I think the thing that struck me most about Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was how un-horror-inducing it was. I didn’t find it to be a horror novel; sure Victor Frankenstein did a horrific thing (more on that later), but the novel itself wasn’t much of a horror book. In the edition I read, Walter James Miller pointed out that it’s actually more a work of science fiction than gothic or horror, and I’d have to agree. It’s a treatise on many things, the primary one being what happens when a scientist tries to become God.
Other observations:
Frankenstein, the scientist, is not a very sympathetic character. He creates this monster, mostly because he can, figuring the creation will bless his name. Instead, when the creature is made alive, Frankenstein freaks out, and bolts, leaving the creature to fend for himself. From this moment, I realized that the narrative was tainted; how could I respect or like or believe Frankenstein when he so casually creates life and then abandons it. Perhaps that’s the mother in me talking.
Along the same lines, I actually liked the monster better, or perhaps I should say that I felt more pity for the monster than for Frankenstein. I’m not sure whom Shelley wanted us to sympathize with, but I was entirely on the monster’s side. Frankenstein behaved abominably, and all the monster wanted was a companion. How could Frankenstein, having gone so far, deny the monster that thing?
There is an interesting discussion of nature versus nurture in the novel. The monster, by his own account, is actually a sensible, feeling, kind being. It’s the fact that he’s universally abhorred that makes him turn to violence and revenge against Frankenstein. It’s all in the nurture of the monster, or lack thereof, that calamity is brought upon Frankenstein and his friends. I’m not sure I agree, entirely, with that reasoning, but it made sense in the framework of the story.
The story itself was long-winded and plodding. I have to admit I skimmed sections, reading only enough to get the gist of the story. In the intro (which I liked, can you tell?), Miller blames Percy Shelley for that — he “edited” Mary’s language to make it more “literary”. I probably would have preferred something more straightforward.
This book has made me think, though. I’d love the opportunity to hash it out in a classroom or good book group setting; there are a lot of topics and thoughts for discussion in the 198 pages that Shelley wrote out. And for that, it’s well worth reading.
The Book Nut 
This is one of my favorite favorite books. Though it wasn’t always the case. (I wrote a very long-winded post on how that came about. So I won’t bore anyone here.) But this is one that just screams for discussion 🙂
LikeLike
I read this not too long ago for the first time, and wished I would have had someone around to mull it over with. I thought about it for quite a while once I was done.Lezlie
LikeLike
Wonderful review. I read this a few years ago; knowing nothing about Frankenstein except that it was the story of several horror movies. I was pleasantly surprised. There is so much more to this book than just a frightening monster (who is more frightened himself in the beginning).
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m with you. I was completely on the monster’s side. And it would be a good book group book. Maybe I’ll suggest that if I ever get back to my f2f.
LikeLike
Yes, I never considered Frankenstein to be a horror book. I think I felt like it was an exploration of morality in a science fiction setting. I, too, sympathized with the monster. Frankenstein’s a jerk.
LikeLike
I have always been under the impression that we are meant to sympathize with the monster. It has been my opinion that this one of the classic horror stories is one of the strongest in its symbolic nature and the applicability of the message. I remember being really stunned the first time I realized that Frankenstein isn’t the name of the monster…and yet oddly enough Frankenstein *is* the monster.
LikeLike
I first read this book in Senior AP English. I loved exploring it in that setting. There are endless discussion topics presented here. I agree, though, that it’s not really “horror” in the sense that term is used today. Still, it’s pretty horrific what happens.
LikeLike
Becky — thanks for reminding me of your post. I need to pop by today and read it. Carl — I was talking to my english lit professor friend last night, and she said that, yes, Shelley meant for us to identify with the monster. So, my supposition was correct there… (It’s always nice to know when you’re “getting” it) And I can see how this can be classified as a “horror” novel. I was expecting it to be more terrifying, like Dracula, but it <>is<> horrifying in the broader sense of the word.
LikeLike
Ditto! I appreciated the themes in this book, but not the delivery. I don’t remember all of the details, but I remember being very frustrated with Frankenstein, and having a hard time believing anyone could be so stupid. But that may have been her point in writing the book. I appreciate the label of science fiction–I would definitely agree.
LikeLike
I read this a couple of years for a “Halloween themed” October book group reading. I too found it long winded and wished that Mr Shelley had left it alone! The sense of place and time pulled me in.
LikeLike