The Frankenstein Papers

by Fred Saberhagen

Frankenstein's monster shares his own account of what happened after he was reanimated by an eighteenth-century experiment

Genres: Horror, Science Fiction, Fantasy, Fiction, Speculative Fiction, Victor Frankenstein

316 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1986

About the author

Fred Saberhagen was an American science fiction and fantasy author most famous for his ''Beserker'' and Dracula stories.

Saberhagen also wrote a series of a series of post-apocalyptic mytho-magical novels beginning with his popular ''Empire of the East'' and continuing through a long series of ''Swords'' and ''Lost Swords'' novels. Saberhagen died of cancer, in Albuquerque, New Mexico

Saberhagen was born in and grew up in the area of Chicago, Illinois. Saberhagen served in the [[U.S. Air Force]] during the Korean War while he was in his early twenties. Back in civilian life, Saberhagen worked as an It was while he was working for Motorola (after his military service) that Saberhagen started writing fiction seriously at the age of about 30. "Fortress Ship", his first "Berserker" short shory, was published in 1963. Then, in 1964, Saberhagen saw the publication of his first novel, ''The Golden People''.

From 1967 to 1973, he worked as an editor for the Chemistry articles in the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' as well as writing its article on science fiction. He then quit and took up writing full-time. In 1975, he moved to Albuquerque, New Mexico.

He married fellow writer Joan Spicci in 1968. They had two sons and a daughter.

Reviews

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

The original "Frankenstein" book by Mary Shelley has long been among my favorite books. And I was not disappointed by Fred Saberhagen's take on the story. The story is supposed to be based on manuscripts from the late 18th Century, most of it being journal entries by The Monster. So we get the Frankenstein story from The Monster's viewpoint. It's a fun adventure story that was a fast page-turner-- and I even liked the ending, which I note that a lot of reviewers did not care for at all.
One reason I enjoyed the story is that it is by Fred Saberhagen. I have tried to read all of the work of his that I could get my hands on. Saberhagen was born in 1930 in Chicago, IL, and died in 2007 in Albuquerque, NM. He was perhaps best known for his "Berserker" series but I prefer his Dracula series. I have to admit that I never got into his Books of Swords fantasy series. But I have certainly enjoyed some of his non-series books, such as "The Mask of the Sun," and this one, "The Frankenstein Papers," published in 1986.

[Jeff Steward · Rating 2 out of 5]

Fred Saberhagan's The Frankenstein Papers, is a unique take on the original story. The journal style telling of the story is easy to enjoy and I did find my self getting caught up in the action from time to time. The ending however, I found anti-climatic. Without giving a spoiler, let it suffice to say it played on a simple speculation of fantastic proportions with an ironic twist. OK - from this point there are spoilers. The short comings of the book are chiefly three. First, there is no philosophical probings of the meaning of man (or life) that the story of the creature has stirred in debate for years. There is consideration of the creature's loneliness and procreation, but the creature himself never seems to question a bigger picture. It does touch on the politics of the time and thereby opens the door for discussing the issues of slavery and democracy, but Saberhagen never goes through the door. Secondly, the villains of the story are not brought to any form of justice even though one of the threads of the story is the creatures vow to do as much. As a reader I was looking forward to at least seeing the villains at imprisoned. Finally, The ending itself is like a hard stop. Everything is wrapped up in about two pages, with at least myself as the reader saying, "okay, no what". There is very little to in the way of reconciliation of what the creature discovers in the final pages to the rest of his experience in the book or his plans for the future. Saberhagan (borrowing from Shelly) creates a character that readers come to care about, but leaves us in a lurch as far as how the dramatic shift affects the character or what are the freshly discovered aspects of his personality. The story was enjoyable enough however for me to keep an eye out for other Saberhagen works (some which are present on the web (www.berserker.com). I seem to recall having read some in the late 70s or early 80s.

[Gary Fortuin · Rating 1 out of 5]

For 300 pages Saberhagen tells us the story of the monster via a journal, written by the monster himself, as well as letters written by Ben Franklins son ( yes you read that right) to his father about the creature. It is a tale of daring escapes and perilous journeys. The last 8 pages of the book tell an entirely different story about an alien observer who has been wandering the earth with amnesia due to an unfortunate lightning strike in one Doctor Frankensteins laboratory. Possibly the worst ending of any sci fi book I have ever read, and I’ve read almost every Stephen King novel. Unless you insist on reading everything an author writes, give this book a hard pass if you are tempted to read it.

[S.j. Thompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

What began as an interesting take on the Frankenstein story spiraled into a long winded and unexpected conclusion. The story is told in a series of journal entries and letters by various players in the story. The first half to two thirds of the story strung me along, eagerly hoping for some exciting turn of events for the monster but the author just kept yammering on and on until the truth was revealed within the last few pages. Several parts of the story had such potential but as a whole the efforts amounted to a lackluster tale.

[Megan · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting take on Frankenstein from the monster's point of view. I was a bit confused by the story since it didn't seem to follow the book as I remembered it. This was explained later on and how it worked out with the story. The only other thing that I had issues with was the end, it didn't really seem to fit the whole book and felt very rushed. Reading the other reviews, it looks like I'm not the only one who felt the ending grated with the rest of the story. Like those other reviewers, it felt like the author didn't know how to end the book and just very quickly came up with something and just went with it. The ending also didn't resolve anything other than the monster and who he was. Monster and Franklin escape from Saville and the rest to France and the villians just never catch them and no one gets any justice, except for Small. Saville and the ship captain just get away with everything and leave Franklin and the Monster alone after that? I feel like a little bit more closure with out bad guys would have been a nice way to wrap up that particular story
The rest of the book however, was pretty good and well written. I enjoyed this different take on the story and felt that it was more exciting than the original book. Overall 3 out of 5 stars.

[hypo.critical · Rating 1 out of 5]

The whole book was ????? if one wants to write a new take on old book, at least make a fresh, interesting take on it. No one wants to read how the Mary Shelley’s book is "wrong" and that this adaptation is THE one that tells THE TRUE STORY™️

Also the ending??? I have no words, none, 0 out of 5 stars.

[Joe · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fred...

[Derek Jordan · Rating 3 out of 5]

UHH.. yeah.. Written similar to Mary Shelly's Frankenstein .. in "found" letters written by the unnamed creation of Victor Frankenstein and others.. one primarily being the son of Benjamin Franklin and their interaction with the creation. I found the story picks up decently well around 1/3 into it and I was certainly pulled into the mystery of the tale told from this perspective. I was not really expecting the ending as it was, but also .. it's not a blow you out of the water kind of thing - especially not now-a-days.. Maybe when it was first written, but now I'm curious .. did this become a series? ... just checked and no.. which is a good thing as I can't see wanting much more of this tale.

[Roger · Rating 1 out of 5]

I never envisioned giving a Fred Saberhagen book a one star review in my lifetime. Then I stumbled upon The Frankenstein Papers. I'm going to make this simple, Constant Reader: Don't read this. Saberhagen writes this novel (a direct sequel to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein) mostly from the Monster's point of view. It is certainly a different tale and it is fascinating-we get tantalizing hints that the monster's origin is not as it was presented. Then in the last eight pages we experience the big reveal-I feel so terribly cheated. It's dreadful, absolutely dreadful. Avoid at all costs.

[Lori · Rating 3 out of 5]

Since this is formatted as journal entries and letters, it's easy to read in small bits of time. Saberhagen managed to capture the flavor of the English of the day (1780's) without getting carried away or making it cumbersome to read.
He includes historical details and figures from the time period as part of the story, which I enjoyed.
I found the twist at the end a nice surprise, though Saberhagen could have added more detail to the final chapters to flesh out the concept.

[Norman Howe · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book disappointed me. I was expecting something on the lines of "The Dracula Tape"; instead I find a story which abrogates the central premise of Mary Shelley's book: the creation of an intelligent being by Victor Frankenstein. Saberhagen makes no attempt to analyse the moral and ethical implciations of the act. This is merely an adventure"," piggybacking on a famous story. If not for the original "Frankenstein""," this book may never have been published.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would have given it five stars, because I enjoyed it up until the very end. It's like Fred couldn't figure out how to end it and came up with the lame solution. It made me want to throw the book across the room. So would say the first 97% was a worthy sequel. And it's not dependent on having read the original book.

[Little Timmy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent retelling of the Frankenstein story. Told from the monster's viewpoint, which I have always thought the best. Very recommended

[Paxton Holley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sequel to Shelley's Frankenstein. It's well written in similar language to Shelley's book. The end is odd, though. Very odd.

[Mark Muckerman · Rating 2 out of 5]

Kind of a tough read - the narrative style flips across time periods (necessary for the plot), but sometimes hard to follow on paper.

Overall okay, but not a great read. Then there's the final page plot twist - either a MacGuffin of all MacGuffins, or a WTF moment. Leading up to it I had 8 or 9 different twist ideas rolling around in my head, and this was NOT one of them. Not #10. Not #110. So far out there it was a definite WTF ending for me.

(In hindsight, I'm more like - yeah, maybe I should have seen that coming, but still.... WTF dude?)

[Shaun Rylands · Rating 1 out of 5]

Finished reading The Frankenstein Papers by Fred Saberhagen, an interesting take on the Mary Shelley novel. I enjoyed the conceit that Walton is the author of The Modern Prometheus, a novel which is then read by the creature. "I must continue to believe, my friend, that we are both sons of the same God.” “Ah. But you see, Father, my creator was not God. If I owe prayer, it is to someone else.”

[Edie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I reeeeally enjoyed this one!
The writing style is not my favorite, but I loved getting the Creature’s perspective.
And the twist at the end?’!?!? *chefs kiss!*
The writing was too slow and felt too close to a classic for my taste, but I enjoyed the story so much that I was willing to overlook it.

[Mandi Hidalgo · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm not going to spoil anything, but I thoroughly enjoyed this book. The ending was wildly unexpected, but not unpleasantly so. I am happy to have this tale in my collection!

[Frankenoise · Rating 3 out of 5]

Definitely interesting but pretty boring. A book I oddly want to keep in my collection but will probably never read again.

[Kevin Findley · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting read, but the Dracula Tapes are better.

Saberhagen points out a couple of, shall we say, 'plot holes ten feet wide and 20 feet deep'. This is in addition to his own updating of the legend and what are possibly better representations of several of the main characters. I am certainly not saying that Shelley's novel is not a classic, it is, but as medical science quickly progressed from the time of publication, it became increasingly obvious that Frankenstein could not have succeeded.

The author provided a good twist to justify how everything played out while still staying close to the feel of the original novel. Another writer who has done good service to the legend of Frankenstein is Larry Correia in how he brings his character of Franks to life in his 'Monster Hunter' series. But I digress!

Fans of the Frankenstein Monster, Mary Shelly, Fred Saberhagen, and just good books in general should enjoy a pleasant afternoon and evening of reading. I certainly did.

Find it! Buy it! READ IT!

[Arkrayder · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a really good take on the Frankenstein Monster right up until the last few pages when it just went bizarre. I was intrigued by the thought of having the monsters side of the story told in his own words and while that was the case the ending just came out of nowhere and really let the rest of the story down. It was cheesy and felt like Saberhagen had no clue as to how to end the story. Great idea. Crappy conclusion.

[Ronald · Rating 4 out of 5]

read some time in 1988

[Redsteve · Rating 2 out of 5]

Much less well done than The Dracula Tapes. But, nonetheless, an interesting conceit.