Reviews with content warning for Abandonment - Frankenstein

Reviews tagging 'Abandonment'

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

140 reviews

abbycrotts's review against another edition

challenging dark mysterious reflective sad slow-paced

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

4.0

kinda dint care like it was written pretty well but it was so old classic-y and in your face and dragged on but i can see why people study it closely and have it as a reading criteria for school

Content Warnings

u_r_beans's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark mysterious reflective sad tense slow-paced

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

3.5

Content Warnings

aconfundityofcrows's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark informative mysterious reflective tense medium-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

3.5

The book includes the two "ghost" stories written at the same castle holiday, by Lord Byron and Dr. John Polidori. Both are vampiric in nature, with Byron's story actually influencing Polidori's story, which is more explicitly about vampires. So a surprising spooky two for one deal here, with the original Frankenstein story and some early vampires.

Content Warnings

nzhuo5392's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark reflective tense medium-paced

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

3.75

I've studied this book in about four or five classes at this point and I'm still learning from it. Shelley exposes the instability of the male ego so many times over it's actually insane. She tries and fails to spark discourse about issues that she, as an upper class white woman, doesn't have a lot of lived familiarity with (especially with the Safie storyline), but the little jabs at sexism and masculinity are done wonderfully.

Content Warnings

greciamj1958's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark mysterious reflective sad tense 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

4.0

I read this for school and i have to say that I really enjoyed all of it. There were chapters that were slow and some what boring, but i find interesting how the reader is able to know Victor Frankenstein’s POV and the monster as well. I can say that this novel is definitely character-driven because the book spends a lot of time showing their personality and thoughts. I really think that the main villain of the story is Victor Frankenstein, and he was really my least favorite character.

Content Warnings

caribbeangirlreading's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark slow-paced

Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

1.0

DISCLAIMER – This is a review of the original 1818 text, not the heavily edited 1831 edition.

THOUGHTS

· Victor Frankenstein is a self-centered, whiny, man-boy. I despise him.

· There is kind of a reverse original sin theme going on – “the being” was born good, it was the way people treated him that turned him into a monster. And I don’t buy Shelley’s theory for one minute. Yes, people who are hurt usually hurt others, but the violence spree that the being goes on is completely out of proportion to the way he has been treated. It just feels like the author is making excuses for men who behave badly.

· Once I started reading, I realized this is not a text of Victorian literature (my mistake), but very firmly rooted in the Romanticism period. Between that and the fact that this book was written by an 18-year-old, I found it to be way too “emo” for my taste. The writing was full of angst and over-the top melodrama and it drove me bananas.

· The book is divided into three parts. The first two were obviously written by the same person. The third part, however, is obviously written by someone else. The level or writing and maturity is head and shoulders above the first two parts. My theory is that Mary’s husband, Percy Shelly, wrote that third section, or at least it was very heavily edited by him to the point that it feels like someone else wrote it.

· The original text was highly criticized. Mary Shelley caved and re-wrote many parts of the novel. And when I say Mary Shelley re-wrote, it most probably means that Percy Shelley highly edited the new text. So . . . if you have read the 1831 version chances are that what you like is really Percy’s heavy-handed editing, not Mary’s writing.

· These are all my personal theories, and I’m sticking to them.

Content Warnings

rosita's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional sad slow-paced

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

4.0

I first tried to read Frankenstein when i was 14, and i didnt like it. The pace was too slow for my taste, and i ended up dnfing it. Now, that i am 20, i decided to pick it back up again, this time in audiobook form, and i loved it!
I love how complex and morally grey both Frankenstein and The Creature are, i love the whole moral dilemma of progress and science and prejudices, I loved the parts that were narrated by the creature the most.
I isnt a 5 star bc the descriptions were too long for my taste, and that fact that Frankenstein was just narrating this to his friend, word for word, destroyed my suspension of disbelief, nobody is that bad at summarizing.

Content Warnings