Frankenstein

by Mary Shelley, Maurice Hindle (Editor)

book data

51,763 ratings, 3.68 average rating, 2,178 reviews (more data...)

rating	frequency	%
5		24%
4		33%
3		28%
2		9%
1		3%

edit

published

May 16th 2003 (first published 1818) by Penguin Classics

binding

Paperback, 352 pages

url

http://us.penguinclassics.com/nf/Book/Bo...

characters

Victor Frankenstein, Elizabeth Frankenstein, William Frankenstein, Robert Walton, ...more

isbn

0141439475 (isbn13: 9780141439471)

description

The epic battle between man and monster reaches its greatest pitch in the famous story of Frankenstein. In trying to create life, the young student Vi...more

find at: Amazon | Half.com | Barnes & Noble | compare prices ($2.87)…

new topic
discuss this book

topics	posts	views	last activity
The Next Best Boo...: Author Alphabet	2765	1548	1 minute ago
The Next Best Boo...: What are you reading?	13077	11039	2 minutes ago

friend reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

lists with this book

Best science fiction books

718 books | 2444 voters

Best Books Ever

3119 books | 10583 voters

More lists...

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 64,620)

sort: default (?) | date
filters: all | text-only

09/29/08

Jon rated it:

(review of isbn 0553210440)

Read in September, 2008

I had the idea, a couple of years ago, that someone should update Milton's Paradise Lost within the framework of modern day agnosticism, instead of using the same Christian iconography. I tried to think about how I would do it, but that did not last long. Apparently I was right in abandoning this intellectual exercise, because Mary Shelley has already done it far better than I could have imagined. I should have just read this book sooner.

I came to this book knowing it had very little...more I had the idea, a couple of years ago, that someone should update Milton's Paradise Lost within the framework of modern day agnosticism, instead of using the same Christian iconography. I tried to think about how I would do it, but that did not last long. Apparently I was right in abandoning this intellectual exercise, because Mary Shelley has already done it far better than I could have imagined. I should have just read this book sooner.

I came to this book knowing it had very little to do with the giant block-headed creature of popular lore. I have since read some reviews on this site and found that some of the people simply did not get it. This is not a horror novel in the Stephen King sense, meant to scare your pants off with tales of the supernatural. In her introduction (for the version I was reading) Shelley gave some background to the development of the story. What really scared her was the idea of this re-animated life in all its grotesqueness, and what that meant about the origins of life. This is not a fear that comes from a possessed Cadillac, but rather a fear that can only arise from staring at yourself in the mirror for an extended period of time.

Frankenstein uses, essentially, all of the same themes of the archetype of Paradise Lost without the overt Christian connotation or directly referencing the fall of man. These themes are; the nature of good and evil, the nature of humanity, and the role of knowledge as it relates the previous two themes to each other...while all of this is discussed under the umbrella of free will.

It also deals with the issues of fate, sin, and death.

The antagonist/protagonist relationship, although defined, is ambiguous in terms of good guys and bad guys, to elicit questions as to the nature of life, humanity, and the benevolence of the "creator" and/or actors. This is where I actually enjoyed this book more than PL. It was much more of an open-ended narrative... Because paradise can not be lost if it never really was known to exist in the first place.

(less)

Like this review? yes (11 people liked it)

20 comments

02/26/08

Trevor rated it:

I don’t really know what I was expecting – though ‘more’ comes to mind. Let’s start with what I liked about this book. I liked the idea that the monster is ‘made’ a monster by the treatment he receives from humanity. He is ugly and humanity does like to punish the ugly - this is a universal truth about us that in itself is also fairly ugly.

The other thing I liked was that standard ploy of gothic novels – the multiple Chinese whisper narration. In this the story is...more I don’t really know what I was expecting – though ‘more’ comes to mind. Let’s start with what I liked about this book. I liked the idea that the monster is ‘made’ a monster by the treatment he receives from humanity. He is ugly and humanity does like to punish the ugly - this is a universal truth about us that in itself is also fairly ugly.

The other thing I liked was that standard ploy of gothic novels – the multiple Chinese whisper narration. In this the story is all written in a series of letters and then continuous prose to the sister of a sea captain who hears the story on a journey to the North Pole from Frankenstein himself, even though much of the story is also told to Frankenstein by his monster. I do like stories like this -that are like Russian Dolls – where it is hard to tell who is telling the story and just how reliable they could be as a narrator. I'm not sure I would trust anything an adventurer sea captain told me about anything - and in the end he is the only source.

Unfortunately, that is about all that I did like. I would have said I know this story well before I read the book. There have been endless films made of this story – so there are elements to the story that are etched into our collective memories. It comes then as a bit of a shock that many (most) of these elements are not in the story at all. No bolts in the neck, no Igor, no organ playing – isn’t it funny how all of these are so strongly associated with the monster and the story, when none of them are in the story at all? I guess that is yet another example of the power of images.

The other difference is that in films the monster is a slow moving automaton, whereas in the book he is much swifter, stronger and agile than people. Frankenstein may not have made a very good looking monster, but in every other respect he did a much better job than God did. Frankenstein is a very fast learner - he learns to speak in less than a year. And given the poverty of instruction Chomsky would really be proud!

Coincidences rarely work in fiction – and while they bring delight when they happen in life, in fiction they tend to stop us in our wilful suspension of disbelief. As Frank Smith points out somewhere – we don’t find it hard to suspend disbelief, it is something we quite like to do. The problem is that this story seems to go out of its way to make us do tutting noises at the improbabilities and constantly strained plotting twists.

My problem was that many of these weren’t really necessary to the story itself. You know, hint - if telling me something silly isn't going to improve the story, don't tell me something silly.

I thought there were some interesting comments about the obligations Gods have to their creations. In this case the ‘god’ is the scientist. He spends most of his time swooning – it seemed the slightest problem has him rushing to his bed for months on end. A friend dies and he is almost at death's door himself. About the only things he never did was tear at either his hair or his clothes – but that is hardly high praise. I guess I’m supposed to say that in these days of genetic engineering and such this is a tale more cautionary now than when it was originally written – but I won’t say that because it is too boring and too obvious.

If it is horror you want, Stephen King is much more frightening, never tells you how scared you are supposed to feel at any given moment in the story and is basically a better writer. But this is a seminal horror story, so I guess for that reason alone…

(less)

Like this review? yes (15 people liked it)

10 comments

11/18/07

Shannon rated it:

(review of isbn 1865051225)

bookshelves: 2007, book-club, classics, gothic-horror

Read in November, 2007

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

Frankenstein is the first book written by Mary Shelley (daughter of Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin, wife of Percy Bysshe Shelley, friend of Lord Byron), and her most famous. First published in 1818, she later revised it for its second printing in 1823, adding a preface that cleared up conjecture as to what she was writing about, changing the relationship of Elizabeth to the family (in the original, she is Victor Frankenstein's cousin, in the second she has no blood relation but was adopt...more

Like this review? yes (8 people liked it)

3 comments

11/29/07

Christina rated it:

first i'd like to say this book should (if it hasn't already) be recorded as an audio book with Jon Lovitz as the narrator using his Saturday Nite Live "thespian" voice. i think i read the entire book with that voice in my head which made me laugh out loud when i read "Begone, vile insect!" ha ha! i am still laughing!

second, i wish i had a dollar for every time the word "wretch" was used.

i'm sort of on the fence with this book. while the sto...more

Like this review? yes (7 people liked it)

4 comments

03/08/08

Brandon Pearce rated it:

bookshelves: classics

Mary Shelly wrote this book when she was only 18 years old. She was under the heavy influence of her politically radical, and powerful parents. And she was very much aware of the political movements that had shattered Europe in the late 1700's and early 1800's. The noble efforts of the French Revolution had recently ended with the reign of Terror and left Europe in a conservative backlash that included a crack down on civil liberties. Also keep in mind that the book's full title is "Fran...more

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it)

add a comment

10/20/08

Colin McKay Miller rated it:

Read in December, 2007

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a fantastic character-driven piece with one of the finest endings in literature.

Despite being considered one of the first fully realized science fiction novels, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein really got the shaft when it came to adaptations. It’s the monster slain by pop culture perception. (Dracula, on the other hand, did quite well outside of the book.) Frankenstein is not a big, groaning zombie with a hump in his back, bolts in his green neck and a ...more Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a fantastic character-driven piece with one of the finest endings in literature.

Despite being considered one of the first fully realized science fiction novels, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein really got the shaft when it came to adaptations. It’s the monster slain by pop culture perception. (Dracula, on the other hand, did quite well outside of the book.) Frankenstein is not a big, groaning zombie with a hump in his back, bolts in his green neck and a jagged cut across the forehead. Frankenstein is the man who made the monster. The book’s subtitle, “The Modern Prometheus,” is an allusion to the dangers of the industrial movement and man playing God. As technology continues to fly off the rails, the novel’s commentary still rings true today.

The novel is recorded by Captain Robert Walton in letters to his sister. Walton’s ship is icebound, and after a seeing a large man go by on a dog sled, they come across Victor Frankenstein, a scientist who pursued the large man until he fell very ill. Frankenstein tells the captain of his past, being influenced by teachers of science and having a great interest in alchemy, until deciding to create a man out of dead corpses. Frankenstein intended this man, the one now riding on the dogsled, to be beautiful, but when the creature awoke, he was horrified. At over eight feet tall, with translucent skin, black lips and yellow watery eyes, Frankenstein fled from the creature without giving it a name (save the insults he spat at it as they continually crossed paths).

The greatest strength of the book is the outstanding character development. In an admirable role-reversal, the reader really feels for the monster. The creator’s rejection fuels the creature’s dark motives. You understand him, the reasoning behind what he feels/does, but you disagree with the things he ends up doing. The scientist, Frankenstein, however, grows in morals, misery and regret. He cannot control what he has created, yet he cannot give in either. He’s still got family; he’s still got responsibilities. Frankenstein has a heart to keep going, even if his mind says otherwise. There’s this great part where Victor Frankenstein is out on a boat in the middle of his misery. So much strife has already hit, so much strife has yet to come (and he knows it), but as he’s watching the sun come up he’s struck with that odd and strange beauty that seems to stick in life: “How mutable are our feelings, and how strange is that clinging love we have of life even in the excess of misery.”

If there’s any downside to Frankenstein, it’s the sheer lack of science and constant monologues. Come on, who really talks like that? Blabbing on uninterrupted for what would be hours. Then again, the creature is so lonely and Frankenstein is so guilt-ridden it almost seems plausible. In the end though, the strengths of the novel far outweigh the questionable method of storytelling. Four stars.
(less)

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it)

2 comments

12/31/07

Blaise rated it:

(review of isbn 0743487583)

bookshelves: all-time-favorite-novels

Read in January, 2008

recommended to Blaise by: Emily Harris
recommends it for: Anyone

Frankenstein is a book that really shocked me because I did not expect it to have such depth and meaning. The premises is absolutely preposterous. But the story is told so eloquently and with such conviction that I was quickly able to get past that. Additionally, the characters are people you come to care deeply about, which makes the horrific events that dominate the second half of the novel very difficult to cope with, causing serious reflection.

There are really three central is...more Frankenstein is a book that really shocked me because I did not expect it to have such depth and meaning. The premises is absolutely preposterous. But the story is told so eloquently and with such conviction that I was quickly able to get past that. Additionally, the characters are people you come to care deeply about, which makes the horrific events that dominate the second half of the novel very difficult to cope with, causing serious reflection.

There are really three central issues that Shelley brings to light that caused me to ponder seriously. First, the role that appearance has on how people accept them. It's easy to think we are not judgemental, but the reality is we are all probably guilty of this to some extent. The way this issue is presented in the book is brilliant because it caused me to really think about the ways I fall short.

Second, I felt Shelley addressed the role of being a creator and a parent as keenly as any book I have read. It's interesting to contrast Victor's own father with the kind of father he is to the monster. There are other fathers in the novel who are not the actual father of the characters to which they exemplify what it means to be a father. I found great insight on this issue by taking the time to think about all of these examples. Taking this a step further, I found myself considering the responsibilties a parent has to humanity by the actions they take in both the creation and nurturing of children.

Lastly, the issue of nature versus nurture is addressed with tremendous resonance and force. I have always been of the opinion that both theories are flawed and we are both a product of our environment and our natural selves. I discount both theories, but taken and studied together, I find I am able to make sense of how we have become our current selves. I think Shelley was able to present both of these theories without becoming didactic at all so that the reader is able draw their own conclusions on why Victor Frankenstein or the monster he created evolve throughout the novel.

These issues are as relevant today as they were nearly 200 years ago when this book was written, if not more so. In a world that is dominated by appearances and a general lack of acceptance and love, we need to study books like Frankenstein that challenge us to think about how we can make a difference in people's lives.(less)

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it)

4 comments

02/02/09

Kyle Blalock rated it:

Read in February, 2009

Most of the people just do not get Frankenstein. It is more along the lines of an epic Romantic poem in a novel's form. The fact that the monster was abandoned by his creator is a direct symbol of the abandonment of men; be it some form of intelligent designer or the process of our own evolution. Either way, man has been abandoned in some fashion by some device. This is where I believe the work coincides with the Romantic period. The monster’s request of Frankenstein to create him a mate is a ...more

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

add a comment

10/11/08

Madeline rated it:

bookshelves: science-fiction, the-list

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

I'm torn about this book. On the one hand, it was genuinely creepy at parts and raised a lot of good questions about exactly how far science should be allowed to experiement. The language was eloquent, if a bit long-winded (which apparently was the work of Mary Shelley's editor, not her), and the story was so much better than the numerous movie versions of it that I wondered why movie makers even bothered changing the story in the first place.
Ready for the other hand? Here we go: although ...more I'm torn about this book. On the one hand, it was genuinely creepy at parts and raised a lot of good questions about exactly how far science should be allowed to experiement. The language was eloquent, if a bit long-winded (which apparently was the work of Mary Shelley's editor, not her), and the story was so much better than the numerous movie versions of it that I wondered why movie makers even bothered changing the story in the first place.
Ready for the other hand? Here we go: although I started out liking (or at least understanding) the two main characers - Frankenstein and his creation - by the end of the book, they had become so incredibly infuriating I almost stopped reading. First there was Dr. Frankenstein, who was (to quote Will Smith in I, Robot) "the dumbest smart person I've ever met." He reanimates this dead guy and then when it actually works, loses his shit and runs screaming from the lab. When he comes back several hours later, the creature is gone. What is the response of Frankenstein, a man brilliant enough to reanimate life in a dead person? "Oh thank goodness, the creature is gone. Clearly, he has disappeared entirely and I don't have to worry about finding him."
Then, when the creature has tracked him down several years later and tells him, "I will be with you on your wedding night" Frankenstein immediately starts worrying about his safety, not his fiance's. The creature has already killed Frankenstein's brother and best friend, and our genius doctor is like, "Elizabeth, my darling! Someone might be coming to kill me, because I am the only one left important enough to destroy, so I'll patrol the house with a gun while you lock yourself in this room. You'll be just fine, because I bet the creature will never think of killing you in order to punish me." Yeah. Three guesses how that turns out.
Like I said, I started out liking the creature. It wasn't his fault he was a reanimated corpse, after all, and I liked the fact that he seemed to learn how to speak by reading the complete works of Shakespeare. But then he starts killing off everyone Frankenstein cared about and saying how it hurt him to kill them more than it hurt the victims ("This hurts Daddy more than it hurts you," says the father as he belt-whips his child). Then once he's gone on a killing spree, the creature whines about how no one will accept him and everyone despises him and nobody understands him etc etc. Dude. Maybe people would warm up to you easier if you didn't have this habit of killing the loved ones of people who annoy you.

So in conclusion, I'm glad I read this, because it's a timeless classic etc etc, but I won't be reading it again. Also, the Wishbone version of this story was infinitely more enjoyable. So was Young Frankenstein. Come to think of it, catching an iceball with my face in 5th grade was more enjoyable than finishing this book, but that's beside the point.(less)

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

4 comments

09/02/08

Jon rated it:

bookshelves: classics, ebooks, fiction, horror, read-in-my-40s, science-fiction

Read in November, 2008

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

04/26/08

Cam rated it:

(review of isbn 0451527712)

Read in January, 2006

Victor Frankenstein deserves to be dragged into the street and thrashed in front of every other character in this book.

There, I said it.

I'm sorry. This book aggravates me on a level that makes an accurate review very difficult, but it's not Mary Shelley's fault. It's the fault of the main character, who she draws remarkably well- as an absolute moral infant who avoids his own responsibility for everything that his creation does at positively every turn. When the monster m...more

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

4 comments

02/02/08

Shelly rated it:

bookshelves: book-club-pick

Read in March, 2008

I'm not too familiar with this book. I think it has something to do with monsters. Sounds exciting!

So, this book was the first pick in a brand new bookclub (and the first I've ever been part of) I started with some friends.
Here's how it went: only two of us (myself included) finished it whereas all of us found it hard to get through and worse, annoying.
I was really hoping that someone else was having a different experience with the book. Or that through discussion we wo...more I'm not too familiar with this book. I think it has something to do with monsters. Sounds exciting!

So, this book was the first pick in a brand new bookclub (and the first I've ever been part of) I started with some friends.
Here's how it went: only two of us (myself included) finished it whereas all of us found it hard to get through and worse, annoying.
I was really hoping that someone else was having a different experience with the book. Or that through discussion we would realize the merits of the book. But we were befuddled.
One of the complaints levied against the book that we all agreed on was that there wasn't a distinct difference in voice from one character to another. Dr. Frankenstein sounded just like his monster, who sounded just like the Captain, etc. etc.
This similar voice throughout made it easy to get lost in the text--having to go back to see who's speaking and what's going on.
We were also collectively annoyed that after Frankenstein devotes so much time in solitude to "breathing life" into this creature, once the monster finally comes to life we a) don't get an explanation of how it happened, just that it happened. And b) Dr. Frankenstein then (after all that work) just hauls ass. Had he not seen the monster while he was creating him? Did the creature suddenly take on a different, more horrifying form once he came to life?
Furthermore, why not share this discovery with anyone? Why continue to let people suffer due to it's existence without so much as a "Psst. Hey, Clerval, I need to tell you something--and it's big!"?
Then there was the redundancy. So many pages devoted to the monster's stalking of the family in the woods. So many pages devoted to letters to and from home. So. much. of. the. same. thing. over. and over. and over.
And to what end? What is the lesson here? Don't fuck with nature? Is there really nothing more to it than that?
If you happen to be reading this review and have read M. Shelley's Frankenstein and enjoyed it and/or took something positive away from it--please let me know, cos I don't get it.
(less)

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

3 comments

01/28/08

Krystal Castner rated it:

Read in March, 2008

recommended to Krystal by: Mrs. Miska!
recommends it for: anyone??

So I have to say, I enjoyed this book a lot more than I expected I would. The versions they show on television and the actual story are two completely polar opposites. I don't even understand why they changed the story around as much as they did. The original version is much, much better. When I first started reading, my expectations were not very high. I thought that for the most part I knew the story cover to cover, being that I've seen most of the Frankenstein movies. But upon reading t...more So I have to say, I enjoyed this book a lot more than I expected I would. The versions they show on television and the actual story are two completely polar opposites. I don't even understand why they changed the story around as much as they did. The original version is much, much better. When I first started reading, my expectations were not very high. I thought that for the most part I knew the story cover to cover, being that I've seen most of the Frankenstein movies. But upon reading the introductory letters, it was clear that I had nooooo idea what was happening. At first I got the impression that this was going to be a painfully boring story, but it picked up rather quickly, and after chapter one began, I found it a little more than difficult to stop reading. I got in trouble at work more than a couple times, for sitting and reading instead of doing what I ought to be doing. When I had a free minute, I would pull the novel out of my bad, begin reading, and the next thing I knew I would be leaning back in a chair, and someone would come in and tell me to get back to work. I actually ran into one of my middle school Literature teachers at work one day, and when he saw that I was reading Frankenstein, he proceeded to tell me all about how the entire story was written around the same time that Benjamin Franklin had discovered electricity, and that this was Mary Shelley's way of portraying the idea that advancements in the field of technology weren't always a good thing, and oftentimes horrible, awful things could come of it. I thought that was the most interesting thing. And I had no idea that Mary Shelley was married to Percy Blythe Shelley either, until he mentioned it.
But anyway, back to the point. I found this book to be very interesting, and kind of macabre, and disturbing in a way. Just Shelley's methods of describing The Monster's skin, and the way his eyes were so yellow and watery, kind of creeped me out. And I loved the entire idea that this Monster was in essence created by a monster, Viktor Frankenstein. He begins his 'life' as this gentle creature, and then due to his horrid appearance and experiences with the first humans he meets, be becomes bitter and resentful of all humankind. Everyone judges him automatically by his appearance, and not one person gives him a chance to explain himself, save for Robert Walton in the very end. You kind of pity The Monster in the end, simply because he went through every experience in his life completely and utterly alone, and the one time he asks for something, it is denied to him. Although I completely understood Viktor Frankenstein's reasons for denying his Monster a bride, I thought it was kind of selfish in a way. Frankenstein created this Monster due to his own selfish need for knowledge and power over death, and as soon as he prevails, he is automatically sickened by the result and abandons the entire project. But he abandoned his creation, his living, breathing, FEELING creation. Frankenstein should have known what he was getting into before he even began experimenting.
Best I can figure, this is a prime example of an AP book because it's a very deep, meaningful story about the cruelties of humankind, and how often humanity brings so much pain and suffering to those creatures 'underneath it.' It was every genre rolled up into one- kind of a romantic, horrible, vengeful, suspenseful mess, and those AP people seem to eat that stuff up. Frankenstein is one of those books that makes you kind of take a deeper look into yourself, and see what evil lies there, deep down. Like what exactly are you capable of doing to those around you? Scary stuff.(less)

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

1 comment

11/04/07

Joe rated it:

Read in May, 2007

I'm not sure what possessed me to select this book to read to my daughters (ages 9 and 10). I think that they were curious about it around Halloween '06, and I told them a little about what I knew of the story. I explained to them that the Frankenstein is the scientist, not the monster, and that the monster was a pitiable creature--misunderstood and unjustly villified.
I had never read the book, and was thinking only of a movie version I had seen, which portrayed the monster as inn...more I'm not sure what possessed me to select this book to read to my daughters (ages 9 and 10). I think that they were curious about it around Halloween '06, and I told them a little about what I knew of the story. I explained to them that the Frankenstein is the scientist, not the monster, and that the monster was a pitiable creature--misunderstood and unjustly villified.
I had never read the book, and was thinking only of a movie version I had seen, which portrayed the monster as innocent and gentle, but hated and feared because of his ugliness--an unwitting menace, but not really a villian.
I had no idea what we were in for.
At first, the creature is as I had thought--innocent and good, and very pitiable because his fearsome appearance leads all to fear and hate him unjustly. I was shocked to find that the monster is in fact extremely intelligent, and learns to speak and to read, but rather than increase his sensibilities and induce him to understand and to forgive, his awareness awakens a horrific vengeance. Most of the book his his relentless pursuit of his creator, with gruesome and remorseless killings in its wake. (While I read on myself, I had to edit a few parts for my daughters as they were simply too graphic.) Also shocking is the creature's physical strength and agility. He is not the staggering, slow-moving oaf usually portrayed in film.
By the end, any pity I felt for the creature gave way to loathing, until I could think of him as nothing but a horrible, unredeemable monster that should rightly be destroyed.
Dr. Frankenstein is a fool, first for his obsession in creating the creature, in which he nearly works himself to death; and later for his complete inability to match his opponent's wits. How could he be so stupid as to think he could simply run away, leaving his family exposed and unprotected? How could he be so stupid as to think that he could settle down and get married, and that the monster would not be watching and waiting to injure him again? His only thought is to run from his foe, and hope he goes away, with no imagination applied to defeating him.(less)

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

05/16/09

Jane rated it:

(review of isbn 1597371297)

Read in June, 2009

Mary Shelley wrote this novel while on vacation with two poets - Percy Shelley and Lord Byron. Bored and stuck indoors during a week of rainy days, they entertained each other by making up ghost stories. Mary Shelley fleshed hers out into Frankenstein.

The monster in the book is nothing like the monster in the movie.

We’re used to this incredibly hulking zombie with a screw stuck in his neck. Instead what we get here is an educated, emotional human being who relishes P...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

1 comment

11/15/08

Julie rated it:

(review of isbn 0451527712)

Read in April, 2009

recommends it for: everyone

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

I had been told, years ago, that the book is very different from the movie. That statement applies to most book to movie translations. I only remember ever seeing 2 scenes from an old black and white version of Frankenstein: the iconic "It's alive!" scene and the scene where the monster meets and plays with a young girl tossing flowers into the water. Other than that my only other experiences with Frankenstein are with the likes of Mel Brooks, Abbott and Costello and Sting (The Brid...more I had been told, years ago, that the book is very different from the movie. That statement applies to most book to movie translations. I only remember ever seeing 2 scenes from an old black and white version of Frankenstein: the iconic "It's alive!" scene and the scene where the monster meets and plays with a young girl tossing flowers into the water. Other than that my only other experiences with Frankenstein are with the likes of Mel Brooks, Abbott and Costello and Sting (The Bride). Okay, so, I had no preconceptions about the story.

After finishing the book, I still don't know or understand who Walton is other than a willing, impressionable and naive audience for Frankenstein's narrative. It did illustrate to me how unreliable Victor Frankenstein is as a narrator. My first thought after the monster was created and Victor returns to an empty lab after fleeing from his creation is "how did the monster get out without anyone seeing him". (I may have also seen one too many episodes of CSI, but I also though why didn't anyone smell him.) As the narrative continued whenever Victor claimed to have seen the monster I was reminded of Ed Harris's charachter in the movie "A Beautiful Mind". The more I read the more I was certian that the monster was a figment of Victor's imagination. He began to demonstrate a talent for rationalization. In his madness he questions what it would have been like for humans to have no other ambitions other then to satisfy their hunger, thirst and desire (to reproduce). He then meets up with his "wretched" creation who proceeds to demonstrate, by recounting his life over the past months, what would happen if one had no other wants then thirst, hunger and desire. That made it clear to me that Victor was a clear and quite good example of a person with Dissociative Personality Disorder. Every incendent after that point further reinforced my observation. Even Walton's claim to have spoke to the monster at the end of the book can be explained as a dream or the beginings of his decent into maddness after having been ice bound for months, failing in his endevours and listening to Victor's story.

Instead of a horror story that the monster movies of hollywood have made "Frankenstein" out to be I have found it to be an vivid demonstration of severe mental illness. How Mary Shelly was able to do this at such a young age is very impressive.(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

10/29/08

Tim rated it:

bookshelves: finished-entertainment, finished-lit

Just finished reading Frankenstein today. I found it not only captivating and entertaining, but also a relevant reminder of the dangers of scientific advance. I’ve been thinking lately about how prone we are to worship the creatED rather than the creatOR. Scientific advance perfectly illustrates this very point - more people today worship science and its advances rather than the creator of that very system called science.

In Frankenstein, Victor becomes so obsessed with bringing a c...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

01/25/09

Sam rated it:

Read in December, 2008

Trailer: "I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs" "...but now that I had finished, the beauty of dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart." Victor Frankenstein, the scientist, tries to make a creature, but a creature turns out to be a hideous-looking monster. He runs away, but he never knows what this monster will bring to his family.

My thought: Great book. There are som...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

10/14/07

Yvette rated it:

(review of isbn 8440619537)

bookshelves: lit

Read in March, 1992

I read this book in high school and really enjoyed it. This book was deeper than a mad scientist trying to recreate life. This book is about emotions and consequences. Amazingly enough I was touched by this monster. I was so affected by his need for companionship and love. I remembering being so touched by his loneliness that I wept. I was angered that Frankenstein shuns his creation. Reminded me of the many people who are shunned by others just because they are different. We all need lo...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

08/15/08

John rated it:

(review of isbn 1417822457)

Read in August, 2008

I think Frankenstein was a bit of a crybaby. But I had some sympathy for Frankenstein's monster.
The edition I read includes an essay by Mary Shelley on "How I, then a young girl, came to think of, and to dilate upon, so very hideous an idea?"
I won't go much into her account -- it stemmed from a friendly competition among an elite circle of writers -- except to say that her goal was to tell a story that would "make the reader dread to look round, to curdle the blood, an...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

5 comments

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 3230 3231 next »

polls

Semi-Final Poll for July's Sci-Fi Theme: Literary Sci-Fi. The top four nominees will make up the final poll to decide next month's book.

**This poll will run for 5 days**

Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro

7 votes, 4.1%

The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin

32 votes, 18.8%

The Yiddish Policemen's Union by Michael Chabon

23 votes, 13.5%

Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood

10 votes, 5.9%

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

13 votes, 7.6%

Engine Summer by John Crowley

3 votes, 1.8%