Stephen's Reviews > Frankenstein
Frankenstein
by
by
Stephen's review
bookshelves: classics, ebooks, easton-press, audiobook, horror-classic, 1800s, mad-scientists, classics-european, monsters, gothic, 6-star-books, all-time-favorites
Feb 16, 2009
bookshelves: classics, ebooks, easton-press, audiobook, horror-classic, 1800s, mad-scientists, classics-european, monsters, gothic, 6-star-books, all-time-favorites
My apologies, but this review is going to be a bit frantic due to my brain being so oxygen-starved by the novel’s breath-stealing gorgeousness that I'm feeling a bit light-headed. So please forgive the random thoughts.
First: Mary Shelley…I love you!!
Second: Dear Hollywood - you lying dung pile of literature-savaging, no talent hacks…you got this all wrong. Please learn to read and get yourself a copy of the source material before you FUBAR it again.
Third: My heart shattered for the “monster” and I haven’t felt this strong a desire to “hug it out, bitch” since reading Grendel and Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter. The “wretch” is so well drawn and powerfully portrayed that he form the emotional ligament for the entire story. He is among the finest creations the written form has to offer.
Fourth: As surprised as I am to be saying this, this novel has ousted Dracula as my all time favorite of the classic horror stories…sorry Bram, but the good/evil, sad, desperate loneliness of the orphaned monster trying to find a purpose and to define himself in the world trumps The Count.
Five:
Six: The “non-explanation” for the process that Victor uses to create the monster is thing of genius. No other approach could have possibly conveyed the majesty and significance of the achievement, because we would have known it was bullshit. Shelley did it perfectly…which leads me nicely into…
Seven: The corny, slapdash lightning scene is entirely a work of Hollywood? There’s …NO…lightning…scene? Are you kidding me? Even Kenneth Branagh’s supposedly “true” adaptation had electric eels providing power to the “it’s alive” process. All of it bunk. I’ll say it again, Hollywood is a bunch of useless tools. . LIARS!!!
Eight: Speaking of tools, Victor Frankenstein is a giant one. As far as I am concerned, he is clearly the villain of the piece. However, what I found so squee-inducingly magical about Shelly’s writing was my degree of vacillation when it came to Victor’s character. I liked and even admired Victor in the beginning of the story and found his personal journey compelling. He was a genius driven by his desire to unlock the secrets of the universe and had that manic, “mad scientist” focus necessary to the accomplishment of such a lofty goal. However, once the “birth” of the monster came, I found myself waffling back and forth throughout the rest of the story. Ironically, his moment of success and his reaction to life he had conjured was when he began to lose his humanity in my eyes.
His treatment of the monster was abhorrent. Despite this, Shelley was able to get me to see over my disgust and appreciate Frankenstein’s position and understand why he was so unwilling to continence the existence of “the wretch.” Not enough for me to forgive his lack of compassion, but enough for me to see him as a tragic figure. Huge propers for Shelley as that is excellent writing.
Nine: I would place the monster among the finest literary creations of all time. This singular manifestation of humanity’s scientific brilliance and callous indifference to the consequences thereof is masterfully done. Frankenstein’s “wretch” became the prototype of the literary outcast and every “misunderstood” creature since has been offspring from his loins. His character profile is phenomenal, and just as Victor’s actions garner sporadic moments of understanding for his cruel treatment of the monster, so the monster’s wanton acts of vile cruelty severely test our compassion for him. Tested, bent and stretched, but, for me at least, never broken. I understood his pain…I understood his anger…I understood.
Ten: No spoilers here, but the final resolution of the relationship between Victor and the child of his genius was…stellar. Everything was reconciled and nothing was resolved. The final reckoning occurs and it is both momentous and useless.
Eleven: I expected the prose to be good but, having never read Shelley before, I was still surprised by how exceptional and ear-pleasing it was. Her writing really resonated with me and I loved her ability to weave emotion, plot momentum and a high literary quotient seamlessly together. Good, good stuff.
Twelve: The novel is structured as an epistolary nesting doll using the frame story of Captain Walton corresponding with his sister about his expedition to the North Pole. While at the top of the world, Walton finds Victor Frankenstein stranded. This sets up the dovetail into Walton relaying Victor’s story which takes up the bulk of the novel and includes within it the incredibly poignant story of the “monster” in the creature’s own words. It is superbly executed and I thought the framing device was very effective.
Thirteen: Despite my trashing of the movie versions earlier, there was one scene that I thought was handled far better on screen than in this story. Kenneth Branagh’s portrayal of (view spoiler) was far more chilling than Shelley’s more subdued recounting. I actually anticipated this segment being far more shocking and I was a tad let down as a result. This is probably my only gripe about the book.
Fourteen: On my list of all time favorite novels. The writing, the story, the characters, the emotion, the imagery, the power…all off the charts.
6.0 stars. HIGHEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION!
P.S.(or Fifteen:) I listened to the audio version of this read by Simon Vance and his performance was extraordinary, especially his portrayal of the “monster.” Definitely check it out if you are a consumer of audio books.
First: Mary Shelley…I love you!!
Second: Dear Hollywood - you lying dung pile of literature-savaging, no talent hacks…you got this all wrong. Please learn to read and get yourself a copy of the source material before you FUBAR it again.
Third: My heart shattered for the “monster” and I haven’t felt this strong a desire to “hug it out, bitch” since reading Grendel and Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter. The “wretch” is so well drawn and powerfully portrayed that he form the emotional ligament for the entire story. He is among the finest creations the written form has to offer.
Fourth: As surprised as I am to be saying this, this novel has ousted Dracula as my all time favorite of the classic horror stories…sorry Bram, but the good/evil, sad, desperate loneliness of the orphaned monster trying to find a purpose and to define himself in the world trumps The Count.
Five:
No one can conceive the variety of feelings which bore me onwards, like a hurricane, in the first enthusiasm of success. Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world. A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs. Pursuing these reflections, I thought that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time (although I now found it impossible) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption.As gorgeous as the prose is, I thought it a crime not to include at least one quote.
Six: The “non-explanation” for the process that Victor uses to create the monster is thing of genius. No other approach could have possibly conveyed the majesty and significance of the achievement, because we would have known it was bullshit. Shelley did it perfectly…which leads me nicely into…
Seven: The corny, slapdash lightning scene is entirely a work of Hollywood? There’s …NO…lightning…scene? Are you kidding me? Even Kenneth Branagh’s supposedly “true” adaptation had electric eels providing power to the “it’s alive” process. All of it bunk. I’ll say it again, Hollywood is a bunch of useless tools. . LIARS!!!
Eight: Speaking of tools, Victor Frankenstein is a giant one. As far as I am concerned, he is clearly the villain of the piece. However, what I found so squee-inducingly magical about Shelly’s writing was my degree of vacillation when it came to Victor’s character. I liked and even admired Victor in the beginning of the story and found his personal journey compelling. He was a genius driven by his desire to unlock the secrets of the universe and had that manic, “mad scientist” focus necessary to the accomplishment of such a lofty goal. However, once the “birth” of the monster came, I found myself waffling back and forth throughout the rest of the story. Ironically, his moment of success and his reaction to life he had conjured was when he began to lose his humanity in my eyes.
His treatment of the monster was abhorrent. Despite this, Shelley was able to get me to see over my disgust and appreciate Frankenstein’s position and understand why he was so unwilling to continence the existence of “the wretch.” Not enough for me to forgive his lack of compassion, but enough for me to see him as a tragic figure. Huge propers for Shelley as that is excellent writing.
Nine: I would place the monster among the finest literary creations of all time. This singular manifestation of humanity’s scientific brilliance and callous indifference to the consequences thereof is masterfully done. Frankenstein’s “wretch” became the prototype of the literary outcast and every “misunderstood” creature since has been offspring from his loins. His character profile is phenomenal, and just as Victor’s actions garner sporadic moments of understanding for his cruel treatment of the monster, so the monster’s wanton acts of vile cruelty severely test our compassion for him. Tested, bent and stretched, but, for me at least, never broken. I understood his pain…I understood his anger…I understood.
Ten: No spoilers here, but the final resolution of the relationship between Victor and the child of his genius was…stellar. Everything was reconciled and nothing was resolved. The final reckoning occurs and it is both momentous and useless.
Eleven: I expected the prose to be good but, having never read Shelley before, I was still surprised by how exceptional and ear-pleasing it was. Her writing really resonated with me and I loved her ability to weave emotion, plot momentum and a high literary quotient seamlessly together. Good, good stuff.
Twelve: The novel is structured as an epistolary nesting doll using the frame story of Captain Walton corresponding with his sister about his expedition to the North Pole. While at the top of the world, Walton finds Victor Frankenstein stranded. This sets up the dovetail into Walton relaying Victor’s story which takes up the bulk of the novel and includes within it the incredibly poignant story of the “monster” in the creature’s own words. It is superbly executed and I thought the framing device was very effective.
Thirteen: Despite my trashing of the movie versions earlier, there was one scene that I thought was handled far better on screen than in this story. Kenneth Branagh’s portrayal of (view spoiler) was far more chilling than Shelley’s more subdued recounting. I actually anticipated this segment being far more shocking and I was a tad let down as a result. This is probably my only gripe about the book.
Fourteen: On my list of all time favorite novels. The writing, the story, the characters, the emotion, the imagery, the power…all off the charts.
6.0 stars. HIGHEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION!
P.S.(or Fifteen:) I listened to the audio version of this read by Simon Vance and his performance was extraordinary, especially his portrayal of the “monster.” Definitely check it out if you are a consumer of audio books.
2181 likes · Like
∙
flag
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Frankenstein.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
February 16, 2009
– Shelved
January 7, 2012
–
Started Reading
January 12, 2012
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 174 (174 new)
message 1:
by
Leyoh
(new)
Jan 05, 2012 10:52AM
I've been meaning to read this for a while. I look forward to your review.
reply
|
flag
loved this novel, loved the drama, loved the introspection into the darkest corners of your soul, into the soul of Victor and that of the monster, loved it all, really. I hope you find this as fantastic a read as I did. =)
Hugh (A.K.A. Hermit the Curmudgeon) wrote: "This, Day of the Triffids and 1984 are my favorite classics."1984 is one of my all time favorites as well. I also really liked Day of the Triffids but I think I have to give the nod to Dracula as far as a favorite.
The ending is beautifully written and I must say that even a full year of studying this text hasn't made me love it one bit less but rather I appreciate it more. It's very poetic, lyrical and philosophical.
I like movies better when I can separate them from the book they were spawned from and think of them as two completely unrelated entities. Your review reminds me of the most excellent reason of all to READ the BOOK. Hollywood has its own ideas about plotting and they have time restraints. Sometimes they just think they can write it better than the author.
In the middle of the Librivox audio version myself. Quite enjoying it too, but thus far it hasn't ousted Dracula as my favourite of the classic horror texts.
Jeffrey wrote: "Hollywood has its own ideas about plotting and they have time restraints. Sometimes they just think they can write it better than the author."In this case, they really screwed the pooch.
Dulac3 wrote: "In the middle of the Librivox audio version myself. Quite enjoying it too, but thus far it hasn't ousted Dracula as my favourite of the classic horror texts."I didn't think it would for me either until the monster's "story." Then I was won over.
Ya think? The only Hollywood movies of books that are authentic were made before 1975, when producers and screen writers could actually read and would read the book they had optioned. Examples: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Gone With the Wind, From Here to Eternity, Wizard of Oz, The Godfather, etc...
I loved "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and I have yet to read the book. I need to move that up on my list.
You're Second made me laugh. I think just because I knew the story through film was why I've never read this book. No lightning would be strange, but I suppose I should read this soon. Amazing review as always!
Great review Stephen! This is one of the great gothic novels (as well as being early SF). The subtitle of the novel, "The Modern Prometheus" says it all. Prometheus not only created humans in Greek mythology, he also stole fire from the gods and gave it to human beings when they should not have had it. Similarly, Victor "creates" a man and does something which the world wasn't ready for yet. Perhaps it is applicable to some of today's scientific "advances."
The way the novel got started is quite interesting in its own right. Mary (age 18 I think) was taking a holiday in Switzerland with a group that included her then future husband and Lord Byron. One night when the weather was bad they had a sort of "indoor camp-out" and were telling ghost stories by a big fire. They decided to have a story-writing contest to see if they could write some scary stuff themselves. That night, Mary had a dream which inspired the novel Frankenstein. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Richard wrote: "Wonderful, as always. I disagree completely and at every turn, but your review is *out*stand*ing!"Thanks, good sir. I'll take the gracious compliment and shelve the book right between Chuckles the Dick and Mr. Gaimen.
s.penkevich wrote: "You're Second made me laugh. I think just because I knew the story through film was why I've never read this book. No lightning would be strange, but I suppose I should read this soon. Amazing revi..."Thanks, s. I would strongly recommend giving the book a read. As you can tell, I loved it.
Richard wrote: "The way the novel got started is quite interesting in its own right. Mary (age 18 I think) was taking a holiday in Switzerland with a group that included her then future husband and Lord Byron. One night when the weather was bad they had a sort of "indoor camp-out" and were telling ghost stories by a big fire. They decided to have a story-writing contest to see if they could write some scary stuff themselves. That night, Mary had a dream which inspired the novel Frankenstein. And the rest, as they say, is history."I saw the movie "Gothic" which depicted (in more sensational fashion) that stormy night when Bryon, Shelley and company came together and wrote some of their best work. I need to rent and re-watch.
Mike wrote: "Great review, Stephen. Always a treat when a novel outshines its legacy."Thanks, Mike. This one really floored me.
Brilliant review. This seems to have been hovering at the top spot in my 'to-read' list for an absolute age. Continually being knocked back by the slipping in of other more jonny come latelys recommended by the excellent reviewing technique of a number of people on this site. You can guess who you are.... Stephen et al !! maybe this review will serve to ease it into a top spot impregnable to my vacillating spirit
Loved the review and agree with you on many points. I'd been studying this all of last year and I wrote so many brilliant essays because there was simply so much to write about. It's incredible to think that she was only nineteen when she wrote it. Look out for me in one year's time I'll have followed in her footsteps. I also agree with you on the films. I saw several versions as part of study and none of them matched the book at all. The book is harrowing-ly beautiful.
Another excellent review, Stephen. I agree that Hollywood screwed the public image of this book up. I think that may be one of the reasons many people avoid this book. However, despite the elegant prose and excellent characters, my only gripe was that the tone was almost too despondant and depressing which is why I thought Dracula was just a little better.
Stephen wrote: "I loved "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and I have yet to read the book. I need to move that up on my list."Yes I agree that needs a read me too! Nice review.
I think Frankenstein has more intrinsic life lessons, but Dracula is just so darn entertaining, I still like it more than this. Hard to compare them though.
Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "I think Frankenstein has more intrinsic life lessons, but Dracula is just so darn entertaining, I still like it more than this. Hard to compare them though."I dunno. You can learn life lessons from all quality books if you look hard enough. Dracula to me is about moral decay. The vampire truly representing the decadent creature which a man could become who must suck life from those around him to survive. But Frankenstein teaches about not playing at being God about not messing with forbidden knowledge.
Richard wrote: "Apatt wrote: "Is this a reread?Good one as always. You may also like Young Frankenstein ;)"
Blucher!"
Roll, roll, roll in ze hay...roll, roll, roll in ze hay...
Richard wrote: "Roll, roll, roll in ze hay...roll, roll, roll in ze hay..."A riot is an ungly thing... undt, I tink, that it is chust about time ve had vun.
Cortney wrote: "It's been a while since I've read this. I think it might be time for a re-read. Great review!"Thanks, Cortney.
Mark wrote: "Brilliant review. This seems to have been hovering at the top spot in my 'to-read' list for an absolute age."Thanks, Mark. You really *nudge* should *nudge* read this. *nudge*
Jonathan wrote: "Loved the review and agree with you on many points. I'd been studying this all of last year and I wrote so many brilliant essays because there was simply so much to write about. It's incredible to think that she was only nineteen when she wrote it. Look out for me in one year's time I'll have followed in her footsteps. "Thanks, Jonathan. I look forward to being floored by your work as much as I was Shelley's.
I think there's a real lesson, or at least a real human observation that is valuable in Shelley's Frankenstien. Drac? Not so much.
Sean wrote: "Another excellent review, Stephen. I agree that Hollywood screwed the public image of this book up. I think that may be one of the reasons many people avoid this book. However, despite the elegant prose and excellent characters, my only gripe was that the tone was almost too despondant and depressing which is why I thought Dracula was just a little better."I can certainly understand that, Sean. I loved Dracula and didn't think any other classic horror could compare. It's possible that if I had earlier read Frankenstein and just now read Dracula, I would have elevated it to the top spot. They are both so, so good. I think I had lower expectations for Frankenstein and just found the depth of pathos so intense when the monster was on page.
Lou wrote: "Stephen wrote: "I loved "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and I have yet to read the book. I need to move that up on my list."Yes I agree that needs a read me too! Nice review."
Thanks, Lou.
Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "I think Frankenstein has more intrinsic life lessons, but Dracula is just so darn entertaining, I still like it more than this. Hard to compare them though."Danielle, that is good way of putting it. Dracula was so entertaining. I think Frankenstein moved me more and made me feel more deeply. Dracula just kicked ass.
Apatt wrote: "Is this a reread?Good one as always. You may also like Young Frankenstein ;)"
I would not call this a re-read per se. I did read the book when I was much, much younger but it was so much on the surface that I didn't take away anything from the experience. I have now actually read it.
Inga: "He vould have an enormous schwanzstucker."
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: "That goes without saying."
Inga: "Voof."
Igor: "He’s going to be very popular."
Stephen wrote: "Inga: "He vould have an enormous schwanzstucker."
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: "That goes without saying."
Inga: "Voof."
Igor: "He’s going to be very popular.""
In "Young Frankenstien" Didn't Dr. Fredrick Frankenstien swap out Schwanztukers?
I've always thought the brilliancy of this novel lies in Shelley's ability in making you waver between loving and disliking both Victor and the monster. I couldn't agree with you more. Beautifully put!
Mira wrote: "I've always thought the brilliancy of this novel lies in Shelley's ability in making you waver between loving and disliking both Victor and the monster. I couldn't agree with you more. Beautifully ..."Thanks, Mira.
Great review. Victor is definetely the vilian. Actually Victor reminds me so much on a certain Romantic poet( talented, smart but way too egocentric) that I can't help thinking Mary might have modeled Victor on her husband (or Byron.) I think I've heard this from someone or read it somewhere. Anyway that may be what makes Victor so credible (and irritating) character.




