Ok, it's time someone said this: Frankenstein is a terrible story. I absolutely hated it. Poor story, bad characters, just dull as hell, and really stupid. Anyone else hated the story?
I actually liked Frankenstein's monster. Granted, some of the people in Dr. Frankenstein's life were forgettable and/or detestable, but I tried not to let it take away from the story. The way the story is told would be my biggest criticism, as I just like a story to be told straight forward, as opposed to reading letters describing a testimonial told from one man to another to his sister. Overall though, the characters work.
Well, I would agree Frankenstein is a very interesting and sad character. I just think the overall story was poorly written.
I've never been a fan of the epistolary writing style (telling a story through a series of letters sent by the POV character). I just find it to be a very dull form. If you can look past that, the story becomes easier to deal with.
We all like different things, I personally rather liked Frankenstein. Though the letter's at the beginning where a bit dull, the actual story is written in the normal style of the 1800s, and I find that writing style rather entertaining.
While Frankenstein isn't one of my favorite books of all time, it is one of the more enjoyable that I was forced to read at school. I agree though that the way the story was written through letters is not the best way to tell a tale.
I've never liked the Frankenstein story. To me, it never really adequately conveyed the emotional and personal impact of Frankenstein and his monster's actions. I thought it was boring.
In the "Worst book you were forced to read" thread, I did say Frankenstein! I agree, it is a "classic" that is so dated, dry, and cliched, it's ridiculous. I would say I am a very forgiving person, but I believe Frankenstein should only be read to see what does NOT qualify as good storytelling. And the problem does not lie in the style. Pride and Prejudice, for example, though an earlier book, is told in the same dense prose. However, the characters of that book actually are three-dimensional, have some spark of vitality. Their flaws are complex. Frankenstein lacks all of these things---it is not just bad because it's a product of the time. It's bad because it's BAD.
Ouch. Damning testimony. I have the first two books now of Dean Koontz's "Frankenstein" trilogy. Despite the fact that I find Koontz to be hit-or-miss in terms of enjoyable storytelling, I'm curious to see what he offers to this classic character.
Ouch. You know, I have to read it this summer... Rabid: Koontz's Frankenstein is pretty good. The main characters start out as the cliche private investigators, but they develop nicely. Even so, I found myself skipping the PI/cop scenes to read more about Deucalion (the monster's new moniker). There are also some enjoyable characters such as Dr. Frankenstein's new "wife" and one of his intentionally disabled subjects.. Unfortunately, I have never been able to find the third book in the "trilogy", and somehow I doubt it has ever made an appearance.
I don't think the third book has been published yet. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's due out until at least the fall.
*plucks Book Two off shelf* Maybe you're right... after all, City of NIght was published only in 2005. But I could have sworn I saw an add for it to come out last year or so... Maybe I was thinking of the add for Book Two in the back of Book One. ...did that make sense?
I agree here. I personally loved the style, and the subject matter. It was so incredibly tragic! You have this monster of a human being, who hasn't even been given a name, and the one thing he desires in the world is to to be loved. His own creator, the man that basically fathered him, is repulsed by him. It's really a very human story, we all want to be loved and we all face some sort of rejection.
