# Frankenstein



## Girl in Story (Jul 2, 2007)

Oh, this is almost physically painful. A section just for classics, but there isn't a single topic about Frankstein. That hurts.

I love Frankenstein so much. The story of how it was written is almost as cool as the actual novel, but the book itself is so incredible. It's philisophical, scientific, horrific, romantic, religious, a social commentary, and just plain fun to read.

Anyone else addicted or am I alone here?


----------



## Modern Prometheus (Jul 22, 2007)

The way this book has been butchered through the years is unforgivable. I shall Defile James Whale's grave!


----------



## Girl in Story (Jul 22, 2007)

I know, that movie is disgusting. The coolest thing about the creature was that he wasn't a monster until people made him that way, but the '31 film made him mute and animalistic, and I bet you that the film version of the monster never read Paradise Lost.


----------



## Modern Prometheus (Jul 22, 2007)

There's one thing that always bugged me about the ending of the book. The Wretch vows to travel to the north pole where he will make a funeral pire to burn himself alive... where would he get the fuel?
EDIT: Oh wait, the book was published before anyone reached the pole. That explains it.


----------



## Girl in Story (Jul 22, 2007)

Yeah, that's kind of vague, but you've got to give any author a little room to breathe. Especially since Shelley was like, eighteen.


----------



## The Hack (Jul 29, 2007)

Great book.  I agree that the story of how Shelley wrote the book is even more interesting than the book itself (especially considering her age).

Modern Prometheus, I had seen your name and couldn't place where I had heard it before.  It wasn't until I saw this thread that I read your signature and remembered that it was the subtitle to _Frankenstein _(which I also find cool, as I love Greek mythology).


----------



## Girl in Story (Jul 29, 2007)

Yeah, one thing I thought was kind of cool, was how when Mary and Percy Shelley were hanging out at Lord Byron's Villa Diodati, (I know I'm a nerd) Byron's phsyician wrote _The Vampyre_, which everyone (including Mary Shelley) thought sucked, but it basically paved the way for novels like Dracula. So in a way, two classic horror stories were made possible that summer.


----------



## lilacstarflower (Jul 12, 2008)

I found it pretty dry to start with. The building of 'the wretch' was mostly skipped over and the climaxe of bringing it to life was passive. To me this could have been really great, considering the rest of the book is filled with great prose.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 12, 2008)

A classic?????   Hmmm

One funny thing I notice.  Almost nobody knows the name of the monster.  But he had a name.  And it WASN'T  "Frankenstein"


----------



## lilacstarflower (Jul 13, 2008)

Frankenstein was the name of his creator - the narrator of most of the story.

Frankenstein often referred to the monster as 'the wretch' - it's really annoying when people think they know the story


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 13, 2008)

> it's really annoying when people think they know the story



Well, those who DO know the story tend to know that the creation was named "Adam"

Are you annoyed now?


----------



## lilacstarflower (Jul 13, 2008)

I'm always annoyed...


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 13, 2008)

My kind of girl


----------



## Mike C (Jul 14, 2008)

lin said:


> A classic?????   Hmmm



You disagree? It's also generally credited as being the first SF novel.


----------



## Dawnstorm (Jul 16, 2008)

Girl in Story said:


> The story of how it was written is almost as cool as the actual novel, but the book itself is so incredible.



I wonder whether you know Brian Aldiss' novel _Frankenstein Unbound_, which is a fun tribute that includes both Mary Shelley & Co and Frankenstein & Co as characters. (There's a film, too, which was surprisingly close to the book.)

Have you seen the Ken Russel film _Gothic_? I think it's about the night when the novel was conceived, but it's long ago I've seen that one.

***



			
				lin said:
			
		

> Well, those who DO know the story tend to know that the creation was named "Adam"



Well, I do know the story, but this detail escapes me. Searching the document at Project Gutenberg reveals three mentions of "Adam" always referring to the biblical character in _Paradise Lost_. Different edition?


----------



## lilacstarflower (Jul 16, 2008)

That was something that confused me too - I read the story a year ago and I was sure Frankenstein only called his creation 'the wretch' because he couldn't bring himself to accept it as a human. 

I'll need to re-read it


----------



## Girl in Story (Jul 18, 2008)

I'm pretty sure the creature was never called Adam. One thing that comment reminded me of though, is that Victor Frankenstein was named such because in Paradise Lost, Milton often referred to God as "the Victor." But the creature never had a name.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 18, 2008)

Adam, first of a new race... and who the MONSTER sees himself as being.

Not having a book at hand, I turned to Google, where the "Adam" name has some support, but not really conclusive.  (see below)

Most seem to think it was called  "the creature", as I recall, not "the wretch"


Whatever you do, don't use "Frankenstein" to refer to the ''monster''. His name is Adam, at least according to readings given by Mary Shelley during her lifetime. In the text of the book itself, though, he is generally referred to as "the creature".
Frankensteins Monster - Television Tropes & Idioms

 A popular clip of the Boris Karloff version of Frankenstein shows Frankenstein's monster (named Adam in the book, but nameless in the movie) moaning in fear of fire as he runs from a peasant mob carrying torches. This is the polar opposite of the intelligent, sensitive, and articulate creature in the book necessary for Mary Shelley's theme.
4Literature || Humanity In Frankenstein


According to The People's Almanac, at one point the movie was to have included a line of dialogue giving the Monster the name, Adam. The Almanac indicates that an early print of this film may have indeed been released with just such a scene, but that it was cut when audiences began referring to the Monster by the name Frankenstein.
Frankenstein (1931) - Trivia


----------



## edropus (Jul 18, 2008)

lilacstarflower said:


> I found it pretty dry to start with. The building of 'the wretch' was mostly skipped over and the climaxe of bringing it to life was passive. To me this could have been really great, considering the rest of the book is filled with great prose.



Like (I imagine) a great number of people, I saw the movie and wore the costume long before reading the book.  With those expectations, I found the actual method of reanimation refreshing.  It's simple, paranoid and relatively realistic.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 18, 2008)

There is probably a book, or at least thesis in the way literary heroes (especially from that English era) have taken on different characteristics in films: and are far better known in the film context.

Tarzan
Peter Pan
Robin Hood
Count Dracula

among others


----------



## lilacstarflower (Jul 19, 2008)

edropus said:


> Like (I imagine) a great number of people, I saw the movie and wore the costume long before reading the book.  With those expectations, I found the actual method of reanimation refreshing.  It's simple, paranoid and relatively realistic.



In a way I see your point: Frankenstein did say that he would not reveal the ins and outs of his creation to aviod anyone else making the same mistake. At the same time though, I didn't feel the passion or obsession Frankenstein was trying to create in his narration simply through words. He told us, but he didn't show us so much.


----------



## edropus (Jul 19, 2008)

Honestly I'm adverse to the constant repetition of 'show, don't tell'.  Maybe good advise for a beginning writer who hasn't found their method, but if a writer can really write, make me care and do it well, it doesn't matter to me.  Frankenstein is (not exactly, but kind of) similar to a running dialogue with the reader from the MC.  Dialogue doesn't show; it tells.


----------



## lilacstarflower (Jul 19, 2008)

Oh yeah, I definately agree Mary Shelley wrote a brilliant piece. I would just like to have read some gore - a little sadistic maybe? lol


----------



## Dawnstorm (Jul 20, 2008)

lin said:


> Whatever you do, don't use "Frankenstein" to refer to the ''monster''. His name is Adam, at least according to readings given by Mary Shelley during her lifetime. In the text of the book itself, though, he is generally referred to as "the creature".
> Frankensteins Monster - Television Tropes & Idioms



Thanks for that. So it's Shelley's readings that give weight to that assumption. I wonder if it's Shelley's name for the creature, so that neither the creature nor Frankenstein would use the name in-text. (Interesting research topic.)


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 20, 2008)

> Frankenstein was trying to create in his narration simply through words.



A common trait among writers.   Shelley was probably just to ignorant to have heard "show don't tell" on the internet from wannabes seven million freakin' times.


----------



## C.Gholy (Dec 7, 2008)

If I hadn't of learned this at school, I would have  been naive to think that Frankenstien was the monster. The title does remind me of the time when I was reading something out in a nativity play, I said frankenstein instead of frankincense.

We studied chapter five at school and watched the movie. I was quite interested in the book, the whole plot was interesting. Romance, tragedy, suspense, drama, horror and emotion. I really thought it was a great read and deserved to be learned at school.


----------



## Beja-Beja (Dec 7, 2008)

I loved it but it could have ended better.


----------



## Kinniku Mantaro (Dec 8, 2008)

> I loved it but it could have ended better.



Really Beja? I loved the ending myself - bit curious where the monster found wood for a fire in the North Pole, but other than that I thought it was really dramatic and emotional, an amazing end to a very good book.


----------

