Frankenstein

Written by Mary Shelley

Narrated by Ralph Cosham

Frankenstein is the most famous novel by Mary Shelley: a dark Faustian parable of science misused that was an immediate success on its publication in 1818. Purporting to be the record of an explorer, it tells of Victor Frankenstein, a brilliant but wayward student of science, who builds a human from dead flesh. Horrified by what he has done, he abandons his creation. The creature, an outcast for his horrific appearance, learns language and becomes civilized. In time, he attempts to join society but is rejected because he is assumed to have murderous intentions. Spurned, he seeks vengeance on his creator. So begins a cycle of destruction, with Frankenstein and his 'monster' pursuing each other to the extremes of nature until all vestiges of their humanity are lost in monomaniacal hatred.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Spotify Audiobooks
• Release date: Jan 1, 2001
• ISBN: 9781467610704

Mary Shelley

Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin was born in 1797, the daughter of two of the leading radical writers of the age. Her mother died just days after her birth and she was educated at home by her father and encouraged in literary pursuits. She eloped with and subsequently married the Romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, but their life together was full of hardship. The couple were ruined by disapproving parents and Mary lost three of her four children. Although its subject matter was extremely dark, her first novel Frankenstein (1818) was an instant sensation. Subsequent works such as Mathilda (1819), Valperga (1823) and The Last Man (1826) were less successful but are now finally receiving the critical acclaim that they deserve.

Reviews for Frankenstein

[dalepeters_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Disappointing, especially for such a highly regarded "classic". 5% action, 95% describing how everyone *feels* about what just happened.

[ladypembroke · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I have thought, but this being a classic piece of literature, I'm not going to write them down for posterity. That never served me well in lit classes, and I don't foresee it going well on the internet.

[William Krause · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The reading seemed a bit choppy on occasion nevertheless was a decent listen. Very different to the pop culture version. Really good last 3 chapters.

[L Fernandez · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

Narrator’s voice is kind of unbearable, nasal and has a weird inflection

[benkaboo-51322 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Summary: Driven guy takes things a bit too far and ends up creating something that destroys everything:

Things I liked.

Introducing the main protaganist through the eyes of a secondary category. This reminded me a bit of Gatsby and Nick.

Good questions/ideas: The 'Other', obsession, what is human etc. Good fodder for thinking/rethinking about what you believe.

Things I thought could be improved:

Main character is pretty whiney, and doesn't really take a lot of responsbility for his actions. It makes him hard to relate to a bit unlikeable. Given most of the story is told through his eyes that's a problem. I'd probably recommend giving him a bit more self-awareness at the end, preserving his stupidity in the main story, to increase the sense of empathy and connection with his tale.

Some of the plotting is a bit far fetched and obviously contrived to drive the story. In particular I remember when he decides to reveal his secret to Elizabeth but only 'after' their fateful wedding day. If he was going to be truthful with her wouldn't he/she do it immediately. .

Highlight:

Probably when the 'other' spoke for the first time. Hollywood had taught me to expect one thing. I was pretty taken aback and appreciated the variation.

Lessons Learned:

Chill out in life or you might find the object of your obsession ends up wrecking all the good things you have in your life.

[morgandax · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I hate to say it, but I didn't enjoy the writing style. I wasn't expecting the 'letter' format (where the story is told via a series of letters sent between various characters) so that threw me off from the beginning, and while eventually I was able to get into it and get past that annoyance, I found the story lagged a bit because of it. It's a product of its time.

This is a classic that anyone remotely into horror should probably try to read, the story is excellent, but unfortunately, at least for me, the writing hasn't aged well.

[lydia1879 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

So this book is brilliant, but I loathe one of the characters.

It's a gothic story with beautiful prose and wonderful metaphors and these short, sharp lines that take my breath away.

Sometimes, it's a little wordy, a little too fancy, a little too lengthy. I feel as if that's Percy Shelley's influence creeping in through her prose - would that I could read her work unedited.

The premise for the story is fantastic.

... and then we get to one of the characters. Victor Frankenstein.

Victor, Victor, Victor.

If anything prevented me from reading this book in one sitting, it was him. As a literary device - he's perfect. His flaws illustrate the creature's compassion and ask us what it means to be human.

But I don't like him. He's a hypocritical coward and his passages are basically just 18th century man-splaining. If anything will prevent me from returning to or recommending this book, it's Victor Frankenstein.

Am I supposed to be this abhorred by him, and react this way? Probably.

... but I wish I read more from the creature's perspective. I think I would've loved this story a whole lot more if I had.

[moniquesnyman-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

A classic isn't a called a classic because it's a run-of-the-mill type of book. It's a groundbreaking novel/movie/song that inspires people and stays with you forever, and it's likely that it won't be topped in one, two or sometimes three generations. A classic is a classic because it's unique, and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is definitely a classic. The prose is beautiful, the story is gripping and the book itself is absolutely breathtaking. As far as horror is concerned, this is one of those must-have classics that you can revisit every couple of years.

But we all know the story about Frankenstein and the monster he creates out of body parts. We all know who Igor is and what happens in the end, I mean, if you haven't read the book then you've probably watched one of the movies, right? So, instead of going on and on about the plot we all know about, I'm going to talk about the beautiful book. Seriously, this is one super pretty book. It's in Penguin Books' horror series, recently brought out for horror fans that includes five other fantastic titles (American Supernatural Tales was one of them). This is one pretty edition for one creepy tale ... in other words, you'll freaking love it if you have a thing for horror books. Also, I'm pretty sure it'll be a collectors edition in the not-so-distant future.

If that doesn't appeal to you, and you need a little something extra, rest assured that I can sweeten the pot for those folks on the edge. Guillermo Del Toro is the series' editor and there's a nice little introduction by him. Yes, he's not all movies all the time, sometimes this horror director makes time for books too!

So, yes it's pretty, yes it's a great edition and yes, the editing is great. As far as I'm concerned you can donate your other editions of Frankenstein to the less fortunate, because this one just looks so much better on a bookshelf.

[cindywho-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

This is another one I'd just never gotten around to reading. The story is far from what popular culture has made of it (I confess I was most familiar with the Young Frankenstein version) The monster is much more vocal and interesting. Victor is kind of a weenie and it's all a bit overwrought. I listened to the audiobook from the classic tales podcast and the narrator was pretty good, obviously enjoying all the "begone!s" and "wretchs"

[maddi-815887 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

It's a wonderful, intense and superbly written novel.Don't be afraid to read it even if you don't like the genre.

[mdabril · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Frankenstein is one of my all-time favorite books, but it's important to understand why people like my enjoy it. If you haven't read the book, it may not be what you think.I love Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. To be clear, she is not the best author ever. Some aspects of her writing are a little juvenile and at times ever downright boring. Even though she herself was a woman, her female characters tend to be somewhat shallow and idealistic. Nevertheless, Shelley has a unique and gifted mind that is almost even prophetic in character. Her novel "The Last Man," for example, is one of the first to imagine the extinction of the human race, which is now a real possibility and an important area of thought. Similarly, Frankenstein is not altogether novel, since it builds heavily on earlier Romantic language, concepts, and images especially from Goethe and Mary's husband Percy Shelley. Nevertheless, she outdoes them by imagining in a prophetic way what the technological creation of new life could mean for the human person.With this in mind, let's be clear that Frankenstein is NOT a scary book, NOT about some dim-witted or pathetic monster, and NOT a source of cheap chills and thrills. It is first and foremost about the scientist who creates the monster. He does so out of a genius that unites both modern science and premodern thinking. Specifically how he makes the monster is beside the point; Shelley is secretive on this matter so that we do not get lost. It is not evident, for example, that he makes it from corpses; he uses corpses for study, but he seems to fashion the monster directly.The principle point of the book, therefore, is the emotion of Frankenstein as he comes to terms with his own creation. That which he fashioned to be beautiful, wonderful, superior to humanity turns out in fact to be hideous, ugly, and terrifying. The monster is superior to his maker in intelligence and power but not morality, and this forces Frankenstein to face his own unworthiness as a creator.Thus while Frankenstein the book is born out of Romantic ideas about the genius, the excellence of humanity, and the transcendence of the Promethean man--the one who dares to challenge the gods by taking upon himself the act of creation--it also profoundly serves as a counterpoint to the same Romantic spirit. This new Prometheus turns out to be a mere, weak man, who cannot quite come to terms with what he has created. Thus like her book "The Last Man," Shelley poses a vital question: Is humanity really still the gem of creation, or will the transcending force of nature ultimately leave us behind in the dust from whence we came?Frankenstein is thus a book that every reader of English should engage at some time. It would help, however, to have some familiarity with Romanticism (see an encyclopedia) and to spend some time reading some poems by other Romantic writers such as Percy Shelley. A brief look into Mary Wollstonecraft's Shelley biography might help as well, since I would argue that she is deeply shaped by the continual tragedies of her life, including the loss of her mother at an early age and a complex relationship with her father.

[jonfaith · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

As an eight year old child, I found myself in love with horror films. It was a Scholastic Press survey of horror cinema for children which appeared to crystallize this fascination. It was terrible time for a kid. We had moved twice in four years and my mom had left. My dad was traveling for work and a series of housekeepers and sitters were keeping the home fires burning. It is no surprise that I was reading all the time and staying up too late watching inappropriate films on television. That said, I was never drawn to Frankenstein.

The father of some neighborhood friends used to proclaim the superiority of all the Universal films, especially to the hyper-gore films of the late 70s. I could agree with Bela Lugosi or Claude Rains (as the Invisible Man) but I wasn't moved by Lon Cheney Jr's Wolf Man or the lump of clay which was Frankenstein's monster. It remains elusive to distinguish.

It was with muted hopes that I finally read Frankenstein this past week. I was pleasantly surprised by the rigid plot which slowly shifts, allowing the Madness of the Fallen to Reap Vengeance on the Creator (and vice versa). Sure, it is laden with symbols and encoded thoughts on Reason, Science and Class. Frankenstein remains an engaging novel by a teenager, one doomed by fate. It is prescient and foreboding. Highly recommended.

[yasmin donnelly · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Incredible. Truly holds up. I was so surprised by how captivating this was.

[dr_cicle · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I had to read this for my Monsters and Fairy Tales class. The plot was very interesting but there were a few things that bothered me a bit. The time is very messed up and confused me a lot while reading this. If you have or will read this book then you know what I am talking about. Also, the writing style was difficult for me to get through at times. Overall, I really enjoyed this book.

[withlightandlove · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Wow! Mary Shelly wrote this book when she was 19! When I was 19 I was getting drunk and struggling to get myself up to go to work every day.This book is truly amazing. I expected, considering it was written in the 1800's, to be a challenging read, but it wasn't at all. She writes with such beauty, and creates such empathy and humanness in the 'wretch'. I became extremely bored with Victor's constant self-pity, and more connected and sympathetic with his creation than him.A beautiful story, heartbreaking and interesting to the end.

[elainedav · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I thought I knew the storyline of this book - not particularly because of the modern horror film versions, as I have never watched them - but just because the story is well known. I was completely wrong of course! The book is much more detailed and the creation of the monster is only a tiny part of the story. The real story is all about the emotional life of a man torn between his pursuit of science and desire for a normal family life. Brilliantly written and extremely readable.

[misirlou_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

What happens to a society's outsiders? Do those on the fringes of civility revel in their differences or are they forced to wonder why they were made mentally or physically deficient in one way. No matter how superior they can make themselves do they ever feel that they were created equal? Frankstein isn't a horror story, it's a conversation with God from the lips of anyone who's been made to feel like an abomination.The monster tells his story with eloquence and ultimately explains his actions in a way that seem more lonely than vicious. It's also no coincidence that the book begins and ends on the ship the Milton. As the author of Paradise Lost, the struggle between an angel created for the purpose of being a demon and his creator, between man deciding whether to take advantage of the tool of free will granted to him or live in subservience, the struggle between action and cosequence are as apt to Milton's work as they are in the struggles between the characters of this novel. Each symbol in this book are deftly placed to support a somewhat sacriligous inquiry of whether a creator has much control over his creation. Those looking for the stout green-faced monster and angry mobs of the movies will be surprised that neither are present in this novel. Loneliness, purpose, and atonement are the harrowing aspects of Frankenstein. This is a novel of ice and emptiness; a severe cold which is responsible for chilling readers to the bone.

[amandacb_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This novel tears me up every time I read it--not because it is frightening, but because I find Frankenstein's monster so terribly heartbreathing and Frankenstein himself so terribly selfish. Certainly the ultimate gothic novel, although a bit heavy-handed at times.

[bookworm546 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

a good book tended to drag on a bit in some places very opposite from the movie perception of frakenstein

[skwoodiwis · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

As I sit down to write this review, I ponder the question – why do we write through out the ages to deny God – and in doing so why do we deny our own putrid desires?I was disappointed in the book. I have always hesitated in reading it – the short blips one hears regarding the nature of the novel – Man playing God and failing. No it wasn’t it. It was another shout out – much like Melville’s Moby Dick but on a lesser scale. More like “hey, why did you make me and leave me here.”The Romantics are my least favorite brilliant people. When you have a young author who ran away with a married man sitting down to write a ghost story – well that is quite the mix. I know, I know, I’m being judgmental of the author and not the book but the author of such a books bears scrutinizing. The work, as with both first and second generation Romantics was brilliant and it is satisfying to note that this one is from a woman. The language was beautiful, the story well paced and I loved the relationship with the young adventurer in the beginning of the book and Frankenstein. As a matter of fact, the young captain and his mourning of Frankenstein made me more sympathetic than I would have been without their brief relationship. I’m not sure if the author intended the reader to focus on that relationship – on the surface it may have been a ploy- you know – “and the moral of the story is…” but it made the novel for me. Other than that…come on.“Nature,” not sin.“Remorse,” not repentance.“Recouping,” not abandonment.Now if we took the stand that Frankenstein was along a microscopic examination of a god abandoning his creation, then we could not be sympathetic to Frankenstein. I’ll be frank (pardon the half pun) it was hard for me to be sympathetic to Frankenstein. In that I feel as if I am drawing into the author’s web of “Ah-ha, so how can any deity be worthwhile?”Please.The creator in this story has no love. The creator in this story follows his baser instincts of knowledge gathering and wisdom ignoring. The very fact that he sent his bride to their room, letting her out of his sight to fight a battle that, up to that point had always been gorilla in nature is proof of Frankenstein’s selfishness. Really? Really, could one think after wiping out family and friends while away from them that the diabolical fiend would take the confrontation at last, man to ‘man?’ Unlikely.Do I think this faulty thinking on behalf of the author? NO, I do not and I believe the author brilliant in her deliberations. What the author has accomplished is yet, another Byronic hero that her contemporary would be proud and another slap at that part of humanity who loves God. Think of Frankenstein as deity. Think of his noble character, his physical beauty, his power to reason, even his creation, stronger, more agile, could not destroy him and in the end wept bitterly. But in the end who was left standing – a point, that the second generation of Romantics hammered on relentlessly – man and man alone – nothing higher and nothing lower. Hence my disappointment.

[khrystibooks · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This book was excellently written and very philosophical, and way depressing. It's also very worth reading.

[kristelh_15 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Story of a monster. Shelley create this story during an evening spent with friends. The literary device would be "projecting the perils of man seeking to play God." (Foster). The real monster is the creator in this story. This book projects the period of the nineteenth century of the dual nature of man, that we are both good and evil.

[alcracka · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This and Anna Karenina are as close as I know to perfect. The only thing that holds Frankenstein back is the writing style; at times you're reminded that Shelley was only 18 when she wrote it. The plot and pacing are perfect, and the scenes are terrific - particularly the exquisite first bit of the monster's story - but there are sometimes some minor rough patches in the sentences.

It's a warning, of course, about creating things we don't understand. Everyone knows that. What I'm interested by, though, and where I think some people misinterpret Frankenstein, is that Frankenstein's monster isn't a flawed creation. Some people think the warning is that we overreach and create...well, monsters, right? But Frankenstein's creation is instinctively good. He's smart, rational and kind, until he's irrevocably alienated. It's not in the creation that Frankenstein fails; it's in the raising of it.

So if Shelley is warning us against playing God, it's not because she thinks we can't create something wonderful. It's that she doesn't trust us to know what to do with it.

[ghr4 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Two hundred years after its publication in 1818 Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein remains a powerful and relevant work with merits that go well beyond acknowledgement as the groundbreaking first science fiction novel. Across much of the plot this has the veneer of a standard gothic melodrama filled with malicious misdeeds and tragic deaths. But it is the strong themes and character dynamics teeming beneath the surface that make this a literary classic.At its core, Frankenstein is an allegory of man’s hubris, warning of the dire unforeseen consequences when man overextends his grasp, reaches too high and too far (beyond what is natural, and therefore supernatural), presuming to possess godlike capabilities. But at its heart, this is a tragic story of benevolence and basic human decency ironically embodied in Victor Frankenstein’s monstrous creation. He is thrust into life a true innocent, gentle and loving, but unable to receive those qualities in kind, and therefore he is transformed into malevolence – a vengeful murderous fiend, intent on the destruction of his creator, whom he views as ultimately responsible for his misery.Shelley’s character portraits of Victor and the monster, each intricately woven and the two then fully interwoven into a remarkable yin yang relationship, form the fabric of the story and propel the novel forward. Early on, as Victor dives headlong into his study of the unnatural, combing through the remains of the dead to combine the parts into unholy life, thirsting for knowledge that lies beyond man’s realm, he is insensible to the lush beauty of the natural world around him and distanced from interpersonal relationships. Victor’s work consumes him; he is oblivious to the seasonal beauties of nature: “Winter, spring, and summer passed away during my labours; but I did not watch the blossom or the expanding leaves – sights which before always yielded me supreme delight – so deeply was I engrossed in my occupation.” And after the creature is brought to life, Victor, horrified by his creation, suffers intense physical and psychological decline: palpitations, anxiety, nightmares, languor, and weakness. In karmic irony, Victor’s creation of life now seems to sap the life from him: an intriguing start to a zero-sum game that Shelley plays here.In order to explore the character and soul of the monster, Shelley is forced into a dicey plot device that strains the reader’s ability to suspend disbelief. The monster takes up secluded residence in a village hovel, and through observation of neighbors he learns of human emotions and interactions, and by reading books he gains a remarkable level of literacy, all in a rather short period of time. It is a contrivance, but a necessary one in order to allow him to relate his life from his point of view – and it works well, primarily due to the power of his emotions.After the monster’s murderous spree has begun, he meets up with Victor and early in their initial conversation sums up his plight: “Remember that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. Everywhere I see bliss from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend…. I was benevolent; my soul glowed with love and humanity: but am I not alone, miserably alone? You, my creator, abhor me; what hope can I gather from your fellow-creatures, who owe me nothing? They spurn and hate me.”The monster then relates his experiences from the very beginning, but his was no natural birth; rather it was thrust to life from the void. Shelley masterfully conveys the confusion, haziness, and the “strange multiplicity of sensations” that seized him. As he tells his tale, it feels like the story of early man, indeed first man, learning as he goes: discovering fire, sensing hunger and the need for food, clothing, shelter. Due to his outsized frame and hideous appearance, he is an outcast, forced to view the world through a chink in a window of his hovel. As he studies a neighboring family he learns of the hardships of the everyman: poverty, hunger, and physical afflictions such as blindness – and thereby feels compassion for his fellow man, a compassion which will never be returned in kind. And from there springs the unstoppable murderous rage through which he vows to kill those most dear to Victor, wreaking vengeance and misery upon his creator. And so, the monster, stitched together from the dead and brought to life by Victor, has become a relentless killer. The dead regenerated into life with lives now taken in revenge, as the zero-sum game concludes.It must be noted that Shelley’s dialogue is often overwrought in telling the melodramatic aspects of the story: the kind of dialogue generally accompanied by intense hand-wringing and faint-hearted histrionics. This style was surely de rigueur in the Romantic Era, but it is simply treacly to the modern reader. Nevertheless, that distraction aside, Frankenstein is one of the most disturbing and moving novels ever written.

[boundtogetherforgood · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I am on a quest to read classic literature. Frankenstein wasn't at the top of my list, or even near the top probably, but my best friend continued to encourage me to read it as it is one of her very favorite books.Frankenstein: Or, The Modern Prometheus (Penguin Classics)This classic book has inspired no fewer than fifty films. It definitely has a firm place in classic literature and in culture. I had no idea that Mary Shelley was the wife of Percy Bysshe Shelley. They married when she was age 18/19 years old, in 1816. It was upon a dare, by Lord Byron, to write a ghost story, that Mary Shelley wrote the novel. I like that she didnt just write a "ghost story" and developed a plot-line like no other before.The review I am in the midst of writing, here, is going to be a mixed bag. I must say that I was quite surprised that the story was written in such a way that it was not difficult for me to finish; not a drudgery as I read it. I somehow felt compelled to read it. I suppose I would say that her writing style is very agreeable. The story is written in the form of a person retelling the story he has been told, in letter form, to a far-off loved one. Writing a story in this manner required an additional back-story. Shelley gave this story the same attention to depth as she gave the main one. I like that; so many of today's authors just do not write in this manner.Overall, however, I do have issues with the story. The premise of the story is that Dr. Victor Frankenstein is on a quest to create life. I think that in order to indulge the story one must suspend reality and choose to believe that man can create life, even in the late 1700s. Done. I do, however take great issue with the fact that in the story Dr. Frankenstein has finally succeeded in creating life when, all of a sudden, he looks at the creature he has created and, aghast, decides he has created something too hideous to allow it to be. Does he destroy it though? Nope; that would end the story. He allows it to remain "alive" and falls asleep. This of course, comes back to haunt him. The monster leaves, unhindered.Frankenstein learns language and the ability to read through watching a small family without their knowledge. I enjoyed this part of the story. He views them with great longing. His only wish is for communion. Human communtion? Why, he isn't human. But at the very least, human communion would provide him with some form of relationship, his deepest desire. Even his own creator chose not to commune with him. One of the characters from this portion of the book is blind and that gives the "monster" an opprotunity to speak with him, hoping that he can gain favor with him and then with the rest of his family. This character quickly recognizes the "monster's" true circumstances and it is summed up well in his words here:"Heaven forbid! Even if you were really criminal, for that can only drive you to desperation, and not instigate you to virtue." Pg 91The next part of the story with which I take issue is that Frankenstein sets off on a long trek and somehow ends up in Geneva and on the property of the Frankensteins without any stated assistance in finding it. That's a bit neat, isn't it? Pretty unbelieavable; there again, it allows for the progression of the story.When the "monster" finally has an opportunity to speak with Frankenstein he says this:"God, in pity, made man beautiful and alluring, after his own image' but my form is a filthy type of yours, more horrid even from the very resemblance. Satan had his companions, fellow devils, to admire and encourage him, but I am slitary and abhorred." Pg 88He pleads with Frankenstein to create a female for him, one as equally hideous as he, as a mate with whom he can share love and life. He wants only to be accepted and have a person whom he can accept. Love...isn't that the desire of all people? And wasn't he created in the image of humanity? He offers that they will go live in the farthest reaches of the north where they will bother and be bothered by no one."It is true, we shall be monsters, cut off from all the world; but on that account we shall be more attached to one another." Ppg 98"Let me see that I excite the of some existing thing; do not deny me my request!" Pg 99Frankenstein's monster is so adamant of his need for a mate that he threatens to take vengeance upon Frankenstein if he does not concede to his request/demand. At once Frankenstein agrees that he will create a mate for him; the story progresses a bit, and, voila, Frankenstein rethinks his impulsive decision and determines he will not create another being. Queue the scary music. The monster vowed vengeance if a mate is not created for him; he followed him from Ingolstadt to Geneva; can engeance not be imagined by Frankenstein at this point?Vengeance...it arrives. There is death, and more death. Eventually, Frankenstein ends up chasing the monster to far reaches of the north. Did I say "vengeance". It doesn't take a lot to figure out what happens next does it?It's easy for me to pick away at the threads of a story. I am not a writer, am I? And so, I feel it would be unfair for me to do so without also finding praise where it is worthy. As I said, the story was compellingly written. I did not avoid or put off reading it once I began. I am glad I read it. And the premise...the creation of life by man. What a premise! It is one that only has greater implications today; perhaps moreso than Shelley could have ever even imagined. She wrote this stunningly well for it to have been written in the early 1800s. What if man could create life? Just because one can do something it does not mean it is something that should be done. Truly, I only believe that God can create life, eternal life, life with a soul. Science has been used by man, to do many things that have direct connections to life. Transplants are just one of those things; there is also research in the lab, on the cellular level. Scary stuff. Yes, the result of some of these things can be great good; it can also be great devastation, as this novel, in great foresight, warns.My husband and I had an interesting conversation with regard to all of this. Frankenstein initially was only sorry he created the "monster" because of its hideousness. Really? Isn't that fantastic?! He was sorry he created something so ugly! That begs the question that my husband raised: "If you could create aesthetically pleasing, beautiful life, would it then be okay to do so?" I hardly think so. And that is wherein lies much of the inherent beauty of this novel; it causes great thought.Some of my favorite lines from the book are:"A human being in perfection ought always to preserve a calm and peaceful mind and never to allow passion or a tranistory desire to disturb his tranquillity. I do not think that the pursuit of knowledge is an exception to this rule. If the study to which you apply yourself has a tendency to weaken your affections and to destroy your taste for those simple pleasures in which no alloy can possibly mix, then that study is certainly unlawful, that is to say, not befitting the human mind. If this rule were always observed; if no man allowed any pursuit whatsoever to interfere with the tranquillity of his domestic affections, Greece had not be enslaed, Caesar would have spared his country, America would have been discovered more gradually, and the empires of Mexico and Peru had not been destroyed." Pg 32"Heavy misfortunes have befallen us, but let us only cling closer to what remains and transfer our love for those whom we have lost to those who yet live." Pg 133It's only been days since I finished reading the novel. While it was still very fresh in my mind I wished to watch a well acclaimed movie version of it. I watched 1994's release "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" starring: Robert DeNiro, Kenneth Branagh, Tom Hulce, Helena Bonham Carter. A bit of artistic license was taken with the story but not so much that the essence of the story was changed. In fact, I feel that it played out quite well. I was afriad it would be way too gory for me. It had its moments but I think it was handled well given the subject and necessity of including a certain amount of gore. The cultural significance of Frankenstein does not end with the questions it brings up. Immediately after watching the film our children and I were turned on an episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show and who was mentioned? Frankenstein.

[squeakychu · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

It's taken me 70 years to read this classic. Ironically enough, I started reading it because I was reading a children's version of this book to my four-year-old grandson, and I did not want his book to put spoilers into my own classic story which I started reading simultaneously.Wow! What a novel! I never knew the "real" story of Frankenstein, nor did I know that Frankenstein was the name of the doctor who created the monster rather than the monster himself.This novel was written in 1818 by a nineteen-year-old. Another "Wow!" needs to be inserted here. The story is magnificently written. I never much in the past liked to read nineteenth-century novels, but I did learn to appreciate them more with tutored reads of selected older novels provided so kindly to me by a fellow member of LibraryThing. What I learned to do with those novels was to take notes on the story, the characters, and keep a running vocabulary. This bailed me out quite a few times during the reading of this novel as I simply cannot keep all this information in my head.What I found exceptional in this novel was the dense storyline which in some places was truly beautiful despite the grim nature of the story. This was a book about friendship (or the lack thereof) and of courage (in many different forms).I especially liked this quote from late in the story:Even where the affections are not strongly moved by any superior excellence, the companions of our childhood always possess a certain power over our minds which hardly any later friend can obtain.Although people associate [Frankenstein] with horror, I will only now associate that word and the novel with sadness. It is a sad world in which we live in where some of us judge others by appearance rather than by inner motive. This novel only serves to accentuate that kind of sadness (and wrongness) and puts the face of a monster we call "Frankenstein" to that kind of sentiment.

[kakadoo202 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

never saw any movie and never knew really the story, just had this idea about the monster Frankenstein. Turns out that the monster has no name and the creator is called Frankenstein. Very surprising book. Story very different than expected. Good and quick read.

[gazzy_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Who knew the romanitcs adn their idealized view of the past would lead to sci-fi (i.e. idealization of the future) masterpiece as this? Iconic elements of the story are created by clashing the Romance of the 18th Century meets the Industrial revolution of the 19th century. (P.S. Fans of Karloff will be dissapointed.)

[stillatim · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Every now and then I realize how bound I am by my historical moment. Often it's when I read theories written by enlightenment types. In this case it's when I realized that this book, about 220 pages long, would be about 25 pages long if all the adjectives, adverbs and longueurs had been removed. On the one hand, I would have preferred it that way. Descriptions of weather and landscape, of tumultuous feelings, of love and despair, are all insufferable, even if they add 'atmosphere.'

On the other hand, it's all somehow fittingly over the top. The monster of the novel learns language thanks to a French history book which is chosen because it is in the 'declamatory style of the east;' I have no idea what that's meant to mean, but if you lop off the 'of the east' bit, it suits Shelley's style nicely. The book would surely seem better if read aloud by someone with a posh accent than it is read silently by me, if it were intoned majestically with suitable and expansive emphasis on the elocutionary powers of character, narrator and monster; if the clashing and clanging of superlative verbiage were to be reveled in rather than modernistically scorned; if I'd grown up reading Werther, Miltonic prose and the Classical Authors of Antinquity rather than T. S. Eliot and Hemingway and Kafka...

The actual subject of the book remains thrilling though: Shelley basically invented part of modern mythology. As a *twenty year old woman in the nineteenth century.* Today she'd probably have won the Nobel prize by the time she was forty.

[coralsiren · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I thought I knew quite a bit about this story, but it wasn't really what I expected after all (which was a pleasant surprise). Overall, I thought the book was okay, but it was hard to keep moving forward at times. Also, sometimes it seems like main events are barely even mentioned, while descriptions of 'less important' things and details go on forever.Glad I read it once, but probably won't re-read.