Frankenstein

I liked this book a lot more the first time I read it, but this time around all I could see were the holes in the story (this might reflect more on me than on the book). My main problem was with the way the creature learned language, which was completely unbelievable. If you can get past that and a couple other flaws in the plot it is a good read.

I thought Frankenstein was a pretty good story. It was sort of scary, and had some good semi-morbid explorations of loneliness and depravity. The creature though, just didn't seem consistent, even for a monster. One moment he's lofty and moral, the next he's burning down houses and murdering in cold blood. Victor Frankenstein, “Frankenstein's” creator, was whiny and full of excuses and wasn't much of a man. His line is always that of the “how entirely I am innocent” victim. Everything seemed to take him by surprise and there were a few too many convenient coincidences. The descriptions are full and haunting; the dialog, on the other hand, reminded me of the dialog in [b:The Odyssey 3568959 La Odisea Homer http://www.goodreads.com/images/nocover-60x80.jpg 3356006]. Everything anyone said seemed to be only to give advice or to moralize. It was repetitive, always explicit rather than subtle, overly formal and often trite. In [b:The Odyssey 3568959 La Odisea Homer http://www.goodreads.com/images/nocover-60x80.jpg 3356006] that style was charming and poetic, in [b:Frankenstein 1582316 Frankenstein Mary Shelley http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Q2MBD97XL.SL75.jpg 4836639] it feels tired. I don't know if this is the best example, but here's one:“We do also, unfortunately,” replied my father, “for indeed I had rather have been for ever ignorant than have discovered so much depravity and ungratitude in one I valued so highly.”“My dear father, you are mistaken; Justine is innocent.”“If she is, God forbid that she should suffer as guilty. She is to be tried today, and I hope, I sincerely hope, that she will be acquitted.”After all that though, any criticism I could possibly have of this book is immediately negated by the fact that Shelly finished it when she was 19 years old. She wasn't entirely created in a vacuum, she vacationed with [a:Lord Byron 44407 George Gordon Byron http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1204920236p2/44407.jpg] and her dad was [a:William Godwin 113910 William Godwin http://www.goodreads.com/images/nophoto/nophoto-U-50x66.jpg], both major literary forces. Still, when I compare her with myself at age 18, the humble product of the Jacksonville, FL public education system whose main skills barely extended beyond a darwinistic struggle for survival and whose mental faculties had scarcely contemplated the higher arts versus her, a talented observer of the world and of humanity, better read than I am even now, and possessed of a creative mind that has sent chills down millions of spines, I have to give her the mad props she deserves.

I so hate Hollywood for ruining this book for me. I could not read it without any imagery from the films leaking into my head.

Maybe in a few years I could come back to it and read it once again without the taint.

In the last year I watched the two Bela Lugosi films of Frankenstein and was curious to read the book. They are remarkably different,yet complement each other. If you can cope with a lot of gothic gushing and emoting it's a worthy read.

The more you read it, the more you can feel that it really has a lot of depth than what the surface story is telling. Frankenstein as a modern monster icon is really missing the point about the Frankenstein story. Read it slowly and reflect on the emotions portrayed and I found it a satisfying read.

Another of the most formative books I have read. I viewed the world and those in it very differently after finishing it. Who is the monster, really?