Reviews - Our Hideous Progeny

You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.

1.87k reviews for:

Our Hideous Progeny

C.E. McGill

4.04 AVERAGE

charcharolatte's review against another edition

4.5

dark reflective medium-paced

Plot or Character Driven: A mix

Strong character development: Yes

Loveable characters: Complicated

Diverse cast of characters: Yes

Flaws of characters a main focus: Complicated

svinc038's review against another edition

3.5

dark emotional mysterious reflective slow-paced

Plot or Character Driven: A mix

Strong character development: Complicated

Loveable characters: Complicated

Diverse cast of characters: No

Flaws of characters a main focus: Yes

brooklynmikol's review against another edition

4.5

I was ready to be disappointed. I’m willing to bet there are few people on this planet that love Frankenstein more than me. That book is probably, in my opinion, one of the most spectacular works to exist. I have several copies, one of which is annotated, and could spend hours hashing out the themes of the book to even the most disinterested audience. Historically any attempt at retelling or modernizing Frankenstein has greatly disappointed me – for one there is nothing to be improved upon, and secondly, authors rarely give the original work and its themes the respect it deserves. Mary Shelley is a genius; every page of Frankenstein is packed full of ideology and commentary. To do it justice in a modern novel would be a monumental task.

Has C.E. McGill done it? No. But they came incredibly close.

Our Hideous Progeny is not a retelling of Frankenstein. This book is more so a continuation – an imagining of the world after Victor where his great-niece, desperate for scientific recognition, attempts to replicate his work. What I appreciate most is McGill’s clear appreciation for the original novel. I detest when Shelley’s work is needlessly altered to fit a new narrative. Here we still see the same roots of Frankenstein – many of the character names and history follow through – but McGill makes it clear that this is not their attempt at improving Frankenstein, rather just continuing it.

Furthermore, McGill not only respects the story of Frankenstein, but only the prevalent themes: the intertwining of knowledge and ambition, the war between science and nature, the role of women in these spheres, and the responsibility scientists have to their work. Yes, this could have been done better (in my opinion), but to me it is clear that McGill was not just using the story of Frankenstein for their own means, but was actually engaging with what Mary Shelley was trying to say throughout the book. McGill was not copying Shelley’s themes and ideas, in many ways they responded with their own. While Shelley warns readers of striving for knowledge above nature, McGill responds, saying that it is not scientific pursuit which is the danger, but rather the hands in which that knowledge is wielded. Anyways, I won’t talk about themes anymore. While I love Frankenstein it has been a year since I read it and I feel like I will just make a fool of myself.

Primarily this book is a feminist novel. While Frankenstein criticized the era of enlightenment, Our Hideous Progeny criticises so-called “men of science”. Truely, men are the problem in this entire book. Henry is the most obnoxious mix of incompetent and prideful. He loses all their money several times, ruins their reputation with the Society (even after Mary literally helped him write a new lecture), and was basically no help when actually creating their Creature. MANCHILD. Again and again he would mess everything up, not tell Mary, and then have the audacity to be angry with her when she called him on his BS. He wasn’t a villainous misogynist in the typical way (cough Clarke cough), but every woman knows a man like him. Good men stand up for their wives – they don’t blame them for being, rightfully, angry. Good men listen to their wives when they say “hey that man sucks” – they don’t brush it off, roll their eyes, and whisper “woman problems” to the man in question. God Henry pissed me off so much this entire book. Sure Clarke was textbook evil, but Henry was so arrogant and didn’t even have the competency to back it up. AHHHHHH.

Anyways…. So I was thinking a lot about creating life. In Frankenstein that’s what he views it as: he's the first man to create life. It’s his arrogance. In reality women have been creating life… like forever. There are no rewards or accolades granted for it, in fact it’s an expectation. Yet when Frankenstein does it it’s greatness. His defiance of nature is also a defiance of women, a theft of the pitiful amount of power women maintain. I think it’s interesting how motherhood and birth is treated in Our Hideous Progeny; Mary herself has lost a child, somewhat a failure in her natural role. (please understand what I mean by that). When Victor creates his Creature he steals the ability to create life from women, but does not take on the responsibility which follows it. This is why his experiment goes so poorly while Mary’s does not. Mary takes ownership of her Creature, professing to love it as she loves a child. Of course, her discovery goes awry as well, but only but the fault of the men around her. What I’m trying to say: an often ignored theme of Frankenstein is the roll of women, motherhood in particular. I think Our Hideous Progeny shows how significantly Victor’s inability to be a caring guardian affects the result of his experiment. I said I would stop talking about themes so I’ll wrap up.

This book was not without fault. The beginning was incredibly slow – I feel a lot of the information we got in the beginning (Henry and Mary’s relationship with each other and the Society, Mary’s past, Henry’s relationship with his family) all could’ve been condensed and still had the same effect. The beginning dragged in the way that I think most readers would probably DNF before half-way. It picked up half-way.

A detail I love is that Mary basically reads Frankenstein. I mean she found all the old letters. And Victor is straight up like “DO NOT DO WHAT I DID” and she is immediately like “omg I have a great idea”. She was right of course, she could do it better than he did. But it’s still really funny.

I also like that McGill acknowledges that Shelley never explains how Victor brought the creature to life. I kinda wish they didn’t use electricity (even though it does make some sense) just because that’s such a common misconception. I like that they added to it, even if I don’t understand the science behind it at all.

Oh that’s another complaint I have. I’m not a dinosaur person. I do not in any capacity understand paleontology, so I often felt lost in those conversations (which is maybe why the beginning was such a slog for me).

Overall this book was fun.As a Frankenstein enjoyer I thought I would be disappointed, instead I was pleasantly surprised. I enjoyed Mary as a character –I especially liked the explanation of her in the author’s note. I would recommend it to people with the caveat: get through the first half trust me haha. Ok I’m going to post this review without spell checking or making sure anything I said made sense :)

Cheers,

liza15's review against another edition

3.75

dark emotional slow-paced

Plot or Character Driven: A mix

Strong character development: Yes

Loveable characters: Complicated

Diverse cast of characters: No

Flaws of characters a main focus: Complicated

Content Warnings

destinae's review against another edition

3.0

This was advertised to me as “lesbian frankenstein” which it both is and isn’t. It’s far less about being a lesbian and more about being a women trapped in a world that wants to declaw you. It’s safe in its social justice and tame in its romance. This is really just a story about confronting divorce and overcoming compulsory heterosexuality, with a startling lack of dinosaurs.

I enjoyed it for what it was, which isn’t what it says it is