Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (spoilers I guess)

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:52 pm

Gosh I did not like this book very much at all. It was a lot more annoying to read than I had expected. The pacing is awful and the structure is retarded. But I probably wouldn't care if I liked the main character at all.

Despite the fact that everyone in the novel is constantly saying how awesome a dude Victor Frankenstein is (the narrator, his family, even the monster is like "you're awesome but I hate you") he actually just spends the vast majority of the novel feeling really miserable, getting sick for 2 months, or getting sick for 2 months because he feels really miserable. "Miserable" and related words are actually the most common in the book.

It's really boring to read a book all about a dude whining about how miserable he is, especially when the book could be about awesome things like creating monster dudes. The part where he actually creates the monster is pretty much just like, "I spent months working on this monster but I can't tell you how I did it because you'll try to make one. Then I felt miserable and got sick for 2 months."

Also, nobody ever does anything believable in this book, especially when encountering the monster. OK here's a scenario: say you live in a cottage in the country with your blind dad. You decide to go on a walk and leave your dad alone in the cottage. When you come back, you find a super ugly 8 foot tall guy sitting down talking to your dad. Would your first reaction be to run in and attack the giant ugly dude without even trying to say anything first? And then, when the giant dude runs away instead of kicking the crap out of you, do you immediately pack all your things, sell the cottage and move away forever??

Or here's another scenario: say you're walking in the woods with your little daughter. She runs ahead of you a little ways and you lose sight of her for a minute. You hear a splash and you come up to find a super ugly 8 foot tall dude dragging your daughter out of a river she fell in. Would you, again without trying to say anything to the dude, run up, snatch the dripping girl from his arms, and then shoot the dude in the shoulder as you're running away? I mean I get that the monster is supposed to be super ugly and scary, but he's not like a bear or something.

Or say you're Victor Frankenstein and the monster has given you an ultimatum: make him a bride or else he's going to make your life miserable. You say "screw you monster" and the monster goes "fine, I'll see you on your wedding night." Then a couple days later he kills your best friend and this makes you pretty miserable. Do you then go home and get married and then send your bride off to her room alone so you can look for the monster elsewhere, because it didn't occur to you that the monster might try to kill your bride???? If yes, turn to page 144.

Also, I get that you're an English Romantic Mary Shelley, but I don't really care how beautiful Mont Blanc is and it's not really related to the story at all.

Joined: 31 Mar 2009 Posts: 703

yeah had to read it when i was at school
boring as hug
how could you screw up that premise

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:09 pm

Miles wrote:

"Miserable" and related words are actually the most common in the book.

would have guessed "abhor."

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:22 pm

Miles wrote:

I mean I get that the monster is supposed to be super ugly and scary, but he's not like A Bear or something.

Joined: 17 Dec 2007 Posts: 122

This is my summary of the book:

Sailor: "Oh man sailing in the arctic is terrible. It's really cold. Oh hey, a guy. I should listen to him whine."

Dr. Frankenstein: "Oh man life is terrible and I'm dying. I'd better tell you my life story. I really wanted to bring life to dead things and so I did, but I made a monster (WHODA THUNK IT?), and then I ran away from my troubles and then my friends died and then I went up on this mountain to fight the monster and we were posed on this epic spire of rock, ready to grapple and bash in each other's heads when he was all like-"

THE MONSTER: "Oh man life is terrible. Before we fight let me tell you my life story. I am actually a nice dude but nobody believes it. I hide and then try and interact with life but everyone judges me based on the fact that I'm a bunch of dudes stitched together into one big guy. Boo hoo boo hoo. Anyways I'm going to do terrible things to your family."

Dr. Frankenstein: "Oh yeah? Try it!"

THE MONSTER: "Maybe I will!"

Dr. Frankenstein: "Oh no he did!"

Sailor: "Oh wow that sucks. Whoops, you're dead."

THE MONSTER: "Sup?"

Sailor: "And then he vanished into the snow."

THE MONSTER: "Ain't I a kidder?"

Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Posts: 8353

Ugh thank god
thought everyone on tabb loved frankenstein

ten out of ten · Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:36 pm

miles, as far as the believability of the story:

Although this probably won't make the story any more enjoyable for you, one thing to consider is that we the readers are not actually seeing the events unfold, but rather we are hearing a man tell the story of a creature he hates. He could tell it however he wanted to, believable or not. One thing I noticed was that in the end, the monster was not much like the doctor described him to be.

Joined: 25 Jul 2008 Posts: 6011

This book only works if you read it for the homosexual subtext

Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Posts: 8353

I did hate the bullshit where a totally friggin'
SCIENTIST
runs the hug away from the thing he made that he knows is not an evil demon or something because he totally friggin'
MADE IT

Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Posts: 8353

he might have had satan help him make it or something re: we don't know

Joined: 23 Oct 2007 Posts: 1775

I guess it's pretty okay for something written by a 18 year old.

Joined: 09 Feb 2006 Posts: 8409

DTZ Reunion Tour wrote:

I did hate the bullshit where a totally friggin'
SCIENTIST
runs the hug away from the thing he made that he knows is not an evil demon or something because he totally friggin'
MADE IT

oooh look at me i'm drew and i think science is god and fear of monsters is the first thing im going to invent a serum to cure as a high school biology teacher

Joined: 09 Feb 2006 Posts: 8409

ive never read frankenstein but i love talking about it as though i've read it !

Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Posts: 8353

but it
wasn't a monster and he knew that

Joined: 09 Feb 2006 Posts: 8409

as arrogant and self-aggrandizing as frankenstein was, he wasnt expecting a zombie to come to life in his lab

if a zombie comes to life in my lab i am going to get freaked out.

Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Posts: 8353

no he
was purposefully doing that
why would he expect it to fail

Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Posts: 8353

3:28<tommy> yo
3:28<tommy> imagine if
3:28<tommy> instead of killing people
3:28<tommy> the monster just
3:28<tommy> did practical jokes....
3:28<tommy> you could call him
3:28<tommy> prankenstein
3:29<tommy> IMAGINE
3:29<tommy> IF DR. FRANKENSTEIN FOUND OUT A WAY TO
3:29<tommy> SLOW THE MONSTER'S ROLL
3:29<tommy> IT WOULD BE
3:29<tommy> DRANKENSTEIN
3:29<Drew> should just
3:30<Drew> sell him to the military to be a
3:30<Drew> tankenstein
3:30<tommy> HAHAHA
3:30<tommy> YO
3:30<tommy> YO
3:31<tommy> YOU COULD SAY THAT
3:31<tommy> AMERICA HAS
3:31<tommy> CREATED A MONSTER.....
3:31<tommy> BANKENSTEIN
3:32<tommy> HOW DO YOU MAKE A TISSUE COME TO LIFE AND START DANCING?
3:32<tommy> PUT A LITTLE BOOGIE IN IT
3:32<tommy> AND CALL IT
3:32<tommy> HANKENSTEIN
3:33<ryan> :{
3:34<tommy> HEY FU
3:34<tommy> HANKENSTEIN
3:34<tommy> OWNED
3:34<Drew> tommy
3:34<Drew> if it was a ship it would have
3:34<Drew> sankenstein
3:34<brett> haha
3:34<tommy> ARE YOU SAYING IT
3:34<tommy> STANKENSTEIN?
3:34<Drew> yes
3:34<Drew> to be
3:34<Drew> frankenstein

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:09 am

Sam wrote:

miles, as far as the believability of the story:

Although this probably won't make the story any more enjoyable for you, one thing to consider is that we the readers are not actually seeing the events unfold, but rather we are hearing a man tell the story of a creature he hates. He could tell it however he wanted to, believable or not. One thing I noticed was that in the end, the monster was not much like the doctor described him to be.

The monster in the end was exactly like the monster who basically narrated part 2. Another criticism I'd make of the book is that it didn't use its double (sometimes triple) deep narration to any apparent purpose, but that would be a critique for if the book were otherwise pretty solid. It seemed ripe for unreliable narration, but there was nothing there.

Also Zach that's exactly what he was expecting. But when it happened he was like "I didn't care that it was creepy looking but when it started to move it creeped me out and so I ran away until morning. When I got back it was gone and I got sick for 2 months."

Joined: 08 Dec 2005 Posts: 9009 Location: SOMEWHERE EXTREME

DTZ Reunion Tour wrote:

CHATLOG

LLVH
YES

Joined: 09 Feb 2006 Posts: 8409

yeah i
only watched the wishbone adaptation of this book and let me tell you
that dog was freaked out

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:27 pm

Dezro wrote:

DTZ Reunion Tour wrote:

CHATLOG

LLVH
YES

perfect.

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:52 pm

DTZ Reunion Tour wrote:

3:34<Drew> yes
3:34<Drew> to be
3:34<Drew> frankenstein

llph

Joined: 31 Mar 2009 Posts: 703

i just realized

frankenstien is a mary sue

ten out of ten · Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:17 pm

Miles wrote:

Sam wrote:

miles, as far as the believability of the story:

Although this probably won't make the story any more enjoyable for you, one thing to consider is that we the readers are not actually seeing the events unfold, but rather we are hearing a man tell the story of a creature he hates. He could tell it however he wanted to, believable or not. One thing I noticed was that in the end, the monster was not much like the doctor described him to be.

The monster in the end was exactly like the monster who basically narrated part 2. Another criticism I'd make of the book is that it didn't use its double (sometimes triple) deep narration to any apparent purpose, but that would be a critique for if the book were otherwise pretty solid. It seemed ripe for unreliable narration, but there was nothing there.

Well, i guess that may be. When I read it, I didn't think so much about that, I guess. Mostly I was blown away by the amazing grammar and word usage. I really enjoyed that aspect of it.

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:39 pm

I hated Frankenstein the first time I read it, but it really started to grow on me the second and third time through. I think it's one of those books where if you have certain expectations about it, you can pretty easily be disappointed.

Anyway, the key for me for understanding the appeal of the book was when a professor suggested that the answer to a question like, "Why did Frankenstein go to bed right after bringing the Monster to life?" is not "Because he's retarded" or "Because Mary Shelley sucks at writing" but rather more like "I don't know -- why did he?" In other words, you can look at it as either a symptom of a dumb story, or you can look at it as kind of an insoluble literary koan that exists as an invitation to meditation.

There is one reading of the book that proposes the Monster is a physical manifestation of Frankenstein's subconscious desire to escape from the stifling influence of his family. He CLAIMS that his family is awesome and that he loves them all and he probably even BELIEVES that's true. But if it's really true, then why does he willfully ignore the Monster's hints about his wedding night and give him a perfect opportunity to kill his wife? Maybe it's because he subconsciously resents the preordained (practically "arranged") nature of his marriage, or because he is subconsciously revolted by the idea of what he might consider an incestuous marriage on some level. Textual support for that reading is kind of shaky and it's really unlikely that's what Shelley was going for, but it's actually pretty interesting to think about.

On the subject of the animation of the Monster, basically what we are looking at is the Modern Prometheus -- the NEW fall of the man. It's not meant to be sexy and exciting. I mean, look -- yes, Shelley totally wimps out when it comes to describing the events in that part of the book. But why? All we come away with is that Frankenstein brings inanimate matter to life and then he goes to bed. He creates, and then abandons. Depending on your beliefs about God (assuming you are a person who believes in God at all), this is either a parable about man's inability to live up to God's example, or a damning indictment of God's callousness towards His own creations.

The holes in the text raise a lot of questions that just never get answered in the book. There's no hint that Shelley is even thinking about these things, so you can either dismiss them as clumsy mistakes or you can ponder them endlessly and try to come to your own conclusions about them. I don't know whether these holes in the text are intentionally meant to make you think about these things (probably not), but I don't think it's unproductive to approach them that way. It's sort of like the third murderer in MacBeth. Did Shakespeare really mean anything by sticking him in? Or was it just a mistake or a last minute change? But even if the third murderer doesn't mean anything at all, a person can still have fun trying to figure out who he is -- and some explanations (e.g., he's MacBeth!) can even make the text seem richer than it otherwise would have been.

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:27 pm

Quote:

Chatlog

That was awesome.

Boorishly P. Foundry wrote:

There is one reading of the book that proposes the Monster is a physical manifestation of Frankenstein's subconscious desire to escape from the stifling influence of his family. He CLAIMS that his family is awesome and that he loves them all and he probably even BELIEVES that's true. But if it's really true, then why does he willfully ignore the Monster's hints about his wedding night and give him a perfect opportunity to kill his wife? Maybe it's because he subconsciously resents the preordained (practically "arranged") nature of his marriage, or because he is subconsciously revolted by the idea of what he might consider an incestuous marriage on some level. Textual support for that reading is kind of shaky and it's really unlikely that's what Shelley was going for, but it's actually pretty interesting to think about.

So Frankenstein is secretly Pyramid Head.

Anyhow, my favorite thing about Frankenstein is that it was written during a VOLCANIC WINTER. Winter of discontent and MAGMA.

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:40 pm

I don't really get the Promethean angle, to be honest. I mean, in the Prometheus story, Prometheus steals fire and gives it to humans. He's then punished eternally for it. But from the human perspective, Prometheus is a friggin hero. Fire rules, and having it gives us a ton of power over nature. It can be dangerous, but it's a much bigger boon. In Frankenstein, our Prometheus creates something that could be good for humanity, but is punished by his creation because he was an idiot. It's like if Prometheus had stolen fire and his punishment was that he thought it would be funny to set himself on fire. I guess that's why it's "modern?"

Anyway, I actually did think the book was (or could be) pretty interesting thematically, but it sucks to read because all the characters (specifically Frankenstein) are incredibly annoying. Once his story gets going, every couple pages I'm like rolling my eyes and going "GUH SHUT UP" and wishing the pages could turn faster.

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:56 pm

I don't know why, but I liked Frankenstein as a character simply because he was so ridiculously boneheaded. Even though I knew I was reading shamefully bad passages, I kind of enjoyed all the times when Frankenstein got sick and went crazy for a couple of months just because the monster was ugly.

Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 8693

I never really understood the tendency towards swooning in old books. Did everyone really have a horrible nervous condition back then?

Also we studied this last year and the general consensus was that it's both about parenthood, and in the broader sense about man's relationship to God. As I understand it, in the original draft Shelley was a little down on God, but then she went back and edited it after her family yelled at her? Is this the case?

One argument I could never quite get on board with is that the creature represents Shelley's anxiety about the possibility that science will rob women of the power of reproduction. I think this was extended to the point that Frankenstein is a narcissist attempting to create a perfect mirror of himself - in this sense, he is the male population trying to free himself of the need for women - and that he becomes horrified when he succeeds and creates a being that is hideous on the outside but good on the inside (as opposed to Victor, who is a handsome jerk, and whose name is Victor). Then, when Victor is unable to accept the creature, it festers and goes mad, and in the end destroys his life, in a kind of obvious metaphor for psychological repression. So I guess maybe I do kind of agree with that argument?

The point of all this is that Frankenstein isn't a particularly well-written or "fun" book, but it actually manages to draw a lot of its power from these flaws, and creates an ideal region for puzzling through our various anxieties.

Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Posts: 8353

yeah I guess when a book is popular but terrible you have to justify liking it by making up ridiculous theories about it.

THE HOBBIT IS REALLY AN ALLEGORY ABOUT ECOLOGY!!!!