The Great American Read discussion

This is the SPOILER THREAD for Frankenstein.

If you did not read the book, and do not want to read any spoilers, please return to the No-Spoilers thread.

You can discuss any aspect of the book in this thread, including comparisons to movie adaptations.

I'm curious about...

What surprised you most about this book?

How does it compare to popular conceptions of the monster?

How does the book compare to the movie(s)?

Post any discussion questions or thoughts you have.

What surprised me most when I first read it is what a sad story it is, and how tragic. I expected to be scared, but I really felt for the monster and I think it is a great example of not judging people based on looks... as the monster himself is a product of the real monster.
I heard a great quote recently; "People will say that Frankenstein is not the monster, but people who know the story understand that he is..." or something like that. So true.

Since my experience with Frankenstein was with the campy movies, which I love, I didn't really imagine how grotesque this creature could actually be, but if I recall the book is fairly graphic in that respect.

I think the movies are much more camp than the book.
There are still the important elements, judging and persecuting based on looks and prejudice, but some really hilarious bits especially in the Bride of Frankenstein installment.

I am excited to see how I experience Frankenstein differently the second time around, or if I do at all.

The monster was the monster, but I think the Villain was Victor Frankenstein. He was totally obsessed with his ambition to bring the creature to life, but he didn't have a plan for what to do next. He immediately rejected his creation, with no concern for it, or the damage it could do to other people. He was like a little boy who hoped if he closed his eyes the problem would go away.

A more logical scientific approach would be to start with something small rather than something bigger than yourself, or with a freshly dead body that looked more normal. But then it wouldn't be a monster story.

The monster's vocabulary, emotions and speaking style were a surprise. I have a vague memory of the monster just grunting in the original movie. It cracked me up as I remembered the sophistication of the monster at the end of Mel Brook's Young Frankenstein. He taught himself to speak (and read?) just by watching and listening to other people, and he was learning about love and caring as well. Imagine how much he might have learned from a caring parent about emotions, morality, self control, etc.

NancyJ wrote: "I'm curious about...

What surprised you most about this book?

How does it compare to popular conceptions of the monster?

How does the book compare to the movie(s)?

Post any discussion questio..."

I'm about 40% done and realize I don't have anything more to say that wouldn't be a spoiler, so am switching threads. Pretty familiar with the story (movie version anyway) so am not worried about being spoiled.

What is surprising me so far is how much I dislike Dr. Frankenstein. He created a living person/soul and then decided he hated him because of how he looked. I feel very bad for the "monster" right now and won't be blaming him for anything he does.

Meli wrote: "What surprised me most when I first read it is what a sad story it is, and how tragic. I expected to be scared, but I really felt for the monster and I think it is a great example of not judging pe..."

Exactly. Victor Frankenstein was the real monster.

NancyJ wrote: "The monster was the monster...

I'll have to re-read this, but my recollection is that the monster was only a monster because he was hideous, grotesque and not for any other reason... And the rejection by society made him the way he was.

Meli wrote: "NancyJ wrote: "The monster was the monster...

I'll have to re-read this, but my recollection is that the monster was only a monster because he was hideous, grotesque and not for any other reason.And the rejection by society made him the way he was.

Actually it was the rejection of his creator, Viktor Frankenstein that made the creature who he is.
(view spoiler)[He continually pursues Viktor. He begs Viktor to make him a woman and he'll go away. Viktor at first agrees and then changes his mind out of fear of what might happen. That's what leads the creature on a killing rampage. He killed everyone close to Viktor and will not stop until Viktor is dead too. (hide spoiler)]

It's a fascinating story about parenthood/creating life and the responsibilities that come along with that. So you just created life.... what are you going to do next? That rejection, the loneliness, the longing for a human connection is what drives the creature. Mary Shelley's mother died giving birth to her and her own baby died in infancy. She tried to work out her feelings about mortality and also religion through this magnificent novel. She wrote other stories and things as well, but she's best known for Frankenstein. People assumed her husband had written it. How could a mere slip of a girl write such a horrid story?! Thus the preface and the introduction to the 1831 edition.

Ah, yes, now I remember.
I think I am getting the book and movie adaptations mixed, because you can get a different reading from the movies and of course the "monster" is not able to express himself like he can in the book.

Fascinating still after all these years, what a masterpiece!

Talking about who’s villain and monster in this story: Victor Frankenstein is definitely one.

But foe me, I think the fact this being starts planning revenge, calculating and killing all that Victor holds dear, blackmailing him to make another of his kind, definitely made him a villain in the end, just like his creator was. And just like Victor in the end he recognizes all of his crimes. In fact he is incredulous of them and seems to sincerely repent for them. “I have slaughtered the innocent and strangled the innocent” he said if I recall correctly. He cannot believe those are the same hands that did those evil deeds. There’s definitely blame there, as far as I’m concerned.

Sure, it’s very easy to see how he became what he became, his story is compelling and you sympathize with his plight and horrible treatment he received everywhere, but the monster at some point chooses what to do with his free will. He knows the difference between right and wrong and he admits this in some manner when he finally confronts the narrator of the story. He’s some kind of monster. So are all the humans who come after him with pitchforks just because he looks inhuman.

Basically, in my opinion, Mary Shelly showed us with a simple story how we, all of us (or most of us) can become monsters. Ready to destroy something that scares us, even when there’s no provocation, without understanding what’s going on. Lucky was the blind old man who conversed with Victor’s creation. He listened to him and understood him. Maybe we should all be blind and thus we’ll see more.

Zoe wrote: "Talking about who’s villain and monster in this story: Victor Frankenstein is definitely one.

But foe me, I think the fact this being starts planning revenge, calculating and killing all that Vict..."

Compared to the movie monster, the monster in the book is very intelligent. He's wary like a spy, watches everyone without being seen (which stretches credulity) , and he can anticipate Victor's next moves.

I agree with Zoe that the calculated killing and coercion makes him a monster and villain.

The mediator in me was screaming out... Wait, there is a middle ground! The monster says he wants a mate, but what he really wants is love! If Victor could give him that, he might be satisfied, or at least not go on a killing spree in retaliation.

I will have to see if I find this to be the case after re-reading (I am only a dozen or so pages in now), but I think Victor's love or even one of the other characters we meet along the way would do to prevent his revenge killings. And it does work briefly with the blind man in the cabin until he is discovered by the man's son(?).

I always thought it made for an interesting argument on how society can create monsters with their own prejudice ... It wasn't until the monster realized he was too hideous to be accepted, to have friends, that he felt a need for a counterpart like himself.

Now, they would say the monster had "Attachment disorder" lol. All newborns need a lot of human contact, snuggling and affection to grow normally. If they miss all that, they might never learn how to attach to anyone.

I want to go back to the print book sometime and read some of the text again. I don't think I appreciated the writing as much as I might have because I was focused on moving forward with the story.

THROWING SHADE ... There was one sentence early in the book that revealed the origin of a term I thought was fairly new. It was about "throwing shade on" something or someone. In the book I think the context was about discrediting certain theories.

I just saw that line about shade last night while reading, but it wasn't "throwing shade," it was like "stand in the shade" or something like that. I was also struck by the expression and wasn't quite sure what it meant, but could tell by context it was to discount or distance himself from a certain school of thought.

I will try to see if I can find it again and record it here.

QNPoohBear wrote: "Meli wrote: "NancyJ wrote: "The monster was the monster...

.. That rejection, the loneliness, the longing for a human connection is what drives the creature. Mary Shelley's mother died giving birth to her and her own baby died in infancy. She tried to work out her feelings about mortality and also religion through this magnificent novel. "
.."

QN, I just reread your message and the part above really affected me. I didn't know that about Mary Shelley's mother and child. That's heartbreaking. I presume the loss of her baby happened between the two different editions of the book, and I'm curious what she changed. I wonder if she herself identified with either Victor or Adam.

I'm really looking forward to the documentary on PBS on October 22 about her and her book.

I went through during lunch and couldn't find the "shade" passage, but I will try again. It is driving me nuts! I am so glad you pointed that out because I thought the same thing when I saw it...

Read more last night and what struck me the 2nd time around was the parallels to motherhood and giving birth. I didn't even consider that last read. I am not a mother or interested in motherhood, so maybe that is why. Others have mentioned it here, and while I wasn't necessarily looking for it, it did help give me another perspective.

Many mothers deal with depression, and want to run away, and fantasize about not having a child even though they love their child dearly, so it was interesting for Victor to give life and be consumed suddenly with that burden of responsibility causing him to flee... and of course the wonky eye!

Also, Percy's first wife (and legal wife when he hooked up with Mary) committed suicide leaving behind young children. The Shelleys' daughter Clara was a preemie and died after only a few days in 1815. Mary wrote; “Dream that my little baby came to life again – that it had only been cold and that we rubbed it by the fire and it lived – I awake and find no baby – I think about the little thing all day.” Clara 2 was born in 1817 and died a year later. Their son William died shortly thereafter at age 3 1/2. Mary became terrified she would lose her younger son Percy, Jr.

Mary also is said to have suffered a depression after the death of her son. Depression seems to have run in her family. Her mother tried to kill herself after finding herself pregnant and abandoned and Mary Shelley's half-sister, the child of Mary Wollstonecraft, also took her own life.
http://historicheroines.com/2015/12/0...

One of my professors was a leading Mary Shelley scholar.

Meli wrote: "I will have to see if I find this to be the case after re-reading (I am only a dozen or so pages in now), but I think Victor's love or even one of the other characters we meet along the way would d..."

From the mouth of "the monster": Every where I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend.

QNPoohBear wrote: "Wollstonecraft, also took her own life.
http://historicheroines.com/2015/12/0...

One of my professors was a leading Mary Shelley scholar. "

Oh wow, I did not know that... how tragic.

That's pretty cool your professor was a Mary Shelley scholar!

Finished! Much deeper than I expected, easier to read, and full of insights. If only that self-righteous Dr. Frankenstein had given his creature a name, some guidance, and a companion :)

Thanks QN!

I'm listening to this on Audio, at the beginning is a description of Mary Shelley's life that seemed to me to focus a lot on the relationship she had with her father. I'm paraphrasing, basically her father was rather liberal but when he found out about her affair then shunned her.

I don't know why I thought Percy's wife died first, then they got married.

Anyway, I can totally see how Mary's guilt and loss would make her feel like "the monster."

Enjoying everyone's comments on the book. I really liked it and have read it a few times. I agree that Victor is the real monster! I often wonder what he really expected as it seems reality of the result didn't match his expectation.

I just included this on the non-spoilers thread, but I am reading the section where Victor is climbing Montanvert with the view of Mont Blanc above the river Arve at Chamonix. The fact that both Mary and Percy Shelley were inspired by their travels to the Alps provides context for exploring their adventures there.

A Frankenstein Atlas

Also fascinating how Shelley (at 19!) deepens the story by references to The Sorrows of Young Werther, Plutarch's Lives, and Paradise Lost, and then relating both to the creation and the fall.

Thanks QN.

Knowing about the author really adds a lot of depth to my understanding of the story. I'm reading Romantic Outlaws about Mary and her mother. While writing Frankenstein, she was estranged from her father. He refused to talk to her or allow her into his home because she was living with Percy Shelley. (He couldn't get a divorce from his first wife but years later she died of suicide and they married. ).

Her father's rejection hurt her deeply and intensified her longing for her mother. She also saw other men abandon children without a thought. (Lord Byron abandoned her pregnant sister, and Percy abandoned his first wife and children) She thought a world without mothers would result in havoc.

This is important to me because it explains how Victor Frankenstein could abandon his creation. She poured all her pain into the monster, imagining how a cruelly rejected child might lash out to its father.

Jerome wrote: "Also fascinating how Shelley (at 19!) deepens the story by references to The Sorrows of Young Werther, Plutarch's Lives, and Paradise Lost, and then relati..."

She also deepens the story by providing three perspectives in the story rather than just one, which was typical at the time. She showed the perspectives of Victor, the monster, and the man who saved him from the water.

Bruyere wrote: "Enjoying everyone's comments on the book. I really liked it and have read it a few times. I agree that Victor is the real monster! I often wonder what he really expected as it seems reality of the ..."

And that he couldn't control it. It seems as though he went about the creation of that life without thinking of the ensuing responsibility that it would entail........sort of, "Wouldn't it be neat if I could..?" and then, when he did, didn't know what to do with/where to go with this thing that he couldn't control. Had he been able to control or manage it, he might not have fled in fear.

NancyJ wrote: "Thanks QN.

Knowing about the author really adds a lot of depth to my understanding of the story. I'm reading Romantic Outlaws about Mary and her mother. While writing Frankenstein, she was estrang..."

Thanks for adding this. It adds much to the interpretation.

I'm 84% in now, and agree about the monster being a monster, due to calculations, blackmail, etc. Amazing how he was three chapters into his story, the entire time glossing over how he'd killed the young boy. It takes us back the to nature/nurture argument that we use to discuss so many books, films, life events, etc.

Yes, exactly. The nature vs nurture is exactly what I thought of when reading this book.

I am so close to the end... one regret, since this was a re-read I really wish I would've picked a different edition. I am just re-reading the exact same edition.

I've enjoyed it again, but I am ready for it to end because this far through I am remembering everything that happened so I feel like I am just going through the motions. :-/

Victor could have been such a good person since he had every thing his class provided people like him. He had a supportive family, connections, a good education, a future, yet he was a narcissist twit. He never could seem to put himself in the monster’s place, or have true sympathy, maybe because the monster was made of lower-class bits? Kidding!

When I read this, I was totally surprised by how smart the monster was. All I had ever known about this book were the movie interpretations.

I'm still annoyed by Victor and find him hard to relate to, but after seeing the TCM documentary "The Strange Life of Dr. Frankenstein" I understand better how this could come to be... one interviewee likened it to a scientist discovering the atomic bomb. You're excited about the discovery and its significance in scientific development, but quickly after realize the implications and want to abandon it. That was poignant for me.

I finally finished the bio of Mary Shelley and her mother Mary Wollstonecraft. (It really drags in the middle, but it's fascinating reading.) Mary Shelley's revision of Frankenstein is described as much darker than the original. She saw it as an indictment against men's ambitions and carelessness. While Mary admired strong women, the main female character was gentle, passive and ineffectual (fitting the ideals of the time).

She was heavily influenced by her life experiences (most fathers she knew were terrible), and her mother's writings. Her mother called for greater rights and education for women, and she railed against the laws that allowed men to abuse their wives and take their children.

aPriL does feral sometimes wrote: "Victor could have been such a good person since he had every thing his class provided people like him. He had a supportive family, connections, a good education, a future, yet he was a narcissist t..."

April! Good to see you on here! :D
I feel the same.

:) Hi, Linda!

aPriL does feral sometimes wrote: "Victor could have been such a good person since he had every thing his class provided people like him. He had a supportive family, connections, a good education, a future, yet he was a narcissist t..."

I think in Mary's experience, all men were selfish, narcissistic, and driven by their egos or passions to achieve fame. Her father, her husband poet Percy Shelley and the worst one of all, Lord Byron.

I too was surprised by the monster's intelligence. His vocabulary was unrealistic for someone who didn't have the opportunity to converse with people. But the early part of his story was very poignant.

Meli wrote: "I'm still annoyed by Victor and find him hard to relate to, but after seeing the TCM documentary "The Strange Life of Dr. Frankenstein" I understand better how this could come to be... one intervie..."

Meli, that's a great example. I"m sorry I missed that show. I thought it was set to record, but it didn't. It's not scheduled on my PBS channel to air again anytime soon.

I agree April, the monster could not on his own have developed those language skills. It did add to the story, though, for him to be intelligent.

Bonnie wrote: "I agree April, the monster could not on his own have developed those language skills. It did add to the story, though, for him to be intelligent."

Not that quickly.....and further suspension of disbelief required if one is to believe that his brain functioned normally, but he had no memories. But hey, it was over 100 years ago, so we have to give her credit for the imagination required to come up with the idea in the first place.

I so love Lord Bryon's poetry, even if he was a tool.

Bruyere wrote: "I so love Lord Bryon's poetry, even if he was a tool."

haha!

Today at the supermarket, I noticed that Time magazine did a special edition on Frankenstein to celebrate the anniversary. Bio, images, history in film as well as the novel, etc. Will cost you $14 US

Today at the supermarket, I noticed that Time magazine did a special edition on Frankenstein to celebrate the annivers..."

Maybe the library has it!

FYI I extended the dates for this read for 10 more days.

Oooh I'll have to find the Times. I don't recall if I posted or not, but I was never a fan of Frankenstein. I think Shelley tried too hard to make her point and it loomed over the whole novel. I've always felt that it remains popular due to being the "first" in its genre and that she wrote it while she was so young.

Kim wrote: "Oooh I'll have to find the Times. I don't recall if I posted or not, but I was never a fan of Frankenstein. I think Shelley tried too hard to make her point and it loomed over the whole novel. I've..."

I'm not a fan of horror either, but it's better than I expected it to be. From what I've read, it's also noteworthy for the multiple perspectives used to tell the story. She told the story from the perspective of Victor, the monster, and the man on the ship. That was a new technique, and it added a lot of depth and complexity to the story. It caused us to see more than Victor's side, and it made us feel some empathy for the monster. I think that's what made it stand the test of time, and why we're still discussing it 200 years later.