50 books to read before you die discussion

Hope you guys are enjoying it. Here is a spot for you guys to share your opinions.

This is an all time favorite. I would definitely be willing to reread this as a horror themed October group read.

Mayra wrote: "Hope you guys are enjoying it. Here is a spot for you guys to share your opinions."

I just finished Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. without doubt, it belongs on the 50 Books list. Here is my review. While I don't spell it out, if you want to read the book completely without foreknowledge, then beware, mild SPOILERS follow:

I won't describe the plot here. Suffice it to say that if you've seen the old Boris Karloff movie, you have no idea. It's astonishing how much the popular films diverge from the book. Aside from Frankenstein's animation of the creature he had assembled from human parts, little of Shelley's novel is portrayed in the movies.

The prose is the formalistic writing of two centuries ago, and yet I found it quite compelling. I recently read Pride and Prejudice, which was written in the same decade. To me, Mary Shelley's use of language is far superior to Jane Austen's.

One element of the novel I found puzzling was the strange behavior of Victor Frankenstein. He was not a sympathetic character at all. His motivations were arrogant and self-serving. When the creature first came to life, Frankenstein instantly spurned it and then fell into a feverish delirium, a sickly near-coma that went on for months. Later, in Ireland, upon seeing the murdered corpse of his friend Henry Clerval, he again lapsed into a semi-comatose fever for two months. Odd, indeed.

When he saw the creature upon his return to Geneva, after two years of not even knowing if it still lived, Frankenstein instantly knew that the creature was the murderer of his young brother, William, although there was absolutely no evidence to this fact. We, the readers, had no reason to blame the death on the creature, and neither did Frankenstein.

It was Mary Shelley's intent, supposedly, to reprove scientists of the day for delving into matters that are not the province of man. Victor Frankenstein's horror at the awakening of the creature is due to the realization of the unacceptable thing he has done, of the line he has crossed. Two hundred years later, this point of view is lost on me. I see Frankenstein's reaction to his creation, his washing his hands of the life he has brought into this world, as reprehensible.

It was Frankenstein's thoughtless and callous treatment of the creature upon his 'birth' that sent it on the path to becoming a monstrous character. The creature was completely naive, truly an innocent. He obviously was quite intelligent, teaching himself to speak and to read in the most adverse of conditions. The instant revulsion of all people upon seeing him and their mean and vicious treatment of him, taught him to fear and hate humans. This was a direct consequence of Frankenstein's rejection and banishment of him. His rage against Victor Frankenstein was because Frankenstein broke his pledge to create a companion with whom the creature could seek exile from the prejudices of civilized men.

The creature was able to surreptitiously stalk Frankenstein wherever he went, even across seas. I could only ascribe this feat to his high intelligence and super-human physical abilities. But it did seem a little far-fetched. I decided to take these sorts of things with a grain of salt. They didn't diminish my enjoyment. I quite liked the novel.

After Frankenstein reneged on his promise, the creature, justifiably enraged, threatened Frankenstein saying "I'll be with you on your wedding night." To me his meaning was clear however Frankenstein obtusely failed to see that it was his bride and not himself who was endangered until after it was too late.

In our modern culture, the monster portrayed by Boris Karloff in the movies is commonly known as Frankenstein. This may not be so far wrong. I think in truth that the creature was the victim of the true monster, Victor Frankenstein.

If you read Frankenstein, I urge you to carefully read the creature's final eloquent soliloquy. It is the summation of the novel and presumably Shelley's condemnation of the injustices of humanity.

Sometimes one feels that it is blasphemous not to like classics! This is not an interesting book. I did not like the way it was written nor the course of the narration. It is in no way a commentary on society or humanity. It is plain fiction and out of the head imagination, both mixed and confused.

Hello, P.J. Parker here. Frankenstein is definitely one of my favourite books. So much so that I researched the Science, theology and social thesis behind it and Mary Shelley's life.

12 December 2013 will see the release of my novel based upon this research:

"Fire on the Water: A Companion to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein."

Goodreads ARC Review: '...the impossible has been done...a really great novel inspired by a really great novel.'

https://www.facebook.com/FireOnTheWat...

Buck wrote: "I just finished Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. without doubt, it belongs on the 50 Books list."

In my pursuit of the founding documents of our modern civilization, I did an edition of Frankenstein (www.createspace.com/3683197) based on the 1818 edition — I always aim for the original edition if possible. Like many others, I was dismayed to discover much more depth than the Frankenstein movies reveal. It's a story within a story within a story— in my edition, set distinctly apart.
On pondering the origin in Mary Shelley's mind of this breakout Gothic tale, I found that she was examining a large issue: the Faustian bargain that science (this is early 19th century) was making, not aware of the consequences. The polar expedition headed by an adventurer brackets the whole novel, as the first figure plunging into the unknown. The second is Victor Frankenstein, a so-so student who stumbles on Cornelius Agrippa and completely discounted views of science, combined with the famous froglegs experiment with electricity by Galvani (1771), to experiment, first with lightning, then with body parts bought from grave robbers. The third explorer is the creature himself, who, spurned by Frankenstein, must make his way with a brain but no memory. Only by spying on a little family does he surreptitiously learn to through a tiny hole, by such texts as The Ruin of Empires (a French text decrying the role of religion).
But I had another speculation. Mary Shelley was very young, had just lost a child. I imagine that, whether consciously or not, she was writing a story in which a man gives birth — and then is totally incapable of handling it. Or that may simply be my 21st century reading into this novel the values that we still ponder.
In terms of literature, let me add a note. The first edition was published without Mary Shelley's name. But it did have short introductory notes by her husband, Percy Shelley. The point that he was making seemed rather curious to me at the first reading. Shelley was calling on the doctrine of "poetic license," to apply to this novel. In other words, the reader was asked to accept matters that were not, and could not be construed as true. Why did he do this? When I looked again at an earlier volume that I had reprinted, Dante and His Circle, translated by D.G. Rossetti, I noted that the young Dante, near the year 1300, was postulating the theory of "poetic license" then, to claim the right to use metaphor, and to write in poetry about matters that did not, could not exist, as arguing with Death about the early death of his beloved Beatrice.
Apparently, and correct me if I'm mistaken, this "poetic license," which we glibly toss around, was a real consideration in literature for centuries. Poetry claimed a higher sphere, and used it. Then Shelley, a poet himself, begged the reader to imagine -- not just as the Gothic novelists of the time brought in spirits and vampires, but to envision a world that did not exist, though in the future it might.
That, I decided, was enough for me to consider Frankenstein not just a great story, but opening a door that we may never again close.