You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
maggie_sotos 's review for:
The Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein
by Kiersten White
Oof, swing and a miss.
"A creative retelling of "Frankenstein" from his young wife's perspective" is about the kindest summary I can muster, because the rest of this is a mess.
Let's start with the concept, shall we--
This author gives herself an incredible opportunity to give us a dynamic, brilliant female heroine here. The author's note at the end confirms that she desperately wanted to empower a teenage girl to re-tell this famous story from her point of view, because Mary Shelley as a teenager was robbed of her due as the story's creator. But then the author wastes that opportunity by making that narrator completely devoid of a personality. She is literally, as a device, an empty shell that only becomes defined by Victor. I get why, and I also get the *not super subtle* metaphor that SHE is the original Frankenstein monster, since she allowed her spirit to become this morally-bankrupt repository of Frankenstein's evil ways and sinister life. But if your whole inspiration for the story was to reclaim the monster/creator narrative and empowering a teenage girl to tell it, readers get robbed because it's NOT Elizabeth's story -- it's 95% about Victor, and she's just the sitting on the sidelines telling her own story like she's watching it.
Secondly, as far as creative retelling of famous stories from peripheral characters goes, this one doesn't exactly stir the imagination. When we ask "What was Dr. Frankenstein like as a kid?" one's immediate thought is, "Oh, probably kind of a weird kid, really into science, probably gets kind of dark sometimes, obsessed with the "miracle of life", obviously going to have power and daddy issues, and shoot maybe he's into dissection and crap."
Yeah, that's....that's the entire reveal. Like, there's no "development" in his character arc. He's a mad scientist from when we meet him to when he dies. No real surprises there.
Thirdly, if you're like me, you don't consider yourself particularly adept and spotting plot twists before they happen. I actually kind of pride myself on this simplemindedness of mine, because it means that the reveals later in the book are a genuine surprise and delight.
This book's "reveal" was so laughably obvious I figured it out about 20% of the way into the book. I won't give too much away here but the lack of subtlety surrounding Henry's disappearance and the over-the-top line observing that his hat had been left behind in Victor's lab...I mean...you don't have to be Agatha Christie to notice the clues there....
On the whole, a missed opportunity!
"A creative retelling of "Frankenstein" from his young wife's perspective" is about the kindest summary I can muster, because the rest of this is a mess.
Let's start with the concept, shall we--
This author gives herself an incredible opportunity to give us a dynamic, brilliant female heroine here. The author's note at the end confirms that she desperately wanted to empower a teenage girl to re-tell this famous story from her point of view, because Mary Shelley as a teenager was robbed of her due as the story's creator. But then the author wastes that opportunity by making that narrator completely devoid of a personality. She is literally, as a device, an empty shell that only becomes defined by Victor. I get why, and I also get the *not super subtle* metaphor that SHE is the original Frankenstein monster, since she allowed her spirit to become this morally-bankrupt repository of Frankenstein's evil ways and sinister life. But if your whole inspiration for the story was to reclaim the monster/creator narrative and empowering a teenage girl to tell it, readers get robbed because it's NOT Elizabeth's story -- it's 95% about Victor, and she's just the sitting on the sidelines telling her own story like she's watching it.
Secondly, as far as creative retelling of famous stories from peripheral characters goes, this one doesn't exactly stir the imagination. When we ask "What was Dr. Frankenstein like as a kid?" one's immediate thought is, "Oh, probably kind of a weird kid, really into science, probably gets kind of dark sometimes, obsessed with the "miracle of life", obviously going to have power and daddy issues, and shoot maybe he's into dissection and crap."
Yeah, that's....that's the entire reveal. Like, there's no "development" in his character arc. He's a mad scientist from when we meet him to when he dies. No real surprises there.
Thirdly, if you're like me, you don't consider yourself particularly adept and spotting plot twists before they happen. I actually kind of pride myself on this simplemindedness of mine, because it means that the reveals later in the book are a genuine surprise and delight.
This book's "reveal" was so laughably obvious I figured it out about 20% of the way into the book. I won't give too much away here but the lack of subtlety surrounding Henry's disappearance and the over-the-top line observing that his hat had been left behind in Victor's lab...I mean...you don't have to be Agatha Christie to notice the clues there....
On the whole, a missed opportunity!