Frankenstein
Ratings1,477
Average rating3.8
If you like tragedies, books that explore philosophical questions, or descriptive prose, this might be for you.
If you want to read a monster/horror story involving a mad scientist screaming “It's aliiiive!” then you'll probably be bored by this story.
Frankenstein is told through the frame of Captain Robert Walton's letters home to his sister. He relates his encounter with Frankenstein and the story of Frankenstein's past through these letters.
The prose is fairly descriptive, and if you read the original text, a little archaic. There's a bunch of phrases along the lines of: “I quitted the place,” said he. This can take a bit of getting used to but the writing flows smoothly after a while.
Once again, this is not a fast-paced or plot-heavy story.
A young Victor Frankenstein is fascinated by scientific texts, especially those involving chemistry and alchemy. Throughout his studies, he eventually learns the secret of creating life. He considers testing this knowledge on small creatures, like insects or worms, but his ambition and ego cause him to immediately attempt to give life something human.
When he succeeds, he is horrified by what he creates and abandons the creature. Unable to join society due to its hideous looks, the creature vows vengeance against its creator.
What follows is a story that's almost 100% different than most people's idea of Frankenstein. There's no lightning, no mad scientist (arguably), and no angry mob with torches. Instead, the plot is more introspective and examines the morality of Frankenstein's actions.
The story takes place mostly in Europe, sometime during the 18th century. We get to see a little of the arctic, a little of a university, and a little of the European countryside.
Frankenstein takes place in a world pretty much identical to our own, with the exception being that reanimation of the dead is possible. In a sense, you could consider this more soft sci fi than fantasy.
Frankenstein es sin duda el clásico más sobrevalorado que he leido. ¿De dónde se le ocurrió a Mary Shelly que poner una puta descripcón de un paisaje cada dos parrafos durante toda la novela era buena idea?
3.5?
Parts of it was exactly what I wanted: man's nature, what it means to create and to be responsible for our creation, difficult decisions, man v man, man v self, man v nature, eloquence, gothic fiction...
At other times it was long winded about things that did not connect (or at least did not seem to) such as the level of detail about the people the creature spent time with. At least when Hugo went on and on about the Paris sewer system it connected in the end.
It helped that I had recently read a graphic adaptation of the story; they helped make sense of each other.
For some reason I could just not get into this, I really didn't enjoy this and I'm glad it's over.
Yup, definitely sad all-around. Very different from the movies that portray it mostly as horror and anger, the book's vibe is much more sorry, rejection, and regret from all parties. Now, to find something cheerier.
A star down for long theatrical shakespearean sentences. But I know it cannot be helped since it's been written 200 years ago.
I think Mary and I would've been great friends. The way she speaks in this book and pours her inner thoughts and heart into it is very similar to mine. A great book that gave birth to science-fiction genre.
However, I've no idea how does Kindle count the pages. It's supposed to be 126 pages long but they're either the longest pages I've ever encountered or it counts two pages as one. Because this book is waaaaay longer than it seems.
Okay so, overall I loved this. At the start and all the way towards the middle I mentally had already put this in the four star-range, but then towards the end I just got a bit frustrated with everyone's actions (or lack of actions) and how overly lengthy some parts were.
I like the story. I actually like Frankenstein (in a way that I find him very interesting, even if extremely flawed). And I like the questions it gives you about life.
But it just got very muddled towards the end. It started to lose me a bit during The Creature's tale which went on a bit too long, and then when Victor finally decided to take some action against the creature, and didn't realize what exactly the Creature had meant with "I will be there on your wedding night". Why oh why wouldn't you suspect that he wouldn't just harm you?? Also, how disrespectful towards Elizabeth to promise to tell her everything the day after their wedding, so if she wanted to back out after hearing it all, she couldn't.Also, as sorry as I felt for Victor overall, man, he sure didn't think things through. As soon as The Creature was created and he wasn't what he had expected, he just goes "screw this, I'm outta here" and leaves it there and then that's it. I was fine with that, because for him it was a surprise for him and like, what do you do in that situation, but that sort of inaction went on for way too long and it got very frustrating, I thought.
I do have to say, I am very glad I read/listened to this. I'm slightly interested in the classic gothic horror stories, but especially with Penny Dreadful, it's fun to get more into them. And this is still my favorite of the (albeit few) ones I've read by far.
I also love how much Penny Dreadful took from this (because of the adaptations I've seen, it's amazing how many just plain ignored a lot of stuff concerning The Creature). Especially him asking for a companion and being able to speak fluently after having taught himself. I loved that.
I listened to the Audible version, narrated by Dan Stevens, and I probably wouldn't have had it any other way. He was excellent and it wouldn't have had the same effect on me if it had been someone else or if I had just read it. His voice is great for storytelling and it helped a lot in the immersion.
Eh. I'll go with GR's translation of two stars: it was okay. Slow to start, slow to finish. At least I can say I've read it now.
Amazing emotion. Not like any Hollywood movie. The monsters story is touching and profound.
I read this book after watching the video by John Green in his CrashCourse channel. I wanted to read this book critically as the JG pointed out. I wanted to feel what characters are feeling and get the essence of the book. But I think I couldn't empathize with any character in this book. I hated the Victor for his cowardice and lack of taking responsibility of his own acts. He should been sympathetic to his own creation, like mom loves her child however ugly s/he is. I hated the monster for killing so many innocent and Walton for helping Victor. I couldn't understand the meaning of this book; what author wanted to say. If it is that human should not play with nature then this message comes only in passing. In the end I felt nothing. Just happy that it was ended.
Appena penso a questo libro mi vengono in mente due parole: pesante e deprimente. Però bisogna premiare la grande fantasia della Shelley che ha scritto questo libro stupendo, quindi per me sono 4 stelline meritate!!
Page upon page of vainglorious whining. Wasn't aware that the author was so young when she wrote it, but it makes the melodrama more understandable. Utter crud.
Well, my feelings about this book are not defined yet. The media campaign has been done around Frankenstein made me think it would be a horror story but I was very disappointed because the story was too slow and heavy. At times I seemed to be reading the story of a suicidal-manic rather than a scientist. The narrative was too boring and Victor Frankenstein a man appeared weak and with overly dramatic feelings. It seemed as if all men were too idealized characters and they seemed more passionate about the exaltation of suffering and pain. Moreover, at no time mentioned the real name of the monster and I don't understand why everyone calls him with the name of his creator.
However, I found interesting from the point of view of the monster. It made me think of a facet of humanity in which I hadn't pondered before. In conclusion, I still don't know if I hate or love this book.
This book truly surprised me. The oldest written book I've ever read, the writing style is amazing. The characters are so vivid, the story very engrossing.
I liked my second reading of Frankenstein way more than my first, and I can make more connections with book and its characters than I ever could before. There are so many similarities between Victor and the monster, as well Robert and Victor, and Robert and the monster. I more aptly appreciated the allusions Shelley made and can agree with my Shakespeare-loving English teacher that Shelley had to have read Macbeth because the undertones of it are very significant. I hope that as I read more classics and possibly re-read Frankenstein in the future, that I may pick up on even more subtle hints that Shelley drops throughout the book about both Victor and the monster. I did mark the four stars out of five because, while I loved it, there were many things a bit off in the writing and pacing of the book. It was greatly evidenced that Shelley was a bit of an inexperienced author but she had damn good storytelling and imaginative powers.
Amazing how I could love and hate someone so much. Despite killing almost everyone Frankenstein knew, I still found his monster far more lovable than Frankenstein himself. Frankenstein is what really bothered me about this book. He really annoyed me pretty much the whole time. I thought the only book with this much angst was Twilight. It was understandable but overplayed and especially early on, he did much more fainting and self-loathing than anything else.
Short Review: This has absolutely nothing to do with the common cultural understanding of Frankenstein. (Yes this is my first read of it.) I am mixed. On the one hand I can appreciate the classic. I find the discussion of ethics (scientific and medical) interesting. On the other hand parts of it are just odd. Frankenstein (the doctor) is not a great person. He is selfish, and does nothing to really justify the love that his adopted sister/cousin/wife show him (yes he marries his adopted sister at the dying request of his mother, variously she is called his cousin publicly and she raised his younger brothers after his mother died.) Clearly the monster is supposed to have more humanity than Dr Frankenstein and is well spoken, gentle and feels misunderstood. But the monster also is out of control and keeps killing people.
The race to the north pole at the end doesn't make any sense to me. I just don't understand the purpose.
I have a longer review on my blog and a discussion of why classics never seem to live up to their ‘classic-ness' at http://bookwi.se/frankenstein/
Full review over at the SFF Book Review
In one line?
An intriguing story about responsibility and what makes us human, interspliced with too much landscape description - still a wholeheartedly recommended gothic horror title!
I liked this book a lot more than I thought I would. A lot of people read it in high school or maybe even a college course, but I wasn't so lucky.
The prose in this novel is awesome. I love the way Shelley describes the loneliness of Frankenstein's creation, and also how she describes the mountains. The prose is simply mesmerizing.
The themes of the book are easy to spot, and that's probably why it's a high school read. She pretty much writes that going after glory without regard to consequence is a bad thing. There's also a great anti-discrimination theme that is still timely today (and probably into the future).
I am just amazed that the author was so young when she wrote this. It's such a short book that I recommend it for anyone (and no, it's not like most of the movies).
I am a big fan of the fantastic. I love magic. When it comes to stories, I'm willing to believe anything, as long as—get this—it's believable. What I mean by this is that I'm willing to accept a hero on a flying carpet, a planet ruled by ducks, or a society which wages wars over Bedazzlers and Flowbees, but what I'm not willing to accept is poorly developed characters without an ounce of recognizable human traits and no rationale as to why they are this way.
Such a story is Frankenstein. I can put all logic aside and accept the fact that young Frankenstein has created his own sentient being. Smart guy. But why does smart guy run from his creation? Why does smart guy not worry about his loosened “monster” for two years? Why is smart guy not able to put any of the pieces together until it's too late, each and every time? Because that would disturb the drama of the piece. You see, if the author let the character act as he would in a rational universe given the intelligence the man had, the story would have been utterly different.
And if the “monster” spoke in broken sentences, possessed a very limited vocabulary, and acted as something other than Frankenstein's double, then the story wouldn't make any of the same points. Each and every character served the story's purpose—Henry may as well have been wearing a red shirt from the beginning because it was obvious the second he joined the “away mission” he was a goner.
Pulling from distant recollections, I believe the films I have seen are more believable and human than Shelley's original work. Sure they lack the symbolism and prose of the novel, but they make a hell of a lot more sense.
I'm willing to put aside the long rants and the clumsy narrative devise—they're characteristic of the time period. I'm willing to believe in the unlikelihood of Frankenstein's project and that Elizabeth was actually in love with her cousin, the dolt. But I cannot ignore the absurdity of how a man intelligent enough to create life can be so incredibly dumb. He's not even afraid of the “monster;” he runs purely because it is “ugly,” a trait he apparently didn't notice while it was being made, before he injected it with life.
I get Shelley's points and can understand why this is called a classic. But why is it acceptable for so-called classics to ignore rationale (Frankenstein) or story ([b:The Catcher in the Rye|5107|The Catcher in the Rye|J.D. Salinger|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1311457667s/5107.jpg|3036731]) or quality ([b:1984|5470|1984|George Orwell|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1312633918s/5470.jpg|153313]) just because they make a good point or do something different? I expect more.