Sabbatical Jaer

2025-11-28

Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley

3.5/5 stars

I had hyped myself up reading this book. Critique on the Industrial Revolution? Mad scientist? Gothic novel? European classic? Amazing, sign me up. But as with all expectations, they only lead to disappointments. And that’s what happened with this book too. The concept of the story is interesting and really great to be frank(enstein), but the book itself is not that great to read. It’s mostly due to the way the story is put to paper. There’s a lot of ‘tell, not show’, which feels very un-engaging to read. Kind of like that episode of Rick and Morty where they have to sit through the mouse grandpa’s sharing his screenwriting.

Some examples:

When you take into account that this story was initially written as a short story, maybe even shared verbally (not sure if that’s the case), then that writing style makes more sense. It does feel like M. Shelly tried to flesh out the story to turn it into a novel. I think it would’ve served better as a short story, or she should’ve put more effort into actually writing it in an engaging way. But then again, she was only 19 when she published it, so yeah, very impressive still.

There’s many parts of the story that were frustrating to read.

E.g. Frankenstein receiving the threat: ‘I’ll be there at your wedding night,’ after he just refused to make a bride for the monster. And then when the wedding night comes, Frankensteins leaves his bride Elisabeth alone in the bed room because he’s afraid of himself being attacked?? Come on man…

Or just the fact that Frankenstein decides - half way through the process - to not finish making a bride for the monster. He knows, as the monster has clearly announced it, that there will be vengeance. Does Frankenstein prepare for this for this vengeance? Does he arm himself, for when the interaction inevitably comes? No. He just waits until the monster comes and then he says stuff like: ‘I’ll fight you, don’t worry!’ WELL WHY DIDNT YOU BRING A GUY AND SHOOT THE DAMN THING??

Or what about this section: “My father’s care and attentions were indefatigable, but he did not know the origin of my sufferings and sought erroneous methods to remedy the incurable ill.” WELL JUST TELL HIM THEN!! It was so frustrating to read that Frankenstein’s family is killed off one by one, but he doesn’t even care to protect them or warn them or anything. And that would’ve been fair if it was motivated in the story, like ‘Frankenstein was too self obsessed’, or ‘he couldn’t think logically because he was too caught up with this work’, but none of that is made clear. Which then makes it just seem like plot holes. Shame.

I think I would’ve rated the story even lower if it wasn’t for the end scene at the ship. The addition of Walton as a narrator to give this extra layer and perspective on the quest of glory, ambition, and friendship, provides a cool point of reflection.

Furthermore, I think that a lot of people praise the ambiguity of good and evil in this story, as if the monster somehow has a leg to stand on. But the monster is just pure evil. He tried to make friends, but he didn’t succeed, so then he just starts killing everyone? Wtf man, crazy stuff. He could’ve tried harder. There’s plenty of ugly people who manage to make friends, just get better with your social skills man.

I mean, the whole scene with Felix in the cottage? Yes, of course the kids freak out when they see an unknown, massive, and ugly monster clenching to the feet of your vulnerable father. The monster could’ve been more tactful, but failed. That’s on him.

Finally, I would like to remark that earlier this year I read Dracula. A story, often grouped together with Frankenstein in the genre and age. They are both designed as an epistolary novel, but Dracula really makes this technique work for the story. This is because there is a certain immediacy when you read what the characters are experiencing at the very moment, when the writer writes the letter. The antagonist is also covered in shadows, because he’s not included in the letters. We know very little of him. But by every new letter we learn something more. Great storytelling.

The letters in Frankenstein are more setup like this: ’Yo, sister, I met someone here on the arctic, weird story, let me summarise it for you in past tense now.’

And that’s then why you have those frustrating ‘tell, not show’ elements approving in the story, and the empty sentences that describe hardly anything.

Anyway, that’s my too cents. Cool themes, cool concept, mid writing.

Warning against ambition

The monster’s perspective

Tell, not show

Friendship as core humanity trait

Female rage

“Slave, I before reasoned with you, but you have proved yourself unworthy of my condescension. Remember that I have power; you believe yourself miserable, but I can make you so wretched that the light of day will be hateful to you. You are my creator, but I am your master; obey!” Could this be interpret as the female author raging against men? Because women often control men, unbeknownst to them. But the they can't ever step into the limelight, as they will be stripped off their power. Intricate balance of power and control.

Dumb plot