What did you think about the story? What did you learn? Did you enjoy it? Why or why not?? PS. don't respond to this if you spark-noted it. We really don't care what YOU have to say. Thanks.
I really loved reading Frankenstein (both times!) There's just something about Shelley's writing that makes me want to keep going to the next chapter. I really liked the controversial ideas that Shelley brings up. This may sound silly, but I learned a lot about life and society in Europe, as well as a good deal about the landscape of Europe. Shelley writes in such a way that this scenery becomes very real to the reader.I also learned about science and where science stood at the time of the events in the novel, as well as a bit about the alchemists and earlier scientific endeavors.
Frankenstein is a book that makes you think while also telling a fascinating story.
I personally thoroughly disliked reading Frankenstein (both times)... The main reason I did not enjoy it is because of Victor's character. I find him rude, arrogant, selfish, and blind, in a way that may reflect my generation. We are so excited to "make improvements" to use robotics to help our society, to get better health-care, etc, so it kind of makes me nervous. Is it possible that we are not thinking about the effect of our inventions? Who knows... I also found Victor just plain annoying! He made so many terrible decisions, and thought that they only affected him, when in reality, they affected others around him more than they affected him. He was also a terrible creator. This book made me so glad a human is not my creator. I felt like Victor had way to many opportunities to turn his life around, and just blew them.
I agree with Sarah and Christi to a certain extent. I liked the book at the beginning, but as it went on, I disliked it more and more. After awhile, Victor annoyed me. It was his fault for creating the monster and he didn't take responsibility for his actions. Also, he was self-centered about everything! I agree with Christi that Victor had many opportunities to turn his life around, and didn't do anything, which is very irritating. In contrast, I agree with Sarah, becuase this book taught me a lot about life and society in Europe. Shelley did a good job with describing the society during this time period. I felt like I understood what it was like to live during that time.
I really enjoyed reading Frankenstein! I thought this book was a piece of art in its own right. The writing is absolutely beautiful, and I gained a newfound appreciation for the Romantic era. It's nice to be able to enjoy a scene or moment over the course of a chapter (or a number of chapters) expanded and filled with descriptive imagery. And at the same time, while the writing is taken into detail, it still keeps you intrigued and wanting to know more. It's as if Shelley gives you the perfect amount of information; enough to make you enjoy your read and keep you entertained, but not too much to where the information is simply not needed and drags on.
I loved the character insights, as well. I found myself having changing views of sympathy towards Victor and the monster throughout the story, but ended up feeling great sympathy for Victor the most, and grew to greatly resent the creature. This writing style made the novel that much more entertaining.
I agree with Kailey. The book was entirely entertaining from the start and incremented in exhilaration when the monster started narrating. However, as the story advanced even further, I realized how hypocritical Victor truly was and detested him for not taking accountability. He proclaimed his creature the monster when his acts were the true monstrosity.
I felt that Shelley should have permitted Victor to complete the second creature even if it didn't make for a dramatic ending. Everyone always hopes for a happy ending , it's the way our society anticipates movie/book endings. The fact that Shelley ends the book with the protagonist dying allows us to truly reflect on the severity of the plot and overlapping themes. I think subliminally she is sending a message (more so a warning) to refrain from the path that Victor took in life.
Okay, I just have an observation from reading about the creature throughout the book. The creature, to me, resembles Erik (the Phantom from the Phantom of the Opera). They are both very similar in the fact that they are both regarded as "monsters" according to society. In Frankenstein, the creature longs for human companionship and even states that he is "forever deprived of the delights that such beautiful creatures could bestow." In this quote he is referring to the picture he finds of Caroline Frankenstein after he has killed William Frankenstein. He also wants a female companion and in turn takes away Elizabeth from Victor for depriving him of one. The creature is also known to be deformed. In Phantom of the Opera, we have a man who was also deformed and is likewise cast out by society. He as well is deprived of all things considered beautiful, namely Christine Daae. Both the Phantom and the creature have the readers sympathy because of their loneliness and neglect as well as their deformities which makes everyone detest them. They both are looking for a companion and even go as far as murdering/torturing people to get what they want. Even though both characters do horrendous things you still continue to take pity for them. Anyways I just thought it was a cool similarity. Taylor Brown
Despite being forced against my will to read this book, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Typically when books are required to read I fight myself to read them, and never particularly enjoy them, but this book was different.
I thought the story was very interesting because it paralleled well with what was taking place during society at that time. Originally written in 1818, the story of Frankenstein somewhat deals with our fear of social change. Especially in the earlier parts of the novel when Victor has just created the creature and says that man should not try and transcend nature, it calls into question the benefits of such drastic social change. This parallels well with the time because during this time period the effects of the Industrial Revolution, along with a multitude of other social changes were being felt.
I also thought that this was a very good book because it's message is broad enough that it didn't just apply to that time period. With the advent of modern science that attempts to expand ones life, and control life and death, we begin to see similarities between real life and Frankenstein. The one distinction is that a single person is not controlling life in the status quo, the government is, but the concept is still the same. Authors have written about this phenomena, and the common term used to reference this is 'biopolitics', which is simply the governments ability to control all aspects of human life through the application of political power. This is essentially what occurs in Frankenstein. Victor creates the creature, and has the ability to exercise control over the creature, teach him what is right and wrong, and instead he turns his back on the creature, ensuring imminent misery and pain for the creature, and eventually Victor.
While I initially agreed with you that I thought Shelley should have allowed Victor to create another creature, I think that would have undermined the message throughout Frankenstein. Imagine if the book actually ended like this - Frankenstein creates the creature, both creatures unite, move away, and never bother society again. I don't think that this creates the sort of 'happy ending' that you reference. I think that there is still despair due to the irreversible loss of life, and think about what message that sends.
Allowing Victor to create another creature sends the message that it was okay for Victor to turn his back on the original creature because he can now right his wrong by providing that creature with happiness. This does not deny the fact that Victor is still a monster (see different question) for treating the original creature in the manner that he did. Victor's death is more than just a warning, it is a form of restitution for the creature. The current ending to the book provides a form of justice when it is Frankenstein, the real monster, that dies.
First of all im gunna have to agree with Jose on the whole being forced to read the book (one time!) :( But honestly I was intrigued and really wanted to figure out what happened after Victor began creating his creature. And to Josh's point about Shelley possibly having Victor create another creature and the whole thing. I never really thought of that but when you explained it, it seems like that would have been an interesting spin on the whole story. The one thing that i liked a lot about this story is the different perspectives that Shelley provides the reader with. Which I personally felt draws the reader much closer to what actually happened in the story, and allows us to sort of piece the puzzle together and put the parts we want to create our own story (not necessarily the complete truth, but one we feel is most appropriate). So i guess in the end, even though i usually don't like these kind of books (Romantic) I somewhat enjoyed reading this, and not just saying that to get brownie points (even though i need some).
@Christi: "The main reason I did not enjoy it is because of Victor's character. I find him rude, arrogant, selfish, and blind, in a way that may reflect my generation." I like this ^ and agree 100%
I really enjoyed this book actually. At first I has a little judgmental towards it because I had only heard of Frankenstein in Halloween stories and I never really liked the horror relating to them. From reading the book, ( I know this is sad), but I realized that Frankenstein is not the big green monster with big bolts in his neck that people mentioned in the Halloween stories. Never growing up celebrating Halloween, and hearing horror stories about this evil green monster with bolts, I felt this novel would be so imaginary and mythical that I could not relate to it in any way. Then, after reading it, I enjoyed the fact that it made Frankenstein seem almost human and his emotions; rage, isolation, rejection, care and desire for love can all be reflected by real human qualities. Overall I was surprised by the intriguing story.
Overall, I would have to say that I rather enjoyed this book.
One of the main things that I liked about this book was the writing style throughout. The way Shelley unveiled the story just kept me on the edge of my seat, wanting to know what happened next. As Josh said, most required books are just awful to get through, but I found this book to be a pretty easy read, not dragging on too much, and getting to the point. I also enjoyed/learned from the overall messages and themes that come out of the book. I agree with the notion that scientific advances, if left unchecked, could cause great havoc and should be a great concern even today. Also whole notion about the importance of taking responsibility for your actions. Once Victor created the monster, he was so horrified by its appearance that he just neglected it and didnt care for it, which indirectly lead to the death of his entire family. I think that a child's (or a monster's) upbringing is very important to set a framework for how they live their life, and since the monster had none, he wondered around the wilderness, lost and confused, and did horrible things because he did not know better and was simply longing for a purpose in life. And it is also kind of nice to know the real story behind the Frankenstein monster which many people don't seem to know.
And in response to previous posts, when chastising Victor for being selfish and not making a second monster, you must consider the horrible guilt that he felt throughout the story from only one monster. His creation is a freak of nature and ends up killing his entire family. His guilt is so great, that it actually makes him physically ill at points. His great internal struggle is characterized when he is working on the second monster, when he considers all of the terrible consequences that creating a second monster could incur, such as them reproducing and creating even more. I think even though Victor brought it upon himself, he deserves pity for he did not know what he was getting himself into.
No, I did not like the story because the whole tone of the book was constant "poor me" attitude which is also seen way too much in my generation. However I learned that Gothic writers always start out with a foreboding tone then lead into the weeping and poor me attitude.I thought the story itself could have been way better, however I strongly liked that Shelley gave both sides of the story and let the reader, decide for his/her self who the real monster is. Overall I thought the book was well written, yet did not appeal to my tastes.
I really enjoyed reading this book. I thought Shelley did a good job bringing the story into our lives. I agree with what Christy said at the beginning of this post but I believe all those reasons made me like the book more. Agreeing with her, they did make me think about our human race and what we are doing to destroy ourselves but these ideas added a lot of interesting aspects to the book. I believe that Victor is a normal modern day human. People today are always making decisions that affect a group of friends or even an entire society for the good or bad. Christy said, “Victor had way too many opportunities to turn his life away, and just blew them,” and I believe that this is happening in all our lives. The way she puts this book together through the life of Victor tells a story about the inclination of man to mess up. She outlines how we live react to certain pressure filled situations, not necessarily as large and substantial as being the creator of a living creature. I liked this book simply because of the fact that it gives insight into what we do and how we act and allows us to understand ourselves through a beautiful piece of romantic writing.
I really enjoyed this reading Frankenstein. Like Sarah I enjoyed the story and how Shelley was capable of depicting Europe, but the thing I enjoyed most about this book is when there was an abrupt change of perspective from Victor to the creature. When I look at this book Shelley is capable of including the science of her time and combining it with a mystical element. One thing that I learned from this novel is a view of men that Shelley had. Shelley is able to show a message that man will always screw and make bad and selfish choices. The final thing that I learned in this novel is the values of this time period. The reason I learned this is because when people looked at the creature's outer appearance they automatically assumed that he was evil; this just showed me the values of the people of that time period.
What did you think about the story? What did you learn? Did you enjoy it? Why or why not?? PS. don't respond to this if you spark-noted it. We really don't care what YOU have to say. Thanks.
I loved it, I loved it, I loved it, I loved it. There were some nights that I honestly could not put it down! We can all connect with both Victor and the monster in different ways. The story offered tons of great literary devices (though, I'll be the first to admit I'm not the best at spotting those)! It offered fairly easy reading and continued to intrigue me the entire way through. It changed my view. I sympathized with Victor (Thanks to Shelley's outstanding literary devices ;] ). Then, when the monster spoke, I sympathized with the monster. Even up to Victor's death, I never really went back to his side. I saw the validity in it, but I knew the monster was rejected by everything and everyone of society. He even repents at the end (sort of)!
I didn't sparknote it, and I'm so glad! If you did, I'm sorry. It was amazing.
The story was very powerful and is really something that made me think; what if this really happened, what WOULD really happen if the creator didn't take responsibility, what would God think? It's all very interesting and these questions kept me reading and kept me trying to understand why Victor hadn't just dealt with the situation as he should have, instead of running away from it all.
I relearnt how much I despise romanticism writers, I enjoy the story lines but I really can't stand how they go on and on and on about the detail of nature and all the words they use to describe one minuscule detail. I learned the importance of not running away from your problems, although I already pretty much knew that, but this story really does encourage one to face your problems before they kill you, literally.
I enjoyed the book although I got frustrated with the writing at times, but I was always so up and down in my feelings towards the monster and Victor, still am actually. The monster had every right to be so angry, but that doesn't give him any right to ruin Victor's life, but in turn Victor should have taken responsibility of his monster and cared for him like a father does his child. It is an endlessly frustrating idea and as I'm typing about it, I continue to see both sides of their story. In the end, I believe that Victor is what caused his own destruction, and I do believe that the ending was very good and set a kind of ease in me despite the sadness at all the death that had occurred.
I agree with Josh about being forced to read this book. :) This book actually wasn't half bad. It was short and sweet and had an interesting story. I really started to enjoy the story after the creature took over the narration. I loved the use of imagery and foreshadowing throughout the book.
I started reading the book last night and finished it about 2 hours ago and I actually enjoyed reading it. After Victor started narrating I couldn't put it down.
I thoroughly enjoyed the book. I liked the romantic style in which the story was written because the in-depth descriptions created vivid images in my mind as I read it.
For some odd reason, I actually liked the character of Victor's creation because he teaches us the importance of accountability, and taking responsibility for one's actions. It's okay to indulge in passions as long as one is prepared for both the positive and negative results. In Victor's case, the positive result was the vast knowledge that he acquired, and the negative results were the feelings of misery, and guilt which took a toll on his health, and the havoc that his creation caused.
Another reason why I liked the creation's character was because in my opinion, he was the most interesting character in the book (obviously because this book is about him). I liked how his character was alluded to a baby during the first months of his years, but he was still intelligent enough to fend for himself, and learn how to speak, and communicate by effectively on his own.
Josh says, "I also thought that this was a very good book because it's message is broad enough that it didn't just apply to that time period."
I agree 100%. I think despite the novel being almost 200 years old, many of the issues raised in the story are still incredibly relevant in 2010. As Josh points out, scientists today are pushing the boundaries of nature, the very fate Shelley warns us against. Attempts to create "designer babies," create organs from scratch from stem cells, and create clones of animals (and possibly human beings) are all examples of modern attempts at innovation that Shelley would criticize as "attempting to play God."
As far as the conclusion goes, I believe it ended just how it needed to. Jose's "happy ending" goes against the entire message of the story, in my opinion. The consistent theme of loneliness and forceful separation from society needed to remain constant to hammer home the point: that nature does have its boundaries. And though happy endings are nice, I don't believe that always makes for the best stories, as Jose indicates. I think when we can relate to the tale and see it reflected in real life, that helps to build an emotional attachment to the story and the characters in it. And, as we all unfortunately know, life rarely has the perfect, happy ending.
Joe wrote: "No, I did not like the story because the whole tone of the book was constant "poor me" attitude which is also seen way too much in my generation. However I learned that Gothic writers always start out with a foreboding tone then lead into the weeping and poor me attitude.I thought the story itself could have been way better, however I strongly liked that Shelley gave both sides of the story and let the reader, decide for his/her self who the real monster is. Overall I thought the book was well written, yet did not appeal to my tastes."
After reading the entire book 3 times, I have to say that I agree with Joe about the "poor me" attitude thing. Unlike him, I enjoyed the book. I liked how Shelley told the story from both point of views (victor and the monster), it allowed us to decide who was the real monster throughout this story. I did not like the whole gothic victorian thing though.
I agree with Kailey. I loved the book when the creature was narrating, but like when we read Beowulf, the main character annoyed me. He was so selfish and greedy and he brought all of this upon himself. Although i really liked how she led into the story, by using Walton to tell the story to his sister it shows how a story can change many peoples lives.
I really enjoyed reading this book. It was definitely interesting from beginning to end. It has a many great messages; the obvious one being that “playing God” has severe consequences. It also reminds us that we have certain responsibilities and if we fail to meet them then that can also bring severe negative consequences. I like what Taylor brought up about the comparison of the characters to those of Phantom of the Opera. It is true that in both stories, although the creature or person is seen as a monster, you can’t help but feel some sympathy for them because of their solitary and forsaken situations. I honestly did not at all like the character of Victor. I think that if you do something and it goes wrong, you need to take responsibility of the situation and control or fix it. He failed to do so with his creation and as a result, the creature destroyed everything dear to him. I think that he was not very wise for even attempting to go through with this scientific enterprise. Of course he had the intellectual brains to be able to pull off something that no man has ever done before, however he seems to not have much common sense and he doesn’t think through his actions before he does them. Like Hope said, I also believe that Victor is the cause of his own destruction and this is because of his foolish choices. However, all the conflict and suspense made for a very interesting story. This is probably the best “required reading” that I’ve ever had to do.
Taylor, I was totally thinking Phantom of the Opera the whole time! It's like the same thing! Although the Phantom doesn't have a creator to strike out against, and is kind of a creeper.
i really enjoyed Frankenstein, honestly i didn't understand some of the vocabulary ha but i could tell what she was saying through the context clues. i really enjoyed her eloquent writing and all of the imagery she used to portray this amazing story. from her novel i learned that though knowledge is a wonderful thing, there are limits to how far you should push things. also that if you do find yourself in a tough situation you need to grow up and take care of what you did whether it is being a parent to something you created or just finishing what you start.
i lovveddd all of the compassion in this book whether it was walton and his sister, Victor and his family or even the monster and the Delancy's but then again i a softy for love stories ha. i do wish the book had ended a little differently, i kinda wish Victor would of made the monster a mate so that Victor and Elizabeth would still be together and the monster would be happy too, but if that happened then there wouldn't be a story ha.
but annyways to sum it up lol i enjoyed the novel :)
Sarah, another similarity between the two novels is that Phantom of the Opera was written in 1909 and Frankenstein was written in 1818. Both of the novels were apart of the romantic time period, one in the beginning of the movement and one towards the end. Both novels have the theme of unrequited love for a) another person or b) the love/need for companionship. In Phantom of the Opera, the Phantom's love is for Christine which she never returns. In Frankenstein the creature's love/ passion for a companion is never returned. Taylor Brown
I really enjoyed Frankenstein. I had always that of Frankenstein as the typical monster with the screws coming out of its neck, but when I started reading the book I realized the complexity of the creature. I also enjoyed reading about Victor's childhood and his relationship with Elizabeth. I loved Shelley's use of imagery throughout the whole entire book and how she made nature tie into what was happening in the story (it makes sense in my head.) I also liked how she changed narrators a couple of times throughout the book, so that we understood the full story, not just one person's perspective of the events.
The story of Frankenstein in itself has valid truth in it, but when asking if I liked the story, I would have to say I am still undecided. I agree ( sorry, probably very repetitive) with Christi, who criticized Victor's character. He almost made this book hard to read, simply from being disgusted with his mannerisms. I thought that the writing was at times overly extensive as well. However, the story line of Frankenstein was very interesting and forced me to keep reading to figure out if a solution was ever reached. The one thing i found interesting was how Shelley wrote from the point of view of the monster and of Victor, this allowed the reader to gain a deeper insight into the lives of both characters. From Frankenstein, I learned the importance of nurturing and the growth process. This can also be said for how the lack of attention and cultivation affects someone equally. This was the discussion i enjoyed the most, seeing how the growth of the monster differed so drastically from the growth of an infant. Overall, I am glad i read the book and did not hate it or completely not enjoy it. I just think that Victor may have been so unappealing that I did not not particularly enjoy his character.
I incredibly enjoyed it! The moral and worldly implications in the story were very compelling and thought-provoking. Romanticism makes my head hurt after a while, but once you get over that, and all the pointless repetition and excessiveness, there is a nice story underneath everything! Frankenstein really expresses a lot of human anguish over the meaning and origin of life, but in a manageable, singular context. Very enlightening.
I really loved reading Frankenstein (both times!) There's just something about Shelley's writing that makes me want to keep going to the next chapter. I really liked the controversial ideas that Shelley brings up. This may sound silly, but I learned a lot about life and society in Europe, as well as a good deal about the landscape of Europe. Shelley writes in such a way that this scenery becomes very real to the reader.I also learned about science and where science stood at the time of the events in the novel, as well as a bit about the alchemists and earlier scientific endeavors.
ReplyDeleteFrankenstein is a book that makes you think while also telling a fascinating story.
I personally thoroughly disliked reading Frankenstein (both times)... The main reason I did not enjoy it is because of Victor's character. I find him rude, arrogant, selfish, and blind, in a way that may reflect my generation. We are so excited to "make improvements" to use robotics to help our society, to get better health-care, etc, so it kind of makes me nervous. Is it possible that we are not thinking about the effect of our inventions? Who knows... I also found Victor just plain annoying! He made so many terrible decisions, and thought that they only affected him, when in reality, they affected others around him more than they affected him. He was also a terrible creator. This book made me so glad a human is not my creator. I felt like Victor had way to many opportunities to turn his life around, and just blew them.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah and Christi to a certain extent. I liked the book at the beginning, but as it went on, I disliked it more and more. After awhile, Victor annoyed me. It was his fault for creating the monster and he didn't take responsibility for his actions. Also, he was self-centered about everything!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Christi that Victor had many opportunities to turn his life around, and didn't do anything, which is very irritating. In contrast, I agree with Sarah, becuase this book taught me a lot about life and society in Europe. Shelley did a good job with describing the society during this time period. I felt like I understood what it was like to live during that time.
I really enjoyed reading Frankenstein! I thought this book was a piece of art in its own right. The writing is absolutely beautiful, and I gained a newfound appreciation for the Romantic era. It's nice to be able to enjoy a scene or moment over the course of a chapter (or a number of chapters) expanded and filled with descriptive imagery. And at the same time, while the writing is taken into detail, it still keeps you intrigued and wanting to know more. It's as if Shelley gives you the perfect amount of information; enough to make you enjoy your read and keep you entertained, but not too much to where the information is simply not needed and drags on.
ReplyDeleteI loved the character insights, as well. I found myself having changing views of sympathy towards Victor and the monster throughout the story, but ended up feeling great sympathy for Victor the most, and grew to greatly resent the creature. This writing style made the novel that much more entertaining.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kailey. The book was entirely entertaining from the start and incremented in exhilaration when the monster started narrating. However, as the story advanced even further, I realized how hypocritical Victor truly was and detested him for not taking accountability. He proclaimed his creature the monster when his acts were the true monstrosity.
ReplyDeleteI felt that Shelley should have permitted Victor to complete the second creature even if it didn't make for a dramatic ending. Everyone always hopes for a happy ending , it's the way our society anticipates movie/book endings. The fact that Shelley ends the book with the protagonist dying allows us to truly reflect on the severity of the plot and overlapping themes. I think subliminally she is sending a message (more so a warning) to refrain from the path that Victor took in life.
Okay, I just have an observation from reading about the creature throughout the book. The creature, to me, resembles Erik (the Phantom from the Phantom of the Opera). They are both very similar in the fact that they are both regarded as "monsters" according to society. In Frankenstein, the creature longs for human companionship and even states that he is "forever deprived of the delights that such beautiful creatures could bestow." In this quote he is referring to the picture he finds of Caroline Frankenstein after he has killed William Frankenstein. He also wants a female companion and in turn takes away Elizabeth from Victor for depriving him of one. The creature is also known to be deformed. In Phantom of the Opera, we have a man who was also deformed and is likewise cast out by society. He as well is deprived of all things considered beautiful, namely Christine Daae. Both the Phantom and the creature have the readers sympathy because of their loneliness and neglect as well as their deformities which makes everyone detest them. They both are looking for a companion and even go as far as murdering/torturing people to get what they want. Even though both characters do horrendous things you still continue to take pity for them. Anyways I just thought it was a cool similarity.
ReplyDeleteTaylor Brown
Despite being forced against my will to read this book, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Typically when books are required to read I fight myself to read them, and never particularly enjoy them, but this book was different.
ReplyDeleteI thought the story was very interesting because it paralleled well with what was taking place during society at that time. Originally written in 1818, the story of Frankenstein somewhat deals with our fear of social change. Especially in the earlier parts of the novel when Victor has just created the creature and says that man should not try and transcend nature, it calls into question the benefits of such drastic social change. This parallels well with the time because during this time period the effects of the Industrial Revolution, along with a multitude of other social changes were being felt.
I also thought that this was a very good book because it's message is broad enough that it didn't just apply to that time period. With the advent of modern science that attempts to expand ones life, and control life and death, we begin to see similarities between real life and Frankenstein. The one distinction is that a single person is not controlling life in the status quo, the government is, but the concept is still the same. Authors have written about this phenomena, and the common term used to reference this is 'biopolitics', which is simply the governments ability to control all aspects of human life through the application of political power. This is essentially what occurs in Frankenstein. Victor creates the creature, and has the ability to exercise control over the creature, teach him what is right and wrong, and instead he turns his back on the creature, ensuring imminent misery and pain for the creature, and eventually Victor.
@Jose:
ReplyDeleteWhile I initially agreed with you that I thought Shelley should have allowed Victor to create another creature, I think that would have undermined the message throughout Frankenstein. Imagine if the book actually ended like this - Frankenstein creates the creature, both creatures unite, move away, and never bother society again. I don't think that this creates the sort of 'happy ending' that you reference. I think that there is still despair due to the irreversible loss of life, and think about what message that sends.
Allowing Victor to create another creature sends the message that it was okay for Victor to turn his back on the original creature because he can now right his wrong by providing that creature with happiness. This does not deny the fact that Victor is still a monster (see different question) for treating the original creature in the manner that he did. Victor's death is more than just a warning, it is a form of restitution for the creature. The current ending to the book provides a form of justice when it is Frankenstein, the real monster, that dies.
First of all im gunna have to agree with Jose on the whole being forced to read the book (one time!) :(
ReplyDeleteBut honestly I was intrigued and really wanted to figure out what happened after Victor began creating his creature.
And to Josh's point about Shelley possibly having Victor create another creature and the whole thing. I never really thought of that but when you explained it, it seems like that would have been an interesting spin on the whole story.
The one thing that i liked a lot about this story is the different perspectives that Shelley provides the reader with. Which I personally felt draws the reader much closer to what actually happened in the story, and allows us to sort of piece the puzzle together and put the parts we want to create our own story (not necessarily the complete truth, but one we feel is most appropriate).
So i guess in the end, even though i usually don't like these kind of books (Romantic) I somewhat enjoyed reading this, and not just saying that to get brownie points (even though i need some).
@Christi: "The main reason I did not enjoy it is because of Victor's character. I find him rude, arrogant, selfish, and blind, in a way that may reflect my generation."
ReplyDeleteI like this ^ and agree 100%
I really enjoyed this book actually. At first I has a little judgmental towards it because I had only heard of Frankenstein in Halloween stories and I never really liked the horror relating to them. From reading the book, ( I know this is sad), but I realized that Frankenstein is not the big green monster with big bolts in his neck that people mentioned in the Halloween stories. Never growing up celebrating Halloween, and hearing horror stories about this evil green monster with bolts, I felt this novel would be so imaginary and mythical that I could not relate to it in any way. Then, after reading it, I enjoyed the fact that it made Frankenstein seem almost human and his emotions; rage, isolation, rejection, care and desire for love can all be reflected by real human qualities. Overall I was surprised by the intriguing story.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I would have to say that I rather enjoyed this book.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main things that I liked about this book was the writing style throughout. The way Shelley unveiled the story just kept me on the edge of my seat, wanting to know what happened next. As Josh said, most required books are just awful to get through, but I found this book to be a pretty easy read, not dragging on too much, and getting to the point. I also enjoyed/learned from the overall messages and themes that come out of the book. I agree with the notion that scientific advances, if left unchecked, could cause great havoc and should be a great concern even today. Also whole notion about the importance of taking responsibility for your actions. Once Victor created the monster, he was so horrified by its appearance that he just neglected it and didnt care for it, which indirectly lead to the death of his entire family. I think that a child's (or a monster's) upbringing is very important to set a framework for how they live their life, and since the monster had none, he wondered around the wilderness, lost and confused, and did horrible things because he did not know better and was simply longing for a purpose in life. And it is also kind of nice to know the real story behind the Frankenstein monster which many people don't seem to know.
And in response to previous posts, when chastising Victor for being selfish and not making a second monster, you must consider the horrible guilt that he felt throughout the story from only one monster. His creation is a freak of nature and ends up killing his entire family. His guilt is so great, that it actually makes him physically ill at points. His great internal struggle is characterized when he is working on the second monster, when he considers all of the terrible consequences that creating a second monster could incur, such as them reproducing and creating even more. I think even though Victor brought it upon himself, he deserves pity for he did not know what he was getting himself into.
ReplyDeleteNo, I did not like the story because the whole tone of the book was constant "poor me" attitude which is also seen way too much in my generation. However I learned that Gothic writers always start out with a foreboding tone then lead into the weeping and poor me attitude.I thought the story itself could have been way better, however I strongly liked that Shelley gave both sides of the story and let the reader, decide for his/her self who the real monster is. Overall I thought the book was well written, yet did not appeal to my tastes.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this book. I thought Shelley did a good job bringing the story into our lives. I agree with what Christy said at the beginning of this post but I believe all those reasons made me like the book more. Agreeing with her, they did make me think about our human race and what we are doing to destroy ourselves but these ideas added a lot of interesting aspects to the book. I believe that Victor is a normal modern day human. People today are always making decisions that affect a group of friends or even an entire society for the good or bad. Christy said, “Victor had way too many opportunities to turn his life away, and just blew them,” and I believe that this is happening in all our lives. The way she puts this book together through the life of Victor tells a story about the inclination of man to mess up. She outlines how we live react to certain pressure filled situations, not necessarily as large and substantial as being the creator of a living creature. I liked this book simply because of the fact that it gives insight into what we do and how we act and allows us to understand ourselves through a beautiful piece of romantic writing.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this reading Frankenstein. Like Sarah I enjoyed the story and how Shelley was capable of depicting Europe, but the thing I enjoyed most about this book is when there was an abrupt change of perspective from Victor to the creature. When I look at this book Shelley is capable of including the science of her time and combining it with a mystical element. One thing that I learned from this novel is a view of men that Shelley had. Shelley is able to show a message that man will always screw and make bad and selfish choices. The final thing that I learned in this novel is the values of this time period. The reason I learned this is because when people looked at the creature's outer appearance they automatically assumed that he was evil; this just showed me the values of the people of that time period.
ReplyDeleteWhat did you think about the story? What did you learn? Did you enjoy it? Why or why not?? PS. don't respond to this if you spark-noted it. We really don't care what YOU have to say. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI loved it, I loved it, I loved it, I loved it. There were some nights that I honestly could not put it down! We can all connect with both Victor and the monster in different ways. The story offered tons of great literary devices (though, I'll be the first to admit I'm not the best at spotting those)! It offered fairly easy reading and continued to intrigue me the entire way through. It changed my view. I sympathized with Victor (Thanks to Shelley's outstanding literary devices ;] ). Then, when the monster spoke, I sympathized with the monster. Even up to Victor's death, I never really went back to his side. I saw the validity in it, but I knew the monster was rejected by everything and everyone of society.
He even repents at the end (sort of)!
I didn't sparknote it, and I'm so glad! If you did, I'm sorry. It was amazing.
HAHAHA...sorry about that. I copy and paste the questions so I can see them as I respond. My bad.
ReplyDeleteThe story was very powerful and is really something that made me think; what if this really happened, what WOULD really happen if the creator didn't take responsibility, what would God think? It's all very interesting and these questions kept me reading and kept me trying to understand why Victor hadn't just dealt with the situation as he should have, instead of running away from it all.
ReplyDeleteI relearnt how much I despise romanticism writers, I enjoy the story lines but I really can't stand how they go on and on and on about the detail of nature and all the words they use to describe one minuscule detail. I learned the importance of not running away from your problems, although I already pretty much knew that, but this story really does encourage one to face your problems before they kill you, literally.
I enjoyed the book although I got frustrated with the writing at times, but I was always so up and down in my feelings towards the monster and Victor, still am actually. The monster had every right to be so angry, but that doesn't give him any right to ruin Victor's life, but in turn Victor should have taken responsibility of his monster and cared for him like a father does his child. It is an endlessly frustrating idea and as I'm typing about it, I continue to see both sides of their story. In the end, I believe that Victor is what caused his own destruction, and I do believe that the ending was very good and set a kind of ease in me despite the sadness at all the death that had occurred.
I agree with Josh about being forced to read this book. :)
ReplyDeleteThis book actually wasn't half bad. It was short and sweet and had an interesting story. I really started to enjoy the story after the creature took over the narration. I loved the use of imagery and foreshadowing throughout the book.
I started reading the book last night and finished it about 2 hours ago and I actually enjoyed reading it. After Victor started narrating I couldn't put it down.
I thoroughly enjoyed the book. I liked the romantic style in which the story was written because the in-depth descriptions created vivid images in my mind as I read it.
ReplyDeleteFor some odd reason, I actually liked the character of Victor's creation because he teaches us the importance of accountability, and taking responsibility for one's actions. It's okay to indulge in passions as long as one is prepared for both the positive and negative results. In Victor's case, the positive result was the vast knowledge that he acquired, and the negative results were the feelings of misery, and guilt which took a toll on his health, and the havoc that his creation caused.
Another reason why I liked the creation's character was because in my opinion, he was the most interesting character in the book (obviously because this book is about him). I liked how his character was alluded to a baby during the first months of his years, but he was still intelligent enough to fend for himself, and learn how to speak, and communicate by effectively on his own.
Josh says, "I also thought that this was a very good book because it's message is broad enough that it didn't just apply to that time period."
ReplyDeleteI agree 100%. I think despite the novel being almost 200 years old, many of the issues raised in the story are still incredibly relevant in 2010. As Josh points out, scientists today are pushing the boundaries of nature, the very fate Shelley warns us against. Attempts to create "designer babies," create organs from scratch from stem cells, and create clones of animals (and possibly human beings) are all examples of modern attempts at innovation that Shelley would criticize as "attempting to play God."
As far as the conclusion goes, I believe it ended just how it needed to. Jose's "happy ending" goes against the entire message of the story, in my opinion. The consistent theme of loneliness and forceful separation from society needed to remain constant to hammer home the point: that nature does have its boundaries. And though happy endings are nice, I don't believe that always makes for the best stories, as Jose indicates. I think when we can relate to the tale and see it reflected in real life, that helps to build an emotional attachment to the story and the characters in it. And, as we all unfortunately know, life rarely has the perfect, happy ending.
Joe wrote: "No, I did not like the story because the whole tone of the book was constant "poor me" attitude which is also seen way too much in my generation. However I learned that Gothic writers always start out with a foreboding tone then lead into the weeping and poor me attitude.I thought the story itself could have been way better, however I strongly liked that Shelley gave both sides of the story and let the reader, decide for his/her self who the real monster is. Overall I thought the book was well written, yet did not appeal to my tastes."
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the entire book 3 times, I have to say that I agree with Joe about the "poor me" attitude thing. Unlike him, I enjoyed the book. I liked how Shelley told the story from both point of views (victor and the monster), it allowed us to decide who was the real monster throughout this story. I did not like the whole gothic victorian thing though.
I agree with Kailey. I loved the book when the creature was narrating, but like when we read Beowulf, the main character annoyed me. He was so selfish and greedy and he brought all of this upon himself.
ReplyDeleteAlthough i really liked how she led into the story, by using Walton to tell the story to his sister it shows how a story can change many peoples lives.
I really enjoyed reading this book. It was definitely interesting from beginning to end. It has a many great messages; the obvious one being that “playing God” has severe consequences. It also reminds us that we have certain responsibilities and if we fail to meet them then that can also bring severe negative consequences. I like what Taylor brought up about the comparison of the characters to those of Phantom of the Opera. It is true that in both stories, although the creature or person is seen as a monster, you can’t help but feel some sympathy for them because of their solitary and forsaken situations.
ReplyDeleteI honestly did not at all like the character of Victor. I think that if you do something and it goes wrong, you need to take responsibility of the situation and control or fix it. He failed to do so with his creation and as a result, the creature destroyed everything dear to him. I think that he was not very wise for even attempting to go through with this scientific enterprise. Of course he had the intellectual brains to be able to pull off something that no man has ever done before, however he seems to not have much common sense and he doesn’t think through his actions before he does them. Like Hope said, I also believe that Victor is the cause of his own destruction and this is because of his foolish choices. However, all the conflict and suspense made for a very interesting story. This is probably the best “required reading” that I’ve ever had to do.
Taylor, I was totally thinking Phantom of the Opera the whole time! It's like the same thing! Although the Phantom doesn't have a creator to strike out against, and is kind of a creeper.
ReplyDeletei really enjoyed Frankenstein, honestly i didn't understand some of the vocabulary ha but i could tell what she was saying through the context clues. i really enjoyed her eloquent writing and all of the imagery she used to portray this amazing story. from her novel i learned that though knowledge is a wonderful thing, there are limits to how far you should push things. also that if you do find yourself in a tough situation you need to grow up and take care of what you did whether it is being a parent to something you created or just finishing what you start.
ReplyDeletei lovveddd all of the compassion in this book whether it was walton and his sister, Victor and his family or even the monster and the Delancy's but then again i a softy for love stories ha. i do wish the book had ended a little differently, i kinda wish Victor would of made the monster a mate so that Victor and Elizabeth would still be together and the monster would be happy too, but if that happened then there wouldn't be a story ha.
but annyways to sum it up lol i enjoyed the novel :)
Sarah, another similarity between the two novels is that Phantom of the Opera was written in 1909 and Frankenstein was written in 1818. Both of the novels were apart of the romantic time period, one in the beginning of the movement and one towards the end. Both novels have the theme of unrequited love for a) another person or b) the love/need for companionship. In Phantom of the Opera, the Phantom's love is for Christine which she never returns. In Frankenstein the creature's love/ passion for a companion is never returned.
ReplyDeleteTaylor Brown
I really enjoyed Frankenstein. I had always that of Frankenstein as the typical monster with the screws coming out of its neck, but when I started reading the book I realized the complexity of the creature. I also enjoyed reading about Victor's childhood and his relationship with Elizabeth. I loved Shelley's use of imagery throughout the whole entire book and how she made nature tie into what was happening in the story (it makes sense in my head.) I also liked how she changed narrators a couple of times throughout the book, so that we understood the full story, not just one person's perspective of the events.
ReplyDeleteThe story of Frankenstein in itself has valid truth in it, but when asking if I liked the story, I would have to say I am still undecided. I agree ( sorry, probably very repetitive) with Christi, who criticized Victor's character. He almost made this book hard to read, simply from being disgusted with his mannerisms. I thought that the writing was at times overly extensive as well. However, the story line of Frankenstein was very interesting and forced me to keep reading to figure out if a solution was ever reached. The one thing i found interesting was how Shelley wrote from the point of view of the monster and of Victor, this allowed the reader to gain a deeper insight into the lives of both characters. From Frankenstein, I learned the importance of nurturing and the growth process. This can also be said for how the lack of attention and cultivation affects someone equally. This was the discussion i enjoyed the most, seeing how the growth of the monster differed so drastically from the growth of an infant. Overall, I am glad i read the book and did not hate it or completely not enjoy it. I just think that Victor may have been so unappealing that I did not not particularly enjoy his character.
ReplyDeleteI incredibly enjoyed it! The moral and worldly implications in the story were very compelling and thought-provoking. Romanticism makes my head hurt after a while, but once you get over that, and all the pointless repetition and excessiveness, there is a nice story underneath everything! Frankenstein really expresses a lot of human anguish over the meaning and origin of life, but in a manageable, singular context. Very enlightening.
ReplyDelete