Reviews

Frankissstein by Jeanette Winterson

Only show reviews with written explanations

riledupryepie's review against another edition

funny inspiring reflective medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.5

Missing the final 0.5 only because it simply cannot do everything - Winterson really tries though! This book is the definition of layered, and any Mary Shelley fan will enjoy.

Content Warnings

hannauueee's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark mysterious reflective slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

2.0

batsugeemu's review against another edition

Go to review page

1.0

jesus fucking CHRIST what a mess. i went into this book trying to give it the benefit of the doubt despite the mixed reviews because i've liked the author's other books alright, but this was godawful.

a trans character who is literally nothing but their transness, and is also raped for no reason: it has no bearing on the character or the plot, it just happens and bears no consequence in any way. the only reason it's there is maybe to imply that transmasculine people won't be respected even in this imaginary futuristic take of the world the author has presented us.

a good cis lgbt author does not a good trans author make

brisingr's review against another edition

Go to review page

3.0

This book really could have done without the rape mention and rape attempt scene. But I appreciated all the social commentaries in the book, and the possible "if" of the future.

minxtte's review against another edition

Go to review page

reflective slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

4.5

helloooooree's review against another edition

Go to review page

emotional funny informative reflective sad medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

5.0

sidharthvardhan's review against another edition

Go to review page

5.0

"I discover that grief means living with someone who is no longer there."

"We are lucky, even the worst of us, because daylight comes."

10 booker long list of this year books I have read so far, this is first 5 star one. Lots to talk about. Let us get started.

Mary Shelly

His creature will have the strength of ten men. The speed of a galloping horse. The creature will be more than human. But he will not be human. Yet he suffers. Suffering, I do believe, is something of the mark of the soul."

(Marry Shelly thinking of Frankenstein)

The parts where author was getting into mind of Mary Shelly as an anguished woman were interesting. You could argue though that Winterson served her too many of ideas behind Frankenstein from things happening around her. Her pregnancy at time of writing the book though mentioned doesn't get as much importance as it should seeing how much of Frankenstein was the story of relationship between a creator and the created - the same way it was between mother and son.

The creator-creation relationship plays role in book in several ways - parent and children(Mary and her children; Mary and her father), Mary and her book (novelist and her novel), Mary and the scientist Frankenstein (novelist and her character), God and people (Frankenstein asking his creator for a partner to company him reminds one of Adam asked for same thing from God, Michelle and church) of people who have wrong sort of bodies, of scientists and robots they create etc.

One example of this relationship is naming which has much relevance in book. Mary's father didn't name her and leave her to be named after her deceased mother; Mary's protagonist in turn won't make the monster he created - names incidnetly having much role to play in book as Ry would rename him/herself when recreating body to suit what he or she wants to.

With machines just as with your children and other such creations, it is about what values you teach them. As soon as machine have to move beyond exact sciences, they start depending on values which their creators must give them, a big responsiblity.

"We know already that machine learning is deeply sexist in outcomes. Amazon had to stop using machines to sift through job application CVs because the machines chose men over women time after time. There is nothing neutral about AI."

Sex Dolls

The parts which talk about present day robotics are equally intresting. There is a character, Ron Lord, used to give a compassionate take on those straight men who use sex robots because of being too sensitive to be in a relationship with an actual person. Ron repeats at least twice that his sex doll would never disagree with him, so I guess this need to be agreed has at least partially to do with getting approval. Getting approval from a person of other sex seems to me an important element of hetrosexuals and their relationships, I can't say whether such need for approval is present in homosexual relationships.

Another bad thing which spoils hetrosexual relationship is mistrust between sexes - another reason Ron prefers dolls over real wome; afriad of being cheated.

On the face of it, it will seem that straight women are less likely to develop such sensitiveness as they won't easily but sex robots. It would seem that for straight men's idea of beautiful has much more to do with physical looks (and often youth) in a woman, making those rich enough to afford a sex doll but not able to find young beautiful girls who would love them find sex dolls attractive. For women who probably like foreplay, dating, romance more than coitus; sex dolls won't be attractive - those things required the partner to be a bit more human.

But as it is somewhere pointed out that full fledged men androids are just too inconvenient for women to carry around while for straight men it is easy to carry around women androids (the tradational prejudice considering thinner women and muscular men as hotter, so androids of men would be expected to be bigger, while women themselves might be lacking in physical strength to carry such heavy dolls); women instead prefer hand held-able machines (vibrators? dildos?) - which I think sell more than sex dolls (makes sense too - women are more likely to be sensitive, have more reasons to distrust men and are less likely to go for other options like male prostitutes). And you could wonder if machines could learn to do romance parts well, some women won't be attracted to idea of it.

Ron defends his own love for dolls well:

"Ron said, When my wife kicked me out – couldn’t happen with a bot – could not happen – I had to go back to live with my mum, but I couldn’t get in with any of the locals. I’d go down the pub and they’d all turn their backs and start speaking Welsh. I was an outsider and everyone was married.
So I bought myself a love-doll. Yes, I did. Mail-order. She was basic but she was mine.

I have always been a lonely man.

A sexbot is not a human being! said Claire.
That’s right! said Ron. And neither is a dog or a cat. We wouldn’t be without them, though, would we? Even tropical fish! People can feel close to fish. They come home from work and sit next to the aquarium. We all need something. That’s life. So why not a robot? My first bot was there for me when I got home from work and there was none of the usual where have you been.'

Not everything about men's love for sex dolls can be seen with compassion though. Sex dolls often loss their heads or have them disfigured.

Machines and emotions

There is of course theme of androids developing emotions - shared with Ian's McEwan's Machines Like Me - the other science fiction I read this year. And if they can do emotions, art naturally follows. Winterson seem to think that machines might never imitate highest genuis but only average stuff (McEwan made no distinction) - and most people read only average stuff anyway:

"I wrote a paper suggesting that the machine might also make music – that is where the joke of the Patent Novel-Writer began. The music would not be inspirational but it would be made of what exists already. Only the human mind can accomplish the leap of thought that is a leap of genius. But let us be clear, the majority of human minds are not geniuses and have no need of genius. They have need of instruction and information. That is what this machine could allow."

Immortal Brains

An original Frankenstein connection is dead things being brought to life. Besides the monster between two books, a fictional character is brought back to life. While efforts are also being made to evolve a technology which would bring back dead people to life.

Another theme is how life can be conserved by saving brains by freezing them (something already being done) which could then be put (when we have the technology enough) into some androids.

Such androids could obviously add to overpopulation problem, an objection raised in passing and mildly resolved by people migratinng to stars.

"I might freeze my mum, says Ron. She’d love to live on a star."

you can also wonder what would such androids people do with their immortality? most will just want to have fun, some might pursue more productive things.

"Will they get downloaded into human form every summer holiday to stuff their faces with Chinese takeaways and fuck each other senseless? Because those minds will remember their bodies. Why do you assume we won’t miss them?"

The book tells us how brains are being preserved for that very purpose. About this too, I have thoughts of my own. But will preserving brains be enough? Even if we do bring brains back to life, would they ever be lively? Doesn't, even for scientists who live in their brains mostly, harmones play an important role? Harmones created from glands in other parts of body give us cravings - for food, sex, knowledge, company etc. What would the existence of a brain without harmones be like?

And there is of course abuse such technology can lend itself to. Won't the people most likely to have money enough to spend on such technology be the worst kind - who made money the wrong ways in first place.:

"Is Donald Trump getting his brain frozen? asks Ron.
Max explains that the brain has to be fully functioning at clinical death."

Of wrong bodies

Ry, the protagonist of the book was born a woman physically; but went through an operation for upper half of body - losing breasts, while chosing to keep the female genitals intact.

Transexuals are just one example of people who feel they were not born in right kind of bodies. People wanting plastic surgeries could be another example. Ron ashamed of his obesity is yet another. The book asks whether human race would be a happier lot if we could find bodies we desire - something androidisation is supposed to do. Our conception of physical beauty seems a double edged weapon - making some people like Ron unable to develop relationship with women that are less than perfect while making others feel ashamed of thier own bodies or, like Ry, at least a stranger in their bodies.

In a perfect world, the body of person won't be relevant. But this is not a perfect world, and a person's body does play a role as regards what sterotypes he or she fights. If it is first thing that will create an impression on the other person, it makes sense some people want to modify it to suit the self they identify with.

Much live in everything else that doesn't hurt an innocent person, I judge those who are quick to judge in such cases which doesn't always make it easier to stay friends with people.Body shaming is one disgusting thing I have seen even the most intelligent, sensitive and (otherwise) kind people to succumb to.

The bodies people desire, I have personally noticed, are not always model like. In virtual reality games (something which seems popular among both those who have felt ashamed of thier bodies as well as transexuals and those with fluid sexuality because of easy ways those games offer to change your body), people often take avatars which are nothing like handsomest bodies you will ever see - wanting wrinkles, pot bellies, skinny bodies etc... and even demand for them when game creators permit avatars of only one size. But it might apply to what we are attracted to as well. Look at demand for BBQ and mature women based porn videos over internet. But such demands come from a very small section of users of such games.

Coming back to book, this wrong body question is Centeral theme of Winterson's as well as Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. Mary feels wronged because she is born in a woman's body. Frankenstein hated his creator for creating him a monster. Ry changed her body while Ron chose not to let a woman near him who might mock him for his body.

More quotes:

"Life is hard. Hard is OK. It’s hopeless and helpless that sucks."

"You’re a doctor, he said. You know how useful horrible is."

"I’m not saying that Alan Turing won the war, but without him we would definitely have lost it."
- Jack Good

jaina8851's review

Go to review page

challenging dark medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

3.25

This is such a difficult book to give a star rating to.

I LOVED the parts set in the past. The Mary Shelley POV bits were gorgeously rendered, her pain and grief seared through the poetic writing and I could have read an entire novel just about that.

The present/futuristic bits were so incredibly hit or miss. All of the characters felt more like a blend of caricature and vaguely archetype rather than having their own developed personalities (which, makes sense I guess, since all of them share names with either people in Mary Shelley's life or book). This particularly made the other POV character of Ry a bit fraught. He was an incredibly passive narrator, to the point that I even commented in my reading journal at one point "this whole section is written in first person plural, but literally nothing here has been addressed to Ry and he's said no dialogue, is he even present??" The choice to make him trans was inexpertly handled in my opinion. I think the idea of comparing being transgender with transhumanism could be interesting, but that the whole book could have benefited from having a sensitivity reader or two, because even as a cis reader, there were aspects of it that just threw me out of the book.

All in all though, I found this a really interesting book. I read this back-to-back with my first ever read of Frankenstein, so it was REALLY cool to have the source material be so fresh. The interview at the end was *fascinating* as well. Just a lot of thought provoking stuff about the meaning of humanity, intelligence. AND LOOMS.

Content Warnings

mekowaletti's review against another edition

Go to review page

The description of the trans-MC as a "hybrid" was a choice. I gave it a bit more time but when it came up again and everything was doubled down it was just not sitting well. I'm all for reading novels that make me challenge my perception but having the MC have to explain their trans identity over and over and not having anyone just treat them as a human was over the top.

Content Warnings

cozykrissyreads's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark reflective slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

2.5

More...