The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion

Discuss anything you want about Frankenstein. There will be spoilers in this thread so be wary when reading. In general try to give a warning if your post contains a major spoiler, it won't matter as much near the end of the month.

Just cracked into the book today. I just read the intro consisting of the letters from Robert Walton. What a great way to start the book. It builds suspense and makes you want to read more. It reminds me a bit of the beginning of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, by which I mean it starts at the end, and hints at what is to come.

I haven't seen this included in any of the film adaptations I have seen. I have heard that most of the films diverge quite drastically from the novel. Which is good, because that means I have a lot more to discover in this novel.

Yes, Dan. I agree. Whatever little I remember from the abridged version I must have read long ago to a movie adaptation, the letters by a third person were not part of it. Also, the language flows really well and I don't find myself having any trouble maintaining my regular modern English reading speed.

I am about four chapters in and I to like the intro to set everything up. I checked out from the library Frankenstein (1931) I don't think I've ever seen an adaptation of Frankenstein before only Young Frankenstein. Gotta wait 'till I finish the book.

I love that movie, as well as it's sequel Bride of Frankenstein. The original movie is just so dark and tragic.

I'm a couple chapters in now, and I am really enjoying Shelley's writing style.

I'm past the part where Frankenstein brings to life the monster I have to say I found it lacking in detail.

I must admit that I love this book more than any other. It was actually the catalyst for my most recent novel as I wanted to find out the detail that Mary Shelley left out. The research into her life and Georgian society and their way of thinking was very interesting.

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 from his revulsion of the creature 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 it was the creature who had murdered 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 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. The creature's 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.

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.

Finished Frankenstein yesterday. I’m going to watch the movie later and see how much the movie differs from the book. I know I said earlier that I have never seen a movie adaptation but I have seen bits and pieces and I think I expected the book to be somewhat different not that that’s necessarily a bad thing. For one thing was the detail in which Frankenstein creates the monster I thought the book would go into more detail (It's alive! It's alive!) but it never did this is later explained as Frankenstein not wishing his experiment ever to be replicated again. I liked the romantic style in which the book was written but I grew tired of Frankenstein always talking about how depressed he was. I kinda wished he would have just made a second monster because I felt sympathetic towards the monster and to avoid future hardships and losses.

I downloaded a copy yesterday and plan on getting started during my morning break.

I am enjoying the writing style but the story seems unimpressive to me. There is no scientific explanation of Any sort. Victor seems more perturbed about creating a being than of the fact that his Creation is out and about and could be doing God knows what.
I also have a problem with the fact that the being (I'm not gonna call it a monster) goes specifically to Victor's hometown and encounters specifically his family. I wonder if this is explained but I doubt that it has.

Afshaan wrote: "I also have a problem with the fact that the being (I'm not gonna call it a monster) goes specifically to Victor's hometown and encounters specifically his family. I wonder if this is explained but I doubt that it has. "

That struck me as well. That the creature showed up in Geneva two years later and just happened to encounter William, and just happened to kill him, was a lot of coincidence. I chalk it up to literary license.

Did you notice that the creature was able to surreptitiously stalk Frankenstein wherever he went, even across seas? I ascribed 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.

Yes, Buck, I would also allow a plot hole or two if the concept is good. This is my impression of the book as of Chapter 5. Perhaps it will grow on me. I love the language so that's a redeeming feature.

It bugs me a little that classics are allowed a plot hole or two but in newer books get ridiculed so much for them. It's still a good book though. I'm only on chapter one but this my second time reading it.

You're so right, Adrian. Coincidentally, the movie Prometheus was heavily criticized for plot holes that I felt were quite trivial in the large scheme of things.

I had major problems with Prometheus, plot holes was one of the minor ones. Writing and characters on the other hand...

I'm not too concerned about plot holes in stories. Often when I am really engrossed I won't even notice them until after I'm done reading, or not at all. If the plot hole impedes my enjoyment of a book, then I have problems.

I think we are more forgiving of older stories because a lot of writing conventions hadn't been set in stone yet 200 years ago. Science and technology wasn't as advanced either, obviously, so you have to give a little wiggle room for incorrect or half baked theories or explanations.

Lori wrote: "How is the audiobook? Is there a particular narrator who does this story well?"

The audiobook I heard was read by Simon Templeman as the explorer Walton, Anthony Heald as Victor Frankenstein, the predominant narrator, and Stefan Rudnicki as the creature. I was already familiar with Rudnicki's baritone - he read a lot of the Ender's Game series of books. I made my choice after listening to samples. My other option was read by Tom Casaletto. I was happy with my choice - no complaints whatsoever.

Afshaan wrote: "Victor seems more perturbed about creating a being than of the fact that his Creation is out and about and could be doing God knows what."

That bothered me too. He spends months obsessively focusing on creating life and then a few hours after he succeeds, he just washes his hands of the Creature. For two years.

Is this some form of amnesia, or is Frankenstein truly the worst father on earth?

Ayesha wrote: "Is this some form of amnesia, or is Frankenstein truly the worst father on earth? "

Perhaps an extreme form of denial?-If I don't acknowledge its existence, it will cease to exist.

I wish there was more insight in to Victor's thought processes regarding this. But along with the character's flaws, I think this also has something to do with some loose ends in the writing.

I agree, I'd really like to understand his thinking.

I've only gotten to Justine's death, but at this point he seems to think of the Creature both as his responsibility and as something completely unrelated to him. He's responsible for the tragedies of William and Justine, but somehow not responsible for finding and managing(? educating? controlling?, I'm having a hard time finding the right word for this) the Creature.
Is anybody else getting that or am I out in left field here?

^I've reached the same place. I am finding Frankenstein to be a hilariously irresponsible character. I also find it kind of strange how he instantly "knows" it was his creation that commited the murder. The murder happens, then 3 months later Frankenstein sees the creature there. That seems like enough evidence to convict, but finding the stolen necklace and being found near the scene of a crime is completely remissible evidence. He also knows absolutely nothing of the creature or its temprament, so has no reason at this point to believe it is violent or has motive.

Dan wrote: "^I've reached the same place. I am finding Frankenstein to be a hilariously irresponsible character. I also find it kind of strange how he instantly "knows" it was his creation that commited the mu..."

"The mere presence of the idea was an irresistible proof of the fact." This man is a scientist?!?

Ayesha wrote: "The mere presence of the idea was an irresistible proof of the fact." This man is a scientist?!? "

I guess we should remember that Frankenstein was written by a teenager. Her knowledge of science and behavior under stress surely arose mostly from her imagination. Had she been more mature when she wrote Frankenstein perhaps these flaws would have been resolved. Considering the novel as a whole, and especially that it was truly novel for its time, I'm willing to forgive her. How many young girls her age could today write such a book? Frankenstein would have remarked, upon seeing the monster in Geneva, "I was all like, you know, what-ever."

Adrian wrote: "It bugs me a little that classics are allowed a plot hole or two but in newer books get ridiculed so much for them. "

I think you are right. I wonder if I would be so forgiving of an otherwise good book with similar shortcomings published by a modern prodigy. Usually for me the slightest error is an irritant.

Yeah, I've begun to realize that I'm being a little harsh here, and its really unfair. Despite how it may seem, I'm really enjoy Frankenstein.

I'm also wondering if perhaps Frankenstein's wishy-washyness isn't intentional on Shelley's part.

"You purpose to kill me. How dare you sport thus with life? Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind."

Clearly, the Creature (and Shelley) are aware of the ridiculousness of Frankenstein's behavior.


The meeting in the mountains is as far as I've gotten, so I don't know what the outcome of that exchage will be. I'm really curious to see how we'll circle around from the above quote to Frankenstein hunting down his creation (re: the dog-sled "chase sequence" from Walton's letters) at the begining of the book. Right now, it doesn't seem fair, but since I'm only 45% finished, there's still a lot that can happen.

I am loving the book so far, and I definitely forgive some innocence and naivety on Shelley's part. It is also stressed that Frankenstein is not fully sane. he is driven obsessively in the beginning to achieve his task of conquering death, then when it is realized he has a full on mental break that last for months. It's more than imaginable that he is not in complete control of his mental faculties.

Dan wrote: "I am loving the book so far, and I definitely forgive some innocence and naivety on Shelley's part. It is also stressed that Frankenstein is not fully sane. he is driven obsessively in the beginnin..."

Good point, Dan. Back in those days I guess, aside from full blown psychosis, insanity, they didn't have our modern concept of mental illness. I think Victor Frankenstein definitely had an uneven keel.

I'm only about 15 % into this book. I love the language but I'm finding it hard to be engaged with the telling, not showing, style of Shelly's narrative. I would like to experience this story more. It's leaving me a little bit cold at the moment and while the story is interesting I don't really care. Has anyone else found this?

Yes, the story is not compelling enough for me to want to go back to it. I will have to make myself in order to get through it.

But, the language proficiency and flair that Mary Shelley has for the age she wrote this at is very impressive.

This was my first time reading Frankenstein. I finished it in one weekend and I thought it was very powerful and emotional. The language and style was beautiful. When I began the novel I found myself deeply sympathizing with Frankenstein. Initially, I felt that Frankenstein was suffering and harshly punishing himself for one very bad mistake he made. His secret was eating him alive. The consequences of his mistake were haunting him to such a degree that I could not help but pity him. At this point, I didn't realize that the creature he made had human feelings and emotions. I didn't realize how he abandoned his monster, leaving him to fend for himself in a cruel world, with no family, no language, no friend, no shelter, nothing. When I discovered the emotional capacity of the monster, I began to think Frankenstein was selfish and evil. More evil than a murderer. I found the monster to be a sympathetic character, despite the atrocities he committed. I was able to understand the place these actions came from. I enjoyed how my sympathies shifted. Shelley's did a great job of combining logic and emotion to develop her characters. I want to read formal criticism of the novel to better understand the underlying themes.

Whit wrote: "This was my first time reading Frankenstein. I finished it in one weekend and I thought it was very powerful and emotional. The language and style was beautiful. When I began the novel I found myse..."

A good analysis. While I didn't share your initial sympathy for Frankenstein, I did share your sympathy for the creature and your later antipathy for Frankenstein. That we are reading this novel in a culture that is two hundred years changed leads me to wonder if that was Shelley's intent, or if Frankenstein's behavior and attitude were acceptable or typical of gentlemen of that time.

That's what I was wondering too when I read the book. Whether the intent of the author was for the reader was to sympathize with Frankenstein or his creation. Almost from the start I didn't get Frankenstein for abandoning his creation right from the start and then later sympathized with the creation for always being spurned by man.

^That's how I am feeling so far. I'm about 2/3 through the book. Frankenstein is a rather unstable person, and makes peculiar and even irrational choices. That is not to say he isn't intelligent, but at the point I am at now I don't see him as a traditional hero. The creation however is a much more sympathetic character. I am really enjoying his story, he is a much more eloquent chracter than his creator.

'It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs.' - What a great sentence. :)

Buck wrote: "Whit wrote: "This was my first time reading Frankenstein. I finished it in one weekend and I thought it was very powerful and emotional. The language and style was beautiful. When I began the novel..."

I can only speculate on the Shelley's intent regarding the readers feelings toward Frankenstein, but I think she probably did want readers to question Frankenstein's integrity and morality. Does Frankenstein have the same responsibility toward his creature as he would to a human child that he created? Is it his responsibility to provide food, shelter, love, support, etc for his creature? His creature had all the same needs and wants as human beings do so in my opinion he is human in every way except biologically. (I almost feel like its cruel to refer to him as a monster, the more I think about it, haha!) I also think it is interesting that Frankenstein's creature was brought to life with a great sense of morality, goodness, and kindness toward humans and the earth, in the absence of a god or religion. Another thing I really wonder about is why Frankenstein reacted with such disgust after his creature came to life? His creature was such a good, kind being...was is because he was hideous that Frankenstein abandoned him?

Whit wrote: ...was is because he was hideous that Frankenstein abandoned him? "

I no longer have the book, but if I recall, it was when Frankenstein first saw the creature's eyes, when the creature first came to life, that he reacted with revulsion and immediately spurned his creation. He saw that the creature was hideous, but of course, he looked that way before he came to life. It was the eyes.

Michael wrote: "'It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs.' - What a great sentence. :) ..."

It was right after this, I think, that Frankenstein had his terrible change of heart.

That's so interesting because the creature was not evil when he first came to life...he was basically pure and innocent, a blank slate, open to all the possibilities of life. The eyes must have indicated otherwise. Maybe the dark side of the creature was in fact there all a long, rather than a product of being shunned, feared, and hated by humans.

Whit wrote: "That's so interesting because the creature was not evil when he first came to life...he was basically pure and innocent, a blank slate, open to all the possibilities of life. The eyes must have in..."

The pokemon Mewtwo reminds me oddly of Frankenstein's creation. I think in both cases you have a being that wasn't born evil but through mistreatment became evil. I think if someone might have looked past appearances the creature might have been 'raised' better.

Whit wrote: "That's so interesting because the creature was not evil when he first came to life...he was basically pure and innocent, a blank slate, open to all the possibilities of life. The eyes must have in..."

I think Frankenstein is mostly just unstable. I side more with the creation than the creator.

It's odd that in all the movies that have been made of Frankenstein, none of them AFAIK follow the theme of the humanity of the creature and the monstrousness of Victor Frankenstein. It certainly is a good storyline and has generated some good discussion here.

I thought DeNiro's portrayal of Frankenstein's monster was great. I felt really sad for him.

I read this back in school but had not touched it in 25 years. I did not know that it was consider (by many) the first modern sci-fi work.
First - the writing is good I enjoyed the style and the story is definitely a classic. However, M. Frankenstein is perhaps one of the least sympathetic characters of any book I have ever read. As many others have stated it is much easier to relate to the creation than the creator.

I remember being taught that M. Shelley wanted Frankenstein to be a cautionary tale for the scientists of the day. However, we seem to have skipped the part about M. Shelley only being 18 when she wrote this tale. So I now wonder was this truly a warning or was it just a ghost story written "in a waking dream" in response to a challenge between the young Shelley, her (future) husband and Lord Byron? If a cautionary tale was her goal then I believe it is the hubris of Frankenstein, and scientists in general of which she was warning. Therefore I do not think that, as Whit said: "Maybe the dark side of the creature was in fact there all a long" is the case. Rather the all of the creature's actions were a direct consequnce of Frankenstein's actions.

One thing about the writing that really struck me is the relationship and want/need for relations between the male characters. I do not mean this in a bad or negative way so do not flame me, I was simply surprised by how much, how often and how strongly the need for companionship is expressed.
EG: Walton 2nd letter 2nd paragraph: "I desire the company of a man who could sympathize with me, whose eyes would reply to mine."
Not being overly familiar with other works of this period I wonder if this is a common theme or rather just Shelley's style.

All in all a great book and I am glad the group picked this one; I probably would not have read it again with out the push so thank you. To be honest thought I do prefer Dean Koontz's Frankenstein; the creature is even more sympathetic, the science is way cooler and Victor is a villain you can really get into. Prodigal Son

Jeff wrote: "One thing about the writing that really struck me is the relationship and want/need for relations between the male characters. I do not mean this in a bad or negative way so do not flame me, I was simply surprised by how much, how often and how strongly the need for companionship is expressed.
EG: Walton 2nd letter 2nd paragraph: "I desire the company of a man who could sympathize with me, whose eyes would reply to mine."
Not being overly familiar with other works of this period I wonder if this is a common theme or rather just Shelley's style."

I was thinking about that just this morning! Walton wants and then finds a friend (Frankenstein), Frankenstein has a great friend (Clerval), the Creature wants a friend but (so far) no one will be it.

I just finished reading Frankenstein moments ago. Here's a few thoughts, some spoilers may be included.

While I see why it is considered the first science fiction novel it doesn't have a lot of the elements I generally think of when I think of sci-fi. It does feature science and inventions way ahead of it's time. It even goes into a decent amount of detail about the research that went into the creation, but beyond the first few chapters it dispenses with that quickly.

What was interesting was the sort psychological analysis that goes on through out the book. Having the Creation as a blank slate completely open to influence is a good plot device. Mary Shelley played a lot with the idea of nature vs. nurture in this story, I feel it must have been quite a head of it's time in this aspect. The duality between Frankenstein and the Creation is amazing too. Shelley causes you to sympathasize with the Creation quite a bit, and the final words of the book show her true intentions.

Another interesting aspect is the story telling. It is essentially a story within a story, and at times, within another story, all told from the first perspective. Which gives us some interesting points of view on the characters, the Creation's view, Frankenstein's view, and finally an overarching view of both the Creation and Frankenstein, from a more unbiased point of view.

Though I haven't made considerable progress with the book yet, the e-copy I have contains a preface by Mary Shelly herself wherein she explains that she intended the story to be scary in terms of the reanimation of an assorted being and of meddling with the affairs of the life-giving Creator or God.

In her point of view, the person who would accomplish the task of giving life to a Thing would be so horrified at the realization of what he has done and so he would turn his back on it, hoping it would not live for long. From this preface, she seems to sympathise with the state of Frankenstein than the monster. She doesn't address the change of heart she seems to have experienced, as evinced by Dan's latest comment, of sympathising with the Creation.

Dan wrote: "Shelley causes you to sympathasize with the Creation quite a bit, and the final words of the book show her true intentions."

Dan, I want to thank you for your astute observation.

I went back and listened to the the last scene of my audiobook, in which Walton encounters the creature standing over the deceased Victor Frankenstein. How could I have glossed over the creature's eloquent soliloquy? It is moving beyond description. In its condemnation of the injustices of humanity, it certainly is the summation of the novel.

Michael wrote: "I thought DeNiro's portrayal of Frankenstein's monster was great. I felt really sad for him."

I haven't seen the DeNiro version. According to IMDB is follows Shelley's novel.

I PVRed that adaptation just recently, but haven't had the chance to watch it. I've watched a few of the Hammer Productions Frankenstein flicks, as well as the Universal Pictures one and it's sequel Bride of Frankenstein. In addition to those full length films I have a DVD copy of the Edison Film Company's Frankenstein as well, which I commented on in a previous thread.

The original Universal Pictures adaptation and it's sequel are heart moving rendtions of Shelley's story. They are closer in spirit to the novel than in actual story. What I didn't realize until after reading the novel was that parts of Bride of Frankenstein are inspired from the novel. James Whale produces a completely sympathetic creation, and Karloff plays it fabulously.

The Hammer Production ones while good did not stick out in my mind. The first one seems more like a rough remakes of the Universal flick than an adaptation of Shelley's novel. Still a decent horror flick for fans of the genre.

Buck wrote: "Michael wrote: "I thought DeNiro's portrayal of Frankenstein's monster was great. I felt really sad for him."

I haven't seen the DeNiro version. According to IMDB is follows Shelley's novel."

I think it's really worth watching Buck. From what I remember it is pretty accurate to the novel. I was familiar with the entire novel while reading it. I also think Victor is more sympathetic in it, which I'm sure affected my reading experience.

So I've just finished the novel. While I loved some of the language and especially the part when the monster wakes up. I didn't like Shelly's writing style. I felt there were parts of the book that could have been seriously reduced without losing anything and other parts where I wanted more.

I didn't like the letter writing in it. A lot of the story was told rather than showed - certainly in the beginning and I would have liked to experience it more. Scenes like Victor's mother dying could have been a great insight into Victor if we'd been shown how it affected him.

I found it hard to sympathise with either Victor or the monster because of the storytelling style. Sure the monster was in a sad situation, but I didn't feel sad for him because of the murders. While I appreciate what drove him to do it and I loved how he stalked Victor, I couldn't really get behind him.

It doesn't help that I was so familiar with the story. By the end I found the book a bit of a struggle to read.

I'm pleased to have read it once because of it's classic status but I'm not sure I'd read it again.

I felt I could relate to the creation in his telling of the story. He actually develops as a character from his innocent state, to his need of comapanionship, and finally to his being rejected and vengeful. I found what drove him was in the book. Frankenstein was a little more difficult to sympathize with. We never really learn what drives him in the beginning, and are shown only briefly of his lament for his mother. Other deaths affected him more, but still he continued to act irrationally.