Frankenstein (1818 original; edició 1994)

Plot:
Victor Frankenstein has always been interested in the natural sciences, although it all started with alchemy for him. After his mother’s death, he buries himself in his work as a student of chemistry. He experiments with reanimation and actually manages to bring a creature to life. But the creature is scary and ugly and Victor abandons him. The creature has to find his own way in the world.

Frankenstein is a beautiful, albeit lengthy novel that is definitely a classic for a very good reason. Still, I have to admit that what I loved most about it is, weirdly enough, the author’s introduction.

Read more on my blog: https://kalafudra.com/2019/02/18/frankenstein-mary-shelley/ ( )

This is a great book. If you haven't read it already put it on top of your list of books you've got to read.

I read this book after watching The National Theatre's incredible play with Benedict Cumberbatch as the monster and Jonny Lee Miller as Dr. Frankenstein. Both the play and the book are worth watching and reading.

The book is short and very difficult to put down, in the positive sense. It is infinitely more engaging than any of the Hollywood adaptations. The prose is lyrical and defies speed reading. Sentences go one way and then another and end up someplace totally different. They have an arc but it's more a spiral. Here's one from page 153 in The Signet Classic edition from 1963 -

….During my youthful days discontent never visited my mind, and if I was ever overcome by ennui, the sight of what is beautiful in nature or the study of what is excellent and sublime in the productions of man could always interest my heart and communicate elasticity to my spirits.

Yes it's a run-on sentence but that's not really the issue.

Like any piece of great fiction this requires much suspension of disbelief. Of course he can't create life - but here's something that says what if he could. And just how does the monster learn everything so quickly. Smart guy but defied belief, somewhat. What I had difficulty with is why Dr. Frankenstein constantly tried to keep it a secret until it was too late. All he had to do was let people in on his secret and they might have helped him undo the deed in some way. But no, in for a penny, in for a….. Some secrets just plain make things worse as this obviously did. And then there's the time frame. Yes life was slower then but it seemed like every time one was ill it was at least two weeks while they were down for the count. And everything seemed to be the height or the bottom, little in-between or ordinary. Even nature was, extraordinary.

The monster (he is actually nameless) eventually confronts Dr. Frankenstein and describes his journey to what he has become. One piece of the puzzle is he did some reading. Shelley has the monster discover a bag with three books, Milton's Paradise Lost, Plutarch's Lives and Goethe's The Sorrow of Young Werther. While all are classics, compared to the others Goethe's is relatively hot off the press when this was published in 1818. Interestingly it is from Werther that the monster seems to begun to understand the role of emotions.

The monster has been rejected by all the humans, even those he's tried to help. He's lonely and he asks, demands, that Dr. Frankenstein create another creature, a mate for him. Dr. Frankenstein eventually rejects the demand and that's when all hell breaks loose. It a duel to the end from that point on. Yes murders happen but the question is who should we hold accountable.

Read it. It's worth the time. ( )

Most striking this time around is how much complaining Frankenstein does. And that, in his penultimate monologue, he champions virtue in the face of adversity, totally out of the blue. This complicates its message about science -- it can't be a simple cautionary tale -- but it's unclear where this speech comes from so I'm not sure how to take it.

Lots more going on here. God/man, God/(fallen)angel and parent/child parallels all over the place. There is less that's overtly about gender roles; I'll have to do some reading to see what all the hubbub is about. I mean, it's obviously very traditional/Victorian, but there doesn't seem to be much satire or critique going on around it. ( )

I can't believe it took me this long to read this!

(It's more of a 3.5 than a 4 but sshhhh, don't tell Mrs. Wollstonecraft.)

It kept me riveted, but god, I can't imagine having to sit in a boat on a choppy sea and listen to Dr. Frankenstein alternate between an elaborate recollection of his ENTIRE LIFE and violently crying for what was probably at least an hour, if not more, of his life. ( )

Considering that Mary Shelley's Frankenstine is considered one of hte most important novels in the English literary canon, I found it rather underwhelming. Not, of course, from its lack of story or ingenuity (at the time it was considered utterly unique), but because I found the protagonist, Dr. Victor Frankenstein, to be completely infuriating and idiotic. For someone blessed with a seemingly brilliant scientific mind, Frankenstein exhibits a number of sociopathic tendencies, rooted ina self-centred narcissism and disassociation with the consequences of reality. Clearly some of his behavioural traits are inspired by concurrent literary trends (the Sorrows of Young Werther, for one) and the overly dramatic and romantic tendencies of the men Mary Shelley kept company with, but none of that redeems Frankenstein's attrocious behaviour in my eyes, In essence, the novel is a portrait of a man acting badly, even when he is given every chance of redemption, so I feel no sympathy towards the miserable circumstances in which he finds himself at the finale. All that I hope is that after the final confrontation between the monster and his deceased creator is that he manages to find his place in the world - even if it is in the reaches of the far North and away from the company of humanity. People are totally over-rated after all! ( )