Reviews with content warning for Abandonment - Frankenstein

Reviews tagging 'Abandonment'

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

122 reviews

jomarie's review against another edition

dark mysterious sad 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

2.5

This was a book that I’ve had for quite a while and was interested in reading as a lover of sci-fi stories. Having read it, I’m not sure I gained any more respect for it.

Caveat: I don’t have a great track record of liking classics, so definitely take my opinion with a grain of salt!

I only knew the bare bones of the story through pop culture references. I was expecting a gothic, atmospheric story of man’s hubris. The actual story didn’t quite hit that mark. Mostly, I was bored. The monster featured so little, most of the characters were flat, and framing it as a story being told to a man on a mission to the North Pole felt unnecessary. The most interesting part was what the monster did after running away from Victor, but that was told as a dry conversation rather than actually spending time in that space. It frankly made Felix out to be a more enticing character than anyone else in the book.

Luckily, I read through the info in the front of my copy that explained some of the historical context that Mary Shelley wrote it under. If I hadn’t, I’d feel even more disconnected from the point of it all than I already am. If you’re only looking at it as an example of historic literature, it’s a fascinating study. However, that’s not what I was doing.

Knowing the kind of reader I am, I should have done the audiobook to better comprehend and connect with the story, or just picked my favorite movie adaption and called it good.

Content Warnings

e_r_q's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark reflective medium-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

4.0

"I shall die, and what I now feel be no longer felt. Soon these burning miseries will be extinct. I shall ascend my funeral pile triumphantly and exult in the agony of the torturing flames. The light of that conflagration will fade away; my ashes will be swept into the sea by the winds. My spirit will sleep in peace, or if it thinks, it will not surely think thus. Farewell.”

Despite becoming so ingrained and recognisable within popular culture, Frankenstein still managed to surprise me. Firstly, Mary Shelley's prose is exquisite and extremely coherent, especially for a piece of literature written in the 1800s. Furthermore, Shelley's writing is rich in symbolism, philosophical deliberations, as well as explorations of compelling themes such as the thirst for knowledge/power, unbridled ambition, revenge, discrimination, prejudice, and creation versus destruction. Additionally, the profound poeticism with which she captures The Monster's perception of life and humanity is hauntingly beautiful. I saw one review criticising Shelley for being unable to write male characters, but I wholeheartedly disagree, as the emotional vulnerability of said male characters is both realistic and truly refreshing to see.

Despite still surprising and impressing me, Frankenstein didn't entirely live up to my expectations. Some parts of the narrative felt confusingly rushed, while other aspects felt entirely unnecessary. But still, I'm glad I finally got around to reading this classic work of horror fiction, especially in time for Halloween.

Content Warnings

bookgurl488's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional mysterious reflective slow-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? Yes

5.0

This book showed that humans are hopelessly flawed and in need of true companionship.

Content Warnings

corriejn's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional reflective medium-paced

4.5

I was of course familiar with the core conceipt of the story via cultural osmosis, but reading the original story I found it to be so much more complex and full of nuance! Worth a read.

Content Warnings

bebidocrimes's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional mysterious reflective tense fast-paced

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

5.0

I remembered enjoying this in high school, but now I simply will never stop thinking about how much I love this story. My brain won't let it go, it's like I'm gnawing on a bone. It's about the loneliness of every kind of ostracization, it's about spurning God, it's about not learning your lesson even after facing every consequence, it's about hating your dad, it's about nature versus nurture, it's about being human yet inhuman. I can't wait to reread and do full annotations.

Content Warnings

laurenkgrace's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous dark emotional mysterious reflective sad slow-paced

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

5.0

Content Warnings

anika_mae's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark mysterious reflective medium-paced

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

4.0

Content Warnings

samanthaardenlockheart's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark informative mysterious tense slow-paced

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

4.25

<i>There <b>are</b> spoilers in this review. Proceed with caution. ♥️</i>

Regarding Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley Wollstonecraft, I think that a good topic of interest to discuss might be the dangers of advancing science and technology and how the topic of morality and the sanctity of human life does not fit into objective scientific discoveries.

In this work of literature, Mary Shelley’s main scientific theme is galvanism, which essentially refers to bringing something to a conscious, sentient life through electricity and chemical reactions. For more context, according to Wikipedia, “‘galvanism’ is a term invented by the late 18th-century physicist and chemist Alessandro Voltra to refer to the generation of electric current by chemical action.” Relating back to Mary Shelley’s work, Frankenstein, her character Victor von Frankenstein creates a living being through the combination of body parts and is brought to life by electricity. Or at least, this is the current public perception of Frankenstein’s process. Mary Shelley does not actually specify what exactly brought the creature to life, however, the most accurate assumption is probably something like galvanism since this was such a common idea at the time. However, it is up to interpretation in the novel for the reader. One can assume that it was magic, a chemical, or something crazy like mind control that was the last “step” in officially bringing the creature to life. I have seen this literary technique done in many works of fantasy, for example, as it leaves more to the imagination when the author purposefully leaves out details and has the reader imagine them. As a writer, it is a brilliant mechanism of storytelling in the form of showing and not telling, and I can appreciate that here as well.

Unfortunately for Victor von Frankenstein, his lust for science seemed to have gotten way out of hand upon the “birth” of his creature. According to Audrey Shafer MD, “Shelley wrote the first novel to forefront science as a means to create life, and as such, she wrote the first major work in the science fiction genre. Frankenstein, a flawed, obsessed student, feverishly reads extensive tomes and refines his experiments. After he succeeds in his labors, Frankenstein rejects his creation: He is revulsed by the sight of the “monster,” whom he describes as hideous. This rejection of the monster leads to a cascade of calamities. The subtitle of the book, The Modern Prometheus, primes the reader for the theme of the dire consequences of ‘playing God.’” This insight is very important for science because it can demonstrate the dangers of taking scientific discovery too far. I think science is a field that is critical for society as it is directly related to medicine, which has excelled in improving human health and well-being. However, too much of something good might have dire consequences. This leads to the topic of human life, ethics, and science’s moral failings.

If you really think about it (which I never actually realized until just a few years ago) is that society’s entire system of morals and values does not and literally can not arise out of scientific discovery. I could make this about my faith in God and the fact that I think humans get their sense of morality from God, however, that is a separate topic. Also, as Dr. Audrey writes from Stanford Medicine Magazine, “But, as the frontiers are pushed further and further, the unintended consequences of how science and technology are used could affect who we are as humans, the viability of our planet and how society evolves. In terms of health, medicine and bioengineering, Frankenstein resonates far beyond defibrillation. These resonances include genetic engineering, tissue engineering, transplantation, transfusion, artificial intelligence, robotics, bioelectronics, virtual reality, cryonics, synthetic biology and neural networks. These fields are fascinating, worthy areas of exploration” (Shafer). What I take away from this is very personally fascinating.

I have always found the idea of cloning, especially human cloning, as horrendously wrong and immoral—and this feels like something closest to the scientific subject in this novel. Creating life in such a way by going outside of a living organism’s natural mechanisms of reproducing feels like “playing God,” and that is exactly what Mary Shelley wrote about Victor von Frankenstein doing when he created his poor creature. Not only do I think he created the creature out of narcissistic reasons borne from his god complex, but when he was finally created, afraid, and functioning, Frankenstein abandoned his creature! Not only was Frankenstein selfishly pursuing knowledge as a means to serve himself, but he could not even demonstrate reasonable parental duties to the poor creature. (Though, most parents don’t create their children from rotten body parts and possibly sparks of electricity and/or magic, so the possibility of Frankenstein being a Good Dad™ kind of went out of the window before you even opened the first page.) I think Mary Shelley purposefully includes these aspects of his character in the novel as it makes for a much more interesting read with all of these lessons to take away from it. It taps into her psyche as even she acknowledged the dangers of science going too far past its limits, and why that is fundamentally wrong.

If you are an atheist and do not hold belief in God, your morals must come from somewhere… and it can’t be science. No one can measure in a lab the value of someone’s life. And thank goodness for that. At least society can take this novel and show how while science and medicine are great forces for good in the world, they can also too far. In the spirit of humility, I also know that religion has gone way too far, but since (again) that is a topic for another time, let’s just say that too much of anything always has the possibility of falling into unethical territory. Humans have a selfish nature, and Mary Shelley’s Victor von Frankenstein is a great example of how a societal good has been perverted.

Works Cited

Shafer, Audrey. “Why Issues Raised in Frankenstein Still Matter 200 Years Later | Stanford Medicine.” Stanford Medicine Magazine, 26 Feb. 2022, stanmed.stanford.edu/why-issues-raised-in-frankenstein-still-matter-200-years-later/#:~:text=Frankenstein%20by%20Mary%20Shelley%2C%20left,the%20monster%20coming%20to%20life.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein, or, the Modern Prometheus. Knopf, 1992.

Wikipedia contributors. “Galvanism.” Wikipedia, June 2023, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanism.

Content Warnings

holliesatchell's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark emotional 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

3.25

Content Warnings

akane_readsyt's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark emotional sad fast-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
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

Content Warnings

More...