Frankenstein

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.