Scientist Victor Frankenstein creates the Creature and all hell breaks loose. The first part of the story is told from Victor’s perspective, allowing you to empathize with him before the Creature is able to show his perspective later on in the story, and you realize there’s more than one side to a story.

I first read this as a pre-teen and it quickly became my favorite book. Years later, I read it in college class, and I still really love it.

An intelligent, beautiful masterpiece. ( )

Frankenstein as god and mother monster is satan wondering in the abyss of isolation ( )

Very different from the movie. Recommended. ( )

Finally I've read the original sci-fi that had inspired so many of my favorites. And though this is a different flavor of sci-fi/horror than you might expect, it's perfect anyway. There is a very present dread that hangs over the whole story, the monster's parts are so sad, Frankenstein's parts are gloomy and eerie. Facing what you've created, seeking belonging and finding none, so many great themes here. It's an old book, so your quick plot beats aren't here, but it's excellent just the same. ( )

Book 24 - Mary Shelley - Frankenstein

Perhaps the most surprising part of both this and Dracula are how similar the methods are in which both tales are told.

Both are written in the form of letters, diaries and other personal documents. It is astonishing just how different this story is to the one I thought I knew.

Victor Frankenstein’s mental state deteriorates as the mounting death toll around him pushes him further and further to the edge of sanity .The original sympathy we had for the creature soon dissipates as its horrific agenda reveals itself.

It is easy to see why this novel has become one of the most adapted in celluloid history. ( )

“Who was I? what was I? whence did I come? What was my destination?”
I probably had the same experience as many other readers: this is not the Frankenstein story that I remember from the old (black and white) films, or rather: here the bloodthirsty, thoroughly evil monster of those movies is not present at all. On the contrary, the creature created by Doctor Frankenstein turns out to be a being who means well, who is capable of tender feelings, and is even helpful. That is…, until people see him and harass and reject him. You could even feel sorry for him. The afterword to this book confirms the contrast with the film versions, and adds that this is largely Mary Shelley's own fault: 13 years after the original version, she published an adapted version in which the dialogues with the creature, the insight into his tormented soul, are omitted. Apparently that negative, purely monstrous image appealed much more to the general public, eventually also in the various cinema versions.

No, actually, reading this original version was a pleasant surprise, especially because of the extensive middle section, in which the creature itself tells how it became so ‘degenerate’: “When I looked around I saw and heard of none like me. Was I, then, a monster, a blot upon the earth, from which all men fled and whom all men disowned?” In other words, the creature only became a monster through its rejection by humans. Shelley has thus brought to light nothing less than the concept of social evil: man, naturally good (a typical Enlightenment idea), only becomes bad through the bad treatment by other people. Time and again, when the creature speaks, this is emphasized, right up to the end. “I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend”.

Another major theme of this book that regularly recurs is that of Prometheus: the theme of human hubris, the man who obsessively searches for knowledge, who wants to control the world (and life) to his advantage, with destructive consequences. You find it in the figure of the adventurer Reverend Walton and in Victor Frankenstein, but it is the ‘monster’ that expresses it best: “but sorrow only increased with knowledge”. A clear message.

Formally, this book is ingeniously constructed, with a story (that of the ‘monster’) within a story (that of Victor Frankenstein) within a story (that of Reverend Walton). And of course, this is a work that is characterized by Romanticism through and through, with the focus on excessive feelings, overdramatized scenes and landscapes that elevate and console the characters. Perhaps not all storylines are equally credible or well thought out, but this is and remains a novel of great historical and philosophical importance. And please, forget the later film versions. ( )

Too many words not enough story

Inspired to finally read (actually listen to a quite good YouTube free audio version) by viewing the film "Mary Shelley." The film's focus is Mary's early life and the genesis of the novel. Explains so much of what she wrote. This is a deeply psychological and philosophical novel that addresses profound ideas, and not at all what popular culture tells us it is. ( )

So I finally got around to reading this pioneer piece of science fiction. It's quite strange what parts of it have entered our cultural memory and what hasn't. And where's the flashes of lightning and the cackles of "It's alive!!"?

Like The Last Man which I previously read, this book includes a lengthy biographical narrative for Victor the protagonist before getting into the story proper. I'm not sure if it was a convention of the time to tell us all about our protagonists' childhoods but it's not very exciting.

One other commonality I noticed with Mary Shelley's works is the ability to just tell when any character is of high birth, just from the fact that they are so much better in every way than the peasants which surround them. I find the unquestioning use of this trope interesting in contrast to Emma by Jane Austen, which was published three years earlier and parodies this idea.

My favourite part was actually the Arctic adventure, which I'd had no idea going in would even be a part of this book. The fact that this book is also a response to the scientific and philosophical ideas of the time is also interesting and adds a new layer to the work. ( )

It's a shame I could never get around to reading this - because this is a masterpiece, in the truest sense of the word.
All of us know the gist, as Frankenstein's monster is a huge part of popular culture - Victor Frankenstein, a committed science student, discovers the secret of 'animation' - the process by which life is injected into a body. He then attempts to create a sentient creature, and does so - but repulsed at his own creation, he deserts the creature. What happens in the novel is simply repercussions for the same.
But what really made the novel work was its maddeningly beautiful prose, and the sheer tragedy of the villain, Frankenstein's monster. Deprived of human affection due to his monstrous appearance, you feel for him, even though your sympathies are strongly tested. But Shelley's command of the language is unparalleled - you can visualize the downfall of both Victor and his creation, and it is just heart-rending to witness.
Another striking thing about the novel is the pacing - it is simultaneously beautiful and wretched to witness. It is an exercise in futility to think of all the 'what-ifs', alluded so casually by Shelley at numerous parts of the novel. In fact, at some point, you just have to stop to take a deep breath, because it is so pulse-pounding.
I was thinking Frankenstein would be another one of those 'classics', solely read because it's on all of those 'best of all time' and 'trope creator' lists. I will gladly admit though, that I have never been more glad to be proven so wrong. ( )

I really hated this book when I first read it in high school. I still don't love it but I enjoyed it a bit more. My main issue is that Frankenstein is so whiny (I know gothics are full of drama but it was just so excessive to me). The Creature is the only redeeming character in this book.

Side note: this story would be so much better if it was only about Felix, Safie, Agatha, and the Creature. ( )

I really hated this book when I first read it in high school. I still don't love it but I enjoyed it a bit more. My main issue is that Frankenstein is so whiny (I know gothics are full of drama but it was just so excessive to me). The Creature is the only redeeming character in this book.

Side note: this story would be so much better if it was only about Felix, Safie, Agatha, and the Creature. ( )

One of my life long reading goals is to pick up more classics, and since I am ALWAYS in a Halloween mood I figured Frankenstein would be right up my alleyway.

But let me set the record straight, Hollywood has done Mary Shelley some dirty. This book was NOTHING like what Hollywood told me, and I almost wish I would have picked it up in an audio book format to make it more enticing and scary for me.

First things first, Mary Shelley is a CHAMPION of writing. She is one of the best there is and this story is woven in such a beautiful way that it's hard to say anything bad about it. The style, the prose, the word choice... It's so intriguing and beautiful, despite being touted as a "horror" novel. Yes, there's scary parts and a monster, but it wasn't as scary as I thought it would be. The story is more dramatic, full of powerful scenes about life, death and family and it makes you question your feelings about the lead characters a LOT.

I would highly recommend reading this book if you're into classics or want to see the real Frankenstein's monster. I hardly saw Victor as a villain, more of a sad character due to circumstance. Even Frankenstein's monster wasn't as scary as I anticipated, I felt so bad for him. He's given life but no existence... It's a truly marvelous read. He might be a monster due to creation, but he's not as horrifying as the movies would lead you to believe.

I will absolutely be jumping back into this book and tearing apart the themes and prose one day. I think this is a uniquely written book that presents itself in a ridiculously cool fashion. That being said, it did take me a long time to read it. It's old fashioned, the writing style is different and it's not fast paced and as crazy as Hollywood's renditions. I did enjoy it though! Before I was able to watch a few videos and translate some of the more confusing parts of this book, it sat at a solid two for me. It's jumped to a three only because it's not something I'd read again without the help of an English major. It's really cool and I did really love it, it's just not the star studded book I expected it to be.

A lot of this book is delivered in letters and about a trip, very little felt like the scary horror novel I was expecting. I am impressed how the Hollywood renditions has changed the story, but it did throw me off when half of this book was just letters between two individuals. Either way, it's still really cool. I can't imagine being nineteen years old and writing a book that causes so much drama and excitement for people two hundred years later. That's a good well done for Mary Shelley!

Three out of five stars! ( )

I wish I understood Hegel more because there is probably a really interesting reading in here about the relationship between Master and Slave (in the Hegelian sense). Other than that it was fairly entertaining, even if, in my opinion, it does become a bit ridiculous and the plot a little bit contrived.

One thought that struck me in particular while reading this is how novels have a tendency to universalise their own particularity. The 'moral lesson', insofar as one should exist from a work of literature, being a categorical lesson rather than one that just applies in that set of circumstances. It makes for ultimately quite poor philosophy, P attempted X and X was bad therefore all X is bad. The problem must lie in P's attempt and must be further investigated before one can confidently declare all X to be bad. I felt this as well while reading through Robinson Crusoe as well. Enjoyment of the novel then can't really come through its examination of philosophical problems because I don't really feel as though any philosophical problems had been addressed and if they were mentioned it was quite superficially.

The novel rescues itself in its descriptions of nature and its romantic prose. There is a sentence, I forgot where, where excessive emotion in either direction is a luxury. This was something that stuck me. All the descriptions of the landsacape helped in building the atmosphere that made me want to read on. The plot itself is quite gripping and the way the two characters (Frankenstein and his monster) complete each other is very interesting too. ( )

This was really hard to finish. I had expected it really enjoy it but it is rambling and tedious. The issues addressed are important and thought-provoking but the prose is too long winded. large sections could be lost without missing a beat. ( )

I had always experienced relief from mental torment in bodily exercise.

Well then you'd better start doing some fucking CrossFit, Vic.

--

Hateful day when I received life! Cursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust? God in pity made man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; but my form is a filthy type of your's, more horrid even from the very resemblance. Satan had his companions, fellow-devils, to admire and encourage him; but I am solitary and detested.

Hello my heart is hollow and I'm dead inside.

--

But I am a blasted tree; the bolt has entered my soul; and I felt then that I should survive to exhibit, what I shall soon cease to be - a miserable spectacle of wrecked humanity, pitiable to others, and intolerable to myself.

I think that a lot of life can be summed up as a metaphorical tree that has been struck by lightning. That makes no sense, but I know what I mean. (I think.)

--

Okay but I just want to know WHAT HAPPENED TO ERNEST?!?!

--

Victor Frankenstein has
•mommy issues
•daddy issues
•monster issues
•cousin/gf issues
•best friend/bf issues
•traveling issues
•issue issues

--

I bought the 1818 edition of this book without realizing that I already had the 1831 edition (which is a sign that I need to stop buying books, and such a first world problem), so I decided that I would read them at the same time to see the differences between them. I learned within about five minutes of doing so that ain't nobody got time for that. Except maybe grad students writing a thesis paper, but they wouldn't get that much of a different story imho (read the later edition in hs). (Even Mary Shelley wrote 'bruh, they're not that different' in her '31 intro.) But reading the analysis/intro of the later edition was hilarious and super cringeworthy because it had so many typos, like...how the writer wrote Victor's name as 'Victory.' The writer misspelled the main character's name. And it's funny and ironic because no one ends up victorious in this book. (I am way more amused by this than I should be.) ( )

Such a classic story, that has a message our current society still needs to hear. I was surprised at how sad this story ended up being, loved the journal entry story telling aspects of it. ( )

I had somehow missed reading this classic over the years - don't make this mistake. There's a reason this has become part of the culture - a story not only of horror but of wonder, despair and the human condition, wonderfully written. This replication of an original edition is particularly nice as well. Highly recommended - a few falters and gaps in the narrative, but a book deserving of it's reputation as a classic. ( )

Nice

Audiobook read by BJ Harrison ( )

the philosophical issues this book brings up are so, so interesting. the writing is a little hard for me, and i was really surprised to find that in spite of all the unavoidable references to this work, that i really knew next to nothing about it. so the entire story unfolded in a surprising way to me. virtually all of the story was unexpected in both plot and execution.

i don't tend to like the framing of the story as being told to/by someone else thing that is so common in or around this time period, and i didn't appreciate it here either. i also was unimpressed with the details of the story itself, and had to put nearly all of it aside in the reading. because it's the questions the story brings up are what's interesting:

what do we owe to our children? what are we obligated to give or do for our children or other creatures/creations/thought processes that we put into the world? is there an unspoken contract that everything we make/do/create is our responsibility, is something we guarantee our time and thought and love? if so, for how long are we tied to it? can we outgrow it? can we turn our back on it once it can fend for itself? where is the line?

i also feel like, while shelley, for her time, was pretty radical and very feminist, that i'd be really interested in what she'd think today. it seems like her point is at least partly that of course this creation turned out the way he did, because he wasn't given the love and attention that his creator was obligated to give. but reading it, it felt like the creature was a modern day incel or about-to-be-shooter, complaining that he was so full of love and the need for acceptance in society and that when he didn't get it, that he would go on a killing rampage. a very anti-feminist view to say that men who want women's affection deserve it just because they desire it.

super interesting philosophically to consider what she meant, what the time was, how it might be different now. i feel like this is something i'll be thinking about for a long, long time.

from the introduction:
"...[Frankenstein] was at fault because he did not provide his creation with love or an education. Monsters, says Mary, are of our own making."

"Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow."

"'You are my creator, but I am your master...'"

"'Shall each man,' cried he, 'find a wife for his bosom, and each beast have his mate, and I be alone? I had feelings of affection, and they were requited by detestation and scorn. Man, you may hate; but beware! Your hours will pass in dread and misery, and soon the bolt will fall which must ravish from you your happiness forever. Are you to be happy, while I grovel in the intensity of my wretchedness? '" ( )

For whom do I have sympathy? Dr Frankenstein or his monster? I‘m not sure I would have been sympathetic to the monster but for Dan Steven‘s‘ brilliant rendition of him! I admit to being bored until the monster told his story, then, wow! This is a book worth studying. It reads like it was written in 1818, and I‘d rather it “show” rather than “tell.” But there‘s a reason for that I discovered at the end. I‘m so glad I finally read it. ( )

Horror masterwork even 200 years later and one of my favorite stories of all time. The theming is impeccable and the main star of the show. Effortlessly weaving the ideas of the beauty of nature/the benefits of beauty, the dangers of knowledge, loss of innocence, the danger of ambition and the necessity of human connection throughout the whole story. All back ended with religious undertones. It sports two of the best characters in Victor Frankenstein and the Monster as well and is just beautifully tragic. ( )

This book is about an unnamed creature and his overly emotional dad who prefers vacations over spending time with his son.

It uses romanticism to describe locations from all over Europe, the characters take away a lot of value from them, there are locations to which the author has been. The book makes the reader think about what influenced the characters to act the way they do because characters reflect on themselves a lot. The main characters are deeply flawed and aren't afraid to show feminine sides of themselves, it's a good exercise in empathy.

There are themes of science and nature, idleness and action present.

It is a very melodramatic, slow-paced read. Sometimes it is very engaging and a breeze to read, sometimes the reader wants more to happen because of wordiness and repetitiveness. A character lamenting their misery for ages is what you should expect here, that being both good and bad. ( )

The basics of philosophy of life, one of the most famous monsters in history and the origin of science fiction, what else do you need? ( )

It's interesting to see how racism, discrimination, and terrorism have not changed much from the 1700s to now.

I didn't know Shelley was so versed in the social-political relations between Europe and the Middle East. If Frankstein was written today, only the weapons of destruction and the means of living would have changed. The story, essentially, would be the same: how depraved our human condition is when blinded by social, economic, and political schisms. And I'm only half-way through the book. The monster created by Frankstein only illuminates the nuances of human nature.

You can read a blog inspired by this novel at www.angelalamturpin.com ( )