Frankenstein

By Sylvia Hunt and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley

The novel is read today in two slightly different versions: the first edition of 1818, written by a very young Mary Shelley; and the edition of 1831, in which irreversible fate is more powerful than human free will. Other minor differences between the two texts originate in yet another version, from 1823. The present edition uses the original 1818 text, more useful for students of British Romanticism. However, corrections from 1823 that the novelist chose to preserve in 1831 have been incorporated, in the hope of doing justice to the young Mary Shelley without entirely disregarding the wishes of the mature author.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Universitas Press
• Release date: Jul 1, 2016
• ISBN: 9781988963822

Book preview

9781988963822.jpg

INTRODUCTION

Frankenstein is, arguably, one of the most iconic novels in English literature. While many may not have actually read the book, the image of the shuffling, monosyllabic monster from James Whales’ 1931 film transported Mary Shelley’s* monstrous creation from the pages of her novel onto the screen and into the collective imagination of the Western world. Nothing, however, could be more different from Shelley’s creature than Boris Karloff’s ungainly, electrode-implanted, grunting monster. That creation speaks more to early twentieth-century zeitgeist; Shelley’s arrogant scientist and articulate, alienated creature are reflections of her own life and time.

On the surface, this novel falls into the category of gothic novel, a very popular genre in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Typically, Gothic novels involve supernatural events and are set against dark backgrounds of medieval ruins and sublime landscapes. Their unrealistic plots usually involve a helpless young female who is pursued and imprisoned by a merciless tyrant. Her eventual rescue is achieved by a romanticized and equally unrealistic hero. Often set in foreign locations, Gothic novels reflected, according to Gary Handwerk, the attraction and antipathy the British felt towards Roman Catholic religion and the cultures of Mediterranean Europe, particularly Italy and Spain (33). Shelley’s novel does use the standard devices of Gothic fiction, but has a definite didactic purpose and connects contemporary scientific discovery with horrific results.

One of the most startling facts about this novel, both at the time of its publication and today, is that it is the conception of an eighteen-year-old woman. Although the first novel of a young author, Frankenstein is a carefully constructed creation. With her use of two separate plots (Walton’s and Frankenstein’s), three narrative voices (Walton, Frankenstein, and the Monster), well-considered intertextuality, and a meticulously crafted timeline, Shelley elevated the Gothic novel from sensationalist yarn to reflective social critique. In her eighteen years, Shelley had experienced childbearing, death, love, and rejection, all of which had shaped her psyche. Ostensibly, this novel is a horror story about a man who oversteps nature, creates a monster and then abandons that creation. To fully understand this novel, however, it is necessary to have some understanding of the young author, Mary Shelley, of Romantic aesthetics, and of the political and cultural background of the early nineteenth century.

Mary Godwin Shelley as creation

Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin Shelley (1797-1851) was the daughter of two of the greatest philosophical minds of their time. Her father, William Godwin (1756-1836), considered the founding-father of philosophical anarchism, established himself as one of the most prominent political theorists in Britain with the publication of Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793), probably one of the most famous, but least read treatises on contemporary politics. Unlike other authors writing in the wake of the French Revolution,† Godwin did not advocate violent rebellion; instead, he believed that social and political change was gradual and inevitable. Humanity was perfectible, but the institution of government restrained this slow march to perfectibility by insinuat[ing] itself into our personal dispositions, and insensibly communicat[ing] its own spirit into our private transactions (I, 5).‡ The philosophical framework of the treatise provided a context by which to view the revolutionary events in France. In keeping with the radical political philosophy that was a product of the pre- and post-revolutionary period of the late eighteenth century, Godwin’s text described government and legal institutions as manifestly corrupt, stating that the species of government which prevails over nine tenths of the globe . . . is despotism: a government, as Locke justly observes, altogether ‘vile and miserable,’ and ‘more to be deprecated than anarchy itself’ (13).

Normally, a radical political text of this nature would have been censured and its author prosecuted for sedition. However, the length of the work, its expense and its abstract philosophy (rather than specific commentary on contemporary political events) shielded the author from persecution. Despite this governmental dismissal, it was an influential work in its time, going through three editions in five years, large extracts appearing in reviews, copies being made available in circulating libraries, and several cheap, pirated editions being produced. Godwin became a type of father figure for young radicals of the time. One of his acolytes was Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822). Percy was a young nobleman whose mercurial disposition found political direction in Godwin’s treatise. In 1811, he wrote to Godwin, introducing himself and proclaiming himself a disciple. To prove his commitment to Godwin’s theories, Shelley went to Ireland to assist with their struggle for independence. His work there amounted to little more than the distribution of pamphlets. In 1814, Shelley began to regularly frequent Godwin’s house and, this time, the obvious attraction was not the philosopher father, but the brilliant and beautiful daughter, Mary.

Shelley’s mother was Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797), another radical writer of the revolutionary period. She came to public notice with her publication A Vindication of the Rights of Man, a response to Edmund Burke’s A Reflection on the Revolution in France (1790).§ Unlike most female-authored texts of the time, the second edition had Wollstonecraft’s name attached to it, thereby publicly acknowledging her radical political polemic that takes to task a leading statesman. This polemic was followed in 1792 with her A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, one of the first great proto-feminist treatises. In it, the author argues for what we would now consider to be reasonable proposals regarding improved education for women: Strengthen the female mind by enlarging it, and there will be an end to blind obedience (133); she wants to persuade women to endeavour to acquire strength, both of mind and body, and to convince them that the soft phrases, susceptibility of heart, delicacy of sentiment, and refinement of taste, are almost synonimous [sic] with epithets of weakness (111).

In order to more accurately observe the French Revolution, Wollstonecraft, a single woman without male escort or protection, moved to Paris in 1792, arriving a month after the execution of Louis XVI. There she met Gilbert Imlay (1754-1828), a diplomatic representative for the United States. They began a love affair which produced a child, Frances Fanny Imlay (1794-1816). In 1795, Imlay moved back to London, followed by Wollstonecraft, who found him living with an actress. Despondent at being abandoned, Wollstonecraft attempted suicide, probably with laudanum. In order to distract her, Imlay sent Wollstonecraft to Scandinavia on business for him. With only her young daughter and a maid, she made the long, hazardous voyage, returning to find that her relationship with Imlay was well and truly over. In a second suicide attempt, she jumped into the River Thames, only to be rescued from drowning. Gradually she returned to literary life, publishing her letters and journal written during the three months of her travels in Scandinavia; titled Letters Written During a Short Residence in Sweden, Norway and Denmark (1796), they formed a type of hybrid travel journal and memoir. Through her coterie of friends, she met Godwin, who had read Letters and claimed If ever there was a book calculated to make a man in love with its author, this appears to me to be the book (Memoirs 95). Their relationship, slow in developing, became a passionate love affair, culminating in pregnancy. In order to avoid the stigma of illegitimacy for this child, they decided to marry. This happy union was brief; Wollstonecraft died on 10 September 1797, ten days after the birth of her daughter Mary.

To many, Mary Godwin represented not so much an individual, but a creation by the two great minds of the period. She was an amalgamation of her parents’ genius, her glorious parents as Percy described them in his dedication to Revolt of Islam (I.101), and it was expected, by both her father and her husband, that she would live up to their standards. Later in life, she would claim that my husband was, from the first, very anxious that I should prove myself worthy of my parentage, and enrol myself on the page of fame. Percy encouraged Shelley to write, not so much as a personal form of creative expression, but as proof of her lineage. If she had written nothing else, Frankenstein would still be proof of that pedigree.

Monstrous parents and their children

Parental figures feature prominently in both Shelley’s life and in this novel. She was vividly aware of the details surrounding the death of her mother, and that her birth had caused that death. Godwin’s Memoirs describe the days following Shelley’s birth, her mother’s terrible agony, and her father’s profound sorrow. She came to know this idealized mother-figure’s treasures of mind and virtues of heart (Memoirs 120) through Wollstonecraft’s written works. Godwin read frequently from them to Fanny and Shelley; during their courtship, the favorite place for Shelley and Percy to meet, away from prying eyes, was at her mother’s grave in St. Pancras churchyard where they would read aloud from books, usually Wollstonecraft’s.¶ Like Frankenstein’s monster, Shelley came to know her one parent only through text; although an idealized parental portrait, it lacked the tangibility, warmth, and physical demonstration of parental love that she so desperately needed.

In January 1798, a month after Wollstonecraft’s death, Godwin, devastated by his loss and wishing to immortalize a woman he considered to be a person of eminent merit (Memoirs 43), published Memoirs of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Instead of the desired admiration, he elicited a reaction of horror. The public was shocked to read about Wollstonecraft’s love affairs, suicide attempts, and illegitimate children. Wollstonecraft was posthumously condemned as licentious and irreligious. In the index to the Anti-Jacobin Review of 1798, for example, See Mary Wollstonecraft is the only entry listed under Prostitution, and the Wollstonecraft listing ends with a cross-reference to Prostitution. In a letter to Hannah More (January 24, 1795), Horace Walpole famously referred to Wollstonecraft as a hyena in a petticoat, creating a monstrous, androgynous** hybrid of woman and animal. Such was the complex and ambiguous heritage Mary Shelley received from her mother. She was to grow up with what Anne Mellor has described as a powerful and ever-to-be frustrated need to be mothered (115) as well as with the realization that the parent she had never known was both celebrated as a pioneering reformer of women’s rights and education, and castigated as an unsex’d female (Polwhele). Young Mary grew up in the shadow of this monstrous mother figure – a woman revered by a few and denounced by many.

Left with the care of his two young daughters, Godwin, with his taciturn, rigid personality, realized the need to provide a maternal figure for them (and for himself); in 1801, he married Mary Jane Clairmont (1766-1841). Unlike his first marriage, which was a union of like-minded souls, this was a pragmatic arrangement, designed to provide a mother-figure for his daughters. The new Mrs. Godwin brought two additional children into the family, Charles and Jane (known throughout the rest of her life as Claire). James Marshall, a friend of Godwin’s, described the new Mrs. Godwin as a clever, bustling, second-rate woman . . . with a complete absence of all the finer sensibilities (Hay 25). Charles Lamb criticized her for her damn’d, beastly vulgarity (25). Shelley felt an immediate antipathy towards her step-mother, having to compete for her father’s attention with Clairmont who supposedly limited access to Godwin and favored her own children over Godwin’s. Certainly not the intellectual genius of her mother, Clairmont was, however, the breadwinner of the family, running the Godwins’ publishing house M.J. Godwin and Co. Juvenile Library. It was largely her energy and financial acumen that kept the Godwins out of economic straits and was in direct contrast to her husband’s rather parasitic approach to finances.

On July 28, 1814, at the age of 16, Shelley eloped with Percy, running away to France with her step-sister Claire in tow. Both Shelley and Percy felt they were putting into practice her father’s philosophy. Political Justice included a critique of conventional morality; one of the conventions Godwin attacked was the institution of marriage, arguing that it is an affair of property, and the worst of all properties, the most odious of monopolies (850) in its control over women. For this reason, marriage, Godwin felt, was simply another form of despotism that should be abolished. He and Shelley’s mother only married when Wollstonecraft became pregnant, since the stigma of illegitimacy would have marked their child as a social pariah. Their personal beliefs, which were too radical for contemporary society to accept, should not, they felt, ruin their child.

At the time of his elopement with Shelley, Percy was no longer in love with his wife (Harriet Westbrook) and, following his mentor’s philosophy, did not wish to be reduced to make the best of an irretrievable mistake (Political Justice 849). Both lovers felt they were being faithful to Godwin’s philosophy by taking control over their own lives. They could not have been more wrong. When they returned to London in mid-September, Godwin refused to see them, wanting nothing more to do with Mary and ordering his family and friends to shun her. Shelley’s adored father had become both a hypocrite to his own philosophy and the type of tyrannical patriarchal figure condemned by her mother. This abandonment would last for two years, ending only when Shelley and Percy married.

After this parental betrayal, Shelley had only Percy as a source of security. She quickly came to realize that, without a marriage, he could also abandon her and then she would be nothing more than a fallen woman. In addition, Percy, despite being a baronet’s son, was constantly cash-strapped. Hounded by creditors, Percy often had to keep away from home in order to avoid being caught and thrown into debtors’ prison. They were forced to move from one miserable apartment to another, all while Shelley endured her first pregnancy. Poor and alone in big, noisy London, without family or friends, she was entirely dependent on Percy for support. However, Percy was dealing with his financial problems, and the initial excitement of the elopement had worn off, leaving only the immediate and pedestrian problems of poverty and helplessness. Although devoted to Shelley, Percy was also devoted to himself. A mercurial figure, he quickly moved from passion to passion, taking up causes and then moving on when bored. Passionate in nature and believing in social justice and reform, he was also highly self-involved. Despite being a father to two children with his wife Harriet, Percy had no qualms about abandoning them when his love for their mother fizzled out. He simply viewed this as a Godwinian philosophical response. Philosophy, however, does not explain his emotional abandonment of Shelley during times of crisis. This was particularly evident each time the couple was devastated by the deaths of their children. When their first baby died in 1815, Percy retreated emotionally, providing Shelley with little support. In Italy in 1818, their daughter Clara died from fever, due in part to Percy’s selfish demand that Mary and Clara travel when the child was sick. Less than a year later, their beloved son William died from fever. As Shelley writes poignantly in her journal, I was a mother & am so no longer (Journals, 69). The embryonic ideas for her first novel can be found in Shelley’s despondence over her apparent failure as a mother, and her physical and emotional separation from both father and lover.

In addition to the tragic deaths of three young children, Shelley had to deal with her culpability in the deaths of her half-sister Fanny and Percy’s wife Harriet. Fanny was left alone with her step-parents when Shelley and Percy eloped. Described as retiring in personality and probably overlooked by her reticent step-father and her bustling step-mother, she was often overshadowed by her half-sister. On October 8, 1816, Fanny left home and, at an inn in Swansea (Wales), took an overdose of laudanum. Her suicide note said she intended to end a life of a being whose birth was unfortunate and whose life has only been a series of pain to those persons who have hurt their health in endeavoring to promote her welfare (Gordon 215). Shelley was plagued with regrets and recriminations. She felt that she had abandoned her half-sister, the one biological connection to her mother, and regretted not offering Fanny a proper assylum [sic] (Letters 1:24).

On December 10, 1816, Harriet Shelley, abandoned by her husband and feeling that she was lowered in the opinion of everyone . . . and with no hope to look for in the future (Suicide note), drowned herself, at the age of 21, in the River Thames. Her suicide note asked why should I drag on a miserable existence embittered by past recollections & not one ray of hope to rest on for the future? Following on the heel of Fanny’s suicide, Shelley was again overwhelmed with recrimination at her complicity in yet another death. Pregnant herself yet again, conceiving in December 1816, the themes of creator, created, mother, father, inventor and destroyer are all intertwined in her own life and in the novel.

The novel as creation

Like Coleridge’s mysterious person on business from Porlock who famously and frustratingly interrupted the writing of Kubla Khan, another dream-inspired work, the story of Frankenstein’s inception is probably as iconic in literary history as the novel itself. Shelley and Percy spent the summer of 1816 on Lake Geneva in close proximity to George Gordon, Lord Byron (1788-1824) at his rented Villa Diodati. The season, nicknamed the year without a summer, was particularly dreadful weather-wise. In 1815, Mount Tambora in the Dutch East Indies erupted, the largest eruption in at least 1300 years. The ash that spewed into the atmosphere caused a volcanic winter in the Northern Hemisphere and resulted in the cold, rainy weather that kept the friends indoors. As Shelley writes in a letter (1/6/1816) to her sister Fanny, an almost perpetual rain confines us principally to the house (Letters, I, 20).

By this point in her life, Mary was a mother to young William (1816-1819). With both the care of her child and her personal studies, Mary was well able to occupy her time; neither Byron nor Percy, however, had personalities well suited to confinement and dullness. Unable to go boating, their favorite occupation (despite the fact that Percy did not swim a stroke), they grew restless and irritable. One stormy evening, the group read German ghost stories and Coleridge’s Gothic poem Christabel to each other. Conversation turned to the discussion of life – its origins – and human nature. Contemporary science was attempting to determine what constituted life – what was its source. Dr. William Lawrence (1783-1867), a renowned anatomist, theorized that the origins of life were based in nature, not in divine will. He argued that the human body was simply bone, flesh and blood; no soul animated the frame. For the residents of the Villa Diodati, particularly atheistic Percy, this idea was fascinating since it implied that God was not the creator of life. Instead, Man held the power to his existence, reinforcing the Promethean theme that fascinated both Percy and Byron. The study of electricity was in its early days; Luigi Galvani (1737-1798), in his experiments with animal tissue and electricity, had developed the theory about animal electric fluid. Frankenstein terms it the elixir of life and asks himself Whence . . . did the principle of life proceed? (40).†† Inspired, the group — Shelley, Percy, Byron and Byron’s personal physician John Polidori (1795-1821) — agreed to a contest: who could write the best horror story for their common amusement?

All set to work, but in the end, only Shelley was truly successful at producing anything. Percy managed to write a few lines of poetry as did Byron. Polidori began what would become The Vampyre (1819). In the preface to the 1831 edition, Shelley describes a dream that she had one night: the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together. She then describes the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half vital motion. Waking, Shelley realized she had the start to her story: What terrified me will terrify others.

This horrific dream that spawned the inspiration of her novel is reminiscent of the dreams that plagued her after the death of her first child. On February 22 1815, Shelley gave birth to her first child, a girl, two months premature. On March 6, the baby, unnamed, died. Percy appears to have been unable to comfort Shelley, either due to his own grief or because of his own self-obsession and hypochondria. Left to mourn the child chiefly on her own, Shelley describes in her journal (19 March 1815) nightly dreams in which my little baby came to life again – that it had only been cold & that we rubbed it by the fire & it lived – I awake & find no baby (I, 70). It is safe to assume that these dreams about resurrection of a loved one had as much influence on Shelley as her dream one year later. There is a sense of remorse or failure in this journal entry, and Shelley’s feelings of culpability in her baby’s death can be seen in Frankenstein’s sense of guilt over the deaths of the innocent victims of his monster’s retribution.

In her 1831 introduction to the novel, Shelley famously refers to her novel as a hideous progeny. The word hideous implies a sort of ambivalence (at best) or abhorrence (at worst) about her creation. However, the term progeny concedes creative parentage. Not only that, but the author encourages this progeny to go forth and prosper. The mother creator, despite her unease, performs her parental duties by sending forth her child with hopes of flourishing. Frankenstein, the father creator, is equally abhorred by his creation, but, reacting on that abhorrence, abandons his progeny.

Parents as creators or destroyers

The theme of parenting is central to this novel. Nurturing characters (Caroline Frankenstein, Elizabeth Lavenza, Justine Moritz, Margaret Walton Saville) are contrasted with negligent ones (Victor). In general, women provide support, both emotional and physical, to those dependant on them. Even if not directly related, which is Justine’s case, they are capable of being surrogate mothers and sisters. As both mother and daughter, Shelley was preoccupied with the responsibilities of both parent and child. The complicated nature of the parent/child relationship figured largely in her own life and formed the framework for her novel.

Frankenstein was conceived during the period that Godwin forsook his daughter after his daughter forsook him for Percy. Shelley adored her father (to whom her novel is dedicated), but Godwin was consistently unable or unwilling to allow her the close relationship with him that she craved (though he did not hesitate to sponge money from her on numerous occasions). The loathed Mary-Jane Clairmont proved an impediment to emotional and physical access to this adored parent. Percy represented the emotional romance she desperately needed, but he too proved untrustworthy. Percy, as a lover and later as a husband, was far more passionate and sympathetic than the cold, aloof Godwin ever was as a father. But Percy’s treatment of Mary was often irresponsible, in both material and emotional terms; for one thing, free love, which Godwin had preached and which Percy practiced, tended to exact a high price from the women involved. In all probability, he had several affairs. As a husband and father, Percy abandoned his first wife and children, sued for custody after her death, but lost because of his notoriety.

Many of Shelley’s ideas about parenting find their roots in her mother’s writings. In Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft imagined a relationship where passion subsided and parenting took its place (Todd 286), stating that, In the exercise of their maternal feelings providence has furnished women with a natural substitute for love, when the lover becomes only a friend, and mutual confidence takes place of overstrained admiration . . . a mutual care produces a new mutual sympathy (304). However, the reality of parenthood meant that there was often not a mutual care" since fatherhood was defined as masculine only as far as procreation was concerned. Child bearing and rearing were entirely feminine occupations. Unfortunately, according to Wollstonecraft, women were unprepared to raise children alone since their feeble educations did not prepare them as rational role models. As she states in her Vindication (in a phrase that almost summarizes her daughter’s novel), a great proportion of the misery that wanders, in hideous forms, around the world, is allowed to rise from the negligence of parents (293).

At the center of the novel is the long De Lacey episode which seems bland when compared with the horror of the creation/revenge plot. As a plot device, it does certainly help to explain the Creature’s transformation from inarticulate to articulate. However, when viewed in context with the theme of parenting, this

Reviews for Frankenstein

[farrhon · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Terrific fresh a marvel

[griffin_reads · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

There is a lot of commentary that can be had about the situation Frankenstein was put into and what the meaning of life is. I personally felt that what came out of the story and what can come from it was better than the delivery.

[jonbrammer-788089 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Mary Shelley's greatest work is deeply influenced by the ideas of her age, and its conception was imbued with the companionship of Percy Shelley and Lord Byron in the appropriately Romantic environs of the Swiss Alps. In Harold Bloom's postscript, he identifies Frankenstein's demonic creation as the only true character in the novel; the creature is a Romantic wanderer, cursed by his sensitivity to music, natural beauty, and human emotions to live in isolated despair. He is too human; while Victor is defined by his unthinking ambition and his desire for creation (much like the abstracted God figure in Milton), the soul of the poet belongs to the being he brings to life and then shuns. Bloom also discusses Frankenstein in terms of the double or doppelganger, a motif in much of 19th Century Romantic and Gothic literature. The reflection or doubling of the scientist (or natural philosopher) and the poet is really one of the central problems that arises from the Romantic response to the Enlightenment. Where does our creative soul fit into this new world of rational understanding? Can our humanity be analyzed and defined away by Darwin and Freud?

[romonko · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

In all my life, I have never had the urge to read Mary Shelley's masterpiece until I received a copy as a gift recently. I have read a lot of classics in my life, but I have never been a fan of the "horror" genre. Well, this book was a surprise--wonderful language, well-drawn characters, a deep study into the human psyche with just the right amount of tension. After finishing the book I couldn't help but think that Hollywood did us no favours with their numerous adaptations of this story. It certainly formulated a preconceived notion in my head, and made me decide to give the book a pass. According to my research, Mary Shelley created this story on a rainy afternoon in 1816 while she was in Geneva with her husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley, and their friend, Lord Byron. How is that for a pedigree? This book is a horror story, but it is so much more. It is study in human nature, and an examination of the dangers and occurrences that can occur when a person's ambitions and preconceived notions, ruled by an imagination that has been allowed to go its own way from childhood. It examines social and human morals, especially as they were in the early 19th century. It is also a tragedy as we watch a man descent into obsession and insanity. There is a reason why this book has stood the test of time, and why it has survived numerous reincarnations as a film and television series. The underlying message is still valid today. Unbridled obsession, tragedy, romance, grief and narcissism are all emotions that we still see everywhere today. The difference today is that all these emotions and actions are out in the open and are discussed freely on television, in the news media and on social media. I think the real horror behind this "horror" story is that it forces the reader to examine their own motivations and aspirations, and maybe begin to understand how these can be interpreted. perceived and judged by others. I am sure we all know of people in the world today and in history who definitely have a "God" complex, and we can see the harm that it has caused and still continues to cause in our world. .

[james_knupp · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The novel that (in the minds of many) started the genre of science fiction. This original portrayal of Frankenstein's monster is much more interesting than our modern depiction of the slow, unintelligent beast. The story does hold up really well despite being 200 years old, but if you're not already a fan of 19th century prose, it's not the easiest read.

[martialalex92 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Things I learned

1. Nothing like the Mel Brooks movie
2. Viktor Frankenstein was a weepy little bitch
3. Interesting when viewed as one of the first horror novels, yet the monster was more human than expected

[lpg3d · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I went into this book expecting villagers with pitchforks and torches. It's not like that at all. To me, it's a very philosophical book about what it means to be human. In some ways, the monster was more human than Victor Frankenstein.

I highly recommend this Barnes and Noble edition since the end notes add immeasurably to the enjoyment of reading this book. The forward by Mary Shelley is also very worthwhile.

[debbie13410 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Egad this is terrible. This is nothing like any of the movies. In fact the creation of the monster is only 2 pages. The rest is filled with a selfish whiny fool brooding over his big mistake and the terrible life he has caused himself. I made myself finish it.

[lorisbook · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Last month, I posted that I had purchased another copy of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. I was recently asked about the book so I have posted some of my impressions here.Mary Shelley (then Mary Godwin) wrote Frankenstein in 1816 after being creeped out by a dream. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who creates a horrendous monster during a scientific experiment.My estimate is I saw the movie 50 years after it was first released in 1931. I saw the movie prior to reading the book and was initially, confused as to who was Frankenstein. I thought the actor Boris Karloff was when in fact he was Dr. Frankenstein's creation."A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe they're being to me. I might in process of time (although I now found it impossible) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption."Shelley used 3 narrators' perspectives in Frankenstein. Most people will tell you that it's created this way so one might understand the complexities of time and the structure of the novel. I believe Mary may have used 3 perspectives because she was in competition with Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, and physician John Polidori to see who could create the best horror story. And Mary likely imagined each of them narrating different scenes as a way to boost her own creativity.Regardless, Mary really rocked it at 18 - not only in giving us an alarming horror story but in making us think in terms of questioning our perspective and recognizing the flaws of humanity. Victor Frankenstein repeatedly left no room for doubt that tragic events would happen by saying, “Destiny was too potent, and her immutable laws had decreed my utter and terrible destruction.” Using references to destiny, and omens of terrible destruction, lead us all to grab onto our Eyeore brain and we begin to believe that Frankenstein is destined for a hapless fate. Frankenstein might have us all believing that each species of an organism does not and cannot change. As if no alternative were ever possible. However, he could have thought, "What is my ultimate goal? How can I change so I am encouraged to experience life's possibilities?" Yes! Frankenstein could have manned up and changed his perspective and chosen a different path! Instead, he gives his creation life which wreaks havoc. As the memory of past misfortunes pressed upon me, I began to reflect upon their cause—the monster whom I had created, the miserable daemon whom I had sent abroad into the world.One parallel between Victor and the monster is that they become recluses/ social outcasts. And Frankenstein eventually recognizes his world is decaying and him along with it. Like the archangel who aspired to omnipotence, I am chained in an eternal hell.In closing, Mary lost a child in 1815 amongst controversy of that time involving living bodies versus inorganic ( dead) bodies. The following year she wrote this gothic horror story (science fiction) which was published in 3 parts in 1818.It's important to note that, Frankenstein may have recalled his mother Caroline's words on her deathbed “Alas! I regret that I am taken from you; and, happy and beloved as I have been, is it not hard to quit you all? But these are not thoughts befitting me; I will endeavor to resign myself cheerfully to death, and will indulge a hope of meeting you in another world.” In Frankenstein's final words, Yet why do I say this? I have myself been blasted in these hopes, yet another may succeed Frankenstein realizes someone will succeed at what he has failed. Perhaps Frankenstein, himself, will be awakened in another world.

[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.

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

Ground breaking, but the style is tedious. Too much angst -- over and over.

[christilee394 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

“I do know that for the sympathy of one living being, I would make peace with all. I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other.”― Mary Shelley, FrankensteinAfter reading Frankenstein, I HAD to read it again. Even after that, I skimmed through it because I knew I could catch more, and I didn't want to miss anything. After revisiting this Gothic, romantic classic, I zealously attacked the internet to read essays, class studies, theses… basically, anything that could take me farther in. I knew there was more I could catch; the sense of abandonment, ego, temper with new technology, obsession, revenge, sympathy, the duality of mankind (aka: good vs evil), the list can go on and on.“I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel...”― Mary Shelley, FrankensteinThere isn’t really anything I can say that hasn’t already been said about this classic. Two take aways I delighted in are, first, Mary Shelley’s vivid, poetic, stately language that shows the intensity of the emotions. Secondly, in society, unfortunately, looks do matter. Just because one can, doesn't mean one should. Respect and take responsibilities of new technologies and as a creator, whether parental or of inventions, one must take on the responsibility of their creation.This book managed to stay with me days, nights and weeks after reading. Wanting to discuss its contents with anyone that would participate. For myself, that is the mark of a GREAT read, one where long after the last page is read, my mind is unsettled and wants to devour more!“There is something at work in my soul, which I do not understand.”― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein

[yarb_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

A few themes I especially enjoyed this time:1. Imagination and the Arctic. On the first page, Walton enthuses about the imagined North polar utopia beyond the region of ice: "there snow and frost are banished; and, sailing over a calm sea, we may be wafted to a land surpassing in wonders and in beauty every region hitherto discovered"; "I shall satiate my ardent curiosity with the sight of a part of the world never before visited"; "I try in vain to be persuaded that the pole is the seat of frost and desolation; it ever presents itself to my imagination as the region of beauty and delight." It's the perfect analogue of Victor's besetting ambition, and the first letter ends with Walton's remarks on the joys of sled travel, contrasting abruptly with the succeeding (indelible) image of the Monster driving his sled North. The polar regions are ready-made blank canvases for the imagination — c.f. Arthur Gordon Pym or The Thing, just for a start. Places of disorientation where compasses go haywire and horizons dissolve.2. The young Shelley's sublimity. She's at pains here to play up Victor's annoying rationality, his anti-Romantic habit of analysis. This is in contrast to Elizabeth who is a pure poet. "While my companion [Elizabeth] contemplated with a serious and satisfied spirit the magnificent appearances of things," Victor tells us, "I delighted in investigating their causes. The world was to me a secret which I desired to divine." Victor's tale is cautionary against the literal and rational. "Darkness had no effect upon my fancy" he reminisces — bad child, not frightened of bugaboos. Partly this is the fault of his permissive parents and liberal upbringing, his parents, "possessed by the very spirit of kindness and indulgence," allow his unnatural childhood proclivities free rein; partly it's just the way he is. If we concentrated more on "simple pleasures", even the history of the New World would be less sad: "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 been enslaved; Cæsar would have spared his country; America would have been discovered more gradually; and the empires of Mexico and Peru had not been destroyed." Wow!3. The horror. Amidst this novel's thematic smorgasbord, I think maybe we forget how disturbing it is. Shelley turns a couple of immaculate phrases in the service of the Weird — how about "who shall conceive the horrors of my secret toil as I dabbled among the unhallowed damps of the grave or tortured the living animal to animate the lifeless clay?" Bone-chilling! The way the Alpine lightning portends the Monster's reappearence in Victor's life! Or the image of the Monster lifting the curtain of Frankenstein's bed and peering in soon after having been animated! Unforgettable images. At the same time, isn't it the Monster's ugliness that's really the root of all his problems? If he weren't so misshapen and repulsive, he'd presumably be pitied and have no trouble fitting in what with his native intelligence, empathy, fidelity and good-heartedness. It's always his disfigurement that wrecks things for him. So, and not to deny the smorgasbord, isn't this at heart a simple tragedy about narrow-mindedness, petty cruelty, mistrust of the deformed or Other? Shut up, of course it isn't just that!I had completely forgotten about the Irish interlude. Like Dracula, this novel is front-loaded: the Monster's tale which occupies the central section is kinda slow and soppy. But it works. Easily one of my favorite novels and hard to think of a more influential one, or rather, one with a bigger influence beyond literature.

[ekerstein-986148 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Impressed and fascinated by this book. I would give it 5 stars although I found it overwrought at times.

It's an allegorical tale. There's much more here beyond the popular idea of a monster conceived by lightning. The birth of the monster actually only takes up one paragraph.

There's a biblical analogy to be made. Except this Adam has no Eve. A child reckoning with his maker. Reckoning with God for his imperfect form. Tormenting his maker until they both share each other's miseries.

[charon07 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I never tire of the story of meeting one's maker, whatever form it should come in. This is a classic treatment of that theme.

I first read this years ago, and my recent re-reading offered me a different perspective. I was formerly eager to find heroes and villains, and who can help but feel sorry for the poor creature, abandoned by his maker and rejected by human society? Who can help but find fault with Herr Frankenstein for his fickleness, instantly despising the creature he worked so long and so obsessively to bring into being?

Now I find the moral dilemmas less clear-cut. Still, a fascinating study about one's moral responsibilities to others, whether creator or created or just cousin on the family tree.

[jsabrina-219220 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

"Frankenstein" the book is very different from the impressions of the story I'd gained from movie images. "Baron Von Frankenstein" is not a nobleman, nor a mature or near-elderly man. He's a very bright college kid who gets obsessed with the idea of understanding the secret of the life force. There is no castle, no giant lab, no lightning storm. . . just a rented room in a student boarding house. In fact, Shelley's Frankenstein is adamant about sharing nothing about how he creates his monster, lest others share his sad fate.

The "monster" is the true hero of the book -- an ugly creature abandoned by his creator in the moment of his uncanny 'birth.' Although at first animal-like, he gradually grows into the sensibilities of a man, with an instinct to do good. But his sincere efforts to be good, and to win his way into community, are rebuffed at every turn, and these disappointments hurt him to the point of furious revenge.

Victor Frankenstein spends most of the book wallowing in guilt and depression, unable to either see the capacity for virtue in his creation or provide it with the means to have a peaceful existence. The monster, his twisted mirror, is a wretch battling desperately for companionship, love, knowledge, and justice.

This is definitely a novel written in another time. The story is revealed through the letters of an ambitious sea captain who stumbles into the final chapter of the larger story. Everything is related as memory, and there are far too many pages of Frankenstein moaning about his unhappiness. It's not an adventure story or a horror story or an action-adventure. Instead, it's a moral tale played out in fantastical circumstances, leaving the reader to judge who, in the end, is the true monster.

[librolindsay · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I admit that I approached Frankenstein with a little apprehension. I have the unfortunate and somewhat unfounded tendency to assign most books (esp. British Lit) written before, say, 1850 or so with an assumption that they will be stuffy, slooooow-going, and filled with archaic language. How wrong I was! Even through an English degree, this book somehow eluded me. I'm really glad to have finally read it, and I think I might consider it to be one of the most engaging and provocative of the "classics" I've yet read.
My familiarity with Frankenstein, or Frankenstein's monster I should say, was restricted mostly to Halloween images. I haven't seen the classic film (which I am now more enticed to view), so my idea of Frankenstein was of a somewhat beastly but overall gentle oversized man with lots of stithces. This book, as I thankfully found, paints a much more vivid and complex picture, and I found myself constantly going back and forth in sympathizing with Victor and the monster. I ultimately side with the monster, but the book confronts very complex sociological issues of creation, parenting, and responsibility that necessitates a lot of reader involvement to really understand the characters and issues. Despite that I could guess just about every major event and that some of the language was a little dated (of course is was written in 1818), the story still hooked me along to the very end, creating an avid curiosity in the plight of every character. No longer will what I once viewed as "stodgy" classic literature deter me!

[sarahlh-41506 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

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.

[eurohackie · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A lonely English sea captain sets sail for the North Pole from his base in Russia. As he grows closer to his destination, his crew rescues an emaciated form from the icy waters. Their mysterious guest slowly recovers his strength, then relates (to the captain, at least) an incredible story: he is chasing a monster - a demon - of his own creation, with a mixture of fear, vengeance, and determination.I was surprised to find a frame story; though why, I'm not sure - quite a few novels from this time period are constructed thus. There is a hint of Dracula as well, with the epistolary style of this frame. But of course the meat of the work is in the 23 chapters between these letters, one in which Victor Frankenstein confronts quite a few existential questions around the idea of what it means to play god.This is quite a compelling tale, not the least reason being that its written in such a manner as to suggest that Frankenstein is insane, and has been for most of his adult life. The fact that he falls into illness the very same night that he gives his horrible creation life, and continues to have these spells of illness any time he has a 'confrontation' with the creature, gives pay to that idea. The fact that he, alone, is aware of the creature's existence and is the only one who ever speaks with him is another reason for thinking thus. I spent most of the book trying to decide if this was some sort of phantom delusion or if his personality had somehow split into two conscious entities. Either way, the idea that he was blaming himself for his monster's crimes from the start, and pursuing him to the literal ends of the earth, makes the idea of him literally chasing himself into craziness all the more likely.I'm no great critic of literature, so I suppose no matter how you interpret it, there are still lots of thought-provoking ideas and questions here. What does it mean to create another sentient being? Do you have a charge to care for it? Can you really close Pandora's box after opening it? What does it mean to be an outcast on the basis of qualities you can't control? Does a complete absence of love or support lead to a life of evil and vengeance? There's certainly lots to chew on.I never read this book when I was a kid, and have grown up with the popular culture ideas of Frankenstein('s monster). I'm not sure I would have truly appreciated it without a bit of life experience behind me, so I'm glad I'm reading it for the first time as an adult.

[fence_2 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Just as with Dracula most of us are familiar with the story of Frankenstein and his creation, even if popular culture often refers to the monster by that name. It probably suffers a little because so many of us think we know the story, why should we read something that we already know about. But it is worth a read.

Framed by the letters of an Arctic explorer to his sister, the main body of the novel is made up of Frankenstein relating his past to Capt. Walton. Frankenstein urges Walton to listen to him, and to learn from his mistakes, to not let his passion take over his life. It may be the end of him, as Frankenstein’s has destroyed his. He tells of his childhood in Geneva, of growing up a happy child, of heading off to college in Germany where his ambition first surfaces. He believes he knows how to create life. And so, of course, he sets his mind to doing just that, only for this passion and enthusiasm to ruin his life.

I had read Frankenstein as a teenager, but I’ll admit to remembering very little of it, and reading it this time around I just couldn’t get over how selfish the good doctor is.

I know, it is a first person story, so obviously we are going to get his point of view, his thoughts and emotions. But he never even tries to put anyone else first. At more than one point in the story he mentions that another character is sad, or tormented, but each time he follows up by saying that if only this character knew how bad he himself were feeling they would be put to shame. No one could possibly *feel* as much as Frankenstein.

And never once does he take responsibility for his own actions. He created the “monster” and promptly abandons him, yet, while he acknowledges guilt (although that may just be him putting himself at the centre of the entire world) he later says that he is blameless. Blameless!

Despite Frankenstein’s flaws this is a great read. Or possibly because of his annoyances, they certainly make him more of a character, its just a pity that there is no one else in the novel to balance him out. Yes, the monster gets to tell his tale, and you can’t help but pity him, despite his actions, but he isn’t enough to truly balance out Viktor’s influence.

[booklove2 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

First, this book shoulda coulda been called 'Frankenstein's Creature' or 'Frankenstein's Monster' to prevent the endless confusion about the name on the cover.  Also, it just sounds better.  Most Frankenstein projects seem to focus on the creation of the creature, but in the narrative itself, it is mostly bypassed, which as I reader, I'm not sure if that's a positive or negative.  This book has many more layers than any iteration of the story that I've seen before.  BUT since the book is so short, possibly those layers shouldn't even be there.  For example, the cottagers history seems extra and takes focus away from Frankenstein and his monster.  But I love the first part, sailors on a ship surrounded by ice seeing one sled go by, then the next day, seeing the other sled go by.  Then the ice breaks apart.   So mysterious and haunting.  But reading this now, since the story is so embedded in everything, 200 years later, readers know who is on those sleds!  The story is short and sometimes scattered, with the narrator somehow mostly needlessly bookending Frankenstein's story and then the monster's story.   Most of the book I was wondering if Frankenstein had been imagining the monster, as most other characters don't see the monster at all.  But I was proved wrong on that theory.  I'm glad to have this foundational classic under my reading belt.

[david_masumba · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This is a gramatically powerful book that is set in Geneva and has a very dark romance about it. It does enlighten you to the sadness of the view of outsiders.

[jzacsh-533759 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I loved the story, I just hated the book. Ok, let me rephrase. I loved the plot, the overall concept, the characters, the sub-stories that take place. They were all fun. I hated how long it was. It could have been written in ½ or less of the length seen here. So much of the book is just the main character talking about his inner feelings repeatedly and with only the slightest variation.

If it weren't for that (feeling it was dragged out), I'd give it 3-4 stars. Not 5 stars, because I found the main character unbelievably helpless and lacking in any planning capability. I don't just mean in the obvious reaction to Frankenstein about taking responsibility for your creations, but the fact that he's told repeatedly what his adversary's actions will be. Instead, Frankenstein plans zilch and then is devastated when his adversary follows through exactly as promised. Come on.

Of course, I think some of these things are just the book being from 1818, so I'm guessing if I'd have read it then, I'd have enjoyed it 5-stars much.

[kimmeyer-1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I know this is classic, but it is also boring. Frankenstein, the doctor, is whiny and single-minded. He's the villain of the book from my perspective. The monster at least exhibits some personal growth and emotional depth, but he's absent from much of the book. I was just reading words on a page much of the time without engagement and only made it through thanks to it being a buddy read.

[ragwaine · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

It took me 50 years, but I finally got around to reading this classic. It was totally different than what I expected, which was something more like the movie, which I watched in its entirety for the first time after I finished and have to say that I liked the movie better than the book. I can imagine Shelley turning in her grave when the movie came out since the monster in the book was very articulate and it had so much more meaning. I love flowery writing, but wow she could go on and the self-hate of both Frankenstein and the monster got really repetitive and boring; it was like hearing someone whine about self-made stress over and over again.

[mbmackay · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

In 2015 The Guardian published a list of the 100 best novels published in English, listed in chronological order of publication. Under Covid inspired lockdown/social distancing, I have taken up the challenge.Everyone knows "Frankenstein" but I was under the mistaken impression that the name referred to the created monster, while I now know it to be the name of the creator. The "monster" doesn't seem to have a name.Mary Shelley published the book at 21 years of age. It is an amazing feat. While it is a little patchy, and the tone inconsistent, the book is a great read, and is famous and remembered for good reason.

[booktsunami · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Somehow, over all the years I have managed to escape reading Frankenstein. Of course I knew the general idea...mancreates monster but I was unaware of the moral complications introduced into the plot.Yes, it's a horror story originally developed as a "ghost story" by Mary Shelley, laid up in Geneva with husband and Lord Byron as the next door neighbour. (As an aside, I have a feeling that I've seen Byron's name carved into the dungeon wall in the Chilon Castle at Montreux on Lake Geneva). Ah yes...I just checked up on it and that's correct but he wrote a poem about a prisoner in the dungeons here...and signed his name.I felt I know the area around Geneva that Mary was writing about ...and the lake etc because I've spent a bit of time in Geneva and grown to like it. Also I've travelled across the border to Chamonix ...another site where Frankenstein met up with his monster creation.Mary has actually written quite a thriller. It did keep me on the edge of my seat wondering about what twist the plot would take. And I must admit I had some sympathy for the monster created by Victor Frankenstein who was abandoned at birth by his creator. He really wanted to be good ...and had some good natural instincts but was abandoned by his dad/creator and never given any decent sort of upbringing. Maybe he might have turned into a good citizen if Victor had "done the right thing" as a creator/dad.I found myself questioning the possibility of the monster being to lie secluded so close to the family of Felix without being discovered....then realised I was questioning this trivial aspect of the tale without really questioning how Victor in a few short years had acquired sufficient knowledge to create a living being. Actually, not a bad story ....hope that it doesn't give me nightmares. I give it four stars.

[bell7_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A man traveling to the North Pole by boat recounts in letters to his sister how he came across one Victor Frankenstein, a young man who told him a wild story of creating life - only to be horrified by his creation.Frankenstein is one of those books whose images from the movies have probably impacted our our pop culture-driven perception of what they are about more than the original subject matter. That being the case, I was frequently surprised by the text itself and exactly how things played out. Despite relaying the story to a sympathetic listener, Frankenstein comes across as really weak and cowardly in his inaction though much of the story. This reader's sympathy was much more with the creature who did not ask to be made and was given a miserable existence of being feared and hated wherever he went. The flowery language of its time took some getting used to, and I certainly gave my brain a bit of a workout trying to wrap my mind around some of the long and involved sentences. An engaging read that, at just over 200 pages, isn't too daunting of a classic to try.

[beauxarts79 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The seedbed for all our contemporary posthumanism, but I could have done with a happier ending.

[lucky2loki · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The nesting narrative is very effective, and the story -- considering its time, and of course the lack of the archetype 'Frankenstein' in previous literature -- is perhaps surprisingly inventive. It rarely goes in the directions one might at first expect, even when familiar with the basic story beats. The intertextuality is also intriguing to me (thankfully this edition had elaborate endnotes for a lot of these references), and I'm particularly fascinated with the monster's self-identification with both Adam and Lucifer from "Paradise Lost". The novel is additionally quite short, making for a brisk read. That said, it also has a lot of meandering. Dr. Frankenstein's constant dread and anguish takes up a lot of pages (understandably), the monster's (admittedly great) soliloquies the same, as do small side-stories and travel descriptions (less understandably and less great), and this combine to making the plot feel a bit slow at times by my 2020 standards. All in all a novel I found to be good enough to be worth reading for its immeasurable impact on not only popular culture but the world in general, but probably a bit too dreary and dragged out for me to ever decide to revisit now that I've read it once.- Loki