Reviews - Frankenstein | The StoryGraph

32.8k reviews for:

Frankenstein

Mary Shelley

3.86 AVERAGE

annagracecrawled's review against another edition

4.0

dark mysterious reflective tense fast-paced

Plot or Character Driven: Plot

Strong character development: No

Loveable characters: Yes

Diverse cast of characters: No

Flaws of characters a main focus: Complicated

cfinn_6056's review against another edition

4.0

dark medium-paced

Plot or Character Driven: Plot

Strong character development: Yes

Loveable characters: Yes

Diverse cast of characters: Yes

Flaws of characters a main focus: Yes

for all its flaws, and there are many, this is deservedly a classic.

niles_reads's review against another edition

5.0

dark emotional inspiring reflective sad tense fast-paced

Plot or Character Driven: A mix

Strong character development: No

Loveable characters: No

Diverse cast of characters: No

Flaws of characters a main focus: Yes

I hate the author, I hate the book, I hate the fact I know how to read, I hate that I relate to the monster so much, I hate the ending, I HATE Victor Frankenstein and every other human in the book!

This book shattered me in ways I didn't think were possible. Waterfalls after waterfalls fell from my eyes. My heart squeezed with sadness and cried out in despair when I read the last sentence!
After everything the monster went through, to let the story end with that, is a sin itself.

Shame on you, Mrs. Shelley! I hope you're satisfied with the despair you caused!

Also, the story's gay as hell.

4.99 stars, since I won't forgive her for the ending…

Content Warnings

jocie_roller's review against another edition

5.0

This book was truly amazing. Deserving of its reputation as a Classic.

Despite the characters in this book being culturally ubiquitous, it was very different from what I was expecting. It's much more a meditation of what it means to exist, the consequences of hubris, the contradictions of 'evil,' philosophical questions of accountability and justice, and the theoretical horrors of medical and scientific pursuits. I knew going in that this was considered the 'first science fiction novel,' but I also expected more elements of horror which were mostly non-existent. The most 'horrifying' scenes were pretty tame compared to the heart wrenching narrative from the monster ruminating on his tortured existence of loneliness and ostracization and Frankenstein's grief and accountability for his creation.

The structure itself was interesting. The entire novel is technically a letter from a ship captain re-telling Frankenstein's story from hubris to downfall. Within that story, there is also a full-length account from the monster's perspective escaping Frankenstein's lab, learning language (to a highly eloquent degree), and realizing the conditions and origins of his suffering only to find his creator and articulate his desire for a more meaningful life which he feel he is owed. It's the monster's story within Frankenstein's story within the ship captain's story which is all technically contained in a series of letters to his sister (taking "people just don't write letters like they used to" to a new extreme.) I don't know how unconventional the structure was for the time, but I enjoyed the multiple POVs. I especially liked the monster who contrasted how he was perceived with a genuinely beautiful reflection on his desires and anguish and his version of justification for the violence he inflicts. It's what ultimately gave the book the most life. I could have done without the ship captain's narrative, but it was a nice unbiased perspective in contrast to the two self-interested accounts from both Frankenstein and his monster and it ended the book in a satisfying way.

The prose was remarkably literary. Dated, obviously, but clear and descriptive and very eloquent. I'm glad I listened on audiobook which I find makes parsing the 19th century English phrasing easier, allowing me to cut straight to the plot and narrative. Although, despite its age, I found this very accessible. By far, one of the better "classics" I have read.

Final hot take: Mary Shelley should have named the poor monster and saved people 200+ years of pedantic "um actually Frankenstein was the scientist" corrections in pop cultural conversations. Plus, the poor guy was sentient enough to name himself, I think. I wonder what he would have come up with.

cuddy's review against another edition

4.0

dark reflective slow-paced

Plot or Character Driven: Character

Strong character development: No

Loveable characters: No

Diverse cast of characters: No

Flaws of characters a main focus: Yes

It's hard to sympathise from a modern perspective with the childishness of Frankenstein. Which of course is the point, but some of the critiques seem a little dated. Ultimately a horror which only inspires fear of your own subconscious.

aaronsilva237's review against another edition

4.0

adventurous dark emotional sad tense slow-paced

Plot or Character Driven: A mix

Strong character development: No

Loveable characters: No

Diverse cast of characters: No

Flaws of characters a main focus: Yes

nerdwriter17's review against another edition

3.75

I'm struggling deciding what to rate this, so I'm going with 3.75/4 stars. I enjoyed this and I definitely would have a lot more to say if I was back in my English degree college days. I can see where you could take the interpretation of this tale in a lot of different directions. In fact, at the end of main text in this version, there is a section on 'how to read Frankenstein', which lists off a collection of different lenses you could take. In all honesty though, the main reason I read this was so that I could finally read The Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein by Kiersten White. I'm sure I could have read it without actually reading this, but I love getting a reference and this is one of the ultimate classics, so I felt like I should give it a shot anyway. I specifically chose this version because my coworker is a huge fan of Frankenstein and was talking about how she didn't have the 1818 Text version yet. I really enjoyed the introduction of this version, talking about Mary Shelley's process and how she eventually changed the story a bit in hopes it would sell more. I do see myself in the future reading the revised version and probably having a lot more thoughts on the things she decided to change.

So, instead of anything too intellectual, these are my two 21st century thoughts on this:
1. Victor is kinda a little cry baby. Bro, you spent two years wanting nothing more than the make this creature and then the SECOND you got what you wanted, you were like 'EW! Disgusting' and ran away. Everything that happened afterwards is your own fault (which I know he knows). But, also hearing that you created a creature that taught itself how to speak, how to read, and write, all from observation and you didn't think that was cool? Okay.

2. There are parts of this that were kinda creepy (him looking through the window all the time - that is truly one of my biggest fears, just some creep through the window lol), but the crowd in the 1800s was weak if that thought this was as horrible as it sounded like they did in the introduction. Yes, it is creepy to think about Victor gathering all the things for this experiment, but he really grazes over that (and explains that in the end, which I did like), but it's really not that bad. Again, these are the feelings of someone in the 21st century with all the horror movies and books we have now.