Scan barcode
lesahreader's review against another edition
3.0
This may be a classic and a first but dated and wordy.
ruthieduthie's review against another edition
5.0
This is a very powerful evocation of the descent from good to evil, less a horror story than a new variation on Paradise Lost, which is referred to several times in the narrative. The creature's physical appearance is never described, nor the techniques used by Frankenstein to create him, so the focus remains on the moral aspects of the situation. Overall it is a very thought-provoking work, though distinctly Gothic.
jonisayin's review against another edition
5.0
I cant believe I've never read this before! A classic, chuck full of wisdom for a life of compassion. Nothing like the Frankenstein movies I've seen. The monster broke my heart. Time-and-again.
When the monster cries "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." MY HEART BREAKS!
When the monster cries "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." MY HEART BREAKS!
kayleigha's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
Content Warnings
Graphic: Body horror
Moderate: Death and Genocide
Minor: Child death and Injury/Injury detail
kt122's review against another edition
4.0
Very interesting exploration of the unintended consequences of our actions, the nature of evil, and the responsibility of parenthood. The book is basically about familial relationships, especially father son or parent child. The book masterfully catches the ambivalence, anticipation, exhilaration, emotionality and anguish of being a parent. The language is probably too turgid and emotionally overwrought for some readers, but I appreciated a different (non-contemporary) voice in the telling of this tale. I like the idea of interpreting the meaning of the story by taking the horror out of the equation and seeing the story as one about the intense dilemmas of everyday life.
chhknight's review against another edition
3.0
Long story short, the book is something very different from the Boris Karloff movie and the decades of green-skinned, flat-topped caricatures that followed. I went in expecting a monster story and I suppose I got that, but it turned out the monster was the scientist, or his ambition, or maybe technological development or something.
I appreciated a lot about this book. Shelley described sentiment with the kind of color and complexity usually applied to the physical world. I love reading male characters written by women -- they tend to have more realistic inner lives than when men write men nowadays, in my experience. One layer of narrator describes his longing for companionship like this:
“I desire the company of a man who could sympathize with me, whose eyes would reply to mine. You may deem me romantic, my dear sister, but I bitterly feel the want of a friend” (2). Shelley’s gift for metaphor makes the text read like a philosophical treatise, and not at all like a 21st-century novel, let alone “horror.” Contemporary authors would throw in more jump scares and red herrings to keep the reader engaged.
Shelley is committed to her romantic project, though, and dwells on anguish, regret and vengeance more than, say, plot. She knew how to turn a phrase though. The monster, who seems to just grunt and squash villagers in later incarnations, accuses his creator with this evocative picture: “You throw a torch into a pile of buildings, and when they are consumed, you sit among the ruins and lament the fall” (107).
Subtitled “The Modern Prometheus,” Shelley's story seems so focused on its moral that it fails, at times, to just be an entertaining story. I don't remember enough from college about Gothic literature to know if that's typical or not -- perhaps that wasn’t so much Shelley’s intent as was a psychological exploration; in her introduction she says she set out to write a “ghost story.” But it makes me appreciate the real artistry required in refreshing the same old monster tales archetyped by writers like her. I've often had the experience of reading a well-known historical document for the first time and being left a little disappointed by it as a piece of writing after centuries of hype. That's not Shelley's fault. But it makes me a little less likely to believe in “old masters” or “Great Men (sic)” in art and history. And I was already pretty suspicious.
I appreciated a lot about this book. Shelley described sentiment with the kind of color and complexity usually applied to the physical world. I love reading male characters written by women -- they tend to have more realistic inner lives than when men write men nowadays, in my experience. One layer of narrator describes his longing for companionship like this:
“I desire the company of a man who could sympathize with me, whose eyes would reply to mine. You may deem me romantic, my dear sister, but I bitterly feel the want of a friend” (2). Shelley’s gift for metaphor makes the text read like a philosophical treatise, and not at all like a 21st-century novel, let alone “horror.” Contemporary authors would throw in more jump scares and red herrings to keep the reader engaged.
Shelley is committed to her romantic project, though, and dwells on anguish, regret and vengeance more than, say, plot. She knew how to turn a phrase though. The monster, who seems to just grunt and squash villagers in later incarnations, accuses his creator with this evocative picture: “You throw a torch into a pile of buildings, and when they are consumed, you sit among the ruins and lament the fall” (107).
Subtitled “The Modern Prometheus,” Shelley's story seems so focused on its moral that it fails, at times, to just be an entertaining story. I don't remember enough from college about Gothic literature to know if that's typical or not -- perhaps that wasn’t so much Shelley’s intent as was a psychological exploration; in her introduction she says she set out to write a “ghost story.” But it makes me appreciate the real artistry required in refreshing the same old monster tales archetyped by writers like her. I've often had the experience of reading a well-known historical document for the first time and being left a little disappointed by it as a piece of writing after centuries of hype. That's not Shelley's fault. But it makes me a little less likely to believe in “old masters” or “Great Men (sic)” in art and history. And I was already pretty suspicious.
lareveusedemots's review against another edition
3.0
C'était bien, quoique assez différent de ce à quoi je m'attendais! Maiiiis Frankenstein is kinda dumb, genre come on man arrête de faire la victime pis genre fais les bons choix
thekatiegraham's review against another edition
2.0
Mary Shelley has my respect but I'm quitting Frankenstein. Maybe one day I'll finish it.
remussecrets's review against another edition
emotional
hopeful
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
4.0
marylopez's review against another edition
dark
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25