Scan barcode
abaugher's review against another edition
4.0
Ideas, meanings, stories, words themselves, were used rather differently during Shelley's time, and many times I had to read the text carefully to be able to figure out that one paragraph of what seemed like fluff to me actually meant "she found a friend, and she didn't appreciate".
Frankenstein was definitely not the horror story it has been made out to be by so many since it's publication, except for how horribly the creator of his monster did no do justice to his creation's existence. I thought that, surely, after hearing his monster's tale of loneliness and misunderstandings, Frank would have sympathized with him; but it seems that physical looks equal awful character, as Shelley indicates in one of her tales included in the book, kind of a "fiend in looks is a fiend in character".
Mathilda is, to my mind, two stories mashed together, but neither appropriate to be with the other. Incest? No, I don't think Shelley got the idea of incest down. She gets Mathilda's shame and suffering down, but she totally misses the boat on how Mathilda got so ashamed...unless that is another incident of my not reading between the lines enough.
Some of the reviews or essays I really couldn't finish, but found some literary merit in force-feeding myself the abundance of words used to tell the stories.
What is different to me in reading this and then reading a contemporary book? I think it is the lack of personal existential experience. I really didn't see that so much as descriptions of bodily and facial gestures, and general thoughts. Perhaps I should try reading something dated even earlier to gain better pserspective of the writing of the time compared with that gone before it.
Frankenstein was definitely not the horror story it has been made out to be by so many since it's publication, except for how horribly the creator of his monster did no do justice to his creation's existence. I thought that, surely, after hearing his monster's tale of loneliness and misunderstandings, Frank would have sympathized with him; but it seems that physical looks equal awful character, as Shelley indicates in one of her tales included in the book, kind of a "fiend in looks is a fiend in character".
Mathilda is, to my mind, two stories mashed together, but neither appropriate to be with the other. Incest? No, I don't think Shelley got the idea of incest down. She gets Mathilda's shame and suffering down, but she totally misses the boat on how Mathilda got so ashamed...unless that is another incident of my not reading between the lines enough.
Some of the reviews or essays I really couldn't finish, but found some literary merit in force-feeding myself the abundance of words used to tell the stories.
What is different to me in reading this and then reading a contemporary book? I think it is the lack of personal existential experience. I really didn't see that so much as descriptions of bodily and facial gestures, and general thoughts. Perhaps I should try reading something dated even earlier to gain better pserspective of the writing of the time compared with that gone before it.
elysareadsitall's review against another edition
5.0
This collection is wonderful. It contains Frankenstein, Mathilda, and an assortment of fiction short stories, essays and reviews, and letters. It showcases Shelley's writing well, and her stories are captivating.
maryamshahid's review against another edition
dark
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
5.0
More...