One more classic, for the road.
Frankenstein, you know, the stupid slow monster with the brain of a psychopath, full of stitches and metal rods in the head, brought back to life by a crazy scientist during a thunderstorm, using the biggest fattest electricity switch you’ve ever seen?
You know? You remember? Well, you are wrong. And so was I.
I read the original book from Mary Shelley out of curiosity, because I thought I knew the story and wanted to know how it was told and learn one rope or two about monster writing. And I got shocked by the amount of information I had assumed to be “Frankenstein”. And it’s going to be very difficult to write about this without spoiling, because the urban myths around this story are so out of place. I’ll try to fix the maximum things into one paragraph.
First, this is a story in a story in a story. The narrator is someone eagerly looking for a friend meeting Victor Frankenstein. Victor Frankenstein is a young wealthy but very sensitive man from Switzerland who loves to study and he discovers how to give life to animate objects. He builds “something” that he thinks is beautiful at first, but not so much in the end. The “something” is smart and resilient and hunts its creator, who feels ill and shell-shocked a lot of times in not so many pages. There are a lot of mountain descriptions, travels and also people dying stupidly. It’s not scary nor disgusting, just a loooot of feelings all over the place.
One important thing I really wanted to spoil: the “monster”, although with its disproportionate stature is not made of dead bodies
At some point, the narrator mention material from charnel-house but I think this is material for studies. And the creation is actually made of clay.
First arguments: Victor works on his first creation during 2 years. In the 18th century. Morgue refrigerator appeared only in the 19th century. How would you imagine working with dead body parts for 2 years without refrigeration?
Second argument, at some point, Victor attempts to build a new “something” (yeah, he is that fucking stupid), on a remote island with 5 people. So I don’t understand how he could “steal” body parts where there are actually no people.
Then, in chapter 4, there is a reference “to animate the lifeless clay”. What else do you need?
Then the “monster” is far from being stupid and all the early development of the character is fascinating, how he learns how to live, read and behave by observing a family. Then, it gets fucked up, ok, there is a bit of resentment against all humanity that could have been prevented if Victor didn’t suck so much at character design.
There is a lot of drama and love stories between people, cousins, families and rich people. And, even though this book defines an era of gothic novel, it’s quite ridiculous and enjoyable to have this context around. Don’t get me wrong, I liked the book, but not for the Frankenstein mythology which I thought was quite flat, but for all the era ambiance, nature trips, and every day life description at this time.
Now, I want to re read all the classic monster stories, just to check how Hollywood has perverted the original material. Next, Dracula?
- Frankenstein: review (and the truth) - 15 November 2025
- Voyage au bout de la nuit: review - 15 October 2025
- 2025 New Years Eve Party - 29 September 2025