Frankenstein (Penguin Clothbound Classics)

Amazon groups reviews for the same story even when they are from different editions and in the case of Frankenstein the worst is that there are two similar but not identical versions. The first is the 1818 uncensored edition by e-artnow; the other is the AmazonClassics Edition, it doesn't say which version it is but after reading it is clear to me that it's the posterior 1823 edition. The 1818 edition is a bit more journalistic in the sense to show you the events and let you think your own conclusions, the 1823 edition is a bit more explicit in the moral judgment of the wretched Victor Frankenstein. But these differences are quite subtle... in my opinion it had been better if we just had the 1818 story, it's perfect. Both editions has X-Ray, about the differences I can say: * AmazonClassics Edition (2 stars): In the positive side the formatting is modern and professional, you can easily see that you are reading a letter for example; the typography is clean allowing you to read with more comfort. In the negative side is evil the lengths that AmazonClassics attempt to hide dates, there is no year of publication, which is a sin considering there are the two different versions from different years; the malign editor even hides the date that is in the preface, sobbing his hands in the excitement to draw the readers into the pit of despair. * e-artnow edition (3 stars): In the positive side it contains the pure text, it's a normal formatting, not excellent as the AmazonClassics but works, but it's more useful as it informs you about the edition used. I read it fast along the AmazonClassic so I didn't find errors but could not guarantee their non existence. In the negative side... I have no important observations, I don't like the cover, the cinema version doesn't correspond to the book. In conclusion although the AmazonClassics edition is comfortable sadly it seems there is an attempt to hide the mentioned years. I cannot recommend it. The e-artnow edition is good enough, less comfortable to read but still has X-Ray and the mentioned years as the author intended them are present. Taking aside the editorial aspect I loved a lot to read Frankenstein. Mary Shelley made, barely 20 years old, an awe-inspiring horror novel. In my opinion far more impacting than Stevenson's "Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde," with which it shares some characteristics. The creature, the creation of Victor Frankenstein, is human, he does terrible actions because he suffers, he has been abandoned by the man that donned life to him. Victor Frankenstein is the monster. Surrounded by persons that love him, even the creature could love him, he betrays them without compassion. He suffers but never for others but by the guilt of his lies being unleashed. Is crystalline that he only love physical beauty, Shelley is quite talented to make you feel like the witness of the mental struggle and physical stress of a dark hearted man. If there is something that reveal both the youth of Mary Shelly and her culture devoid of life experience is the fact that her characters triumph or fail through the study of books rather than from work, knowledge and reality. I felt Europe quite small too, it seemed like either the each of the characters bought the seven-league boots or that Europe is as big as a thematic park. But these are minor details for a classic whose reading at least once could enrich you.

First, a note about the cover of the Penguin Classic Deluxe Edition: I’ve noticed in several other reviews of various books in this series that readers have negatively commented on the “cartoonish” like covers. Personally, I happen to like most of the covers in the Classic Deluxe series because they are bright and fun. Sure, it is nice to own a nice edition of a favorite classic. Yet, I don’t see the harm in the fun covers — there’s no rule that says that because something is a classic that it has to be bound with a stodgy, serious cover. Maybe the comic-like covers will catch someone’s interest, someone who might not normally read a book. Getting someone to read a book is the most important thing, right? In the introduction to this particular edition, author Elizabeth Kostova (who wrote a modern take on the Dracula story: “The Historian”), says that she picked up the book to reread, to refresh her memory, and as she was reading it she realized that she wasn’t rereading it at all. She’d never read it. She realized that she knew the myth of Frankenstein, the Hollywood version, the Halloween version, the bolt through the neck version. What she knew (or thought she knew) had come from pop culture. I knew that I had never read Frankenstein. It was always on my ‘to read …sometime” list. I couldn’t pass up the cover, so I bought the book. Like Ms Kostova, I felt that I knew the story of Frankenstein and his monster. Growing up in the 1970s, with all the weekend and late-night sci-fi/horror movies, I’d seen the old Bela Lugosi version, and many of the various other old black-and-white retellings. And lets not forget the Mel Brooks adaptation (which I was fairly certain had little to do with Shelley’s novel). When I sat down to read the book, I was drawn into the tale by the letters of Captain R. Walton, who is on an expedition to find his way through the icy waters of the north. Walton catches a glimpse of the monster, and not long afterwards rescues Victor Frankenstein from the icy water. The book is broken into three parts: Part One is mostly told via letters from Walton to his sister; Part Two is Victor Frankenstein’s narrative for the first part, then the monster’s narrative for the second half. Part Three takes up the story with Frankenstein again, ending with a few letters from Walton. There are several more detailed summaries of the plot, so I won’t go into much detail. However, there are a few things that I think are important to know (they are, in a slight way, spoilers — but, I promise not to give any of the major points away). The book is quite noticeably different from the Hollywood myth that most of us grew up learning. There’s no scene where Frankenstein is in a tower awaiting lightening, there’s no evil madness to him — he looks at making a creature as a scientific enquiry, rather than anything with evil intentions. There is no Ygor/Igor. There’s no little girl who hands the monster a flower. And, most astonishing: the monster speaks — eloquently. There are several gaps, parts where the reader just has to let the story unfold without pausing to think to rationally about it (the lack of detail on how the monster was created, the way the monster was educated and learned to speak and read, etc.) Don’t get caught up in trying to accept the logic — it’s not there. Just follow the tale, don’t think too deeply about how the monster learned so much from watching a family. Just go with it. The gaps aren’t really that important. What is important is that our pop culture has distorted the story so much that when one hears the word “Frankenstein” one thinks of the monster, not the doctor. In the novel, the monster is never given a name - he is simply referred to as monster, daemon, creature, horror. And, our pop culture version of the story has taken away the deep philosophical aspects of the novel. And, we’ve learned that the creature is the ‘bad guy’, but, there’s much to be said about Victor Frankenstein - most of it not nice. In many ways, he is the ‘bad guy’ of the story. He’s so intent on bringing a creature to life that when he does and sees how ugly and horrid the creature is, he immediately abandons it, leaving the monster to fend for himself. Frankenstein is relieved that the monster disappeared and barely gives him much thought until tragedy strikes the Frankenstein home. Two years have passed and monster and creator finally meet, and the monster speaks what I find to be one of the saddest things I’ve read. Frankenstein is angry at what his monster had done, and wants to kill him. In reply: “‘I expected this reception,’ said the daemon. ‘All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! … Remember that I am your creature; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend.” The monster believes that if Victor will make him a wife, he will have someone to share his misery and torment with — they will be bound by their both being outcasts. Frankenstein first agrees to create a bride, but then realizes he cannot do so, for he might make more evil creatures. What is most interesting to me is that the Doctor is really a whiny, narcissistic man; he made the creature, and ran off immediately afterwards, abandoning the monster. When the monster does some bad things, Frankenstein takes no responsibility — he never thinks “maybe if I stayed and taught him what it was like to be human, he might have had a chance.” Instead, he let the monster loose in the world, and because of the creatures size and hideous features, he’s attacked and chased off everywhere he goes. He doesn’t learn about life from a benevolent creator — he learns about life from the flawed humans that inhabit the earth. But Frankenstein moans and groans about how tragic his life has become because of the monster without every really acknowledging his own lack of responsibility. In a way, part of the idea of the creature’s character comes down to the old Nature versus Nurture argument. In this case there was no nurture — he only had the horrified reactions of people to learn from. As the monster says “All men hate the wretched.” I was surprised to find that I disliked the Doctor so much. While I can’t say that I found the murderous monster lovable, there was certainly something very sympathetic about him. Frankenstein spends pages lamenting the misery of his life, yet it is a ‘woe is me’ type of lament. The creature seems more philosophical about his wretched existence and suffering — the monster isn’t about a bit of whining and lamenting, but he seems to have learned things about life that Frankenstein (the supposedly more educated one) fails to grasp. There are a few flaws in the tale — I’ve mentioned some above (i.e. how the monster learns to read and write). But there are some technical flaws as well — it’s difficult to keep track of how much time has passed. Sometimes it seems very long, until it’s mentioned only a few months have passed. Other times, years have passed with barely a mention. Frankenstein was a young man, in his mid-twenties when he created the monster, though it was tough to tell how old he was at the end. Stylistically, the novel is by turns engrossing, followed by a several pages that seem to drag on and on, making the pacing of the novel feel uneven. Yet, in spite of these small flaws, the story is much deeper in meaning, more philosophical in nature than I expected. It’s a novel that could lead to good conversations about the nature of good and evil, about who was the real monster of the story, and did Doctor or monster learn anything of value along the way. Most importantly, the legend of Frankenstein in our culture is one of horror — it’s often called a horror novel. But, it really isn’t. There is a bit of violence, though not graphic at all. Mostly, it’s a meditation on good and evil, life and death, and what we should or shouldn’t do if we have the power to do something. The story just happens to have a monster as one of the main characters. It’s not a story that would give you bad dreams, or make you feel fearful if you were home alone. I’m glad the comic-book cover captured my attention, and that I got around to reading the story sooner rather than later. I think it is a story that will keep me thinking for some time to come. I highly recommend the story (in whatever edition fits your budget or catches your fancy.) I give the story 4.5/5 stars.

Mary Shelley's timeless classic, Frankenstein, stands as a haunting testament to the human pursuit of knowledge and the consequences that accompany unchecked ambition. With its gripping narrative and profound exploration of moral and existential themes, this Gothic masterpiece continues to captivate readers even two centuries after its initial publication. Set against the backdrop of a gloomy and desolate landscape, the story follows Victor Frankenstein, a young and ambitious scientist consumed by his desire to conquer death and unlock the secrets of life itself. Driven by his insatiable thirst for knowledge, Victor embarks on a perilous journey that leads him to create a being out of stolen body parts. Yet, this act of creation soon turns into a nightmare, as the creature awakens with a bewildered consciousness, abandoned by its creator and left to navigate a hostile world alone. Shelley skillfully delves into the complex psyches of both Victor and his creature, exploring their parallel narratives and the consequences of their actions. Through Victor's internal struggle with guilt and remorse, Shelley exposes the moral ambiguity inherent in human nature, forcing readers to question the ethical implications of scientific advancement. The creature, often portrayed as a monster, is paradoxically both sympathetic and terrifying—a tortured soul seeking acceptance and love in a world that rejects him based on his outward appearance. The novel's narrative structure, presented through a series of letters and firsthand accounts, enhances the sense of impending doom and creates a chilling atmosphere of suspense. Shelley's evocative prose paints vivid images, immersing the reader in a world of darkness and despair. Her exploration of the themes of abandonment, revenge, and the nature of humanity provokes profound introspection and challenges the boundaries of empathy. Frankenstein stands as a cautionary tale, cautioning against the dangers of unchecked scientific progress and the moral responsibility that accompanies human creation. It serves as a timeless reminder that knowledge without wisdom and compassion can lead to disastrous consequences. In conclusion, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a remarkable work of literature that continues to resonate with readers today. Its exploration of human ambition, the moral implications of scientific advancement, and the search for identity and acceptance makes it a thought-provoking and unsettling read. With its beautifully crafted narrative and complex characters, Frankenstein remains a masterpiece that forces us to confront our own humanity and the ethical dilemmas that arise when playing with the forces of life and death.

Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus, first published in 1818, is well-deserved classic of science fiction and horror. Mary Shelley's work, much like the similarly influential Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson (see my review of that here on Amazon for more on that tale), has almost been forgotten in its original form, as so many adaptations - most quite different from the original - have been produced in the nearly two centuries since it first appeared. The story begins with an introductory framing narrative by Robert Walton, an arctic explorer who catches a glimpse of a giant person traveling through the ice shortly before rescuing a stranded traveler who turns out to be Victor Frankenstein. Frankentein, a young Swiss student of chemistry and natural philosophy, relates his tale to Walton, who then records it in letters to his sister in England. Frankenstein describes how he created artificial life, only to be repulsed by the hideousness of the new being. Frankenstein abandons the creature, which then disappears. However, some time later, the creature begins taking revenge for his abandonment and misery upon Frankenstein's loved ones. Eventually tracking his creation down, the being tells Frankenstein his own tale of how he has attempted to befriend humans, only to be hated and driven away each time. The creature extracts a promise from Frankenstein to create a mate for him, after which the pair will disappear. Frankenstein begins to work on another creature, but eventually decides that he cannot create another monster and destroys his work. This prompts the creature to continue his campaign of revenge upon Frankenstein, eventually leading to the chase into the arctic. At this point, Walton resumes the narration and describes the final climax of the relationship between Frankenstein and his creation. The central theme of the story is the creation of life and the responsibility of the creator to his creation, as framed by the now-classic science fiction device of the artificial creation of life. Frankenstein, though the main character, could hardly be described as a hero in this narrative with his abandonment of the creature and self-centered actions, and the creature manages to illicit both sympathy from his lonely misery and horror with the lengths to which he will go to enact his revenge. Shelley does a fine job of taking the reader between these contradictions. I listened to the audio version read by Ralph Cosham, a favorite narrator of mine, and can certainly recommend Cosham's reading of the tale. Cosham's readings of the classics are always well done. Shelley's language will sound archaic to modern readers. However, if you can manage to get past that or you actually enjoy that style, Frankenstein is well worth reading. It has earned its place in popular culture and as a foundational tale in both the science fiction and horror genres. Do yourself a favor, and read the original Frankenstein. You'll find a lot more than the grunting, shambling monster of the movies. Shelley's creation is as alive, powerful, and intelligent as Frankenstein's.

Look, folks, I get that this is a classic. I get that it's gotten a LOT of attention of late for being one of the first science fiction novels ever written -- and by a female author, no less. I can appreciate that it's one of the founding books of a genre, and that the many Hollywood takes on this novel have altered it nearly beyond recognition. But... it's a tedious read. It's not BAD -- it's actually an interesting read for both the philosophical questions it raises and the startling differences between the original story and Hollywood's interpretation. But it's definitely a product of its time, and the florid prose and overwrought, melodramatic plot and characters make it a somewhat tedious read as well. The basic story of "Frankenstein" is well-known to many by now -- a "mad scientist" creates a monster and must destroy it before it in turn destroys all he loves. But that's not only largely inaccurate, it's only a fragment of what's going on. The "mad scientist," Victor Frankenstein, is actually a university student studying natural science, and he creates his artificial human and gives it life in an effort to cheat death... and is immediately repulsed by the hideous creature he's made. The creature, in turn, is actually an intelligent, well-spoken being who starts off kindly, only to be made bitter and vengeful by a world and a creator who all turn against him. And even as both creature and creator set out to destroy each other, one has to wonder -- who is the monster, the creation or the man who created him? The "Frankenstein" of this novel is vastly different from the many film and other interpretations over the years. There's very little horror here, and none of the campy horror we've come to expect from the cheesy Frankenstein films of the past. There's no Igor, no digging up of corpses, no torches and pitchforks, not even a laboratory in a haunted castle. Lightning doesn't play a role in bringing the creature to life (there's mentions of lightning and even an explanation of electricity early on, but that's it), and the creature (NOT named Frankenstein himself) speaks not only coherently but in an amazingly proper manner. It's fascinating to read and compare, but will probably disappoint horror fans expecting a cheesy-creepy read. The book also raises interesting philosophical questions -- responsibility toward what one creates, what makes a monster, and the perils of pursuing scientific advancements at all costs. Small wonder it endures in classroom curriculum... The prose of this book comes across as overwrought and melodramatic, however. The characters angst and whine a great deal throughout the book, which gets obnoxious after awhile, and everything seems to be overwritten to such a degree that I found myself going "get on with it already!" several times. Also, there's a random interlude where we get the backstory of a cottage-dwelling family that plays a tiny role in the plot, and feels like it was lifted from another book entirely and grafted in sloppily. As for Victor and the monster themselves... they're appropriately tragic and troubled, and make for an interesting "who's the real monster" discussion, but both end up pretty unsympathetic by the time the novel is over. "Frankenstein" is certainly an interesting read, especially if you watch a "Frankenstein" movie and compare it to the novel (has Hollywood considered making a more faithful adaptation at some point?). Read for entertainment purposes, however, it gets rather tedious, and will come across as a disappointment to anyone expecting an actually-chilling horror story. Still, it's a literary landmark, and deserves at least one read-through.

Readers will be surprised to read this nineteenth century "horror story," because the English woman Mary W. Shelley (1797-1851) did not write this book as it is shown in the many motion pictures that were made of it. She published this gothic tale, which many scholars see as the earliest version of a science fiction novel when she was only 21. Scholars think that she wrote it as an attack against the emerging industrial revolution, but perhaps, as we will see, it is more than that. The story is written in the delightful style of its time, like the mystery tale of the Englishman Wilke Collins, which was serialized in 1859-1860 and published in 1860, The Woman in White, which some scholars say is the first detective story, while others give the honor to Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849). Mary Shelley became the wife of the famous poet Percy Shelley after writing her novel. She subtitled it The Modern Prometheus. According to some but not all Greek myths, Prometheus was a giant who created people and latter brought them fire. It appears that the Prometheus in the tale is the creator Frankenstein, who was not a giant in height, but in intellect. Most people consider Prometheus a hero, but not Shelley. She thought of fire as being bad because it caused people to kill and eat animals and gave people more implements with which to wage war and murder people. Frankenstein tells the story to a man who saved him while he is pursuing the man he created. He warns the man not to pursue scientific goals that will harm humanity. The Shelley story is about an educated man of science who was born in Switzerland and educated in a German university, who is interested in helping people. Everyone who meets him likes him. He comes from an educated amicable family who love him, and he loves them. He searches for an answer to what is life. He wonders if he can create life, and succeeds in doing so. He creates an eight-foot man, who is never named in the novel. He is repulsed by the man he creates and thinks of him as a monster as soon as the man is alive. All people who later see his creation are also repulsed and this causes the man to hide and live alone and it accounts for the profound loneliness that the man feels. His creator becomes depressed at what he has done, rushes away from his lab, and is sick in bed for four months. He is Frankenstein. The unnamed man he created leaves. Frankenstein returns home from Germany and discovers that someone killed his younger brother. He is convinced that the man he created did it, and pursues him to kill him. He meets his creation and is unable to harm him because the man is larger and stronger than he. His creation tells Frankenstein that he killed his brother by mistake. The boy saw him, was disgusted at seeing him, and started shouting. All he did was place his hand over the boy's mouth. He tells how he has been traveling about for more than a year, found that every human despises him, and has become very lonely. He begs Frankenstein to make him a female companion because he, like the biblical Adam, can't live alone. Frankenstein agrees. However, when he finishes making the female he becomes frightened that two monsters, as he thinks of them, could harm mankind. So he destroys the female. The man he created is enraged and vows vengeance against Frankenstein for destroying his life. What happens to Frankenstein and the man he created, I will leave for readers to read and enjoy. Will the creation carry out his threat? If yes, how? Which of the two will outlive the other? What will the survivor do? Is it right to call Frankenstein's creation a monster because of the way he looks? Readers may also want to ask themselves: is Mary Shelly's pessimistic approach to scientific advances justified? Perhaps there is another interpretation of the story. It may be an examination with comments upon the creation of man. The first biblical creation Adam is unnamed, like Frankenstein's creation. Although most people think his name is Adam, the Hebrew word adam actually means "human." There is an ancient Jewish legend that when God decided to create this adam, the angels objected that people were not sufficiently good. This parallels the rejection of Frankenstein's creation by society. Like Frankenstein's creation, the adam was also lonely and wants a companion. Today, many people, like Frankenstein's creation feel alienated and lonely, and live a life without meaning. This is something to think about.

Robert Walton failed writer turned sailor, opens the story by writing to his sister Margaret. He is sailing far north, when the crew rescue Victor Frankenstein who is lost upon an ice flow. Victor is a broken man with a story to tell. Even if you haven't seen the movies, even if you haven't read the book, you're probably familiar with the concept of Frankenstein: a mad scientist sews a body together and restores life to dead limbs, creating a hideous monster. This book wasn't at all what I was expecting. After Victor's mother dies he sent away to university where he studies science and discovers how to reanimate the dead. He becomes obsessed with his science experiment shunning all social contact and working tirelessly on proving his theory right. This story has been so puffed up that I expected more from the reanimation scene. But to my surprise there was little or no detail on how Victor figured out the key to life, to my greater surprise, Victor is instantly horrified by his creation and for much of the story they are separate. Victor falls ill and the creature runs away. The monster winds up living in a pig sty attached to a cottage, where he watches, learns from, and grows to love the family that lives there. Meanwhile Victor is nursed back to health by a friend. By the time Victor is healthy, Frankenstein has been chased from his refuge. Victor is returning home to Geneva and the creature is hell bent on vengeance. This story was sadder than it was scary, and I admit I sympathized with the monster. The monster didn't have a choice, he was brought to life by an egomaniac who then rejected him. He struggled to survive, to find a family, but being hideous there was no one who could understand, no one who could love him. Everywhere he goes, he's met with hatred until he becomes the monster everyone thinks he is. A similar idea is displayed with Justine; accused of murder, she's eventually convinced to confess to a crime she didn't commit. It's an important concept: hate and ignorance breeds hate and violence. You have to wonder if Victor had tried to care for his creation, would his creation have turned out differently? I also want to point to female characters versus male characters in the storyline. In classic lit, it's pretty much expected not to expect a whole lot from the ladies. And at first glance, this follows the usual generalization. Women as beautiful, compliant, care takers. But take a closer look at the men in this story. First Robert Walton, who writes his sister complaining that he has no friends on the ship; he requires a male companion who is an intellectual equal. He's failed at being a writer, and he's on the brink of being a failed explorer, but he can't recognize that someone else on the crew might add value to his own life. Victor Frankenstein spends most of his time talking about how brilliant he is, and how no one can ever compare... But he consistently fails. He created a monster but failed to control it. He watched as a maid is punished for crime she didn't commit, failed to tell the truth and free her, somehow managed to make her execution all about himself. Despite being intellectually superior he was incapable of understanding that his creature was planning to make Victor suffer and Victor failed to protect those closest to him even after he'd been warned... Now take another look at the women. Elizabeth takes over the mother figure role when Frankenstein's mother dies. She's consistently willing to sacrifice her happiness for the good of her family. She doesn't try to be a good mother, she just is. Then there is Justine who fled from an abusive mother to help take care of the Frankenstein family in their time of need, and later returned to her mother, when her mother needs help. There is also Saffie the Arabian woman, born to a rich father, who refused to join a harem and bravely fled from a patriarchal society. She ran to a country whose language she couldn't speak, in hopes of marrying the man who maybe loved her, to help care for the family that promised her free will if they had nothing else to offer. Although the male characters are centerstage, the female characters are doing brave things successfully, while the males flounder. What does it say that the failures of man are broadcast loudly while the successes of the women are merely glanced at? A study of snobbish male ego, maybe, or maybe it's a reminder that women are hardly inferior. I also thought it was interesting that the monster, was the only male character who considered a female to be a suitable companion equal to himself. That's right, The Monster, whose presence no one in their right minds could bare, and his only request was for a lady friend. Again I wonder: How would the monster think and act had Victor raised him? Victor, who even at Death's door, could not put away his sense of self importance and accept friendship... Overall I enjoyed this read, it was surprising and I'm glad I finally got around to this story. I suspect this is one of those stories where you see and understand more, the more times you read it

I read it once when I was 12, once at around 20, and a few years ago at around age 30. I went into it thinking it would just be a classic horror story, but it actually focuses a lot on loneliness, ambition, the consequences of people’s actions, flaws of man, and the "monsters" we create. Even though the writing style is older, I still found it engaging, and the themes feel surprisingly relevant today. It is one of those books that stays in your mind after you finish reading it.

It’s a classic story about misery, badness, love, grief. If you are looking for learn about human feeling, this is a great reading.

pen stain on the front cover it felt like a used book very flimsy and creases on the front and spine of the book

Shelley’s novel is transgressive in its content, and more transgressive in its nature – written by a female (at age 19!) under a pseudonym to penetrate the public approval. This novel explores human emotions, good and bad, in response to the ‘Other’ in true gothic fashion. The grunting, green-faced, bolt-bearing monster depicted by film and media is a pale imitation of Shelley’s masterpiece – but the original is a 'blue-print' for all monster creations. Despite being a cautionary tale on how nature, which is essentially good, can be corrupted by ill treatment – contemporary depictions have departed from the original characterization of an extremely well-spoken monster with immense speed and grace. PLOT (4.5/5) An intelligent and ambitious young student indulges a moment of thoughtless scientific passion and creates life. Horrified at his creation, Victor Frankenstein shuns the creature and attempts to discard it from his life and thoughts. The creature, however, is lost in an unkind world and seeks affection, and upon rejection then seeks revenge. STUDENT NOTES (5/5) + Although many reviewers note The York Notes version usefulness at GCSE, I found in instrumental at helping me receive an A* at A-Level as well: a) The (character, theme and quotation) analysis is brilliant, clear and precise. b) The exam questions, key quotations and chapter summaries were invaluable c) The responses to the text, both modern and those from Shelley's contemporaries are invaluable (especially the feminist and psychoanalytical essays). CHARACTERS (5/5) + Both main characters are easy to empathise with despite being completely at heads – both Victor (the ambitious scientist who realises his overreach and attempts to redeem himself) and the monster (whose fragile psyche is birthed from rejection) STYLE (4/5) + The original, but nevertheless still one of the most remarkable science fiction stories ever written, its relevance persists today as scientific discovery journeys further than before into ethical ambiguity (GM food, AI, cloning) and discrimination still exists in all its forms. + Typically Romantic and beautifully descriptive prose, particularly regarding the natural world. - The book begins very slowly with excessive detail, and the epistolary form makes it hard to convey any sense of suspense. But if you persist despite this you will be drawn in to Shelley's world.

Recommend it rather than mid-movies

quality of the books are too good No creases at all, Even product was delivered on time, Totally satisfied.