A few weeks ago I picked up the original Frankenstein. I've always wanted to read it as I had ideas about Frankenstein. The story has been called the first Mad Scientist story, the first Men Shouldn't Tamper with Some Things story, the first robot story even.
I personally saw it as the first modern Zombie story--the slow moving monster made up of dead, with limited vocabulary and very difficult to kill.
Yet I was unsure if that was just the original movies, or the story itself.
So I started reading the book.
BAD IDEA.
Mary Shelly's Frankenstein is terrible.
It is none of those stories. It is poorly constructed, poorly worded, and poorly plotted. Everything that you may like about Frankenstein is either not in the book, or it takes up about a paragraph.
The monster's creation--done in a paragraph.
Igor--missing. A pure Hollywood creation.
The lightening and the castle where the mad doctor's experiments take place? Missing.
In fact, I'm not sure if Frankenstein is even a doctor.
The story begins with an explorer writing letters to his sister. He is up north, looking to sail around Russia, when he debates his life choices. We almost get a taste of the mad scientist here--for he has surrendered his normal life to explore the world.
This sad story goes on for a chapter or two when he has his ship pick up a man adrift in the frozen sea. Suddenly they become best buddies, and this man tells his story.
So we have a story within a story...standard story telling. Later on this explorer is writing the story Dr. Frankenstein is telling about the story his creation told him of the story some strangers told each other that he happened to overhear.
Confused?
No longer connected to the story?
I have not finished it yet, but I'll drag my way through.
What I have discovered is that Frankenstein is not the story of the evils of science unchecked, or a story of life after death.
Its a deadbeat dad story.
For Frankenstein created his monster when he went away to college. He created it to satisfy a burning desire that, once consummated, he rejected as ugly.
He created a life as a teen boy sowing his wild oats, then rejected it.
Frankenstein's monster is a metaphor for a dead-beat dad, creating a child and then denying it, kicking it out in the world to fend for itself.
This orphan, adopted by a family in the mountains, eventually seeks his father. Again and again the father rejects him. The child becomes angered and goes on a killing spree.
There are more details, details that are bad science, bad morals, and bad writing, but you get the picture.
Where does the coincidence come in?
Three times last week, as I was slogging through parts of the story, I heard Frankenstein mentioned in a good light. There are some Frankenstein-like movies out (Spliced?) and one new book on the summer of fun that ended up with Mary Shelly and friends (Lord Byron, the poet Shelly, etc) creating her story.
And they all praised it as if that was a given.
And I laughed out loud each time I heard it.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just downloaded the e-book myself. I'm interested in giving it a read now, to see how I like it.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is poorly constructed, poorly worded, and poorly plotted.
Eh? It's one of the most well constructed gothic novels ever written. The nesting doll structure, along with one or two scenes that don't fit into that structure, is a genuine accomplishment.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "poorly worded," but given the vast differences in voices in each section - i.e., between the Captain, Frankenstein and the creature, the book's "wording" is excellent.
quote:Everything that you may like about Frankenstein is either not in the book, or it takes up about a paragraph.
Yeah, that's not the book's fault.
quote:Igor--missing.
Igor isn't "missing." See above.
quote:What I have discovered is that Frankenstein is not the story of the evils of science unchecked, or a story of life after death.
Its a deadbeat dad story.
Ah, so you discarded two partial/lame interpretations in the name of another partial/lame interpretation. Good job, yo.
Stick to Michael Crichton?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I was in the middle of writing this critique, with about 10 more pages of details to back up my lame assertions, when I was informed by the wife that it was late and I needed to get up early in the morning, so I rushed it.
I admit that much of my problem with the book is that of time. The language of the time is vastly different than now, as was the world view. At that time racism, class privilege, and Christian superiority were the norm. Yet when I run across these lines I am repulsed a bit.
While I don't have time this morning to defend my attacks (I hope to later) I can make three comments.
1) Note I didn't title this thread Frankenstein Sucks. I am very happy to have those who enjoy the book discuss their points of view. Perhaps you will show me what I am missing.
2) I admit its abbreviated, but the interpretation s I dismissed are the most common ones given for the Frankenstein story. The one that struck me is one I never heard. Young Frankenstein goes off to college and creates a creature. He does not educate it, does not give it moral guidance, does not acknowledge it. Sounds a lot like he created a bastard child as they were called in that age. Considering that Mary Shelly and company were experimenting with "Free Love" during this time period, and according to NPR, one of her friends became pregnant at that time. The father had all the legal rights to the child, so he had it sent immediately to an orphanage and thought no more about it. Creating and discarding such bastards, even by men of genius, has to have some consequence.
3) The nesting approach to the story is interesting, but I didn't think it worked. In separated me from the story and from the characters. Add to that the lack of sympathy I found for almost all the characters, and I had trouble staying in the story.
Frankenstein I lose sympathy for because he created and abandoned the monster and barely recognizes that abandoning it was a problem, let alone the real problem. He seems totally cold hearted to it because of its looks.
The Creature is a great opportunity for sympathy, except for his homicidal tendencies.
The father and fiancée I can sympathize with, but they are rare in the story, and feel more like cannon fodder than real people. They are creature targets, not people.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW, Dan, I agree with several of your points. The book, while a compelling story, desperately cries out for editing. There's a lot of extraneous stuff, descriptions, etc., that really is boring. It's like they say about the Tarzan books...they have a great story, but could really use a rewrite.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whereas i don't particularly care that the original story didn't have the Hollywood elements of Igor or lightning I too was rather disappointed when i read the book. We had to read the book in high school and before we read it there was kind of a "who's the monster and who is the victim?" discussion about how we understood the story of Frankenstein (i would guess our teacher wanted us to go down the obvious path that the monster was of course the monster only to have us read the book and go "The monster was innocent!")
After reading it i found that the book was tedious, which is probably more a fault of the changing of language and society over time than with Mary Shelly purposefully wanting to write a dull novel, the places where i wanted more information (creating the monster, why was the monster seen as evil ((it always bothered me that the only real justification was that he was ugly, but once again ugly and deformed children were usually outcast and rarely taken care of at this time so the fault may be mine for thinking that deformed people should be seen as people)) and how did the monster develop his person hood? ((it seemed weird that he would be able to teach himself without any guiding figure))
I do think your analysis is correct though. Seen through the lens of a deadbeat dad or illegitimate child it makes more sense than a "science gone wrong" "dont mess with nature" or "which being was the morally reprehensable?"
sorry for all the parenthesis
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember getting my 12th grade English syllabus and seeing that during the year we'd be reading both Frankenstein and Wuthering Heights. At the time, I was excited for Frankenstein (Gothic monster mayhem; awesome!) and dreading Wuthering Heights (Romantic love story; lame!)
After reading both novels, I found Wuthering Heights eminently more enjoyable. Foust may be right, and Frankenstein truly is a masterpiece, but from a readability stand-point I think it holds up much less well than several of its contemporaries (like Jane Austen, for example; or Wuthering Heights for that matter).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's funny, because I really enjoyed Frankenstein and couldn't stand Wuthering Heights. In fact, I never even made it through the book I found it so dreary.
What I liked about Frankenstein was the focus on Victor Frankenstein. The monster was always a metaphor for the monster inside Victor. I really liked it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been so long since I've read the book (probably high school), I really don't remember it - just that I thought it was a sad story.
For a really well-done treatment of the "Deadbeat Dad" aspect of the story, see "The Frankenstein Diaries" in issues 8 and 9 of IGMS.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I ended up having to read Frankenstein 3 times during high school and I loved it each time. While I don't disagree with the "deadbeat dad" analysis, I don't see that as a negative. I thought the story was rich with questions of morality and did a beautiful job exploring the humanity and monstrosity of both Frankenstein and his Monster.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: While I don't disagree with the "deadbeat dad" analysis, I don't see that as a negative. I thought the story was rich with questions of morality and did a beautiful job exploring the humanity and monstrosity of both Frankenstein and his Monster.
posted
I actually like Frankenstein much better as portrayed by Mary Shelly then what eventually was unceremoniously swallowed, chewed up, burned in digestion, and passed through the unholy bowels of Hollywood.
edit: Though I confess Mel Brooks treatment makes me smile quite a bit. But he's the only one!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to read this next semester for my English Novel class, and I was actually looking forward to it. Less so many of the other books on the reading list. It's one of those classics that I've never read that I feel I should tackle.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Note I didn't title this thread Frankenstein Sucks.
Well, ok, but you did say it was terrible, as well as poorly constructed, worded and plotted. All of which are simply incorrect; I've already pointed out that the way the novel is constructed is part of what earned its place in history.
Whether or not characters are sympathetic is totally inconsequential. Didn't your high school English Lit teacher drill that into you?
I suggest reading it again without expecting it to conform to Dan Brown's or Hollywood's standards.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying this is not the Hollywood version is hardly a fair criticism. Surprised, you could be-- I think a lot of people are surprised-- but you can scarcely fault Mary Shelley for writing her book and then having it twisted by Hollywood.
I read the 1832 (?) version and enjoyed it enough to get through. I found it twisted and chilling, with none of the brash obviousness of the myth.
Do you not read classic/older literature very much?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Yup. While I found the notion that the monster's appearance caused such an automatic, visceral reaction far-fetched, once I accepted that premise, Frankenstein's actions became a lot more understandable.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's true, rollainm&Porter. Though I guess on my initial reading, the sympathy I had for Frankenstein was muted somewhat by my sympathy for his creation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I read Frankenstein in high school, I could culturally recognize the monster, but honestly didn't know any of the story at all.
I liked the book well enough. I think this is a good example of imprinting on what saw/read first. People who read the book first (and become fond of it) always hate the movie because they can't help looking for the book. Except it's backwards with you.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
