Just finished reading Frankenstein for the first time. Mel Brooks was waaaaay off!

[Orrex]

(SPOILERS)

I have to disclaim outright that I HATE the epistolary style, so the first and last dozen or so pages were a real punishment for me, but on balance I give the book a big thumbs up. Way to go, Mary!

Since, like most modern reader (I suspect), my knowledge of the story came from James Whale and maybe one or two other sources, I was really surprised by a few things. First, there's no indication of how Victor animates the creature. None at all! In fact, the whole assembly process is handled almost as an afterthought, taking perhaps four lines in total (including the aborted attempt to build The Bride). The book as a whole is also a good deal shorter than I'd expected, running about 200 pages in my edition.

In addition, I was surprised to learn that The Bride was never animated. This was another point that I'd simply taken as a given, based on the countless film versions.

Before I started reading it, I knew that the monster was intelligent and articulate, but I wasn't prepared for the superbly eloquent orator that he's shown to be. Quite a contrast from the Karloff version, though Deniro's portrayal in the Brannagh film is a lot closer.


In terms of style, I'm intrigued by the layering of (possibly) unreliable narrators. Walton seems pretty reliable, but he's recounting Victor's mad tale, and we're never quite sure how reliable he is. Then when the monster appears at the end, he confirms certain points of Victor's tale, but we can't even be sure of this, because Victor was only recounting what the monster had told him, so we can't be sure that the monster didn't simply tell the same fabrication twice. This is complicated by the fact that Victor tells Walton outright that the monster is a persuasive deceiver.

The book is very sad in a number of ways, but perhaps most tragically IMO in its handling of unrealized potential and the unfortunate human tendency to judge based on looks. The monster is portrayed as almost supernaturally horrifying in appearance, and in the whole book only Victor, Walton, and the old blind man can even bear to converse with him. The resulting loneliness is surprisingly poignant, and several times we hear of the monster's efforts to reach out, only to be driven away.


Does anyone else have any thoughts to share about their first time reading this book?

[Warpy]

1. I got the monster's loneliness, too

and found it echoed briefly in the Karloff movie when the monster approached the little girl and inadvertently caused her death.

It's a real pity they didn't allow Karloff's monster to wax a little more eloquent, but it was made at the tag end of the eugenics movement and everybody knew the brain of a hanged man couldn't possibly be anything but incoherently brutal. The novel didn't have him made of secondhand parts, but rather hazily of newly constructed ones, something that probably defied staging in 1931.

Personally, I loved Warhol's 3D version. The lengthy soliloquy of the impaled man as a chicken gizzard dangled on the end of the pike in front of one's nose was priceless, although the flick had little to do with the original novel beyond sharing a name.

[Orrex]

4. Good point about the Karloff monster and the little girl

IIRC, she was throwing flowers into a stream, and the monster joins her game, at some point throwing her in, as well. I like that moment, because it suggests that the monster in intrigued by beautiful, delicate "things" (the flowers and the girl) but doesn't know how to interact with them appropriately. It's also a nice reimagining of the monster's murder of William and his rescue of the drowning child, especially since the latter act only earns the monster further scorn and hatred when the child's father mistakenly assumes that the monster had hurt the child.

I've only seen brief clips from the Warhol film, but they were pretty wild!

[Hav]

2. .

I really enjoyed the book as well. If I remember it correctly, I was surprised how little the actual violence was described. That was a real difference to what one expects in a horror movie/book today.
The thing I really appreciatd to the time were the detailed descriptions of the nature, the environment and of course the emotions. Very tragic indeed. So many movies just didn't do it justice.

[Orrex]

5. Yes, the violence was definitely understated

All we see is the aftermath, and even the monster's own description of killing young William is brief and sort of low key. Much less graphic even than the 1931 film.

on edit: The part that Warpy and I discussed above about the monster killing the girl was actually cut out of the original film, as I just discovered thanks to Wiki. The scene has been restored in modern prints, but it's surprising to learn that such a mild scene was considered too graphic and violent for the Depression-era audience!

[Richardo]

3. I appreciate your analysis, but I have to say your subject line is one of the best ever

:rofl:

[Orrex]

6. LOL!

The book was a birthday present from My Good Babushka, and I only got around to reading it in the last week. The Brooks film has aired several times during the past month or so, so it's been very much in mind as I've read the book!

[azmouse]

7. It's an eye opener reading the original novel.

Dracula was that way for me too. Both Frankenstein and Dracula were made into films so long ago that the film version is what most people incorrectly think is the story. Both novels are way better than any movie version ever made.