- Year first released: 1818
- ISBN of the edition I read:
- Publisher of the edition I read: Signet Classic
- My rating (out of 5): 5
Frankenstein's nameless monster, pleading with us,
wondering how we've come to misunderstand the original story so badly.
Now that I’ve read both The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and
Frankenstein in close proximity to
another, I realize that each suffers from the opposite problem of the other. As
I explained in my review of Jekyll and Hyde,
[W]hat most people consider to be the heart of the story is actually left a complete mystery from the reader until over two-thirds of the way into the book. Nowadays, you go into the book knowing precisely what Dr. Jekyll is up to, when his actions are intended to be shrouded in a deep, eerie mystery - and, in fact, are meant to be the ultimate twist of the book.
In other words, most people nowadays
already know the biggest secret/climax of the book before they even pick it up.
Frankenstein
suffers from the obverse of this: what you think is the climax actually happens only a quarter of the way into
the book.
Most modern adaptions of Frankenstein present us with the long-bearing
struggle of Dr. Frankenstein as he tries, fails, tries again to create a
monster – all the while growing insane, digging up graves, and being hounded by
suspicious villagers/police officers – until, finally, just in time for the
perfect thunder storm, he is able to accomplish the feat with a suspiciously timed
lightning bolt striking his lab. “It’s alive! It’s ALIVE!”
And then he says, “Oops,” and the
monster kills him. Or something like that.
…yeah, except none of that happens in
the original. Like…none of that. No, really: none.
The edition I read of the book was 223
pages long. In it, Dr. Frankenstein succeeds at creating the monster on
page 55. And neither before nor after this feat are we given scenes of police
dodging, corpse desecrating, villagers mobbing, or storms lightninging. (Yes, I know that's not a word, but you get the point.)
Weird how things evolve like this.
In fact, as you might suspect from
everything I’ve explained so far, the actual creation of the monster is a far
cry from the real heart of the book. Rather, the weight of the plot rests on what happens to the monster – and to its creator Dr. Frankenstein –
after the monster is made (and immediately escapes). And it’s in this tale where the book truly
shines, whilst simultaneously frightening us.
The fact that Dr. Frankenstein is able to create life out of non-life is certainly interesting, but not necessarily frightening on its own. What becomes of his new breed of life, though...
It’s one thing for a book to show us the
inner workings – and, by extension, the inner depravity – of man. This is, for
example, what Jekyll and Hyde excelled
at so fantastically. In Frankenstein, though,
Shelley creates for us a monster made in the image of man, but which is not a man – and, in so doing, creates
for us a powerful exploration of many of the other ways in which depravity can
take shape, while also serving as a perfect parallel to man himself, in his glory and gluttony.
Taking the novel to be a look at both blind
ambition and moral ambiguity, it would be harder to find a more fitting tale –
which is, no doubt, what continues to make it such a powerful, lasting book 199
years after it was first published.
wow, I didn't realize it was THAT old. I also didn't realize how much of modern adaptations were wildly made-up.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's crazy how far our modern adaptions have come away from the original. I mean, of course we always talk about how "the movie is nothing like the book!" etc. I don't think this has ever been more true than in the case of Frankenstein. The book is great, though. Definitely worth your time - even if you're someone who isn't really into horror.
DeleteSo... there is no bride of Frankenstein?
ReplyDeleteI'd tell you, but the answer to that is actually an integral part of the story. No spoilers. ;)
Delete