Those who enjoyed Frankenstein...

[Natalie]

I would really like to hear what others thought of this book. I read the 1831 edition, which I believe was revised somewhat and perhaps is a bit more conservative than the original.. (but as I have not read the original I can't comment. If anyone has read both I would love to hear what you thought the main differences were) ... but I did not find the book to be that great. Parts that I think would have been more interesting to dwell on where swept over in a few lines, while chapters were dedicated to Frankenstein's constant thought change in relation to what was going on around him - which I tired of hearing, it seemed to me, only about. This resulted in me reading on in the hope of finding 'something' more, which I didn't. I imagine the near 200 years that have passed has lessened what horror the original readers may have gained from the story, or perhaps the terror was always Victor's, at the consequences of his actions. While I would not rate the book highly, I would be very interested to hear from people who found more from the book or reasons they enjoyed it.

[Dramapuppy]

I read the original version and enjoyed it a lot. Maybe that's because I was more interested in the psychological horror aspect you seemed bored by. I liked the monster's chapters more, because it really showed that he WASN'T the thing to be feared. So, you're right. Victor was the scary one. And that's frightening in and of itself- he was a normal person. And look how much he messed up his life. Any one of us could do that. The monster was just a tangible representation of Victor's mistakes.

[Dramapuppy]

krystal, that's actually a good point. While the book made me feel emotions, I wouldn't say I was emotionally invested in the characters. I actually like books where I can view the plot objectively, occasionally placing blame on characters I like. The Three for example, is generally hated because it's written in an emotionless non fiction form. I loved it, though. That's probably why I enjoyed Frankenstein more as well.

[Natalie]

Thank you for your insights. I think you've expressed what I was feeling as well Krystal - I didn't engage with the story on an emotional level.

[Jacque]

Natalie wrote: "I would really like to hear what others thought of this book. I read the 1831 edition, which I believe was revised somewhat and perhaps is a bit more conservative than the original.. (but as I have..."

I adore this book for two reasons. 1. the psychological aspect behind the 'mad genius' and the 'abandoned' child figure. Also the psychology of Victor's madness that eventually leads to his breakdown in the north. Also the psychology of the monster, knowing he is an abomination simply by his creator's reactions and the townspeoples reactions, but he doesn't understand what makes him so horrifying. Then after this victimized way of thinking he gets angry and wonders well, if I'm such a horrible entity then why was I created in the first place?! This anger then transforms to, okay, they want a monster I will show them a monster. These transformations are so human and I see so many people go through these (myself included incidentally). 2. The religious undertones that so many people in our generation have missed. I actually have written an essay on the subject arguing that Shelley either consciously intended or subconsciously included religious themes to draw parallels between the relationship Victor has with his monster and the relationship God has with his humans. I'm still not finished with my essay just because I had to cut it short to make deadline for my class, but I will probably reread Frankenstein for the 15th time and write my essay as I do that.
The biggest difference between the 1818 version and the 1831 version, is in 1818, Shelley printed what she wanted, wrote her novel and published it as it was with all of the religious undertones in tact. Then, while some reviewers loved this kind of forward thinking, other's more conservative got really really upset. So when Percy Shelley died, Mary Shelley needed a way to support her son because though her other novels were good they weren't nearly as successful as Frankenstein. So she rewrote Frankenstein, mostly the ending, to appease the religious people making Frankenstein repent for his ever creating a monster and he comes to terms with God. In the rewrite he fully acknowledges that the creation of his monster was wrong and repents.

[Natalie]

Thank you for such a detailed response. While I didn't necessarily adore the book, its premise and the discussions it creates I think warrants another re-read from me at some point. I will certainly give the 1818 edition a go.
I had some expectations from the book which weren't met (not based on too much I'll admit), which did add to my feeling of dissatisfaction with it, so I'll be interested to go back to it at some stage in the future and see if it grows on me with further reading.

[Jacque]

Natalie wrote: "Thank you for such a detailed response. While I didn't necessarily adore the book, its premise and the discussions it creates I think warrants another re-read from me at some point. I will certainl..."

If you are expecting Igor or for the townspeople to chase him and hate him then love him or for the monster to be anything less than an eloquently speaking superhuman then you will likely be quite disappointed. I will always love the novel much better than any Frankenstein movie or spinoff not only because it's the original of course, but also because it has all of that symbolism and allegory that I love sooo much!

[Dramapuppy]

Jacque wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Thank you for such a detailed response. While I didn't necessarily adore the book, its premise and the discussions it creates I think warrants another re-read from me at some point...."

Agreed. People see a popular novel with a monster and see the opportunity for a traditional horror movie, but that's not what it is.

[Richard]

Much as 20000 leagues would have been a great book but for the lists of fish every other page, so would Frankenstein but for the descriptions of the landscape.

The interesting parts where the characters actually interacted were too few and far between.

If it had been down to me, half the book would have been left on the cutting room floor.

[Jacque]

Richard wrote: "Much as 20000 leagues would have been a great book but for the lists of fish every other page, so would Frankenstein but for the descriptions of the landscape.

The interesting parts where the char..."

I think that is the sad thing about today's society. We are so cut and dry, to the point, and want to get through things as fast as possible, even an activity that is supposed to relax and stimulate the mind. I love reading literature from the Romantic and Victorian eras because they really take so much time to observe what is going on around the characters, and really take the time to let us dwell on the profundity of the symbolism and the parallels that naturally occur in the nature around us that usually escapes our notice. Right now, I'm feeling this with Thomas Hardy's Far From the Madding Crowd. I've heard so many great things and it's a movie in theaters now which is why I'm reading it and it's kind of tough to get through right now because it is so dense. I just wish I had the attention span of the Victorian woman, I bet I could power through that book like nobody's business.

[Dramapuppy]

Jacque wrote: "Richard wrote: "Much as 20000 leagues would have been a great book but for the lists of fish every other page, so would Frankenstein but for the descriptions of the landscape.

The interesting part..."

I've gotta agree with Richard here. I liked Frankenstein, but the description annoyed me as well. Yes, reading a book should be a thought-provoking and immersive experience. But I want to be immersed in a brilliant plot. I want to think about moral dilemmas. I don't really care about the surroundings; that's not as important as the subject matter. You don't have to be cut and dry to avoid boring description. Just describe relevant info. We don't care about bushes. We care about more insights into the monster's mind.

[Jacque]

Dramapuppy wrote: "Jacque wrote: "Richard wrote: "Much as 20000 leagues would have been a great book but for the lists of fish every other page, so would Frankenstein but for the descriptions of the landscape.

The i..."

It's funny though because everyone always gets so caught up in the descriptions and I honestly don't remember being THAT much description! If we're talking ridiculous amount of setting description I'd say Steinbeck is 50,000,000x worse! The Pearl made me want to jump off a cliff. But anyway, I just think it's amusing that everyone gets so hung up on it and I don't even notice. Is there anyone else?

[Dramapuppy]

Jacque wrote: "Dramapuppy wrote: "Jacque wrote: "Richard wrote: "Much as 20000 leagues would have been a great book but for the lists of fish every other page, so would Frankenstein but for the descriptions of th..."

Usually, I notice and despise setting description. I didn't catch too much of it in Frankenstein though. Maybe because the book overall was comparatively short.

[Duane]

[yves.]

I think I was very forgiving to this book when I read it because it was written when Shelley was eighteen, and that's going to affect its quality. Even the edited version (which I read) still reflects some of the original issues... by which, naturally, I mean the beautiful and mildly unnecessary descriptions of the landscape on every other page.

That said, I adored the monster. I am a very big monster lover, so that's important to take into account, but I was very, very happy with the monster and its role in this book. I also liked Frankenstein's sort of moral greyness, and the general air of depression that settles over the book as you read on... I won't say anything deep about the human condition; I just liked the monster man.