Frankenstein

First, a note about the cover of the Penguin Classic Deluxe Edition: I’ve noticed in several other reviews of various books in this series that readers have negatively commented on the “cartoonish” like covers. Personally, I happen to like most of the covers in the Classic Deluxe series because they are bright and fun. Sure, it is nice to own a nice edition of a favorite classic. Yet, I don’t see the harm in the fun covers — there’s no rule that says that because something is a classic that it has to be bound with a stodgy, serious cover. Maybe the comic-like covers will catch someone’s interest, someone who might not normally read a book. Getting someone to read a book is the most important thing, right?In the introduction to this particular edition, author Elizabeth Kostova (who wrote a modern take on the Dracula story: “The Historian”), says that she picked up the book to reread, to refresh her memory, and as she was reading it she realized that she wasn’t rereading it at all. She’d never read it. She realized that she knew the myth of Frankenstein, the Hollywood version, the Halloween version, the bolt through the neck version. What she knew (or thought she knew) had come from pop culture.I knew that I had never read Frankenstein. It was always on my ‘to read …sometime” list. I couldn’t pass up the cover, so I bought the book. Like Ms Kostova, I felt that I knew the story of Frankenstein and his monster. Growing up in the 1970s, with all the weekend and late-night sci-fi/horror movies, I’d seen the old Bela Lugosi version, and many of the various other old black-and-white retellings. And lets not forget the Mel Brooks adaptation (which I was fairly certain had little to do with Shelley’s novel).When I sat down to read the book, I was drawn into the tale by the letters of Captain R. Walton, who is on an expedition to find his way through the icy waters of the north. Walton catches a glimpse of the monster, and not long afterwards rescues Victor Frankenstein from the icy water.The book is broken into three parts: Part One is mostly told via letters from Walton to his sister; Part Two is Victor Frankenstein’s narrative for the first part, then the monster’s narrative for the second half. Part Three takes up the story with Frankenstein again, ending with a few letters from Walton.There are several more detailed summaries of the plot, so I won’t go into much detail. However, there are a few things that I think are important to know (they are, in a slight way, spoilers — but, I promise not to give any of the major points away).The book is quite noticeably different from the Hollywood myth that most of us grew up learning. There’s no scene where Frankenstein is in a tower awaiting lightening, there’s no evil madness to him — he looks at making a creature as a scientific enquiry, rather than anything with evil intentions. There is no Ygor/Igor. There’s no little girl who hands the monster a flower. And, most astonishing: the monster speaks — eloquently.There are several gaps, parts where the reader just has to let the story unfold without pausing to think to rationally about it (the lack of detail on how the monster was created, the way the monster was educated and learned to speak and read, etc.) Don’t get caught up in trying to accept the logic — it’s not there. Just follow the tale, don’t think too deeply about how the monster learned so much from watching a family. Just go with it. The gaps aren’t really that important.What is important is that our pop culture has distorted the story so much that when one hears the word “Frankenstein” one thinks of the monster, not the doctor. In the novel, the monster is never given a name - he is simply referred to as monster, daemon, creature, horror. And, our pop culture version of the story has taken away the deep philosophical aspects of the novel. And, we’ve learned that the creature is the ‘bad guy’, but, there’s much to be said about Victor Frankenstein - most of it not nice. In many ways, he is the ‘bad guy’ of the story. He’s so intent on bringing a creature to life that when he does and sees how ugly and horrid the creature is, he immediately abandons it, leaving the monster to fend for himself. Frankenstein is relieved that the monster disappeared and barely gives him much thought until tragedy strikes the Frankenstein home. Two years have passed and monster and creator finally meet, and the monster speaks what I find to be one of the saddest things I’ve read. Frankenstein is angry at what his monster had done, and wants to kill him. In reply: “‘I expected this reception,’ said the daemon. ‘All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! … Remember that I am your creature; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend.”The monster believes that if Victor will make him a wife, he will have someone to share his misery and torment with — they will be bound by their both being outcasts. Frankenstein first agrees to create a bride, but then realizes he cannot do so, for he might make more evil creatures.What is most interesting to me is that the Doctor is really a whiny, narcissistic man; he made the creature, and ran off immediately afterwards, abandoning the monster. When the monster does some bad things, Frankenstein takes no responsibility — he never thinks “maybe if I stayed and taught him what it was like to be human, he might have had a chance.” Instead, he let the monster loose in the world, and because of the creatures size and hideous features, he’s attacked and chased off everywhere he goes. He doesn’t learn about life from a benevolent creator — he learns about life from the flawed humans that inhabit the earth. But Frankenstein moans and groans about how tragic his life has become because of the monster without every really acknowledging his own lack of responsibility. In a way, part of the idea of the creature’s character comes down to the old Nature versus Nurture argument. In this case there was no nurture — he only had the horrified reactions of people to learn from. As the monster says “All men hate the wretched.”I was surprised to find that I disliked the Doctor so much. While I can’t say that I found the murderous monster lovable, there was certainly something very sympathetic about him. Frankenstein spends pages lamenting the misery of his life, yet it is a ‘woe is me’ type of lament. The creature seems more philosophical about his wretched existence and suffering — the monster isn’t about a bit of whining and lamenting, but he seems to have learned things about life that Frankenstein (the supposedly more educated one) fails to grasp.There are a few flaws in the tale — I’ve mentioned some above (i.e. how the monster learns to read and write). But there are some technical flaws as well — it’s difficult to keep track of how much time has passed. Sometimes it seems very long, until it’s mentioned only a few months have passed. Other times, years have passed with barely a mention. Frankenstein was a young man, in his mid-twenties when he created the monster, though it was tough to tell how old he was at the end. Stylistically, the novel is by turns engrossing, followed by a several pages that seem to drag on and on, making the pacing of the novel feel uneven. Yet, in spite of these small flaws, the story is much deeper in meaning, more philosophical in nature than I expected. It’s a novel that could lead to good conversations about the nature of good and evil, about who was the real monster of the story, and did Doctor or monster learn anything of value along the way.Most importantly, the legend of Frankenstein in our culture is one of horror — it’s often called a horror novel. But, it really isn’t. There is a bit of violence, though not graphic at all. Mostly, it’s a meditation on good and evil, life and death, and what we should or shouldn’t do if we have the power to do something. The story just happens to have a monster as one of the main characters. It’s not a story that would give you bad dreams, or make you feel fearful if you were home alone.I’m glad the comic-book cover captured my attention, and that I got around to reading the story sooner rather than later. I think it is a story that will keep me thinking for some time to come. I highly recommend the story (in whatever edition fits your budget or catches your fancy.) I give the story 4.5/5 stars.

Mary Shelley's timeless classic, Frankenstein, stands as a haunting testament to the human pursuit of knowledge and the consequences that accompany unchecked ambition. With its gripping narrative and profound exploration of moral and existential themes, this Gothic masterpiece continues to captivate readers even two centuries after its initial publication.Set against the backdrop of a gloomy and desolate landscape, the story follows Victor Frankenstein, a young and ambitious scientist consumed by his desire to conquer death and unlock the secrets of life itself. Driven by his insatiable thirst for knowledge, Victor embarks on a perilous journey that leads him to create a being out of stolen body parts. Yet, this act of creation soon turns into a nightmare, as the creature awakens with a bewildered consciousness, abandoned by its creator and left to navigate a hostile world alone.Shelley skillfully delves into the complex psyches of both Victor and his creature, exploring their parallel narratives and the consequences of their actions. Through Victor's internal struggle with guilt and remorse, Shelley exposes the moral ambiguity inherent in human nature, forcing readers to question the ethical implications of scientific advancement. The creature, often portrayed as a monster, is paradoxically both sympathetic and terrifying—a tortured soul seeking acceptance and love in a world that rejects him based on his outward appearance.The novel's narrative structure, presented through a series of letters and firsthand accounts, enhances the sense of impending doom and creates a chilling atmosphere of suspense. Shelley's evocative prose paints vivid images, immersing the reader in a world of darkness and despair. Her exploration of the themes of abandonment, revenge, and the nature of humanity provokes profound introspection and challenges the boundaries of empathy.Frankenstein stands as a cautionary tale, cautioning against the dangers of unchecked scientific progress and the moral responsibility that accompanies human creation. It serves as a timeless reminder that knowledge without wisdom and compassion can lead to disastrous consequences.In conclusion, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a remarkable work of literature that continues to resonate with readers today. Its exploration of human ambition, the moral implications of scientific advancement, and the search for identity and acceptance makes it a thought-provoking and unsettling read. With its beautifully crafted narrative and complex characters, Frankenstein remains a masterpiece that forces us to confront our own humanity and the ethical dilemmas that arise when playing with the forces of life and death.

The story is iconic for a reason, the emotion and depth of characters is second to none.The movie Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994) is much closer to the original story that all the previous movies, but like most movies it pails in comparison to the book.Unlike some of the other classics like Shakespeare, it can be read by anyone, you do not need a degree in literature to enjoy it.

After so many books, films, comics, and other media making references to this work, it has been a pleasure to finally read the original; though it is not quite what I expected.The style is eloquent, the prose vibrant.But it is difficult to appreciate the emotions of a protagonist that you have no sympathy for.And a modern publisher would have probably halved the manuscript.Yet It seems there is density of ideas expressed here that will need plenty of review and analysis, and thankfully they are unencumbered by needless references to prior works.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a tale that’s unforgettable, and a must read classic that’s filled with more emotion than this story has ever really been given credit for.

Always interesting to read the original tales, written in very different times by very different people who faced death as a necessary fact of daily life. Strangely enough, we've grown into a society of easily offended, self-proclaimed immortals by comparison.Worth the effort for those who (like myself) hadn't read it and took the Hollywood spoon-feeding as gospel. the actual story reads a lot like all the scenes/dialogue that might have ended up on the cutting room floor. Too reflective, maybe too philosophical and wordy for Hollywood to capture verbatim.It's an emotional/psychological narrative rather than a graphic gore-fest. Much detail is left up to the reader's imagination; which may be why it could be a challenge for the average 21st Century reader.

What a magnificent recital of the human condition. Such a forceful exploration of rejection, love, hatred and revenge.Highly recommended