Rating: 
Summary: A Hard Sell
Review: Despite many strengths, Frankenstein has fatal flaws. Coleridge wrote that readers must approach a novel with "a willing suspension of disbelief," a willingness in turn nurtured by the novelist. Such suspension is required of readers because they must understand that a novelist cannot represent everything. Part of the novelist's art lies in the simulation of reality through selective withholding and revealing of various information. Conversely, novelists lose readers when they ask them to suspend disbelief too often, or to accept details or events that just do not logically seem to make sense. Such is the case of Mary Shelley and her creation, Victor Frankenstein.Unlike its portrayal in the movies, which involves an assistant (Igor), various trips to the cemetery for body parts, and a lightning-filled climax in a laboratory, creation of Frankenstein's monster is anti-climactic. Shelley dispatches the entire incident in about three paragraphs. Just as quickly, Frankenstein is repulsed by his creation. The creature opens his eyes, Frankenstein sees its ugliness, and flees - all in the space of two or three sentences. Thus begins a slippery slope of disbelief. Readers are expected to believe that the creature could evolve into a perfect example of cultured, Enlightened, rational thinking simply by observing a simple family and reading a handful of books. The monster's inner being is too perfect. It is inconceivable that his rhetoric, designed to make the reader sympathetic, cannot also appeal to Frankenstein. And Frankenstein himself is too blind. Once he is finally rebuked, the monster vows to avenge himself upon Frankenstein. He systematically murders members of Frankenstein's family and friends. The entire object of the murders is to make Frankenstein suffer as the monster has suffered. Thus, it is impossible that when the monster promises to be with Frankenstein on his wedding night, that Frankenstein takes extreme measures to protect himself while not even for a moment looking to his wife's safety. It's simply too much to believe.
Rating: 
Summary: Outstanding
Review: For those readers who wish to read the novel as Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley originally intended it, this is the text to use! Far from the later editions she edited and, quite frankly, "watered down," the 1818 edition of _Frankenstein_ displays the author at her best. (Of course, even if you prefer the later editions, it's nice to see what Shelley's original intentions were.) The footnotes are informative and helpful, the criticisms are well-selected, and the entire volume is a welcome addition to one's library.
Rating:
Summary: It is a good book and many have read it and you should but..
Review: I don't think I would read it again. The text is flowery and hard to take in all the time. She [mary shelly] had an amazing way of capturing feelings... It has symbolism of Fruedism, Marxism, feminism and more...It represents all the horrrors of life and society.
Rating: 
Summary: Before you write a _review_...
Review: I'd just like to respond to the fellow from Minnesota who submitted a response. Shelley wrote the book in 1818. 1818. Think about it.
Rating:
Summary: Just a thought....
Review: I'm just comenting on another reader's review. This person states that there were elements of symbolism of Marxism, Freudism, Feminism and more.... I'm just wondering how Mary Shelley was able to incorperate symbolism of these ideologies when they weren't even around until the late nineteenth century. Did Shelley posses ESP? Oh well, I guess it shows that you can twist the english language around until it means what you want it to.
Rating:
Summary: Amazing!
Review: I've never seen the movie nor have I heard descriptions of the movie. I just assumed from the clips that I had seen that Dr. Frankenstein went to the cemetary, stole body parts, created a monster, the monster escapted and the story climaxed as a group of townsmen find the monster and lynch it. How happily wrong I was and what a sad mockery the story has become. Instead of finding a plodding flat-headed creature with an IQ of 3, the monster is actually something worse--he's still 9', but he's agile, possesses superhuman strength and agility and worse of all, he's much superior in intelligence to his creator. He is witty, is accomlished in persuasive speaking, quotes poetry and is determined to spend his horrible existance (he has nothing better to do--none can bare to look upon him as he is so horribly disfigured) stalking Dr. Frankenstien and making him suffer if he does not create another companion. This Monster is much scarier and worthy of a great story than Hollywood's plodding oaf. Shelly does an excellent job of pulling this reader in and struggling along with Victor Frankenstein as he debates the options in this lose-lose situation (slow destruction of his family vs creating a potentially more evil companion for his evil creation). I had no problem suspending my disbelief and greatly enjoyed the characters (I especially enjoyed slowly watching Victor Frankenstein grow sick and insane with worry) that Shelly creates. Aside from the Bible, if I could recommend any book, right now it would be Frankenstein.
Rating:
Summary: A story greatly superior to stereotyped Frankenstien
Review: I've never seen the movie nor have I heard descriptions of the movie. I just assumed from the clips that I had seen that Dr. Frankenstein went to the cemetary, stole body parts, created a monster, the monster escapted and the story climaxed as a group of townsmen find the monster and lynch it. How happily wrong I was and what a sad mockery the story has become. Instead of finding a plodding flat-headed creature with an IQ of 3, the monster is actually something worse--he's still 9', but he's agile, possesses superhuman strength and agility and worse of all, he's much superior in intelligence to his creator. He is witty, is accomlished in persuasive speaking, quotes poetry and is determined to spend his horrible existance (he has nothing better to do--none can bare to look upon him as he is so horribly disfigured) stalking Dr. Frankenstien and making him suffer if he does not create another companion. This Monster is much scarier and worthy of a great story than Hollywood's plodding oaf. Shelly does an excellent job of pulling this reader in and struggling along with Victor Frankenstein as he debates the options in this lose-lose situation (slow destruction of his family vs creating a potentially more evil companion for his evil creation). I had no problem suspending my disbelief and greatly enjoyed the characters (I especially enjoyed slowly watching Victor Frankenstein grow sick and insane with worry) that Shelly creates. Aside from the Bible, if I could recommend any book, right now it would be Frankenstein.
Rating:
Summary: Frankenstein: A Norton Critical Edicition
Review: If you think you know Frankenstein because you have seen the classic 1930's Hollywood movie, then you really don't know Frankenstein. The short novel upon which the movie is loosely based (so loosely as to be almost a different story)is a morality tale on the creation of life and the obligations of the creator and the created. Mary Shelley was only twenty when she wrote the novel, begun when a house party attended by the poet Byron and Shelley's husband, the poet Percy Shelley decided to swap "ghost" stories one evening. Only Mary Shelley completed her story and this is the 1818 text presented in this book.
One main objection I have about this book (and the only reason that kept it from getting 5 stars) is basically the plot itself. If you think that a tight plausible plot is needed, then this is not the book for you. There are too many holes and too many times I found myself asking, Why would the character do this? But if you read for language and philosophical thought, then Frankenstein is a perfect short read. The monster is very erudite and able to express his emotions perfectly. Why was he created and how can he endure if all he receives is the scorn and hatred of those around him? What is the obligation of the creator-to please his creation or keep him from doing harm to others? This is the true core of the story and the contrasting feelings between Victor Frankenstein, the creator and the monster fill the pages.
While not a difficult read, it is one that is totally unexpected if you have no prior knowledge of the novel's difference with the movie. While the movie is rightfully a classic, the book delves more into the spiritual and emotional realms of creation and its affect on all. I would highly recommend this book for those who are intrigued by the beauty of language and thought. J
Rating:
Summary: Not What You Think!
Review: If you think you know Frankenstein because you have seen the classic 1930's Hollywood movie, then you really don't know Frankenstein. The short novel upon which the movie is loosely based (so loosely as to be almost a different story)is a morality tale on the creation of life and the obligations of the creator and the created. Mary Shelley was only twenty when she wrote the novel, begun when a house party attended by the poet Byron and Shelley's husband, the poet Percy Shelley decided to swap "ghost" stories one evening. Only Mary Shelley completed her story and this is the 1818 text presented in this book.
One main objection I have about this book (and the only reason that kept it from getting 5 stars) is basically the plot itself. If you think that a tight plausible plot is needed, then this is not the book for you. There are too many holes and too many times I found myself asking, Why would the character do this? But if you read for language and philosophical thought, then Frankenstein is a perfect short read. The monster is very erudite and able to express his emotions perfectly. Why was he created and how can he endure if all he receives is the scorn and hatred of those around him? What is the obligation of the creator-to please his creation or keep him from doing harm to others? This is the true core of the story and the contrasting feelings between Victor Frankenstein, the creator and the monster fill the pages.
While not a difficult read, it is one that is totally unexpected if you have no prior knowledge of the novel's difference with the movie. While the movie is rightfully a classic, the book delves more into the spiritual and emotional realms of creation and its affect on all. I would highly recommend this book for those who are intrigued by the beauty of language and thought. J
Rating:
Summary: Not the horror story we all know and love so well.
Review: Mary Shelley's early 1818 text of Frankenstein is free of the revisions she made when she became an older woman, wearier of the world. This novel is not the horror story Hollywood has told us in Boris Karloff's portrayal of the Frankenstein monster, Kenneth Brannaugh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (a disturbing departure from the text) and the satire Young Frankenstein. The horrors Shelley comments on in the book include the dangers of man playing God and then not taking responsibility for his creation by abandoning it.
|
