Frankenstein
Ratings1,265
Average rating3.8
For my classic read of the month I wanted something for Halloween. Of all the movies I've seen with Frankenstein in the title-None of them followed the book too well. No Igor or use of electricity in the book. Just 3 pages to describe the giving of life to the monster. Sentence structure was difficult at times but I know this was written in the early 1800s. This was still a good read! David N.
It's hard to know what to say about Frankenstein...like I'm glad it launched science fiction as a genre and Frankenberry as a cereal. I applaud the innovation but didn't love the experience of reading it in 2017 (tho I loved the spirited book club discussion it prompted).
as we summarized at book club...Frankenstein, OR, The Modern Prometheus, OR, TAKE IT DOWN A NOTCH VICTOR.
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.
Summary: This gothic novel by Mary Shelley is a classic work of science fiction. In the book, Victor Frankenstein sets out to create life, but, once he does, he creates troubles for himself and others that he never could have imagined. Be ready, though, to have the way that you have seen Frankenstein’s monster portrayed in popular media challenged; the book will leave you questioning who the true villain of the story is.
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.
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?
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/
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.
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.
it was really good! the format of this book is so interesting (the fact that they're all letters), and really well done - i don't know if i've ever seen a book written that way before?
its SO different from what i've heard or experienced from frankenstein, and i liked that! really great characterization of the monster, and even dr. frankenstein, and a really cool look into the culture and world at the time.
overall i really dug this and this should definitely be on more summer reading lists!
I tried reading Frankenstein several years ago but didn't get past the first few pages. Attempting it again, I was surprised at how absorbed I became. Not so much in the story itself, but the questions pondered, particularly involving the ‘being'.
After seeing endless spoofs in TV shows or movies, I went into this expecting some form of satire. That's not to say I was under the impression this was a comedy... I'm not sure how to put my exact expectations into words. Anyway, as it went on, I got the gothic feel, though I wouldn't personally consider this a horror story. Twisted, but not particularly scary. It felt very literary.
I found Victor easy to dislike and I sympathized more with his creation at first. Then the tables turned, and then by the end, I wasn't sure who I ought to root for. I love books that leave me feeling unsettled. I also think listening to this book on audio also made the difference. The narrator did a fantastic job portraying the being. It added so much to the atmosphere of the story. I'm already looking forward to a future reread.
3.0 ★
it was good, but i think i had high expectations, and the book just didn't meet them
Yes there are symbolic layers and brilliant remixes of mythic stories, examinations of friendship and nature and loneliness and (I only got this last one from the analysis included at the end of the book) fear of sex, but I gotta say, I did not expect this book to have one of the most modern protagonists in all of fiction.
It took me about 3/4 of the book to see the cleverly concealed narcissism of Victor Frankenstein and then it was all I could see.
His manipulation manifests as a constant state of trauma that makes him conveniently incapable of questioning his own beliefs. He spends the entire book crying genuine tears over the burden he's bearing for the people around him while simultaneously never actually doing anything anyone asks of him - you lose count of how many times he takes a few months off to emotionally recover from the latest terrible event that he is mostly to blame for.
And because he is charming and eloquent and wears his heart on his sleeve - plus constantly suffering depression over the trauma he has endured - he endears himself to everyone while being nothing but a burden on them, dragging them all down before finishing off with himself.
Can't believe I haven't seen more of this type of character.
Glad I read this classic. With all the concern over AI today, this story seems to be a forewarning. Astounding work by such a young author.
Read for school and glad I did. Would not have seemed out independently but this good is great and representsa lot of interesting themes that reflect Shelley's enlightened society.
Really hated Frankenstein himself, found him full of nothing but complaints and laments for only himself, even his sections have a lower level of interest in its writing style and storyline. But what really redeems it is the Monster's perspective and the life that he lives in the middle section of the book, so much more engaging and makes for a better character overall.
His section is easily a 5, Frankenstein himself scrapes in a 3 so my raring seems fair. Maybe because of the dull melancholy that surrounds it, it makes the Monster's story see better than it is but I really liked it and wish it took up more of the novel, even though I admit it's structure makes sense the way it is despite how much I dislike the protagonist and the ways he narrates his world.
Still good, but alike many other school books, the concept and themes are far more interesting than the physical pages of the novel, which forces you to acknowledge its depth and greatness as a romantic gothic classic of the 1800s.
Re-reading this with students in an English class.
Is it just because I'm middle-aged that teen Mary Shelley's MC Victor seems TSTL? Come on, dude: you've got every advantage, yet keep walking into the metaphorical dark alley because you won't trust the DOZENS of people who love you? And then you abandon Ernst?? Probably my strong reaction just connects to messages Shelley wanted me to get loud and clear...but what an annoying main character! The second time through, my sympathies are much more firmly with Victor's creation than Victor.
I'm also annoyed that this book barely passes the Bechdel test of having two women talk to each other about something other than a man (Don't Justine and Elizabeth have, like, 2 sentences to say to each other in the prison?). But, I am also annoyed on behalf of Mary Shelley that her teen-aged work of genius was produced in a context that shaped it into a work that barely passes the Bechdel test... I'm cheering for you, nineteenth-century proto-feminists!
Reading this the second time, I'm still impressed at Mary Shelley's achievement. My students (generally around 17-y-olds) found lots of things to talk about in this book–we read it alongside selections of Paradise Lost, so lots of good class discussions there about all sorts of things (theology & religion, gender & power, etc.).
A good book-club read so you can hash out with your friends all the things that are going on with family, nature, Romanticism, the relationship of the artist/creator to the creation, what makes us human, etc. And can hate on Victor for being dumb. Just sayin'.
A good classic book written in the 1800's by Mary Shelly. It explores questions about secrecy, knowledge, ambition, and monstrosities. While reading this book, one needs to question who is really the monster; the creature or the creator/humanity? Also, ask how far one can be pushed and ostracized before they crack and do horrible things to those around them.
It is a book that should be read by everyone and explore the questions asked.
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.
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.