It is a classic and, therefore, deserves a close reading. Norton editions are great. The text size is good, the print tends to be first-rate, and the critical essays usually include classic essays and major critics. This doesn't strike me as being worthy of the "A" list of literature, but that is a prejudice. I can't really accept any genre lit on the list, including detective, gothic, or science fiction. It is an interesting sample of this period, but I didn't get a lot out the the book itself. For one thing, the atmosphere of doom and gloom doesn't work for me. Everyone is sick and morbidly depressed and sad. This is not explained and I don't think one can easily guess. The writing works, sure, but I don't find the prose style uplifting or thrilling, as writing. The story is very familiar. As a child of the 60s, I remember well watching reruns of the classic film on TV. It is hard to divorce the brilliant film from the wordy novel. The film has some brilliant set-pieces. The novel has a lot in it and it certainly can and should be read at multiple levels, but in the end it is Victorian intellectual thought of the low order. There are other, better thinkers and novelists of far greater talent.

This is a classic and that is the reason that I read it. I liked the movie but the book is a whole other experience. I liked the format; I like the style; I liked the prose; I liked the intellectuality. I really didn't analyze it. I just read it for the fun of it. It was good. It was fun.

Frankenstein is a great work, though one that has consistently been underrated

and misrepresented. Frankenstein is, in the words of Donald H. Reiman, "the

most seminal literary work of the Romantic period". It is a work of profound

and radical ideas, written in poetically powerful prose. Frankenstein is not

really a gothic novel, although its author sometimes employs gothic

conventions and language, and even spoofs them. Rather, Frankenstein is an

enduring myth, a novel of ideas, and above all, a moral allegory about the

evil effects of intolerance and prejudice, ostracism and alienation, both to

the victims of intolerance and to society at large.

Since there are some good reviews here, I'll concentrate on this

particular edition -- the Norton Critical Edition, edited by J. Paul Hunter.

This is one of the two best editions of Frankenstein available (the other

being the Chicago edition edited by James Rieger). Most importantly, this is

the original 1818 edition, rather than the inferior, bowdlerized 1831

edition -- which is the most common, and the only one that was available for

well over a century. Hunter's introduction is not bad. Some of the reviews

and essays in the back are good, and some are not, but this is par for the

course. The main text is intelligently annotated.

Please check out my own book, The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein, which

makes the case that Frankenstein was really written by Percy Bysshe Shelley,

one of the greatest poets in the English language. I also argue that male

love, both idealized and demonized, is a central theme of Frankenstein.

Frankenstein is a great work, though one that has consistently been underrated
and misrepresented. Frankenstein is, in the words of Donald H. Reiman, "the
most seminal literary work of the Romantic period". It is a work of profound
and radical ideas, written in poetically powerful prose. Frankenstein is not
really a gothic novel, although its author sometimes employs gothic
conventions and language, and even spoofs them. Rather, Frankenstein is an
enduring myth, a novel of ideas, and above all, a moral allegory about the
evil effects of intolerance and prejudice, ostracism and alienation, both to
the victims of intolerance and to society at large.
Since there are some good reviews here, I'll concentrate on this
particular edition -- the Norton Critical Edition, edited by J. Paul Hunter.
This is one of the two best editions of Frankenstein available (the other
being the Chicago edition edited by James Rieger). Most importantly, this is
the original 1818 edition, rather than the inferior, bowdlerized 1831
edition -- which is the most common, and the only one that was available for
well over a century. Hunter's introduction is not bad. Some of the reviews
and essays in the back are good, and some are not, but this is par for the
course. The main text is intelligently annotated.
Please check out my own book, The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein, which
makes the case that Frankenstein was really written by Percy Bysshe Shelley,
one of the greatest poets in the English language. I also argue that male
love, both idealized and demonized, is a central theme of Frankenstein.

Mary Shelley was the daughter of the famous feminist and author, Mary Wollstonecraft, who is best known for her work The Vindication of the Rights of Women. In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, a young university student, Victor Frankenstein, obsesses with wanting to know the secret to life. He studies chemistry and natural philosophy with the goal of being able to create a human out of spare body parts. After months of constant work in his laboratory, Frankenstein attains his goal and brings his creation to life. Frankenstein is immediately overwrought by fear and remorse at the sight of his creation, a "monster." The next morning, he decides to destroy his creation but finds that the monster has escaped. The monster, unlike other humans, has no social preparation or education; thus, it is unequipped to take care of itself either physically or emotionally. The monster lives in the forest like an animal without knowledge of "self" or understanding of its surroundings. The monster happens upon a hut inhabited by a poor family and is able to find shelter in a shed adjacent to the hut. For several months, the monster starts to gain knowledge of human life by observing the daily life of the hut's inhabitants through a crack in the wall. The monster's education of language and letters begins when he listens to one of them learning the French language. During this period, the monster also learns of human society and comes to the realization that he is grotesque and alone in the world. Armed with his newfound ability to read, he reads three books that he found in a leather satchel in the woods. Goethe's Sorrows of Young Werther, Milton's Paradise Lost, and a volume of Plutarch's Lives. The monster, not knowing any better, read these books thinking them to be facts about human history. From Plutarch's works, he learns of humankind's virtues. However, it is Paradise Lost that has a most interesting effect on the monster's understanding of self. The monster at first identifies with Adam, "I was apparently united by no link to any other being in existence." The monster, armed only with his limited education, thought that he would introduce himself to the cottagers and depend on their virtue and benevolence; traits he believed from his readings that all humans possessed. However, soon after his first encounter with the cottagers, he is beaten and chased off because his ugliness frightens people. The monster is overwrought by a feeling of perplexity by this reaction, since he thought he would gain their trust and love, which he observed them generously give to each other on so many occasions. He receives further confirmation of how his ugliness repels people when, sometime later, he saves a young girl from drowning and the girl's father shoots at him because he is frightful to look at. The monster quickly realizes that the books really lied to him. He found no benevolence or virtue among humans, even from his creator. At every turn in his life, humans are judging him solely based on his looks. The monster soon realizes that it is not Adam, the perfect being enjoying the world, which he is most alike. Instead, he comes to realize that he most represents Satan. The monster is jealous of the happiness he sees humans enjoy that he has never attained for himself. The monster tells Frankenstein that he found his lab journal in his coat pocket and read it with increasing hate and despair as he came to understand what Frankenstein's intent was in creating him. The monster curses Frankenstein for making a creature so hideous that even his creator turned from him in disgust.

Shelley's intent here is plain to see. "The fate of the monster suggests that proficiency in `the art of language' as he calls it, may not ensure one's position as a member of the `human kingdom." In a sense, she is showing that both her parents were mistaken when they advocated greater education reform for people. They thought education would make people better, which in turn would improve society for all. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein contradicts this belief.

Starting with the full title of Mary Shelley's book, Frankenstein: or The Modern Prometheus one can instantly see that mythology was integral to her book. Lord Byron, poet and friend of the Shelley's was writing a poem entitled Prometheus, and Mary was reading the Prometheus legend in Aeschylus' works when she had a dream, which was the impetus for her book. The Greek god Prometheus, is known for two important tasks that he performed, he created man from clay, and he stole fire from the gods and gave it to man. The stealing of fire really angered Zeus because the giving of fire began an era of enlightenment for humankind. Zeus punished Prometheus by having him carried to a mountain, where an eagle would pick at his liver; it would grow back each day and the eagle would eat it again.

The presence of fire and light in this gothic story helps to point to the similarities to Prometheus and Victor Frankenstein, the creator of the monster, in Shelley's book. The book uses light as a symbol of discovery, knowledge, and enlightenment. The natural world is full of hidden passages, and dark unknown scientific secrets; Victor's goal as a scientist is to grasp towards the light. Light is a by-product of fire that the monster learned quickly when he is living on his own. The monster experienced fires' duality when he first encountered it in an unattended fire in the woods. He is mesmerized by the fact that fire produces light in the darkness in the woods, but is shocked at the sensation of pain it gives him when he touches it. Victor is defiant of god in the same way that Prometheus was defiant of Zeus. Victor steals the secret of life from god and creates a human out of spare body parts. He does this out of an altruistic wish to spare humankind from the pain and suffering of death. Thus, Victor Frankenstein embodies both aspects of the Promethean myth creation and fire. Victor in a sense has the same experience with the fire of enlightenment similar to his monster; he is "burned" by the fire of enlightenment. Victor also suffers from the classic Greek tragic condition of hubris for his transgression against god and nature.

The book also adopts two other great mythic legends. One is Adam from the Bible. Victor Frankenstein bears striking resemblance to Adam and his fall from grace for eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. The other is Satan, a mythic figure that Shelley admired from her readings in Milton's book Paradise Lost. In an interesting juxtaposition of booth myths, she expands on the motif of the fall from grace in her book when she portrays the monster comparing himself to Adam; after he read, Milton's book Paradise Lost. The monster tells Victor, that he at first identifies with Adam God's first creation. "I was apparently united by no link to any other being in existence." However, after several incidents of mistreatment that he suffered from the humans he encountered in his travels; the monster soon realized that it is not Adam, the perfect being enjoying the world, which he was most alike. Instead, he came to realize that he most represented Satan. The monster's feelings of hatred and despair stem from the fact that humans found him grotesque to look at and would not accept him as a member of human society. The monster cursed Victor for making a creature so hideous that even his creator turned from him in disgust. Thus, it is obvious for all to see that Shelley's Frankenstein is replete with mythological references and they are central to the plot.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy, and literature.

The chronological table in the back of the book helped me situate Mary Shelley within the time of the writing of Frankenstein. Percy B. Shelley's critique of the book, published after he died, was interesting. I liked the Criticisms in the back of the book. Most of all, I loved the Being Frankenstein created. This is the saddest, most thought provoking, book I've read in recent times (even though it's old).

"Life, although it may only be an accumulation of anguish, is dear to me... I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous." This was said by none other than M. Frankenstein's monstrous creation. To me this quote sums up one of the most important themes in the book. This theme being that all life is very difficult to deal with, but we still strive to live even if times are very hard. It also throws up the question: Are we born pure and good? Because the monster says that when created he was all about being a good man, but now that he is miserable he is a bad person.
The story of Frankenstein isn't as it appears to be in most movies. M. Frankenstein learns of a way to create life, and animate an inanimate object. He spends two years putting together his creation, and finally when it is created he freaks out and leaves his laboratory. When he comes back the monster is gone. Throughout the book this monster torments him, causing him much anguish and grief. The story is about M. Frankenstein's feud with his own creation.
Mary Shelley wrote this book on a dare from Lord Byron in 1816. This was supposed to be a ghost story, even thought to me it doesn't really seem like a ghost story, but more of a story about playing god, and about life's hardships. Two of her daughters died during infancy, only one son survived. Her husband drowned while sailing in 1822. Mary Shelley died at the age of 53 in 1851.
As you can see her life was full of hardships, and loneliness. This makes a lot of sense because if you read Frankenstein you get a sense of horrid loneliness throughout the entire novel. Emotionally this book plays a toll on pity for M. Frankenstein as well as the monster. No one is happy for more than a page or two in this book, and during this rut of happiness they are constantly nagged by something in the back of their mind. It is a very good story and has a lot of very good points about life in it, but the book leaves you feeling...cold and alone.

"Life, although it may only be an accumulation of anguish, is dear to me... I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous." This was said by none other than M. Frankenstein's monstrous creation. To me this quote sums up one of the most important themes in the book. This theme being that all life is very difficult to deal with, but we still strive to live even if times are very hard. It also throws up the question: Are we born pure and good? Because the monster says that when created he was all about being a good man, but now that he is miserable he is a bad person.
The story of Frankenstein isn't as it appears to be in most movies. M. Frankenstein learns of a way to create life, and animate an inanimate object. He spends two years putting together his creation, and finally when it is created he freaks out and leaves his laboratory. When he comes back the monster is gone. Throughout the book this monster torments him, causing him much anguish and grief. The story is about M. Frankenstein's feud with his own creation.
Mary Shelley wrote this book on a dare from Lord Byron in 1816. This was supposed to be a ghost story, even thought to me it doesn't really seem like a ghost story, but more of a story about playing god, and about life's hardships. Two of her daughters died during infancy, only one son survived. Her husband drowned while sailing in 1822. Mary Shelley died at the age of 53 in 1851.
As you can see her life was full of hardships, and loneliness. This makes a lot of sense because if you read Frankenstein you get a sense of horrid loneliness throughout the entire novel. Emotionally this book plays a toll on pity for M. Frankenstein as well as the monster. No one is happy for more than a page or two in this book, and during this rut of happiness they are constantly nagged by something in the back of their mind. It is a very good story and has a lot of very good points about life in it, but the book leaves you feeling...cold and alone.

This book is a classic novel and thus has gained a reputation due to the films about it that are completely different than the novel. Mary Shelley's own husband Percy edited and changed the writing quite a bit so this version is appealing because it is Mary's version, not Percy's.

The language of the novel flows well; it is very beautiful. Just reading the descriptions is easy to enjoy regardless of what they say because of how melodic they are.

The story itself is very simple and not as exciting as one might expect. A monster is created. His demands are not met so he destroys the life of his creator. He has motives; he speaks well; he is logical.

The monster is not the grunting green representation from the big screen. This book by modern standards is not a horror novel.

This does not hinder it; it simply changes the way a reader should begin it. It is more of a political statement that can be analyzed when contemplating modern issues like cloning. Imagine that it was written during the Romantic era! That alone is a tribute to its genius.

Read it and make your own conclusions.

This book is a classic novel and thus has gained a reputation due to the films about it that are completely different than the novel. Mary Shelley's own husband Percy edited and changed the writing quite a bit so this version is appealing because it is Mary's version, not Percy's.

The language of the novel flows well; it is very beautiful. Just reading the descriptions is easy to enjoy regardless of what they say because of how melodic they are.

The story itself is very simple and not as exciting as one might expect. A monster is created. His demands are not met so he destroys the life of his creator. He has motives; he speaks well; he is logical.

The monster is not the grunting green representation from the big screen. This book by modern standards is not a horror novel.

This does not hinder it; it simply changes the way a reader should begin it. It is more of a political statement that can be analyzed when contemplating modern issues like cloning. Imagine that it was written during the Romantic era! That alone is a tribute to its genius.

Read it and make your own conclusions.

NOTE: PLEASE VOTE REGARDING THE QUALITY OF THE REVIEW, NOT WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH IT.

The commentary tries to give depth and meaning to this poorly written story.

Victor grew up reading the works of Paracelsus, Agrippa, and Albertus Magnus, the alchemists of the time. Toss in a little natural philosophy (sciences) and you have the making of a monster. Or at least a being that after being spurned for looking ugly becomes ugly. So for revenge the creature decides unless Victor makes another (female this time) creature, that Victor will also suffer the loss of friends and relatives. What is victor to do? Bow to the wishes and needs of his creation? Or challenge it to the death? What would you do?
Although the concept of the monster is good, and the conflicts of the story well thought out, Shelly suffers from the writing style of the time. Many people do not finish the book as the language is stilted and verbose for example when was the last time you said, "Little did I then expect the calamity that was in a few moments to overwhelm me and extinguish in horror and despair all fear of ignominy of death."
Much of the book seems like travel log filler. More time describing the surroundings of Europe than the reason for traveling or just traveling. Many writers use traveling to reflect time passing or the character growing in stature or knowledge. In this story they just travel a lot.
This book is definitely worth plodding through for moviegoers. The record needs to be set strait. First shock is that the creator is named Victor Frankenstein; the creature is just "monster" not Frankenstein. And it is Victor that is backwards which added in him doing the impossible by not knowing any better. The monster is well read in "Sorrows of a Young Werther," "Paradise Lost," and Plutarch's "Lives." The debate (mixed with a few murders) rages on as to whether the monster was doing evil because of his nature or because he was spurned?

Mary Shelley, her husband the poet Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, and his physician Doctor Polidori were staying at Byron's country villa. It was a stormy night of orgies, opium, and ghost stories. The men also liked to discuss the theory of galvanism--scientifically bringing a dead body back to life. It was this that gave Mary Shelley the central idea for her main character, a creature created and brought to life by a mad science. And it was out of these nightmare-inducing, drug-induced, spine-chilling elements that Mary Shelley was struck with the idea to write her masterpiece about Frankenstein, a misunderstood and persecuted but otherwise good and gentle "noble savage" and freak creation of science. This book will teach you a thing or two about how people treat the outsider, and about how it's important to judge people from the inside, not the outside.

David Rehak
author of "A Young Girl's Crimes"

This book is based on the original 1818 version of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, but is geared toward the reader who wants a more in-depth knowledge and understanding of this work of fiction and the writings of Mary Shelley, her husband Percy Shelley, Lord Byron and Dr. John William Polidori, Byron's friend. The reader will find abundant annotations which help to explain the context in which it was written. A map is provided which helps to locate many of the settings described in the book. It also includes a section of reactions to various versions that have been published. Twelve contemporary authors have submitted essays which supply a variety of perspectives on Frankenstein. The book offers an authoritative text, contextual and source materials, and a wide range of interpretations in addition to a bibliography of other works on the topics.

If you think you know Frankenstein because you have seen the classic 1930's Hollywood movie, then you really don't know Frankenstein. The short novel upon which the movie is loosely based (so loosely as to be almost a different story)is a morality tale on the creation of life and the obligations of the creator and the created. Mary Shelley was only twenty when she wrote the novel, begun when a house party attended by the poet Byron and Shelley's husband, the poet Percy Shelley decided to swap "ghost" stories one evening. Only Mary Shelley completed her story and this is the 1818 text presented in this book.
One main objection I have about this book (and the only reason that kept it from getting 5 stars) is basically the plot itself. If you think that a tight plausible plot is needed, then this is not the book for you. There are too many holes and too many times I found myself asking, Why would the character do this? But if you read for language and philosophical thought, then Frankenstein is a perfect short read. The monster is very erudite and able to express his emotions perfectly. Why was he created and how can he endure if all he receives is the scorn and hatred of those around him? What is the obligation of the creator-to please his creation or keep him from doing harm to others? This is the true core of the story and the contrasting feelings between Victor Frankenstein, the creator and the monster fill the pages.
While not a difficult read, it is one that is totally unexpected if you have no prior knowledge of the novel's difference with the movie. While the movie is rightfully a classic, the book delves more into the spiritual and emotional realms of creation and its affect on all. I would highly recommend this book for those who are intrigued by the beauty of language and thought. J

Two things are amazing. This book and the reviewer who says "Despite many strengths, Frankenstein has fatal flaws". I find it grotesque when "critics" pick apart a masterpiece, a work that the critic themselves couldn't create in their wildest dreams. A work that they couldn't match with anything in their boring lives.
Yes, you can find something "wrong" in any work of art or science. But when something is so amazing as is this book (one of the greatest of all time, including the future), one should temper their criticism with praise. Point out all the good points , the amazing points, and the "flaws" will disappear as unimportant.
Critics are so pitiful.

I've never seen the movie nor have I heard descriptions of the movie. I just assumed from the clips that I had seen that Dr. Frankenstein went to the cemetary, stole body parts, created a monster, the monster escapted and the story climaxed as a group of townsmen find the monster and lynch it. How happily wrong I was and what a sad mockery the story has become. Instead of finding a plodding flat-headed creature with an IQ of 3, the monster is actually something worse--he's still 9', but he's agile, possesses superhuman strength and agility and worse of all, he's much superior in intelligence to his creator. He is witty, is accomlished in persuasive speaking, quotes poetry and is determined to spend his horrible existance (he has nothing better to do--none can bare to look upon him as he is so horribly disfigured) stalking Dr. Frankenstien and making him suffer if he does not create another companion. This Monster is much scarier and worthy of a great story than Hollywood's plodding oaf. Shelly does an excellent job of pulling this reader in and struggling along with Victor Frankenstein as he debates the options in this lose-lose situation (slow destruction of his family vs creating a potentially more evil companion for his evil creation). I had no problem suspending my disbelief and greatly enjoyed the characters (I especially enjoyed slowly watching Victor Frankenstein grow sick and insane with worry) that Shelly creates. Aside from the Bible, if I could recommend any book, right now it would be Frankenstein.

The 19th Century bequeathed us four immediately recognizable, vibrant & enduring fictional icons: Shelley's Frankenstein; Stoker's Dracula; Melville's Moby Dick (& Ahab); and Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. Each of them has, I fear, suffered a horrible fate: they are so familiar to us, in their many modern incarnations & imitations, that too few people return to the original texts. This may be particularly true of Frankenstein, whose portrayals have been so frivolous and distorted. In fact, in addition to being written in luxuriant gothic prose, the original novel is one of the most profound meditations on Man and his purpose and relation to God that has exists in our literature.

Victor Frankenstein is a young man of Geneva who is fascinated by the sciences and the secrets of life and death:

My temper was sometimes violent, and my passions vehement; but by some law in my temperature they were turned not towards childish pursuits but to an eager desire to learn, and not to learn all things indiscriminately. I confess that neither the structure of languages, nor the code of governments, nor the politics of various states possessed attractions for me. It was the secrets of heaven and earth that I desired to learn; and whether it was the outward substance of things or the inner spirit of nature and the mysterious soul of man that occupied me, still my inquiries were directed to the metaphysical, or in its highest sense, the physical secrets of the world.

While at University in Ingolstadt, his life course is set when he hears a professor lecture on modern chemistry:

'The ancient teachers of this science,'said he, 'promised impossibilities and performed nothing. The modern masters promise very little; they know that metals cannot be transmuted and that the elixir of life is a chimera. But these philosophers, whose hands seem only made to dabble in dirt, and their eyes to pore over the microscope or crucible, have indeed performed miracles. They penetrate into the recesses of nature and show how she works in her hiding-places. They ascend into the heavens; they have discovered how the blood circulates, and the nature of the air we breathe. They have acquired new and almost unlimited powers; they can command the thunders of heavens, mimic the earthquake, and even mock the invisible world with its own shadows.'

Such were the professor's words--rather let me say such were the words of the fate--enounced to destroy me.

Victor goes on to discover, through the study of chemistry, the secret of bringing dead flesh to life. Inevitably he tests his discovery and of viewing his creation cries:

How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavored to form? His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips.

And so, repelled by the mere appearance, the inevitable imperfection, of his work, Frankenstein rejects the creature utterly. However, unlike the mute stupid monster of the movies, Shelley's monster is articulate and sensitive and longs for companionship, but all of humankind reacts to him with horror. And so he demands that Frankenstein build him a mate. When Frankenstein refuses to provide him with a companion, the creature resolves to destroy those who Frankenstein loves.

Finally, Frankenstein determines that he must destroy the creature and pursues him into the frozen wastes of the North.

It all makes for a rousing adventure, but there is much more here. Frankenstein, through his work, has attempted to become a god, but his creation is a horrible disappointment & so, is banished from him. Meanwhile, his flawed creation, filled with ineffable longing and confusion, wanders in exile seeking the meaning of his existence. And what is the impulse that he settles upon, but another act of creation; a mate must be created for him. The Biblical parallels are obvious, but they work on us subtly as we read the novel. In the end, the uncontrollable urge to create, to imitate God, stands revealed as Man's driving force. And the inevitable disappointment of the creator in his creation, is revealed as the serpent in the garden.

If you've never read this book, read it now. If you've read it before, read it again.

GRADE: A+

Traditionally, Norton Critical Editions reprint the best historical and contemporary criticism for their respective novels. But, it seems as though Norton has succumbed to the critical tide of multiculturalism and "studies" departments. Nowhere in this edition are essays attempting to provide readers with greater appreciation for the novel. Missing, too, are essays explicating traditional aesthetic aspects of novel construction, such as characterization, structure, etc.

Instead, readers are presented standard multicultural fair: "Frankenstein and a Critique of Imperialism"; "Women in Frankenstein"; "Mary Shelley's Monstrous Eve"; "Female Gothic: The Monster's Mother"; and psychobabble - "My Monster/My Self." Funny, my reading missed that Frankenstein's monster had a mother. But, surely I must have read from a culturally-conditioned male, imperialist perspective. (By the way--and I am not making this up--one essay, "Coming Unstrung: Women, Men, Narrative, and Principles of Pleasure" begins with this insightful jewel: "I would like to begin with the proposition that the female orgasm is unnecessary.")

As one essay notes: "There seems to be no critical consensus on Frankenstein. Various critical readings seldom take the time to read, let alone challenge, each other. They simply seem to keep adding one more perspective to the pile. Indeed, to them, interpreting Frankenstein is not a zero-sum game, in which each new hypothesis requires falsifying an old one."

To take one example, consider Ellen Moers's "Female Gothic: The Monster's Mother." According to Moers, the critical scene occurs when Frankenstein first perceives his filthy creature, "the hideous corpse which he had looked upon as the cradle of life." The language describes a stillbirth, and, to Moers, this is its strength: Shelley draws upon her own experiences of the death of her own infants. The problem is that this interpretation can not be tested from evidence in the novel. "If one objected that Victor Frankenstein is not a woman, that he does not give birth, that the creature is alive not dead and is not an infant but full grown, and that the horror arises precisely from the difference between this delivery and all others, Moers might reply that such literalmindedness misses the point."

Despite many strengths, Frankenstein has fatal flaws. Coleridge wrote that readers must approach a novel with "a willing suspension of disbelief," a willingness in turn nurtured by the novelist. Such suspension is required of readers because they must understand that a novelist cannot represent everything. Part of the novelist's art lies in the simulation of reality through selective withholding and revealing of various information. Conversely, novelists lose readers when they ask them to suspend disbelief too often, or to accept details or events that just do not logically seem to make sense. Such is the case of Mary Shelley and her creation, Victor Frankenstein.

Unlike its portrayal in the movies, which involves an assistant (Igor), various trips to the cemetery for body parts, and a lightning-filled climax in a laboratory, creation of Frankenstein's monster is anti-climactic. Shelley dispatches the entire incident in about three paragraphs. Just as quickly, Frankenstein is repulsed by his creation. The creature opens his eyes, Frankenstein sees its ugliness, and flees - all in the space of two or three sentences. Thus begins a slippery slope of disbelief.

Readers are expected to believe that the creature could evolve into a perfect example of cultured, Enlightened, rational thinking simply by observing a simple family and reading a handful of books. The monster's inner being is too perfect. It is inconceivable that his rhetoric, designed to make the reader sympathetic, cannot also appeal to Frankenstein. And Frankenstein himself is too blind. Once he is finally rebuked, the monster vows to avenge himself upon Frankenstein. He systematically murders members of Frankenstein's family and friends. The entire object of the murders is to make Frankenstein suffer as the monster has suffered. Thus, it is impossible that when the monster promises to be with Frankenstein on his wedding night, that Frankenstein takes extreme measures to protect himself while not even for a moment looking to his wife's safety. It's simply too much to believe.

For those readers who wish to read the novel as Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley originally intended it, this is the text to use! Far from the later editions she edited and, quite frankly, "watered down," the 1818 edition of _Frankenstein_ displays the author at her best. (Of course, even if you prefer the later editions, it's nice to see what Shelley's original intentions were.) The footnotes are informative and helpful, the criticisms are well-selected, and the entire volume is a welcome addition to one's library.

This book at times was hard to understand but kept me interested the whole time. I loved the part where he discovers that it is really ugly and horrible. The way Mary Shelly writes makes you feel like you are there. Recommended for older readers.

I don't think I would read it again. The text is flowery and hard to take in all the time. She [mary shelly] had an amazing way of capturing feelings... It has symbolism of Fruedism, Marxism, feminism and more...It represents all the horrrors of life and society.

This book kept me intrusted and wanting to read more I don't read much because I can't find a book that keeps me not from falling asleep or my mind wandering. I liked how she died in the end just to twist the knife a little deeper.

UMMM CAN WE SAY "SUCKY" ? SORRY, BUT THIS BOOK DID NOT ENTERTAIN ME AT ALL, I THOUGHT IT WAS NOT EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD CALL "HORROR" WICH IS WHAT I WAS EXPECTING.. I THOUGHT IT WAS SAD AND PATHETIC