Scan barcode
peggy_brm's review against another edition
dark
emotional
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
guillevaldata's review against another edition
3.0
No se si fue por mi bloqueo o que, pero tarde veintemil años en leerlo y me dejo una sensación de 🤷🏻♀️
No sabía que era un retelling! Me quede sorprendida cuando lo deduje al final.
De todas formas, si bien fue entretenido y considero que es un buen libro, no me cautivo tanto como al resto.
Ni idea. 3.5
No sabía que era un retelling! Me quede sorprendida cuando lo deduje al final.
De todas formas, si bien fue entretenido y considero que es un buen libro, no me cautivo tanto como al resto.
Ni idea. 3.5
bookb1itch's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
a nice homage to the classic, told through a female voice. Creepy-scary, like a gothic story should be. At times i wondered if Elizabeth was an unreliable narrator. Mary from the book shop was probably my favourite character though.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Violence, Medical content, and Blood
Minor: Forced institutionalization
wollstonecrafty's review against another edition
reshaped families at the end of the world! kiersten white tracing out the female homosocial in frankenstein and saying hmmm what if we talked about this more!
dr_aimz's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
emotional
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
mariahistryingtoread's review against another edition
1.0
If you couldn't guess from the title, The Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein is a retelling of Frankenstein.
I read the original book before starting this one because I wanted to see how this retelling would reframe the source material. This decision made for an arguably more tiresome read.
While initially intrigued because the direction this book promised to take as presented by the synopsis was exactly what I was thinking about when reading Frankenstein, I quickly lost interest as it became clear that Elizabeth was not actually going to do anything to re-arrange events of the original novel.
The first 40% of the book takes place over a few days with the bulk being just one. The synopsis makes it out as if this is a story of some great downfall as Elizabeth sinks deeper into darkness in her pursuit of Victor. Yeah, no. Her entire 'search' (if you can even call it that) amounts to talking to a few people who then luckily point her to the right place to go. There's no chasing down leads, no getting into scrapes, no deadline to heighten tension, no intrigue whatsoever. It's literally just a series of conversations. What's worse is that Elizabeth prides herself as some master manipulator and then we never see these supposed skills play out. She’s just a ‘normal’ manipulative person.
While that does require some level of effort to become good at, she's hardly the femme fatale the book tries relentlessly to convince you she is. It's also telling that the only people she seems to be able to fool are men - who are portrayed as largely incompetent, oblivious and/or too egotistical to think twice about her. Every single man has one of the above characteristics in one way or another. So really, she's not actually particularly clever. It's just that the intelligence of everyone around her has been lowered to make her stand out in comparison - one of my absolute least favorite ways of attempting to establish a female character as smart.
If you want a character to be perceived as smart write situations in which they can prove it. Don't just tell me or try to mold the story to make them look smart.
Personally, I hate this way of writing because it contradicts a basic tenet of feminism: the idea that women are equal to if not smarter/stronger/faster etc than men. The female character should be smart because it's a trait she possesses (whether it be cultivated or inherent, it doesn't matter as long as there are examples to showcase it) not just because everyone else happens to be dumb. This concept also undermines its own good intentions by unintentionally suggesting that women can only be smarter than men if men are imbeciles.
Are there men that are so arrogant, misogynistic, ignorant and/or downright idiotic that they would never deign to see a woman as a person let alone a person who could rival them in any capacity? Oh, absolutely. But, it's unlikely that every terrible man will have the same combination of the above attributes. And each one can be harmful in their own unique way. To imply that each one can be defeated in the same catch all manner is harmful. I would have enjoyed seeing Elizabeth have to genuinely try to outmaneuver people - not primarily men - because combating societal prejudice is difficult and takes legitimate work to do.
In the latter half of the book she doesn't even get these straw men to tear down. Instead a marker of her quick wit is the preternatural ability to piece together the motivations of Victor and the monster just from witnessing random events. She doesn't even have to hear them talk or anything. She can just pluck their reasoning out of thin air based on the smallest bits of evidence available.
This just goes back to my central gripe with this book: the fact that White does so little to make this stand out from the source material only to wildly ramp it up when it's already far too late.
All of Elizabeth's actions are carefully calculated to fit neatly into the confines of the original tale until 70% of the way in. Up until that point she can only influence things in such a way that it has no impact on any situation or pushes those situations to still occur in their intended natural order. I believe the intention behind this choice is to make you feel like you're getting the inside scoop on the true story.
Except I didn't feel that way because without any demonstrable change before the point everything changes Elizabeth was basically a prop operating almost indistinguishably from the character in the original tale thereby making me bored rather than more invested. Thus, the sudden veer from canon felt dissonant.
As an example, Elizabeth seeks Victor out in the beginning - in the original she waits at home because she’s a woman in the 1800s. This is a clear deviation. However, after her excursion she still ended up back at home engaged to Victor while he traipsed around fulfilling the necessary components to the original story. So looking back on the book as a whole what purpose did her seeking him out really serve when she proceeded to spend the rest of her time essentially following in her original counterparts’ footsteps? If White hadn't forced Henry out then he would have nursed Victor back to health and Elizabeth would be in the exact same place.
It didn't feel like this story mattered because for a majority of the book Elizabeth's choices were wholly unnecessary. They had no weight. The book would have played out exactly how it did regardless of what she chose because even in a story where she's supposed to be the main character she functionally was still a side character.
The choice to at SEVENTY percent of the way through decide to shake it up was mind-boggling. Especially when literally everything after that would have made for a vastly more interesting book. At that point it was already a lost cause. The peak of this novel doesn’t occur until a little over 80% in.
Even then it’s still tainted by the fact that the revelation comes out of nowhere. There’s absolutely no foreshadowing for this moment. I somewhat suspected it since the book is written in a way that feels like it was building to some kind of twist, however, the only reason I was actually surprised is because it happened so late in the game I had talked myself out of it being an option. Also, it relied heavily on a minor character who disappears somewhat after the start.
Speaking of characters, the characters are weak. Elizabeth is a lot stronger in the first few chapters when she seemed like an unreliable narrator. I genuinely was unsure whether or not she loved Victor at first or if she did truly only love what he could do for her. And I loved that because it gave Elizabeth so much potential. She framed it as if he was a means to an end, but then would relay a sweet anecdote like how he would let her crawl into his bed at night when she had nightmares. The fact that she, herself, was so deep in that she couldn’t tell what of her own feelings was real or not was super enthralling.
Unfortunately, that does not last. I already mentioned that her skills of manipulation are grossly overblown. So her character steadily declines for that reason alone.By the time she returns to Geneva, most of her previous personality traits have all but disappeared. Rather than the cutthroat, scheming young woman she is presented as at the start of the novel she is now a skittish, sweet girl who is desperate to survive. She completely loses her edge. She might as well have been any old generic YA protagonist now. Note, this is not a knock on those types of protagonists, I just expected differently based on what I was initially given.
Early in the book Elizabeth makes it clear she despises Victor’s younger siblings. Her whole focus was on pleasing Victor. From her perspective the two younger brothers were extraneous drains on her emotional energy. When she returns to Geneva, suddenly she really likes them and finds them charming. Her character has done a complete 180 in only a few days time.
I’m pretty sure this change was done to better highlight a disparity later on in relation to the twist. Sadly, this was done at the expense of cohesive character progression as well as likeability. I found new Elizabeth far less compelling. Victor undergoes this change for the same reason. When Elizabeth talks about him at first it sounds like he’s a sociopath. By the middle of the book he’s now Mr. Darcy.
Other supposedly major characters are inconsequential. They were plot devices first and foremost. Henry Clerval has two scenes of significance where he speaks maybe ten lines total. Justine is so utterly pure I found her annoying. Her ‘innocence’ made her such an obvious foil for Elizabeth that I rolled my eyes every time she talked. Especially since Elizabeth extolled Justine’s virtues in comparison to herself constantly.
The shallowness of these two characters paired with a scarcity in meaningful interactions involving the two made me all the more frustrated when Elizabeth would randomly act as if the four of them were oh so close.
The resolution is rushed because it’s packed into so little page time. It also is very fanciful considering how realistic Elizabeth’s circumstances were set up before. The epilogue did not need to be included and was an awful cap on already poor read; it makes no sense.
I spent a fair amount of time in this review comparing The Dark Descent et.al. to the original book, but rest assured even if I hadn’t read that I would have had issues. Not much happening, characters being flat or having incongruous arcs, and a nonsensical ending are things that transcend knowledge of source material. I was very disappointed that after slogging through Frankenstein to prepare, I was greeted with this book for my efforts. I would absolutely not recommend this unless you are in love with Frankenstein in general.
I read the original book before starting this one because I wanted to see how this retelling would reframe the source material. This decision made for an arguably more tiresome read.
While initially intrigued because the direction this book promised to take as presented by the synopsis was exactly what I was thinking about when reading Frankenstein, I quickly lost interest as it became clear that Elizabeth was not actually going to do anything to re-arrange events of the original novel.
The first 40% of the book takes place over a few days with the bulk being just one. The synopsis makes it out as if this is a story of some great downfall as Elizabeth sinks deeper into darkness in her pursuit of Victor. Yeah, no. Her entire 'search' (if you can even call it that) amounts to talking to a few people who then luckily point her to the right place to go. There's no chasing down leads, no getting into scrapes, no deadline to heighten tension, no intrigue whatsoever. It's literally just a series of conversations. What's worse is that Elizabeth prides herself as some master manipulator and then we never see these supposed skills play out. She’s just a ‘normal’ manipulative person.
While that does require some level of effort to become good at, she's hardly the femme fatale the book tries relentlessly to convince you she is. It's also telling that the only people she seems to be able to fool are men - who are portrayed as largely incompetent, oblivious and/or too egotistical to think twice about her. Every single man has one of the above characteristics in one way or another. So really, she's not actually particularly clever. It's just that the intelligence of everyone around her has been lowered to make her stand out in comparison - one of my absolute least favorite ways of attempting to establish a female character as smart.
If you want a character to be perceived as smart write situations in which they can prove it. Don't just tell me or try to mold the story to make them look smart.
Personally, I hate this way of writing because it contradicts a basic tenet of feminism: the idea that women are equal to if not smarter/stronger/faster etc than men. The female character should be smart because it's a trait she possesses (whether it be cultivated or inherent, it doesn't matter as long as there are examples to showcase it) not just because everyone else happens to be dumb. This concept also undermines its own good intentions by unintentionally suggesting that women can only be smarter than men if men are imbeciles.
Are there men that are so arrogant, misogynistic, ignorant and/or downright idiotic that they would never deign to see a woman as a person let alone a person who could rival them in any capacity? Oh, absolutely. But, it's unlikely that every terrible man will have the same combination of the above attributes. And each one can be harmful in their own unique way. To imply that each one can be defeated in the same catch all manner is harmful. I would have enjoyed seeing Elizabeth have to genuinely try to outmaneuver people - not primarily men - because combating societal prejudice is difficult and takes legitimate work to do.
In the latter half of the book she doesn't even get these straw men to tear down. Instead a marker of her quick wit is the preternatural ability to piece together the motivations of Victor and the monster just from witnessing random events. She doesn't even have to hear them talk or anything. She can just pluck their reasoning out of thin air based on the smallest bits of evidence available.
Spoiler
And then in a horrible twist that wasn't telegraphed at all she was wrong the whole time because Victor was the true monster. So not only was she not showing any Sherlock Holmes-esque talent for deduction, it also rendered the whole thing even more pointless because she was always supposed to be wrong anyways.This just goes back to my central gripe with this book: the fact that White does so little to make this stand out from the source material only to wildly ramp it up when it's already far too late.
All of Elizabeth's actions are carefully calculated to fit neatly into the confines of the original tale until 70% of the way in. Up until that point she can only influence things in such a way that it has no impact on any situation or pushes those situations to still occur in their intended natural order. I believe the intention behind this choice is to make you feel like you're getting the inside scoop on the true story.
Except I didn't feel that way because without any demonstrable change before the point everything changes Elizabeth was basically a prop operating almost indistinguishably from the character in the original tale thereby making me bored rather than more invested. Thus, the sudden veer from canon felt dissonant.
As an example, Elizabeth seeks Victor out in the beginning - in the original she waits at home because she’s a woman in the 1800s. This is a clear deviation. However, after her excursion she still ended up back at home engaged to Victor while he traipsed around fulfilling the necessary components to the original story. So looking back on the book as a whole what purpose did her seeking him out really serve when she proceeded to spend the rest of her time essentially following in her original counterparts’ footsteps? If White hadn't forced Henry out then he would have nursed Victor back to health and Elizabeth would be in the exact same place.
It didn't feel like this story mattered because for a majority of the book Elizabeth's choices were wholly unnecessary. They had no weight. The book would have played out exactly how it did regardless of what she chose because even in a story where she's supposed to be the main character she functionally was still a side character.
The choice to at SEVENTY percent of the way through decide to shake it up was mind-boggling. Especially when literally everything after that would have made for a vastly more interesting book. At that point it was already a lost cause. The peak of this novel doesn’t occur until a little over 80% in.
Even then it’s still tainted by the fact that the revelation comes out of nowhere. There’s absolutely no foreshadowing for this moment. I somewhat suspected it since the book is written in a way that feels like it was building to some kind of twist, however, the only reason I was actually surprised is because it happened so late in the game I had talked myself out of it being an option. Also, it relied heavily on a minor character who disappears somewhat after the start.
Speaking of characters, the characters are weak. Elizabeth is a lot stronger in the first few chapters when she seemed like an unreliable narrator. I genuinely was unsure whether or not she loved Victor at first or if she did truly only love what he could do for her. And I loved that because it gave Elizabeth so much potential. She framed it as if he was a means to an end, but then would relay a sweet anecdote like how he would let her crawl into his bed at night when she had nightmares. The fact that she, herself, was so deep in that she couldn’t tell what of her own feelings was real or not was super enthralling.
Unfortunately, that does not last. I already mentioned that her skills of manipulation are grossly overblown. So her character steadily declines for that reason alone.By the time she returns to Geneva, most of her previous personality traits have all but disappeared. Rather than the cutthroat, scheming young woman she is presented as at the start of the novel she is now a skittish, sweet girl who is desperate to survive. She completely loses her edge. She might as well have been any old generic YA protagonist now. Note, this is not a knock on those types of protagonists, I just expected differently based on what I was initially given.
Early in the book Elizabeth makes it clear she despises Victor’s younger siblings. Her whole focus was on pleasing Victor. From her perspective the two younger brothers were extraneous drains on her emotional energy. When she returns to Geneva, suddenly she really likes them and finds them charming. Her character has done a complete 180 in only a few days time.
I’m pretty sure this change was done to better highlight a disparity later on in relation to the twist. Sadly, this was done at the expense of cohesive character progression as well as likeability. I found new Elizabeth far less compelling. Victor undergoes this change for the same reason. When Elizabeth talks about him at first it sounds like he’s a sociopath. By the middle of the book he’s now Mr. Darcy.
Other supposedly major characters are inconsequential. They were plot devices first and foremost. Henry Clerval has two scenes of significance where he speaks maybe ten lines total. Justine is so utterly pure I found her annoying. Her ‘innocence’ made her such an obvious foil for Elizabeth that I rolled my eyes every time she talked. Especially since Elizabeth extolled Justine’s virtues in comparison to herself constantly.
The shallowness of these two characters paired with a scarcity in meaningful interactions involving the two made me all the more frustrated when Elizabeth would randomly act as if the four of them were oh so close.
The resolution is rushed because it’s packed into so little page time. It also is very fanciful considering how realistic Elizabeth’s circumstances were set up before. The epilogue did not need to be included and was an awful cap on already poor read; it makes no sense.
I spent a fair amount of time in this review comparing The Dark Descent et.al. to the original book, but rest assured even if I hadn’t read that I would have had issues. Not much happening, characters being flat or having incongruous arcs, and a nonsensical ending are things that transcend knowledge of source material. I was very disappointed that after slogging through Frankenstein to prepare, I was greeted with this book for my efforts. I would absolutely not recommend this unless you are in love with Frankenstein in general.
cait_readsxox's review against another edition
5.0
Absolutely phenomenal retelling! The way this was written was so twisty, disturbing, and just all around gothic! Such intricate characters and great storytelling! Highly recommend this book!
the_bibliofiles's review against another edition
5.0
I would give this 6/5 if I could.
This was insane.
I never cry over books. I sobbed my heart out over
I am discombobulated, in a wreck, in tears, literally longing for more about Elizabeth.
I WANT HENRY. GIVE ME HENRY.
(why was victor my favourite character when i hate him so much?)
ARGHHH THIS BOOK HAS EVOKED TOO MANY EMOTIONS.
and now it is my #1 favourite out of the about 300 books I've ever read. Congratulations, Kiersten, for being a real feminist and capturing my heart in this story.
BUT I HATE YOU SO MUCH AT THE SAME TIME. WHY DID YOU HAVE TO DO THIS TO ME?
This was insane.
I never cry over books. I sobbed my heart out over
Spoiler
Justine and Henry and what Victor didI am discombobulated, in a wreck, in tears, literally longing for more about Elizabeth.
I WANT HENRY. GIVE ME HENRY.
(why was victor my favourite character when i hate him so much?)
ARGHHH THIS BOOK HAS EVOKED TOO MANY EMOTIONS.
and now it is my #1 favourite out of the about 300 books I've ever read. Congratulations, Kiersten, for being a real feminist and capturing my heart in this story.
BUT I HATE YOU SO MUCH AT THE SAME TIME. WHY DID YOU HAVE TO DO THIS TO ME?
anythinggoes's review against another edition
5.0
OHMYGOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE BEST READ OF 2018 TBFH!!!!!!!! OHMYGOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oct. 25, 2022 reread: i felt and understood everything more this time and i love it even more
oct. 25, 2022 reread: i felt and understood everything more this time and i love it even more