Frankenstein's monster is misunderstood hero
I really enjoyed reading Mary Shelley’s "Frankenstein," and I recommend it to anyone out there in the reading audience with a taste for a classic horror tale.
I’ve owned a copy of this book for years, but had never gotten around to reading it. When I saw it listed at No. 32 on the Horror Writers Association’s Recommended Reading List, I figured that it was time to pull the book off my dusty shelves to see what all of the fuss was about.
Like just about everyone who hasn’t been living under a rock their entire lives, I knew the basic story: Victor Frankenstein is a brilliant scientist, who makes a man out of patchwork parts and brings him to life. The resulting monster runs amok and causes a lot of trouble for Victor, his family and just about everyone else who crosses his path.
After reading the book though, I was struck by just how different Shelley’s tale is from all of the Frankenstein movies that I’d seen.
First off, just about every Frankenstein movie I’ve ever seen, includes a scene in which the monster is strapped onto some sort of metal contraption, then cranked up to the top of castle tower, where his is struck by lighting and brought life through the awesome power of high-voltage electricity. There’s nothing like this in the book. In fact, there are very few details about how Victor constructs the creature or how he brings the monster to life.
Another common scene from the movie version of Frankenstein shows Victor and a hunchbacked assistant robbing cemeteries to get spare parts for the construction of his monster. There’s nothing like this in the book. Victor works alone in the book and he doesn’t visit a cemetery once. The book doesn’t make clear how he creates the monster and some parts of the book indicate that he somehow make the monster from scratch.
Another popular idea from the movies suggests that the monsters turns out bad after receiving the brain of a former murderer or some such criminal. If not for this bad brain, the monster would have been OK, maybe just a little ugly. Again, there’s nothing like this in the book. His brain is perfectly fine.
Also in the movies, the monster is portrayed as a square-headed, stiff-armed, heavy-footed creature with verbal abilities that rank just above phrases like "Mmmmm!" or "Hulk, smash!" Unlike the movies, the monster in the book is extremely intelligent and sensitive, although grotesque in appearance. By imitating those around him, the monster masters Victor’s native language and teaches himself to read and write. In fact, he teaches himself to read by studying Milton’s "Paradise Lost" and Plutarch’s "Lives." He only turns bad after being mistreated by his creator and the other people he encounters.
From the outset, it’s obvious that the most twisted person in the story isn’t the monster at all, but his creator, Victor. I think it’s a shame that the monster is universally represented in the minds of the public as an oafish and dimwitted creature with bolts in his neck and green skin. The monster in Shelley’s book is far more interesting.
In the end, the book was fun to read, and I suspect that it will remain popular for as long as men and women enjoy reading landmark works of fiction. On a scale of 10, I give the book a 7.5. Go out and pick up a copy today. I think you’ll agree.
I’ve owned a copy of this book for years, but had never gotten around to reading it. When I saw it listed at No. 32 on the Horror Writers Association’s Recommended Reading List, I figured that it was time to pull the book off my dusty shelves to see what all of the fuss was about.
Like just about everyone who hasn’t been living under a rock their entire lives, I knew the basic story: Victor Frankenstein is a brilliant scientist, who makes a man out of patchwork parts and brings him to life. The resulting monster runs amok and causes a lot of trouble for Victor, his family and just about everyone else who crosses his path.
After reading the book though, I was struck by just how different Shelley’s tale is from all of the Frankenstein movies that I’d seen.
First off, just about every Frankenstein movie I’ve ever seen, includes a scene in which the monster is strapped onto some sort of metal contraption, then cranked up to the top of castle tower, where his is struck by lighting and brought life through the awesome power of high-voltage electricity. There’s nothing like this in the book. In fact, there are very few details about how Victor constructs the creature or how he brings the monster to life.
Another common scene from the movie version of Frankenstein shows Victor and a hunchbacked assistant robbing cemeteries to get spare parts for the construction of his monster. There’s nothing like this in the book. Victor works alone in the book and he doesn’t visit a cemetery once. The book doesn’t make clear how he creates the monster and some parts of the book indicate that he somehow make the monster from scratch.
Another popular idea from the movies suggests that the monsters turns out bad after receiving the brain of a former murderer or some such criminal. If not for this bad brain, the monster would have been OK, maybe just a little ugly. Again, there’s nothing like this in the book. His brain is perfectly fine.
Also in the movies, the monster is portrayed as a square-headed, stiff-armed, heavy-footed creature with verbal abilities that rank just above phrases like "Mmmmm!" or "Hulk, smash!" Unlike the movies, the monster in the book is extremely intelligent and sensitive, although grotesque in appearance. By imitating those around him, the monster masters Victor’s native language and teaches himself to read and write. In fact, he teaches himself to read by studying Milton’s "Paradise Lost" and Plutarch’s "Lives." He only turns bad after being mistreated by his creator and the other people he encounters.
From the outset, it’s obvious that the most twisted person in the story isn’t the monster at all, but his creator, Victor. I think it’s a shame that the monster is universally represented in the minds of the public as an oafish and dimwitted creature with bolts in his neck and green skin. The monster in Shelley’s book is far more interesting.
In the end, the book was fun to read, and I suspect that it will remain popular for as long as men and women enjoy reading landmark works of fiction. On a scale of 10, I give the book a 7.5. Go out and pick up a copy today. I think you’ll agree.
posted by Lee Peacock at 4:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home