and making 8foot tall live being. Like dreams where you are chasing down the bus you just missed one moment, and the next moment you are in class, pantless; it appears incoherent from the outside but coherent from the outside.
And for some reason, the Kindle edition of this book I got was typed(?) twice; the book was over when I thought it was only half way through. I'll admit there was a sigh of relief, because things couldn't get worse, and there was nowhere the novel could go from there. Still unexpected abrupt endings are disappointing.

It's a tragic novel. There are plenty of literary effusions, so much of emotions that might seem a little over the top. The images are sharp, emotions intense, it was a novel idea at the time and there's nothing quite like this since or before this. As a ‘sci-fi' venture during the romantic era, Frankenstein surely deserves the unique status it has in literature.

A frankly astonishing debut novel written when the author was not even 20 years old. Shelley combined elements of Romanticism with a gloomy, Gothic shadow and somehow created a whole new genre - Science Fiction!

The basic plot is so well known it is not worth noting here. What touched me on this re-read was the inhumanity of man: Frankenstein abandoning his creation without attempting to create an emotional bond, the horror and disgust of those who meet the ‘monster' causing his very soul to darken and deform to reflect his countenance.

Shelley's words are beautiful, full or melancholia and poetry with many a nod to the Bard himself (and probably many others but I am horrifically under-read when it comes to classics, I shall get straight onto Milton - cannot be beaten by a ‘daemon'). The pastoral imagery reflects both Shelley's wide reading and the travelling she had done around the UK and Europe.

Her consistently male narrators perhaps seem a little naive and extremely emotional - weeping and expressing brotherly love is amongs their strong points - but perhaps this reflects more of the period than the constitution of her characters or the age or gender of the author.

An astounding book, still relevant today, heavily influenced by the losses young Ms Wollstonecraft had already experienced. With the power to both horrify and make one cry, this should be required reading for all!


I do wonder what happened to Captain Walton?

Dark and deep with extensive imaginary. 

I LOVED this edition of Frankenstein and I find Mary Shelley to have been a genius of a writer to have written this at the age of 19 (she had a baby too around the time which makes it even more incredulous to me).

I really liked how she details in on human emotions and not just the expression of them, rather their reasons as well. Something that stood out to me were instances where education was discussed and I find that even about 200 years ago, a lot of the problems and thoughts concerning education were the same. I found that there was a lot a person could take from this book if they wanted to, or merely read it for the plot and that would do too.

It's a short novel but having a nice audiobook version (one by Cori Samuels) made my experience even better.

Hey look at me! I finished Frankenstein!

I almost don't want to rate this book. It's clearly fantastically written and an essential classic. Everyone should read it!

Having said that, I found myself pushing my way through the story at the end, and I really just hate Victor Frankenstein. He's a spoiled little jackass.

3/5 stars for me, but with a deep respect for the literature and with a full understanding of how this could be 5/5 for others. Glad I read it!!

I have to be very formulaic in reviewing this book, mainly because it evoked no strong feelings from me.

I seek two things in a book: entertainment and “thought-provocation.” Frankenstein was not very entertaining. The characters felt so dramatic, but in a marionette way. The way they expressed their grief or their ecstasy was so eloquently hollow. Now, of course, this is just a trait of Mary Shelley writing in the Romantic era of literature. But in any case, all the characters seemed cartoony and one-dimensional. The plot, too, was so predictable and terribly uninspired, even though I have never watched a Frankenstein-themed movie or play. Finally, if this is what the Romantics call a horror novel, they get frightened awfully easily. At best, Frankenstein gets a 2/5 in entertainment value.

As for how thought-provoking the book was, I was quite fascinated. I could sense that, at times, Shelley was scathingly criticizing the Christian God. After relenting to an audience with his creation, Victor Frankenstein noted that “[he] felt what the duties of a creator towards his creature were, and that I ought to render him happy before I complained of his wickedness.” At numerous points in the novel does Shelley draw a parallel between the relationship between God and humans and the relationship between Frankenstein and his creature. In this quote, she implies that God has a duty to listen to humans, a duty which He has never fulfilled. Reading Frankenstein from this perspective makes the book much more interesting. Finally, considering this in a science fiction context makes for equally remarkable reflections. What are the duties of humans towards future robots or androids? Reading Frankenstein in the same year as I read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and I, Robot was a very happy coincidence for me. 4/5 for thought-provocation.

So, in sum, 3/5. Extremely boring characters, but the book poses some fascinating questions that slightly redeem it.

4/5

une bonne lecture, je suis contente d'avoir (enfin) découvert ce classique !

J'ai beaucoup aimé la plume de l'autrice, très agréable à lire malgré quelques petites longueurs.

Cette lecture à la fois touchante et dérangeante traite de nombreux sujets comme la nature de l'homme, la nature, les préjugés ou bien encore la solitude.
J'ai trouvé ça très intéressant et la psychologie des personnages m'a beaucoup plu.

J'ai trouvé que l'autrice décrivait à la merveille les sentiments de ses personnages. Parfois totalement aveuglés par leur peur ou leur colère, en résulte de plus grandes peines encore pour eux par la suite.

L'histoire de Frankenstein (le créateur, pas la créature) semble en effet maudite, le pauvre a du essuyer de nombreux drames, la perte de membres chers et j'en passe. Le malheureux n'est pas au bout de ses surprises et sa créature ne va rien arranger, au contraire !

Tout au long de ma lecture j'ai été partagée dans mes sentiments pour les personnages, oscillant entre compassion, fascination et indignation à la fois envers le créateur qu'envers la créature. Les deux personnages étant si intimement liés.

D'ailleurs j'ai bien-aimé l'inversion des rôles entre ces deux la. Le créateur finit par craindre sa créature et cette dernière prend ainsi le contrôle et lui dicte ses ordres.

Et cela car en effet la créature ne supporte plus d'être seule et méprisé par tous. Elle ne connait que l'abandon, le rejet et la solitude et a désespérément besoin d'une semblable.

La fin était un vrai crève-cœur, malgré ça je ressors de cette lecture avec un avis plus que positif sur ce livre. Je recommande vivement !

A must read for any true science fiction fan. Given that this was written over 200 years ago, the prose is understandably dated and, although this shouldn't detract from the novel, I struggled with the pace of it. I'm sure that if I read it again I would have a different interpretation and so would be able to reconcile many of the elements that I saw as inconsistencies but, for now, I can't say that I enjoyed it.

It wasn't quite what I was expecting. There's quite a lot of monologue and very very little dialogue. Kinda in a similar way to Interview with a Vampire. I should have read this horror classic long time ago but better late than never.

My heart is heavy. In a good way, but still...
This is actually my third time reading this book. I've never read the 1831 version that used to be so popular (should really do that sometime), because this was the edition my professor specified in the first class for which I ever had to read this book. I read it again for a different class a couple of years later, and finally I picked it up yesterday to read it again, this time simply for myself.

It is such an ugly story, told with such a beautiful voice. This is a tragedy and a horror related to us by a voice that has not inured itself to tragedy and horror. Any scene of happiness that comes along in the narrative is given to us with such joy and wonder and sincerity that it is obvious that this is the state that the narrator would always stay in, given the opportunity. It is like reading the thoughts of an elf, so at home in beauty and yet never bored of it, always struck with delight at the sights, sounds, feelings that surround it.

That is what makes this different from any other horror/science fiction novel I have ever read. It feels so violating, so impure, because the voice describing these monstrosities feels more suited for poetry, the kind of poetry that makes someone happy to be alive and moving about in the world. To go with this voice as it is driven deeper and deeper into despair... It made my heart sink, and I finished the book only to stare at the ceiling, trying to collect myself. Yes, you can get the story from watching an adaptation, whether it be for stage or screen, but this, this experience, you can only get by reading the book. Make sure you're emotionally ready, but once you are: I cannot recommend this book enough. Genuinely one of my favorites.

A cute quick and dirty look into the Frankenstein novel, but it was a little too quick. Loved the art style, though.

Update: I need to reread this because only now I realized this is an early fictional text with vegetarian themes :0 shooketh.

This book is about an unnamed creature and his overly emotional dad who prefers vacations over spending time with his son.

It uses romanticism to describe locations from all over Europe, the characters take away a lot of value from them, there are locations to which the author has been. The book makes the reader think about what influenced the characters to act the way they do because characters reflect on themselves a lot. The main characters are deeply flawed and aren't afraid to show feminine sides of themselves, it's a good exercise in empathy.

There are themes of science and nature, idleness and action present.

It is a very melodramatic, slow-paced read. Sometimes it is very engaging and a breeze to read, sometimes the reader wants more to happen because of wordiness and repetitiveness. A character lamenting their misery for ages is what you should expect here, that being both good and bad.

8/10

this has to be my favourite classic so far. i loved the way it was written, simply beautiful. the theme of nature and the contrast of man and monster. the portrayal of how someone is judged on their exterior rather than their interior, and the metaphorical meanings behind the obvious. i think there were gay undertones in this. do not act surprised bc u knew this was coming. i think in every classic there are some queer parts. with this, i think frankenstein and henry were literal soulmates. i mean???? henry's last words to frankenstein??? gay. also, walton's affections for frankenstein. he didn't know him all that well but was completely enamoured by him. he didn't know how to describe frankenstein to his sister bc he didn't believe he'd do him justice. boy have i news for you. relating the main theme of this book with queerness, i recently discovered the theory behind how queer people can sometimes relate to the otherness of monsters. how we, as queer people, are placed in the category of “other” and are judged for who we are. i think to remember that theory whilst reading this book makes it that much more impactful.

Dr. Frankenstein is the worst! And everyone around him thinks he is amazing. I can't even blame the monster much.
So the second time I read it, I realized how the boat captain thinks Dr. Frankenstein is wonderful. So what am I supposed to think about the boat captain? What is Mary Shelley saying about the doctor, the monster, and the boat captain? This I am going to ponder.

wonderfully existential

Listened to the Dan Stevens audiobook version, excellent reader.

victor frankenstein made me feel valid about my intense emotions

I'm left mostly feeling confused by this book. Where others find beauty in the elongated descriptions of vistas and apparently-complex emotions, I had to really trudge to get through them. Where others come away believing Frankenstein is “The REAL Monster,” I am left perplexed to his courses of action and effectively saddened at the chain of events that made up the book. While I'm frustrated by The Monster's reactions and actions, I certainly don't think he's wrong on certain points, and find it hard to blame him for his behavior.

Spoiler tag for safe>sorry. The book really picked up for me when Frankenstein and the Monster had an actual conversation and we learned the Monster's story. While I have not consumed the horror movies that have led others to read this book, I still had an idea where it was going, but the most emotion this book got out of me was when Felix encountered the Monster holding on to his father and attacked him, resulting in their leaving their cottage. In this, Monster and Frankenstein had the same problem: why not SPEAK? You could have told Felix you were his ally, doing work to help him and his family. Frankenstein could have TOLD Clerval or Elizabeth about his experimentation resulting in an angry person capable of violence, and might have spared their deaths.

So I guess I'm glad I finished it, mostly for having read Frankenstein, and I can appreciate the humanity and fallibility of the characters, but it just doesn't reign among my favorite books I've ever read.

The entire novel was fantastic, especially with the annotations made by the editors of my book which tied certain aspects of Shelley's writing with her life experience giving me a better understanding thematically. The characters were usually well-written, even if I didn't see much of a “passionate romance” (quote from my book's back summary which calls the book a horror novel, philosophical and a romance novel) between Victor and Elizabeth. I actually appreciated the simplicity of Elizabeth's character considering the role she would play but I wouldn't have minded her fleshed out a tiny bit more. Considering my feeling that this book leans towards horror and philosophical more than romance, the focus on the character of the creature and Victor was sensical. I also found that there was more of a complex musing on the thematic issues than I expected there to be. Neither Victor or the Creature are portrayed as being 100% wrong in one view so that was refreshing.

“I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous.”

“The fallen angel becomes a malignant devil. Yet even that enemy of God and man had friends and associates in his desolation; I am alone.”

I feel like media image of Frankenstein is very different from the one the book actually portrays. I was ready for a monster named Frankenstein with metal bolts in his head, being chased by an angry medieval village mob with torches and pitchforks. Instead I got a doctor name Frankenstein with commitment issues that is also bipolar. The action was fast paced and simpler than that of Dracula. Even if I gave both books the same rating, I prefer the vampire story simply because it expanded a lot more on the story and the characters. The characters in Frankenstein excluding Viktor and the monster are almost irrelevant. Also, the scene where he animates the monster is almost inexistent, which means the whole lightning hitting a corpse scene was also crafted by the media, womp womp.

Hm. Definitely one of the most interesting classics I've read so far. I was pretty much never bored, you know, it was really well paced.
Um... but it was also just deeply unsatisfying. I think I had too much sympathy going both sides and somehow that ended with me feeling that the ending was not tragic enough for either of the two sides.
Also, just don't end your story with the villain monologuing why they did what they did. A bad idea. That actually WAS boring. Don't do that, it is awful. The end.

Three stars for now, but it really only gains that high of a rating because of its significance to literature and horror. Over time I'm sure my opinion of it will sink lower. Some other people have reviewed this book much more eloquently. I feel too brain numb from it to write a detailed review.
I never say this, but: Just watch the movie, friends.

To celebrate this halloween i've read Frankenstein! Finally! The tale of horror of who's the monster? Creation or creator. Also the duality of humanity of it being of welcoming kindness and warmth to the alternative hatred and fear, also driving creatures of difference into enemies.

I noticed an interesting thing with his mention of Adam (& Eve) and the parallels of creator making a man then a woman companion. Instead of a creator providing, frankenstein destroys her mid-making thinking about the horrors of two monsters, what if she doesn't like him and there is fighting, and if they should have children. The two ideas are something to consider...the making of children seems like something he could fix while making her...so no too much thought to that one. Rip.

A book mentioned also is Paradise Lost, which i haven't read yet, but i'm sure that also has something to say about the larger text and events.