Muleskinner Book Recommendations #10:

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, or, the Modern Prometheus
^{(written Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley;
possible text-editor/co-writer Percy Bysshe Shelley)}
(1818 version)

"God in pity made a man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; but my form is a filthy type of yours, more horrid from its very resemblance. Satan had his companions, fellow-devils, to admire and encourage him; but I am solitary and detested." (Frankenstein novel, p. 175)

Having in passing touched the thematics of Frankenstein-novel and actually used it as source of some allusions in background to our recent Mammophant-article, it seems quite outright following if we here now also review book in question. However, this task fills us with plenty of uncertainties. 'Frankenstein, or, the Modern Prometheus' easily counts among the most reused and most original horror-stories of all time. In addition to its many influences on later (romantic ) fiction, there's all this innumerable later references in the movies, comics, other popular fiction and even more secondary material available. Can we possibly say anything original in this recommendation?

Well, let's try anyway... Normally we don't much read other reviews from books chosen in recommendations here (on blog). If needed, something from fx writers biographies may be checked, but in general, we consider it better to avoid any criticism as these might have some influence to our own interpretations. However, on this case the usual zero-tolerance concerning the other reviews wasn't possible to maintain and we are also of course pretty well aware that there's number of later rewritings and discussions from books main content. Also, fx that famous Boris Karloff popularized filmographic image from the creatures outer looks(not much even described in the book itself) can't be left unmentioned. Continuing, there's as well many humorous 'pulp' characters based on Frankenmonster, like this similar well-known character from (recent) the Adams Family-serie. Among these later rewritings from monsters image, of course, one could ao include the many mixed species born from fictional inter-breedings of humans and robots, humans and aliens, and even more clearly the many birth-giving monsters and their descendants like some presented in the Alien-movie series. But if we think of original ity and imagination in this horrondous human-like creation, not later movie fiction has ever been able to invent anything similar, not even close.

So, considering all this renown co-existing stuff, it shouldn't appear too surprising that the book itself feels mostly rather typical gothic-romantic novel. Nothing especially enchanting in the style its written with; the story-telling is rather continously too much weighed on details not necessary important for the main story, too much romantically overdone sentencing and sometimes it gets even boring in all these typically romantic moods and phrases used in characterization or personnels inner feelings. Also, in backgrounds 'frames' for the story, the letters in the beginning of novel, diary-pages in the end, are rather conventional methods, typical in romantic fiction of the time like ghost-stories and similar. For some reason H.P. Lovecrafts later short-stories feel like a close comparison, though in Frankenstein the narration doesn't ever reach same the intensiousness. Ultimately, I conclude the text propably benefited a lot from Percy's additions in text, fx. the more poetic use of language and the passionate expressions.

What still makes this book an uncomparable classic, is of course the Frankenstein itself (creature, though in the book only person called by this name is the creator himself, Viktor Frankenstein). The nature of that strange human built creation(the revived 'monster') appears to be somewhat nature of the beast: ambigous like his masters, just enough unpredictable and as such, impossible to be ordered and used according to ones wishes. Sometimes, especially in the chapters where Frankenmonster recalls the first days after 'waking up in alive' its true nature is shown as deeply human and capable for feelings of caring and compassionate emotions. At this point in story, its innocence is actually already gone and it has caused and fulfilled some horrondous acts already. During some later parts the creature is seen as straightforward evil in nature, mostly viewed from Viktors opinion and as result (the main point in thematics as this ambivalence rest on criticism of the natural sciences at the time) he disagrees to be in debt to the creation resulting from his own deeds and causing therefore its eventual fate as an outcast among humans.

During Shelley's times as well as today the main strength of the book appeared possibly in that originality of the idea. There's been much (and ever more is) discussions and speculations from its real exemplaries; precursors and influences. Actually, often noted, the creature appear as some symbolical image from modern mans doomed efforts to change the sadness of his existence and the unchangeable laws of nature, exactly like a bad dream (Mary Shelleys dream it is mentioned to have originated) about the imaginable experiments the science should not even consider to make real.

As fictional character, the Frankensteins(creature's) fate and role in novel are eventually quite similar to later outsiders from existentionalist novels, typically Camus or Sartre's. He is without any power to change circumstances, doomed to stay as such outsider. But surely, he is also kind of Prometheus like depicted in books name. And in that the Frankenmonster originates actually from a lot older tradition. Its most closest relatives from the past – not necessary often mentioned, since this book is claimed to be some kind of starter and forerunner for stories from modern mans (and sciences) fears – the alchemists and wizards from the 'darker centuries' in the past. In spite of that Viktor in the beginning shows his keen interests on modern sciences realm and shows his clear rejectance for the depths of Fausts demonic visions, they are still there from the very beginning. And so the creature, like Prometheus who stole the fire for humans from gods up above, stands there on the edge of times, representing for the people some frightening 'dark sides' in the history of mysticisms and at the same time on-coming futuristic mad illusions arising from developments of science.

Conclusively, one can also say, the idea and literal form (of the book) must have had a much stronger impression to the readers of the romantic period (early 1800s) than it has for the present day reader, familiar with Frankensteins many later reincarnations. But, also noteworthy to mention, at the time of writing, Darwin's theory from evolution wasn't yet published and probably also the originality and novelty of human existence weren't that much indisputed. So, those are the main thematics which easily raise from reading the Frankenstein-novel. It isn't, even in its conventional style, easy to challenge from its place among the most horrondous books ever written. The role of Viktor Frankenstein (the creator), as an archetype from human scientists faults and miseries, appears just as secondary in importance concerning the books main contents. In later creations of the story it has also been so, though since the films more deeply need 'easy' heroes, usually Frankenstein (the hero) has been romanticed further and Frankenstein (the creature) nourished in characteristics (fx. compare that in the novel it even reads Goethe's Werther and Milton's Paradise Lost). Luckily, in the original book, (most) of the brilliance raises from the creatures apparent capability for human tensions, not from the creators lack of human feeling.