"Frankenstein" Final Thoughts *Spoilers*

[Kim]

How did you find it? Was this your first time? Do you think it holds up after 200 years?

[Coralie]

This was a reread for me. What struck me this time was that although Frankenstein set out to create something beautiful, when the creation opened his eyes he became(?) hideous based on his eye colour. Based purely on his looks, Frankenstein later immediately became completely convinced that he was the murderer!

[Stacie]

*Warning will contain spoilers*

I had already read the book when I was a senior in high school and in a class in a special English class that was about Sci Fi in Literature, but I love the beginning of this book when Shelly had Frankenstein in a fervor creating the Creature with body parts of the dead and bring him to life, but then later on I got bored with his incessant whining of how he should have not created the Creature and then refused to take responsibility for his actions after he had reanimated the Creature. To me its like abandoning a child after raising and nurturing he/she and then saying I wish I had never have had you in the first place and then said child decides to go on a murdering spree throughout Europe just to get attention from the neglectful parent. Frankenstein need to man up which he did and then died in the end after he told his story to the captain of the boat while he was looking for the Creature all over the world and then just disappears
-_-

Yes, some of the issues brought up in the book still exist today like Man vs. Man, Man Vs. Creator, Man vs. Tech all these things still pertain to our society still in one way or another today. Just in a different form like human stem cells, cloning how we interact with our children and how we perceive our relationship science and religion.

[Kim]

That's how I felt too. I really didn't like Frankenstein (the character or the book). I was really disappointed after hearing how good it was for such a long time.

[Esther]

I see Frankenstein as an extreme analogy for bad parenting.
Dr F creates this being but then realising what he has done abandons his creation without any thought for the creatures's welfare or well being and then he is surprised when things go wrong.
On the other hand the 'monster' has a choice like any abused child to overcome and make a better world for himself or to enter the world of hatred and revenge.
Unfortunately the monster chooses the latter path.
As in real life it is others, innocents, who pay for these mistakes.

[CBRetriever]

This book was not at all what I expected when I started it (too many Frankenstein movies, I guess). (view spoiler)[I was totally unprepared for Dr Frankenstein's immediate antipathy towards his creation. (hide spoiler)]

The over the top, extremely emotional writing style took a bit of getting used to as well.

[Cheryl]

What you said, in your spoiler. I should reread this at some point.

Esther, that's an interesting interpretation. I like it a lot.

[Elizabeth]

I read this along with my daughter for a school assignment. I actually felt bad for the monster. That really surprised me. You don’t feel that way in the movies.

[Sarah, The Unsettled]

I should have done this awhile ago (sorry!) but is anyone still up for reading Frankenstein? I know a lot of you said this was a re-read. Should we mark spoilers or no? I’m okay with just discussing because it’s such a classic but if anyone objects let me know.

[Raucous]

Yes - I was planning to participate. I started this for another group and didn't get very far. The tone wasn't really working for me then. It's one of those classics that I tell myself that I should read though so it's stayed in my TBR pile and I'm using this buddy read as motivation to pick it up again. I don't have a strong preference on spoilers despite not having read it before. It's part of the culture at this point - even if the book itself might not match the cultural view.

[Sarah, The Unsettled]

I have a feeling I’ll need the buddy read motivation too. I do really want to get through it though- feel like I should have read it at this point in my life already.

Let’s proceed with not marking spoilers unless anyone has strong objections. I use the app mostly so it’s a minor annoyance to have to switch to my browser to read them (but one I’m perfectly willing to put up with if necessary).

[Gabi]

It's a re-read for me, so I don't need spoilers either.

[Bruce]

I agree, Elizabeth. As someone who’s disabled and has been ostracized most of my life, I relate to the creature. It’s one of my top 5 or 10 books at least in part for that reason. It shows the effect external factors have on how someone behaves, i.e. nurture as opposed to nature.

[Mindy]

I've actually never read the book. Totally interested.

[Raucous]

I'd mentioned above that Frankenstein feels so much like part of the culture that it would be hard for me to imagine spoilers. I'm far enough along (just past the creation point) that I'm seeing that my expectations, largely based on all of the movies inspired by the book, don't line up very well with the actual story. I'm not seeing the lightning-based spark of life that seems to be in every movie. Or the hunchbacked assistant. The mob with flaming torches. I'm especially not seeing the happily ever after. I'm having a bad feeling about this...

These ideas must be from stills and video clips. Now that I think about it I've never seen a Frankenstein movie - at least not unless you include midnight showings of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. "Takes liberties with" is probably a weak phrase for that one.

[CBRetriever]

There was a good version with Kenneth Branagh and Robert De Niro and it's considered by many to be the most faithful adaptation

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

I'm with all of you, the book wasn't at all what I anticipated based on pop culture, and for that I really really liked it. I was expecting weird science and man against society stuff.

The horror of it all, and the reflections on the results of hubris and abuse are pretty stunning to me.

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

CBRetriever wrote: "There was a good version with Kenneth Branagh and Robert De Niro and it's considered by many to be the most faithful adaptation"


It definitely is. De Niro's monster is sympathetic and sad, much as he is in the book. It also has a lot of scenes from the book which aren't included in any of the other movies.

[Phillip]

CBRetriever wrote: "There was a good version with Kenneth Branagh and Robert De Niro and it's considered by many to be the most faithful adaptation"

I agree.

[Rosie]

I love this book a lot. I remember watching the Kenneth Branagh version in school before reading it. I wish there was a DVD or stream available for the Danny Boyle directed version that was on at the National Theatre some years ago.

I thought that was the most honest and close adaptation of the book I've ever seen. The book is definitely quite different to most film versions, in tone and content.

Agree that DeNiro was great as the Creature too.

[Sarah, The Unsettled]

Well I'm a few days late starting this- and I'm not terribly far in (technically I'm just getting to chapter one having read all the letters) but I am pleasantly surprised at the writing. I expected this to be a struggle and it's not at all.

To take it one step further, I love the writing and think it's beautifully done. I'm reading two other books right now and only 25 pages in to this one I'm half expecting Frankenstein to take precedence.

[Chris]

Did anyone else think that the book had a ton of filler, such as frequent and long descriptions of landscape and weather?

I loved the GR review by Anne. I think that even people who disagree with her rating will laugh.

[Rosie]

Sarah wrote: "Well I'm a few days late starting this- and I'm not terribly far in (technically I'm just getting to chapter one having read all the letters) but I am pleasantly surprised at the writing. I expecte..."

I love the writing style too. Not as heavy or intimidating as it can sound like it might be, if that makes sense. Storytelling, instead of heavy science talk.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Chris, I was actually astounded at how little filler it had! I was expecting tedium, like I experienced with Jules Verne or Jonathan Swift, but was really pleasantly surprised about how eerie a lot of the prose was (I was actually spooked during the cave scene, for example) and how the rest of it was Mary being super goth and petty AF about her husband.

lol @ Anne's post. I think for me this benefited from proximity to a truly heinous experience finishing The Iliad, but I did find it to be genuinely a fascinating look at the beginnings of horror and way more taut than I was expecting for the time it was written.

[Sarah, The Unsettled]

I'm not at all that far in yet but I don't feel like I've encountered that much filler either.

Anne's review is pretty funny. I haven't felt like the portrayal of men has been all that different from other classics I've read... but then I don't read that many classics.

[Cheryl]

I still remember, from a description of a storm here, learning in high school that "terrific" can also mean something more negative than awesome, and telling myself "of course, think about 'terrifying.'"

Iow, I like the descriptions.

Now I just wish that I could remember why I was reading it back then. For a class? Would that have been possible?

[Gabi]

Allison wrote: "Chris, I was actually astounded at how little filler it had! I was expecting tedium, like I experienced with Jules Verne or Jonathan Swift, but was really pleasantly surprised about how eerie a lot..."

okay … I finally have to ask … (don't laugh). What does this "AF" mean? I so often encounter this in all kind of posts and I can't think what this could stand for.

[Sarah, The Unsettled]

Gabi wrote: "Allison wrote: "Chris, I was actually astounded at how little filler it had! I was expecting tedium, like I experienced with Jules Verne or Jonathan Swift, but was really pleasantly surprised about..."

LOL (view spoiler)[as fuck (hide spoiler)] (I'm only laughing because of what the answer is not at you- I need help with internet abbreviations all the time)

[Kaa]

I have to admit that I am struggling a little with the writing style, but actually the biggest hurdle so far has been my constant desire to laugh at the narrators. I just finished a retelling of The Prisoner of Zenda that was premised on the idea that the narrator of the original was just trying to make himself look good. I don't know whether it is due to that experience or just the style of narration, but I am feeling skeptical of every positive thing Victor says about himself and even sometimes the rest of his family. Which can be entertaining, but is sometimes a distraction from the story as written.

[CBRetriever]

I found the over emotional speech patterns, which were typical of books of that era a bit distracting. However, as I'm now reading Les Misérables, Frankenstein definitely doesn't have as much filler

[Sarah, The Unsettled]

CBRetriever wrote: "I found the over emotional speech patterns, which were typical of books of that era a bit distracting. However, as I'm now reading Les Misérables, Frankenstein definitely doesn't have ..."

If I could have a book as an arch nemesis, Les Misérables would be it. Only book I never finished in school. I've been thinking about trying again now that I'm older... your comment isn't helping much though. lol

[Sarah, The Unsettled]

Kaa wrote: "I have to admit that I am struggling a little with the writing style, but actually the biggest hurdle so far has been my constant desire to laugh at the narrators. I just finished a retelling of Th..."

It might just be me- but I get the feeling we are supposed to be skeptical of him?

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Yeah! You're not supposed to like Victor! She's based him on Percy Shelley, her husband, whom she loathed. College drop out running away from every problem he makes? Ironic name? This is what I mean--petty as Scheisse.

[Gabi]

Sarah wrote: "LOL (view spoiler) (I'm only laughing because of what the answer is not at you- I need help with internet abbreviations all the time) ."

Thank you so much Sarah. ^^'

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Sorry, Gabi! I've updated it in my next post to be more culturally aware ;-) Definitely not laughing at you, internet speech is basically its own language. Memes often go right by my head.

[Kaa]

Thanks, Sarah and Allison! That makes me feel better to know that I wasn't just reading into the text because dudes like that annoy me. I guess I should do some more research on Mary Shelley (and her mom!) to be able to appreciate the petty even more.

[Sarah, The Unsettled]

I am curious about R. Walton and to see how he is portrayed farther into the book. Right off the bat he felt like a stand in for Mary Shelley herself, how he talks about being self educated and having his education neglected even though he sounds like he came from a well enough off family.

Now they’re on a voyage together.. presumably becoming friends... yeah. Definitely interested to see how this ends!

[Bruce]

The Walton storyline is one of the better parts of the book, and is meant to emphasize the overall lessons of the book from Victor’s story.

The Branagh version is the only major theatrical film to have the Walton scenes. I also saw two tv films with him, the 1993 version with Patrick Bergin (as Victor) and Randy Quaid (as the creature), and the 2004 miniseries (I don’t remember who the two leads were in that one). Donald Sutherland played Walton in the 2004 version, although I thought he was much too old. He’s described as somewhat young in the book, closer to Aidan Quinn in the Branagh version. I don’t remember who played him in the 1993 version. He was also much older as I remember him.

I did really enjoy some of the earlier Frankenstein films aesthetically, some more so than the Branagh version, some less, but I agree, they’re very different from the novel. I also don’t really care for Branagh as an actor in most films, and don’t like how he egotistically casts himself in parts that other actors would be better at. Really, I thought De Niro was the best actor in that version. He was able to evoke all the right characteristics of the creature at all the right times. The film was overall good though.

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

I have to say this is the first time I've read the suggestion that Mary detested Percy. Granted, their relationship was not without its turmoils but, by all accounts I've read, they were devoted to each other within the context of their open relationship, and she devoted a lot of time after Percy's death to editing his poems and getting them published so they would not be lost to time.

That said, Victor is definitely not meant to be some typical hero that we agree with. He obviously does things wrong. I've always thought that the book is something of a morality tale against science attempting to play God, and Victor's hubris is the cause of everything that befalls him.

I was reading yesterday about how the different perspectives is precisely because of the fact that it's meant to be left ambiguous and up to the reader's interpretations as to what is true and what is just.

[Bruce]

I don’t know much about what she have may personally thought about him, as back then all that’s on record would be their writings and letters, but he wasn’t a college dropout. He was expelled for writing a pamphlet on Atheism. He was brought before the board, and refused to deny that he wrote it. I don’t see what problems he ran away from. He was a very diligent and hard working writer. The one thing he did that was harsh was leaving his first wife to be with Mary, and she died shortly after.

[Sarah, The Unsettled]

I just finished part two. I have a feeling that will be my favorite part of the book. I loved everything right up until he killed William. I do love how much Shelley has given us to think about.

For those of you that are currently reading, recently read, or remember, which text did you read? I have the original 1818 text I guess but I heard she revised it later in 1831?

[Raucous]

I have "the uncensored 1818 edition" - which raises a second question.

Romantic Circles lists 281 "major editions, reprints, and translations through 1996," although they admit that this list is incomplete. Most are based on the revised 1831 edition.

[Sarah, The Unsettled]

I read in another review in 1831 she added more to the book, but specifically developed her characters a bit more.

[CBRetriever]

I have the Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus published in 1818 version from Project Gutenberg

[Phillip]

CBRetriever wrote: "I have the Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus published in 1818 version from Project Gutenberg"

I read the same version, but the story wasn't exciting enough to make me want to read the revised versions.

[CBRetriever]

me either - I'm finding Les Misérables far ore interesting (except for the long break in the first third of the book to go into complete details on the Battle of Waterloo)

[Sarah, The Unsettled]

I cringe whenever I hear Les Miserables. I think it was the first book I actively chose to DNF rather than picking something else up and letting it drift away. I read it in high school and when we were done they took us to see the play. I fell asleep during the play (and I am really not that person who falls asleep during stuff, if for no other reason than how rude it is).

Good for you if you make it through the whole thing.

[Sarah, The Unsettled]

So I finished tonight and I agree with others that it isn’t the most exciting novel.

But I found other reasons to enjoy it. I thought the writing was great- some of the imagery was really beautiful. The creature talking about the song birds in the forest when spring comes, or later Frankenstein describing how his ice float broke away. It did a good job of really putting me in the moment.

I also loved that there are so many ways to interpret this! I think there’s a lot of questioning about the nature of man and his relationship to God. I think those parts are even more interesting when considered alongside her own husband’s allegedly atheist poetry.

Curious to hear how others have interpreted it.

[CBRetriever]

Sarah wrote: "I cringe whenever I hear Les Miserables. I think it was the first book I actively chose to DNF rather than picking something else up and letting it drift away. I read it in high school and when we ..."

it gets more interesting once you make it past the initial set up - Hugo spent a lot of time on the early life of the priest who, while important to the story, only had a feeeting appearance in it.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Yes, it's not the most riveting of books (and I did find some of the word use tedious--it made me appreciate how limited our adverbs are in modern books) but I thought it was also very interesting in terms of what it did for writing and the subject matter.

I agree, I think there's a lot about God here, and about society. As a feminist work, I think it's pretty scathing, and as an introduction to horror I think it's brilliant. She took the gothic and made it science and supernatural at the same time, while criticizing everyone who gets to turn away from the life and world they create. I think that's what sticks out for me most, is the contempt for the societal order of the time.