Status
Available
Call number
Collection
Publication
Oxford University Press, USA (1998), Edition: Later Printing, Paperback, 328 pages
Description
Mary Shelley's seminal novel of the scientist whose creation becomes a monster. This edition is the original 1818 text, which preserves the hard-hitting and politically charged aspects of Shelley's original writing, as well as her unflinching wit and strong female voice. This edition also includes a new introduction and suggestions for further reading.
User reviews
LibraryThing member MeditationesMartini
I'm gonna give you two ways in which this book is laughable bullshit, and then counter with two ways in which it's a stunning triumph.
Bullshit 1: Stylistics. I know this was ground out over a summer by a girl who hadn't really written anything before and etc., etc., but there are a lot of rough
Bullshit 2: On a related note, plot mechanics. Really, dude? You just couldn't take the time to make sure your monster didn't escape? You just ran away and assumed everything would be fine? You couldn't bring yourself to tell the truth, just so you could feel bad when they executed that poor girl? Even with the singular psychology and crazy madness of old Franko, that's pushing it a bit far. But the most ludicrous thing is that it never even occurred to him that "I will be with you on your wedding night" might possibly imply some threat to Elizabeth, as opposed to Victor the golden boy - like, I know it's a convention of the Gothic, but come on, are you writing a parable or are you writing psychological realism?
Triumph 1: The central myth is so hard hitting. Like, that's why we've had a hundred Frankensteins since, although the "Adam" version has it all over the bolts-in-neck Karloff guy. Incidentally, am I crazy in remembering this as totally different from last time? Like, the ice, yes, the wedding night, yes, but I thought there was a lot more emphasis on the initial creation (castle, slab, roof opening, lightning, etc.) and the bride. Maybe I just read a movie novelization as a kid and mistook it for the real thing.
Triumph 2: the psychological sketch of Frankenstein. He's not "misunderstood genius," that cliche - he's understood genius. He's supportive, brilliant, loving family, golden boy, always fulfilling everyone's high expectations, it's not about duty it's about the stifling quality of love for the egomaniac who still knows how to love. How hard did his going away to Ingolstadt remind me of me running away to Austria and then deciding that wasn't far enough from friends and family and it was gonna have to be Kazakhstan next? How creeping and sick is the realization that realism aside, this paragon basically, symbolically, strangled his own wife so he could feel bad about it and be tragic? How shivery is it when the monster is so much like him, in loves hates rage and misanthropy and the total inability to wrap himself up in humanity?
I mean, in a general sense "the monster IS Frankenstein" is a filmic metonymy and an overall cliche, but when you look at it close, really: how much difference is there between Frankenstein creating his monster and Jekyll creating Hyde? Everything is permitted when you put on your mask of sutures and dead flesh. Kill them: then you can miss them, and carry on your important work in their name.
Bullshit 1: Stylistics. I know this was ground out over a summer by a girl who hadn't really written anything before and etc., etc., but there are a lot of rough
Show More
freakin' passages in this story. I'm not going to quote the one I'd intended to. This is a bit of a half-assed review. I think she smoothed most of them out in the 1831 text anyway.Bullshit 2: On a related note, plot mechanics. Really, dude? You just couldn't take the time to make sure your monster didn't escape? You just ran away and assumed everything would be fine? You couldn't bring yourself to tell the truth, just so you could feel bad when they executed that poor girl? Even with the singular psychology and crazy madness of old Franko, that's pushing it a bit far. But the most ludicrous thing is that it never even occurred to him that "I will be with you on your wedding night" might possibly imply some threat to Elizabeth, as opposed to Victor the golden boy - like, I know it's a convention of the Gothic, but come on, are you writing a parable or are you writing psychological realism?
Triumph 1: The central myth is so hard hitting. Like, that's why we've had a hundred Frankensteins since, although the "Adam" version has it all over the bolts-in-neck Karloff guy. Incidentally, am I crazy in remembering this as totally different from last time? Like, the ice, yes, the wedding night, yes, but I thought there was a lot more emphasis on the initial creation (castle, slab, roof opening, lightning, etc.) and the bride. Maybe I just read a movie novelization as a kid and mistook it for the real thing.
Triumph 2: the psychological sketch of Frankenstein. He's not "misunderstood genius," that cliche - he's understood genius. He's supportive, brilliant, loving family, golden boy, always fulfilling everyone's high expectations, it's not about duty it's about the stifling quality of love for the egomaniac who still knows how to love. How hard did his going away to Ingolstadt remind me of me running away to Austria and then deciding that wasn't far enough from friends and family and it was gonna have to be Kazakhstan next? How creeping and sick is the realization that realism aside, this paragon basically, symbolically, strangled his own wife so he could feel bad about it and be tragic? How shivery is it when the monster is so much like him, in loves hates rage and misanthropy and the total inability to wrap himself up in humanity?
I mean, in a general sense "the monster IS Frankenstein" is a filmic metonymy and an overall cliche, but when you look at it close, really: how much difference is there between Frankenstein creating his monster and Jekyll creating Hyde? Everything is permitted when you put on your mask of sutures and dead flesh. Kill them: then you can miss them, and carry on your important work in their name.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Stormrose
10/20. Ooo, halfway through the goal! Yay! (although this is a class book, so it doesn't really count...but whatever).
I absolutely loved this book. Loved, loved, loved, loved. The fact that Mary Shelley wrote it when she was eighteen is stunning to me. It's got gothic, science fiction, philosophy,
I absolutely loved this book. Loved, loved, loved, loved. The fact that Mary Shelley wrote it when she was eighteen is stunning to me. It's got gothic, science fiction, philosophy,
Show More
realism, travel narrative and bildungsroman all built into one. It's also one of the most morally challenging and ambiguous science fiction texts I have read. And yes, I do consider "Frankenstein" the foundational text of science fiction. You have to read it very carefully to pick up all the nuances, but it's absolutely worth it. Highly recommended. Show Less
LibraryThing member slarsoncollins
Wow. What a book. Just goes to show things aren't always black and white, but that there are many shades of gray in between.
The story centers around Victor Frankenstein, a brilliant scientist, who creates life in his laboratory. Driven by an insatiable desire to bring back the spark of life, he is
When I turned the final page (or clicked onto the final page), I was left wondering: Who is the real monster?
The story centers around Victor Frankenstein, a brilliant scientist, who creates life in his laboratory. Driven by an insatiable desire to bring back the spark of life, he is
Show More
disgusted and repulsed by his final creation and casts the creature out. This hideous being, denied even the smallest show of kindness or love, pleads with his creator for a symbol of compassion. Again denied, the monster turns against his maker and a life and death struggle ensues. When I turned the final page (or clicked onto the final page), I was left wondering: Who is the real monster?
Show Less
LibraryThing member Renz0808
I have seen the numerous reproductions of the Frankenstein theme and I felt like I was rather familiar with the plot. Recently, I realized that I am a bit ashamed that I have yet to read this book for myself since along with Dracula it is considered such a classic horror story. I was so surprised
A Swiss medical student, Victor Frankenstein, discovers the secret of life and decides to build a man from various corpuses. He becomes horrified by what he creates and runs away from what he considers a monster. The creature suffers from a fair amount of confusion and neglect and begins to see himself as a terrifying monster. He is incredible smart and is able to teach himself language and means of communication through watching a poor family. He discovers the truth about his identity and begins to seek revenge on his creator. Through a series of tragic events Victor Frankenstein chases his creation around the world meaning to rid humanity from it.
Show More
as I started reading this book to find that all of the things I had thought about the story were actually wrong. This book is not so much about horror as it is about the basic human emotion for love and acceptance that we continually search for, and while the movies touch on this theme a bit the book is mostly about this thought. In a sense it is not so much horrifying as it is sad and disturbing, but the brilliance of the story is that it really makes you step back and look at yourself and what it means to be human. A Swiss medical student, Victor Frankenstein, discovers the secret of life and decides to build a man from various corpuses. He becomes horrified by what he creates and runs away from what he considers a monster. The creature suffers from a fair amount of confusion and neglect and begins to see himself as a terrifying monster. He is incredible smart and is able to teach himself language and means of communication through watching a poor family. He discovers the truth about his identity and begins to seek revenge on his creator. Through a series of tragic events Victor Frankenstein chases his creation around the world meaning to rid humanity from it.
Show Less
LibraryThing member thewalkinggirl
Loved the beginning, it was creepy and fun in a Lovecraftian sort of way. The middle, when we learn more about Frankenstein and his creature, was kind of interesting in a humanist/existentialist sort of way, but by the end... I don't know. I usually like "slow descent into madness" stories but I'm
I'm glad I finished it but I'm not sure if I'm glad I read it. (It is nice to have it off Mount TBR though!)
Show More
not sure that the author recognized that her title character was mad, and the combined lack of awareness and anything resembling a sense of humor is kind of deadly to me.I'm glad I finished it but I'm not sure if I'm glad I read it. (It is nice to have it off Mount TBR though!)
Show Less
LibraryThing member Pat_D
This is the best edition of Shelley's classic and the only edition that should be taught. You'll see this story as you've never known it before. The reference materials are incomparable.
LibraryThing member Borg-mx5
A good, not great novel. Definitely worth a read, especially if you are only familiar with the films.
LibraryThing member rabbitrun
Victor Frankenstein discovers the secret of creating life and fashions an eight-foot monster, only to bring danger and destruction to the lives of those he loves after the creature is rejected by society.
LibraryThing member jreinheimer
Dr. Victor Frankenstein creates a monster in his laboratory. This monster wants a mate and is after Dr. Frankenstein to create one. Once Frankenstein refuses to create a mate for the creature, the creature starts hunting and tormenting Frankenstein. This book is the original classic horror story.
Show More
It also allows students to realize what life was life in the 1800's. Show Less
LibraryThing member sushicat
I read the original text from 1818. I had not read this before, but of course I thought I knew the story. I was actually quite a bit surprised about it. For one I did not know that it actually took place largely in Switzerland!
The story of how Victor Frankenstein and how he created the (unnamed)
I liked the way the story was structured and also liked the text. I appreciated less the drastic mood swings from one extreme to the other. It was way over the top, but quite typical for the period.
I read this in anticipation of a theater visit and having the text fresh in my mind certainly heightened my appreciation of the great job done in bringing the story to life on stage.
The story of how Victor Frankenstein and how he created the (unnamed)
Show More
monster and what happened afterwards is told from various perspectives. Captain Walton introduces the man he met while on an Arctic expedition in his letters to his sister. He gives voice to Victor Frankenstein, who first relates the backstory that led to his studies in Ingoldstadt and the creation of the monster and his return to the family home in Geneva, where tragedy has struck. On his wanderings he encounters the monster who asks to be heard in turn and tells what it had experienced since entering the world. They strike a bargain, but Frankenstein reneges, which leads to further tragedy and a chase for revenge that leads to the Arctic, where they all meet up.I liked the way the story was structured and also liked the text. I appreciated less the drastic mood swings from one extreme to the other. It was way over the top, but quite typical for the period.
I read this in anticipation of a theater visit and having the text fresh in my mind certainly heightened my appreciation of the great job done in bringing the story to life on stage.
Show Less
LibraryThing member john257hopper
This year is the 200th anniversary of the occasion when Mary Shelley, her husband Percy, Byron and John Polydori spent a bleak summer evening on the shores of Lake Geneva, challenging each other to tell horror stories. Mary Shelley's nightmare became the novel that was eventually published two
Show More
years later in 1818. This edition is that original version; whereas the edition most commonly read these days, and which I have read before, is the revised 1831 version produced when Mary had experienced several family tragedies that led to a more fatalistic outlook. This original version is raw and powerful, stark in its portrayal of misery and despair and depiction of the deaths the monster causes; yet, despite the monster's crimes, one can sympathise with it when it observes the family of Felix and Agatha, and desperately wants to be accepted into the warmth of human society, but instead is spurned in horror and disgust. This is drama and despair at its peak; yet, at the same time, the novel's contrasting descriptions of the beautiful scenery of the Alps are moving and sublime. Brilliant writing throughout. Show Less
LibraryThing member jwhenderson
A Fantastic Story.
Fantastic, filled with both vivid emotions and exciting action, Mary Shelley's story of the haunted Victor Frankenstein, and his creation who does the haunting, still stirs the soul. Just as Goethe's Faust sought the secrets of arcane knowledge, Victor Frankenstein engages in the
The novel is a classic tale of the uncanny which, according to the novelist and critic David Lodge, invariably use "I" narrators, imitating documentary forms of discourse like confessions, letters and depositions to make events more credible. Beginning with letters from Robert Walton, whose own search for the source of the magnetic north pole mirrors Victor Frankenstein's quest, the first book of the novel relates Victor Frankenstein's narrative of his youth and education. It surely was more than coincidental that Victor attended University at Ingolstad which was heralded as the original site of the Faust legends that Goethe adapted for his immensely influential drama.
'Monster' or 'Creature'?
The center of the novel continues Victor's story and that of his creation, the monster. At least that is what he calls his creation. While it is monstrous in the sense that it is larger than normal human size it is a creature made of human parts and, we find after some intervening events in Victor's life that the creature has some very human traits like the need for companionship -- one that is not met by his creator. Victor's emotions seem to swing from the the heights of elation to the depths of despair coloring his actions and clouding his reason. I found the monster's narration to be the most persuasive of the two. He pleads with Victor, " Remember, that I am thy creature: I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed."(p 66) Victor is unable to satisfy him and the monster who searches for acceptance throughout attempts to exert power over his creator as he tells him, "You are my creator, but I am your master; -obey!"(p 116) His words and actions only serve to speed the descent of Victor.
I saw the monster as a classic example of "the other", a precursor to modern images much as those found in Kafka. The action builds effectively through the third book of the novel building suspense and leading to an ending that involves a triangle of relationships between Victor, the creature, and Robert Walton whose narrative in letters bookends the tale. The power of the book, however, remains in the questions it raises; questions that we are dealing with to this day.
The Narrative:
A man is found while near death by Robert Walton. Walton, an explorer, was on a trip to the Arctic where his ship is stuck and surrounded by ice. As they looked out on the enormous ice field, Walton and his crew saw a gigantic man being pulled by a dogsled. The following day they discovered another, smaller man, desperately ill, adrift on a sheet of ice. Walton writes that he brought the man onto his ship, allowed him to rest, and attempted to nurse him back to health. That man was Victor Frankenstein who goes on to relate the story of how he came to be in this place.
While at university, Victor became obsessed with the idea of bringing the dead back to life. He built the Creature out of body parts scavenged from charnel houses and graves. Victor succeeded in bringing the Creature to life, but upon seeing the hideous Creature Victor ran from the lab, abandoning his creation. Alone and abandoned, the Creature spent two years hiding in the forest, aware of his ugliness. He learned to read in this time, and eventually he came to understand that Victor was the cause of his misery. The narrative thus continues with the struggle of the Creature to find his creator and to end his misery. The catalyst for the denouement of the story is Victor's realization of the mistake he made with his original creation. Is this realization enough to save him and others? I will leave it to other readers to answer that question for themselves.
Fantastic, filled with both vivid emotions and exciting action, Mary Shelley's story of the haunted Victor Frankenstein, and his creation who does the haunting, still stirs the soul. Just as Goethe's Faust sought the secrets of arcane knowledge, Victor Frankenstein engages in the
Show More
secrets of both licit and illicit science to bring a being to life. Once this is accomplished he immediately rues his action and spends the rest of the novel trying through a variety of means to atone for his mistake.The novel is a classic tale of the uncanny which, according to the novelist and critic David Lodge, invariably use "I" narrators, imitating documentary forms of discourse like confessions, letters and depositions to make events more credible. Beginning with letters from Robert Walton, whose own search for the source of the magnetic north pole mirrors Victor Frankenstein's quest, the first book of the novel relates Victor Frankenstein's narrative of his youth and education. It surely was more than coincidental that Victor attended University at Ingolstad which was heralded as the original site of the Faust legends that Goethe adapted for his immensely influential drama.
'Monster' or 'Creature'?
The center of the novel continues Victor's story and that of his creation, the monster. At least that is what he calls his creation. While it is monstrous in the sense that it is larger than normal human size it is a creature made of human parts and, we find after some intervening events in Victor's life that the creature has some very human traits like the need for companionship -- one that is not met by his creator. Victor's emotions seem to swing from the the heights of elation to the depths of despair coloring his actions and clouding his reason. I found the monster's narration to be the most persuasive of the two. He pleads with Victor, " Remember, that I am thy creature: I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed."(p 66) Victor is unable to satisfy him and the monster who searches for acceptance throughout attempts to exert power over his creator as he tells him, "You are my creator, but I am your master; -obey!"(p 116) His words and actions only serve to speed the descent of Victor.
I saw the monster as a classic example of "the other", a precursor to modern images much as those found in Kafka. The action builds effectively through the third book of the novel building suspense and leading to an ending that involves a triangle of relationships between Victor, the creature, and Robert Walton whose narrative in letters bookends the tale. The power of the book, however, remains in the questions it raises; questions that we are dealing with to this day.
The Narrative:
A man is found while near death by Robert Walton. Walton, an explorer, was on a trip to the Arctic where his ship is stuck and surrounded by ice. As they looked out on the enormous ice field, Walton and his crew saw a gigantic man being pulled by a dogsled. The following day they discovered another, smaller man, desperately ill, adrift on a sheet of ice. Walton writes that he brought the man onto his ship, allowed him to rest, and attempted to nurse him back to health. That man was Victor Frankenstein who goes on to relate the story of how he came to be in this place.
While at university, Victor became obsessed with the idea of bringing the dead back to life. He built the Creature out of body parts scavenged from charnel houses and graves. Victor succeeded in bringing the Creature to life, but upon seeing the hideous Creature Victor ran from the lab, abandoning his creation. Alone and abandoned, the Creature spent two years hiding in the forest, aware of his ugliness. He learned to read in this time, and eventually he came to understand that Victor was the cause of his misery. The narrative thus continues with the struggle of the Creature to find his creator and to end his misery. The catalyst for the denouement of the story is Victor's realization of the mistake he made with his original creation. Is this realization enough to save him and others? I will leave it to other readers to answer that question for themselves.
Show Less
LibraryThing member mcelhra
Frankenstein might be one of the most analyzed and reviewed books of all time. Whole books have been written about this book and its author Mary Shelley. I’m not a literary scholar so my review is going to be short and sweet. You can dig as deeply as you want to on your own time!
My book club
Frankenstein was a lot different than I thought it would be. The monster wasn’t an inarticulate beast afraid of fire and being chased by villagers with torches. He was actually quite intelligent. Also, a fair amount of the story was about Dr. Frankenstein’s life independent of the monster.
There was much to discuss about this book. We talked about Mary Shelley’s life and how it influenced Frankenstein. There were also many ethical issues to talk about, the first being is it okay for man to create life by means other than normal reproduction. Most everyone liked the book and our discussion went well over our one hour meeting time which hasn’t happened in the time that I’ve been a member.
As far as classic literature goes, Frankenstein is accessible and easy to understand. I recommend it for anytime of the year but especially if you’re looking for a good Halloween read.
My book club
Show More
likes to read at least one classic per year and this year’s was Frankenstein. It was our October pick because it seemed the perfect month to review a book about a monster. Interestingly, there are two editions of Frankenstein. It was originally published in 1818. When it came out, people were aghast that an eighteen year old girl could conceive of such horrors and write about them – ladies being delicate flowers and all that. In 1831 a new edition was published that Shelley had revised from the 1818 version to make the book less shocking. Almost all of my book club buddies and I read the 1818 version published by Penguin Classics. Penguin included a short overview of Shelley’s life. She had quite an eventful one and several biographies about her have been written.Frankenstein was a lot different than I thought it would be. The monster wasn’t an inarticulate beast afraid of fire and being chased by villagers with torches. He was actually quite intelligent. Also, a fair amount of the story was about Dr. Frankenstein’s life independent of the monster.
There was much to discuss about this book. We talked about Mary Shelley’s life and how it influenced Frankenstein. There were also many ethical issues to talk about, the first being is it okay for man to create life by means other than normal reproduction. Most everyone liked the book and our discussion went well over our one hour meeting time which hasn’t happened in the time that I’ve been a member.
As far as classic literature goes, Frankenstein is accessible and easy to understand. I recommend it for anytime of the year but especially if you’re looking for a good Halloween read.
Show Less
LibraryThing member DzejnCrvena
This year, I plan to read at least fifty (50) classic books in literature.
I picked Frankenstein because I read The Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein last year, and it was awesome. While reading the original, I realize that Shelley's original version is even better. I will reread it sometime
I picked Frankenstein because I read The Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein last year, and it was awesome. While reading the original, I realize that Shelley's original version is even better. I will reread it sometime
Show More
later. Show Less
LibraryThing member Debjacks
Since so many reviews exist, there’s no use in adding yet another. But I would like to share where and why this book seemed to stir me and how unique it is considering the background events. Because theories on the origin of the species and creation were beginning to surface, even preceding
I read the entire story without adding a tab or underlining a section, but yet it lingered after I’d finished reading. This version included additional material, which I found refreshing. Particularly the reviews. I’ll start there.
On Reviews
Mary Shelley was a female writer, something seldom seen when the first edition of Frankenstein was published in 1818. To obtain fair reviews, she released the novel under her husband’s name.
Walter Scott writes a rather lengthy review in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine in which he identifies the flaws:
(view spoiler)
Though valid criticisms, I had to chuckle at the similarities between critics of that day and age and the current one. Suspension of disbelief is always an issue, and certain critics are unwilling to forgive one error in fact or just a little exaggeration in, let’s face it, a “fantastic” story which never pretends to be anything else. Shelley even discusses how Frankenstein started as a dare between her and other writers—P.B. Shelley, Byron, Polidori—to write a ghost story, so she wasn’t exactly in a “serious” frame of mind. We also have to consider what the story is – a romance (not in the current sense of the word, but along the lines of fantasy, legend, and the Romanticism that began in the middle ages and reached its peak in the late 1800s), and also an original horror story. If you can picture the entire stage, the misplaced props fade into the background.
Critics of the 19th century were also influenced by the theories of origin and creation I mentioned above, and very resistant in most cases.
Scott continues: “ ‘Creator,’ applied to a mere human being, gives us the same sort of shock with the phrase, “the man Almighty,” and others of the same kind, in Mr Southey’s ‘Curse of Kehama.’ All these monstrous conceptions are the consequences of the wild and irregular theories of the age; though we do not at all mean to infer that the authors who give into such freedoms have done so with any bad intentions. This incongruity, however, with our established and most sacred notions, is the chief fault in such fictions...”
Shelley was tapping into the prevailing scientific theories of the age and incorporating them into her story, much to the “horror” of certain critics. Well, it is a horror story ;-) Where she fails is in describing the method of creation – how Frankenstein imbued his monster with life.
(view spoiler)
Did you just groan? I did. Most modern-day speculative fiction writers throw their intellectual weight into explaining esoteric theories in hopes of satisfying the curiosity of readers. But since she had no modern (for the 19th century) knowledge of medicine and science, she couldn’t be expected to explain the concept in any reasonable way. Of course in movies and modern television shows, the “creators” inevitably turn to lightning and electricity as a reanimating device. But I don’t begrudge Shelley the ambiguity. A zap of electricity to the brain does little to explain the restoration of dead tissue and cells.
On Irony
I do so adore irony, and Shelley excels at delivering. Even in Shelley’s epigraph from Paradise Lost, she twists Adam’s protest against God:
"Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay
To mould me man? Did I solicit thee
From darkness to promote me?"
Adam eventually concedes that God is just, but this novel revolves around this statement and never admits that the monster’s maker was just in his decision to create. In fact it spits in his face.
I still have to wonder at cinematic portrayals of the monster, often so different from this novel. He is shown in a sympathetic light in Van Helsing and Penny Dreadful - the most recent ones I can recall. Yet in the novel his decision to kill so swiftly after the cottagers reject him, particularly an innocent child, elicits revulsion instead of sympathy. Is Shelley contrasting not only the monster’s appearance to Adam and Eve in Paradise Lost, but his behavior? Is everything about the monster ugly, or was he merely made that way by circumstances and social rejection?
The story is relevant in our time. We continue to make monsters. We have to wonder is rejection strong enough to induce mass murder, to drive young people to Isis and other cults? I recently read an interview with the mother of one of the Columbine shooting perpetrators. Her son didn’t sound like a monster, but he seemed susceptible to the persuasive voice of one. Can a single voice change a person’s perception of the world? How much more so, then, would many voices, especially if that person is already feeling excluded and wounded? Shelley’s novel is social commentary that is relevant throughout the ages. The irony is, we still haven’t learned how to stop making monsters.
On the Richness of the Language
I found, for the most part, the journey was as satisfying as the conclusion. Of course, language was richer in earlier ages. Today we pride ourselves on quick communication, and genre books are always lighter on language. Many people may argue our literary novels are just as deliciously dressed.
But . . . the story is never neglected in these older novels for the glory of a few choice words.
For instance . . .
“The ascent is precipitous, but the path is cut into continual and short windings, which enable you to surmount the perpendicularity of the mountain. It is a scene terrifically desolate. In a thousand spots the traces of the winter avalanche may be perceived, where trees lie broken and strewed on the ground; some entirely destroyed, others bent, leaning upon the jutting rocks of the mountain, or transversely upon other trees.”
The description is rich, the sentences dense, but the words are not strange or startling. They don’t eject you from the novel, savoring the spice but forgetting about the soup. And they don’t have you pondering what the author is actually trying to say. The scene is so beautifully rendered you can visualize and experience the mountain, the climb. But at the same time, it suggests Frankenstein’s spiritual decline.
Mary Shelley employs letters to describe the events (as did Bram Stoker nearly a century later). The letter technique lends a personal aspect to the story as if the character is bending over and whispering in his best friend’s ear. It adds another dimension that gives the tale more depth.
Another aspect of 19th century literature is the tendency to quote or allude to classical literature or other literary works. Since I haven’t read all these works, I can hardly comment on their usage. But they sometimes prompt me to seek out these older plays, poems or novels, to see if they impress me as much as they did the writer in his or her time period. It is this layering of literature and mythology that continues to intrigue me.
There is great joy in language, even to illustrate a tragedy.
Show More
Charles Darwin, (though strangely Erasmus Darwin is mentioned in the first line of the Preface), it is easy to understand where the concept for this book arose.I read the entire story without adding a tab or underlining a section, but yet it lingered after I’d finished reading. This version included additional material, which I found refreshing. Particularly the reviews. I’ll start there.
On Reviews
Mary Shelley was a female writer, something seldom seen when the first edition of Frankenstein was published in 1818. To obtain fair reviews, she released the novel under her husband’s name.
Walter Scott writes a rather lengthy review in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine in which he identifies the flaws:
(view spoiler)
Though valid criticisms, I had to chuckle at the similarities between critics of that day and age and the current one. Suspension of disbelief is always an issue, and certain critics are unwilling to forgive one error in fact or just a little exaggeration in, let’s face it, a “fantastic” story which never pretends to be anything else. Shelley even discusses how Frankenstein started as a dare between her and other writers—P.B. Shelley, Byron, Polidori—to write a ghost story, so she wasn’t exactly in a “serious” frame of mind. We also have to consider what the story is – a romance (not in the current sense of the word, but along the lines of fantasy, legend, and the Romanticism that began in the middle ages and reached its peak in the late 1800s), and also an original horror story. If you can picture the entire stage, the misplaced props fade into the background.
Critics of the 19th century were also influenced by the theories of origin and creation I mentioned above, and very resistant in most cases.
Scott continues: “ ‘Creator,’ applied to a mere human being, gives us the same sort of shock with the phrase, “the man Almighty,” and others of the same kind, in Mr Southey’s ‘Curse of Kehama.’ All these monstrous conceptions are the consequences of the wild and irregular theories of the age; though we do not at all mean to infer that the authors who give into such freedoms have done so with any bad intentions. This incongruity, however, with our established and most sacred notions, is the chief fault in such fictions...”
Shelley was tapping into the prevailing scientific theories of the age and incorporating them into her story, much to the “horror” of certain critics. Well, it is a horror story ;-) Where she fails is in describing the method of creation – how Frankenstein imbued his monster with life.
(view spoiler)
Did you just groan? I did. Most modern-day speculative fiction writers throw their intellectual weight into explaining esoteric theories in hopes of satisfying the curiosity of readers. But since she had no modern (for the 19th century) knowledge of medicine and science, she couldn’t be expected to explain the concept in any reasonable way. Of course in movies and modern television shows, the “creators” inevitably turn to lightning and electricity as a reanimating device. But I don’t begrudge Shelley the ambiguity. A zap of electricity to the brain does little to explain the restoration of dead tissue and cells.
On Irony
I do so adore irony, and Shelley excels at delivering. Even in Shelley’s epigraph from Paradise Lost, she twists Adam’s protest against God:
"Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay
To mould me man? Did I solicit thee
From darkness to promote me?"
Adam eventually concedes that God is just, but this novel revolves around this statement and never admits that the monster’s maker was just in his decision to create. In fact it spits in his face.
I still have to wonder at cinematic portrayals of the monster, often so different from this novel. He is shown in a sympathetic light in Van Helsing and Penny Dreadful - the most recent ones I can recall. Yet in the novel his decision to kill so swiftly after the cottagers reject him, particularly an innocent child, elicits revulsion instead of sympathy. Is Shelley contrasting not only the monster’s appearance to Adam and Eve in Paradise Lost, but his behavior? Is everything about the monster ugly, or was he merely made that way by circumstances and social rejection?
The story is relevant in our time. We continue to make monsters. We have to wonder is rejection strong enough to induce mass murder, to drive young people to Isis and other cults? I recently read an interview with the mother of one of the Columbine shooting perpetrators. Her son didn’t sound like a monster, but he seemed susceptible to the persuasive voice of one. Can a single voice change a person’s perception of the world? How much more so, then, would many voices, especially if that person is already feeling excluded and wounded? Shelley’s novel is social commentary that is relevant throughout the ages. The irony is, we still haven’t learned how to stop making monsters.
On the Richness of the Language
I found, for the most part, the journey was as satisfying as the conclusion. Of course, language was richer in earlier ages. Today we pride ourselves on quick communication, and genre books are always lighter on language. Many people may argue our literary novels are just as deliciously dressed.
But . . . the story is never neglected in these older novels for the glory of a few choice words.
For instance . . .
“The ascent is precipitous, but the path is cut into continual and short windings, which enable you to surmount the perpendicularity of the mountain. It is a scene terrifically desolate. In a thousand spots the traces of the winter avalanche may be perceived, where trees lie broken and strewed on the ground; some entirely destroyed, others bent, leaning upon the jutting rocks of the mountain, or transversely upon other trees.”
The description is rich, the sentences dense, but the words are not strange or startling. They don’t eject you from the novel, savoring the spice but forgetting about the soup. And they don’t have you pondering what the author is actually trying to say. The scene is so beautifully rendered you can visualize and experience the mountain, the climb. But at the same time, it suggests Frankenstein’s spiritual decline.
Mary Shelley employs letters to describe the events (as did Bram Stoker nearly a century later). The letter technique lends a personal aspect to the story as if the character is bending over and whispering in his best friend’s ear. It adds another dimension that gives the tale more depth.
Another aspect of 19th century literature is the tendency to quote or allude to classical literature or other literary works. Since I haven’t read all these works, I can hardly comment on their usage. But they sometimes prompt me to seek out these older plays, poems or novels, to see if they impress me as much as they did the writer in his or her time period. It is this layering of literature and mythology that continues to intrigue me.
There is great joy in language, even to illustrate a tragedy.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Pharmacdon
Would we be reading this is Hollywood hadn't used it for a plot line for movies?
LibraryThing member GridCube
Sad book, about not belonging, about not fitting, it reminded me of A Brave New World in that
LibraryThing member et.carole
Glad I read this, although the melodramatic style was a bit much for me.
LibraryThing member Christilee394
This is now a Halloween tradition for me to revisit Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.
“I do know that for the sympathy of one living being, I would make peace with all. I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
After reading Frankenstein, I HAD to read it again. Even after that, I skimmed through it because I knew I could catch more, and I didn't want to miss anything. After revisiting this Gothic, romantic classic, I zealously attacked the internet to read essays, class studies, theses… basically, anything that could take me farther in. I knew there was more I could catch; the sense of abandonment, ego, temper with new technology, obsession, revenge, sympathy, the duality of mankind (aka: good vs evil), the list can go on and on.
“I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel...”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
There isn’t really anything I can say that hasn’t already been said about this classic. Two take aways I delighted in are, first, Mary Shelley’s vivid, poetic, stately language that shows the intensity of the emotions. Secondly, in society, unfortunately, looks do matter. Just because one can, doesn't mean one should. Respect and take responsibilities of new technologies and as a creator, whether parental or of inventions, one must take on the responsibility of their creation.
This book managed to stay with me days, nights and weeks after reading. Wanting to discuss its contents with anyone that would participate. For myself, that is the mark of a GREAT read, one where long after the last page is read, my mind is unsettled and wants to devour more!
“There is something at work in my soul, which I do not understand.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
“I do know that for the sympathy of one living being, I would make peace with all. I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy
Show More
the one, I will indulge the other.”― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
After reading Frankenstein, I HAD to read it again. Even after that, I skimmed through it because I knew I could catch more, and I didn't want to miss anything. After revisiting this Gothic, romantic classic, I zealously attacked the internet to read essays, class studies, theses… basically, anything that could take me farther in. I knew there was more I could catch; the sense of abandonment, ego, temper with new technology, obsession, revenge, sympathy, the duality of mankind (aka: good vs evil), the list can go on and on.
“I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel...”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
There isn’t really anything I can say that hasn’t already been said about this classic. Two take aways I delighted in are, first, Mary Shelley’s vivid, poetic, stately language that shows the intensity of the emotions. Secondly, in society, unfortunately, looks do matter. Just because one can, doesn't mean one should. Respect and take responsibilities of new technologies and as a creator, whether parental or of inventions, one must take on the responsibility of their creation.
This book managed to stay with me days, nights and weeks after reading. Wanting to discuss its contents with anyone that would participate. For myself, that is the mark of a GREAT read, one where long after the last page is read, my mind is unsettled and wants to devour more!
“There is something at work in my soul, which I do not understand.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Show Less
LibraryThing member Briars_Reviews
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
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!
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
Show More
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!
Show Less
LibraryThing member octoberdad
An incredible book. I expected it to be different than all the various popular conceptions of the story, but I had no idea how those differences manifested nor how happy I was to encounter them. If you have not read this story before, you know is likely wrong, and delightfully so.
I also much
I also much
Show More
enjoyed the appendices, in particular the enlightening excerpts from the writings by Shelley's parents (I so need to read Godwin's Political Justice) and the other "ghost stories" by Lord Byron and John Polidori. Show Less
LibraryThing member JacqiB
I cried. Despite having been written nearly two hundred years ago this was not difficult to read. It bore little relation to the old black and white horror films I have seen. It was a very moving tale and the passage where the 'monster' experiences snow for the first time was one of the best
Show More
passages I have ever read. Show Less
LibraryThing member Jenniferforjoy
Too many words not enough story
Language
Original publication date
1818
Physical description
328 p.; 7.3 inches
ISBN
0192833669 / 9780192833662