Not what I was expecting, 26 Sep 2008
Anyone who thought that Frankenstein was the tall, slow, bolt-headed monster from the films will be very surprised by this gothic/horror story.
But, hopefully, like me, you will be pleasantly surprised. The story is about a young scientist named Frankenstein who becomes interested in creating life. He attempts to make a man out of acquired body parts. The result is a large, disfigured man. This "monster" is actually a sensitive and real human being. It is only after rejection by his creator that he starts to become more of a monster figure. 'Am I to be thought the only criminal, when all human kind sinned against me? I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion, to be spurned, and kicked, and trampled on.' This is the thought process that comes from rejection leads to the monstrous image. Although, I will not elaborate on this as it would spoil the story.
However, I will say that the key ideas in the book are definitely to do with how much power man should have and the problems caused by man's egotistical nature. If you do decide to read this book I am sure you will find that it is far more than a gothic tale or a horror story. It is infact more again to a heartbreaking tragedy.


False Advertising by Penguin?, 22 Aug 2008
Don't make the same mistake as me, and think the book shown in the 'Search Inside' facility is the book you get. It turns out this shows a more expensive penguin edition, the rather scruffy one I got didn't have the first 58 pages shown in the contents.

Poor show Penguin - 3 stars only, for cheating!

Focus on Emotional Tragedy and The Personal Responsibility of The Scientist, 04 Aug 2008
This book is a "must read" for all science fiction / horror lovers, as you will be able to, as previously pointed out by other reviewers, trace the roots and themes of the genre back to its beginnings.

The depth of the book, however, lies in the poignant questions Shelley raises about scientific discovery and creation. These issues are as valid today as they were at the time and have been literary motifs ever since. Shelley's discussion of these themes makes this book a classic, and as such it should be understood.

If you are only familiar with Frankenstein's monster through film adaptations, you will discover an entirely different story, depicting the monster as a tragic and unloved hero, who turns into a brute following the betrayal by his creator, Victor Frankienstein.

Shelley's story centres around the emotional tragedy endured by the monster rather than on the depiction of his crimes or his outward appearance. In this context, we have to mention that the reader does not even find out how Frankenstein assembled his monster or how he infused him with life. This aspect of the story is entirely left to the reader's imagination.


Interesting, 20 Apr 2008
I don't know why I put off reading this book for so long, in my mind I imagined this to be some standard gothic horror with a monster chasing civilians but the reality was much different. The book is far more complex, the characters more complicated and the idea of creation rebelling against creator throwing up various allegories. The book does admittedly take some getting into, but it is worth persevering with as it rapidly gets better.

Frankenstein - Immoral or Kinky?, 28 Jan 2008
Although Frankenstein is undoubtedly enjoyable due to its successful attempts at being a novel tale, superbly written and carefully considered; the real fascination and pleasure of the book is to be gained from modern analysis.
Since the birth of Freudian psycho-analysis came into mainstream literary criticism, we must question Shelly's true inspiration behind writing a horror novel and the curious characters within it.
It is clear that what lies on the surface of the tale (A maddened, genius scientist creating a creature, playing the role of God and suffering the consequences) is just the starting point for literary interpretation.
I would surmise the tale is a physical apparition of a polymerization of her super-ego formulating a will to over come nature, combined with a lust for a 'large powerful man' to create the menacing daemon of her work.

Not what I was expecting, 26 Sep 2008
Anyone who thought that Frankenstein was the tall, slow, bolt-headed monster from the films will be very surprised by this gothic/horror story.
But, hopefully, like me, you will be pleasantly surprised. The story is about a young scientist named Frankenstein who becomes interested in creating life. He attempts to make a man out of acquired body parts. The result is a large, disfigured man. This "monster" is actually a sensitive and real human being. It is only after rejection by his creator that he starts to become more of a monster figure. 'Am I to be thought the only criminal, when all human kind sinned against me? I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion, to be spurned, and kicked, and trampled on.' This is the thought process that comes from rejection leads to the monstrous image. Although, I will not elaborate on this as it would spoil the story.
However, I will say that the key ideas in the book are definitely to do with how much power man should have and the problems caused by man's egotistical nature. If you do decide to read this book I am sure you will find that it is far more than a gothic tale or a horror story. It is infact more again to a heartbreaking tragedy.


False Advertising by Penguin?, 22 Aug 2008
Don't make the same mistake as me, and think the book shown in the 'Search Inside' facility is the book you get. It turns out this shows a more expensive penguin edition, the rather scruffy one I got didn't have the first 58 pages shown in the contents.

Poor show Penguin - 3 stars only, for cheating!

Focus on Emotional Tragedy and The Personal Responsibility of The Scientist, 04 Aug 2008
This book is a "must read" for all science fiction / horror lovers, as you will be able to, as previously pointed out by other reviewers, trace the roots and themes of the genre back to its beginnings.

The depth of the book, however, lies in the poignant questions Shelley raises about scientific discovery and creation. These issues are as valid today as they were at the time and have been literary motifs ever since. Shelley's discussion of these themes makes this book a classic, and as such it should be understood.

If you are only familiar with Frankenstein's monster through film adaptations, you will discover an entirely different story, depicting the monster as a tragic and unloved hero, who turns into a brute following the betrayal by his creator, Victor Frankienstein.

Shelley's story centres around the emotional tragedy endured by the monster rather than on the depiction of his crimes or his outward appearance. In this context, we have to mention that the reader does not even find out how Frankenstein assembled his monster or how he infused him with life. This aspect of the story is entirely left to the reader's imagination.


Interesting, 20 Apr 2008
I don't know why I put off reading this book for so long, in my mind I imagined this to be some standard gothic horror with a monster chasing civilians but the reality was much different. The book is far more complex, the characters more complicated and the idea of creation rebelling against creator throwing up various allegories. The book does admittedly take some getting into, but it is worth persevering with as it rapidly gets better.

Frankenstein - Immoral or Kinky?, 28 Jan 2008
Although Frankenstein is undoubtedly enjoyable due to its successful attempts at being a novel tale, superbly written and carefully considered; the real fascination and pleasure of the book is to be gained from modern analysis.
Since the birth of Freudian psycho-analysis came into mainstream literary criticism, we must question Shelly's true inspiration behind writing a horror novel and the curious characters within it.
It is clear that what lies on the surface of the tale (A maddened, genius scientist creating a creature, playing the role of God and suffering the consequences) is just the starting point for literary interpretation.
I would surmise the tale is a physical apparition of a polymerization of her super-ego formulating a will to over come nature, combined with a lust for a 'large powerful man' to create the menacing daemon of her work.

Science and desire, 30 Aug 2008
Inevitably dated by style and pace, not to mention a somewhat heavy-handed way with analogy, this remains a touchstone for gothic and speculative fiction. Any horror comes purely from the internal dialogues of Victor Frankenstein himself, and from the taunts of his creation, rather than from the kind of vivid and bloody description that is the mark of more contemporary scary stuff.

Some interesting questions rear their heads about science and desire, inception and revenge, not to mention some seemingly unintended ones - for a book by the daughter of an early anarchist and an early feminist, both women and politics are surprisingly absent. But worth a look.

Focus on Emotional Tragedy and The Personal Responsibility of The Scientist, 04 Aug 2008
This book is a "must read" for all science fiction / horror lovers, as you will be able to, as previously pointed out by other reviewers, trace the roots and themes of the genre back to its beginnings.

The depth of the book, however, lies in the poignant questions Shelley raises about scientific discovery and creation. These issues are as valid today as they were at the time and have been literary motifs ever since. Shelley's discussion of these themes makes this book a classic, and as such it should be understood.

If you are only familiar with Frankenstein's monster through film adaptations, you will discover an entirely different story, depicting the monster as a tragic and unloved hero, who turns into a brute following the betrayal by his creator, Victor Frankienstein.

Shelley's story centres around the emotional tragedy endured by the monster rather than on the depiction of his crimes or his outward appearance. In this context, we have to mention that the reader does not even find out how Frankenstein assembled his monster or how he infused him with life. This aspect of the story is entirely left to the reader's imagination.







"The author at once of my existence and of its unspeakable torments", 05 Mar 2008
This is a review of the Oxford World's Classics edition, edited and introduced by Marilyn Butler of Exeter College, Oxford. She explains in her note on the text why the 1818 version is preferred - "it delivers an original, specific and profound fable about the modern world in conditions of social change" - rather than the usual published text of the amended 1831 edition. I agree that the original edition has a raw edge, a directness, and a refusal to concede to societal norms that is not so prominent in the later massaged text.

I came to the novel with an open mind, but with an appreciation that Hollywood had cemented the story as a classic of gothic horror. And yet the monsters tale of his `adventures' with the de Lacey family, for example, seemed worlds away from the `traditional' tale as told by American cinema. (Hence, presumably, Kenneth Branagh's 1994 adaptation bearing the conscious title "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein".)

The novel is very well-written and conceived. It is interesting for its literary-historical and scientific context, but of far more interest to me are the philosophical issues that it (unconsciously?) raises. It is geographically incoherent in places, as is the plot, but plot is not really the reason for this novel, is it?

The actual physical creation of the monster is, surprisingly, sparsely described, covering barely two paragraphs, and even then only a vague illustration is given. Throughout the novel, there are only indistinct allusions to his form. Captain Walton, for example, merely says that he was "gigantic in stature, yet uncouth and distorted in his proportions. ... his face was concealed by long locks of ragged hair; but one vast hand was extended, in colour and apparent texture like that of a mummy".

Frankenstein's rejection of his creation so soon after having given life to it - indeed, at the very point of giving life to it - after so determined and intense a devotion to the cause, seems to me to mirror the immense shame and repugnance that civilisation can inculcate at the moment of sexual orgasm in `inappropriate circumstances'. Or, given the gender of the book's author, perhaps a more relevant analogy would be giving birth to a child conceived in shameful circumstances. His rejection of his act is absolute and unyielding. He does not return to his studies to rectify his mistakes in the creation of another, or seek to modify the result that he has created. Instead, he turns his back and falls into a great depression.

Meanwhile the monster plays the part of an extraterrestrial. Initially completely alien to his surroundings, Mary Shelley uses this position to allow him to comment as an outsider on the nature of humanity. The monster says how the de Lacey cottage was "the school in which I studied human nature." Thus, he who was the experiment has now become the experimenter. "Perhaps [he remarks], if my first introduction to humanity had been made by a young soldier, burning for glory and slaughter, I should have been imbued with different sensations", than those provided by the de Laceys and their humanistic literature.

On one level the story is akin to `Beauty and the Beast', `Cyrano de Bergerac', the `Elephant Man', or `E.T.'. But why did not Frankenstein simply learn to accept his creation? He is the creator, he is the monster's god. Is this a metaphor on man's place in God's creation? (At one point, he compares his situation explicitly with Adam.) Is this a comment on the Christian religion, when the monster describes Frankenstein as "the author at once of my existence and of its unspeakable torments" in a time of upheaval and speculation in post-Enlightenment but pre-Darwinian educated circles, when deism was becoming a reputable opinion? The monster again: "The fallen angel becomes a malignant devil."

Marilyn Butler's 42-page introduction, is of the usual high standard that one comes to expect from this publisher. She details Mary Shelley's beginnings, her family and her relationship with her husband. She goes on to describe their relationship with the radical science of the period in which they lived. She explains the ghost-story competition context from which the novel arose. There then follows a critique of the novel itself.
There are three appendices to this Oxford World's Classics edition. The first is Mary Shelley's preface to the amended 1831 edition, where she gives details about the inspiration for the tale and the story behind its creation. The second details the changes made to the text, or rather denotes the additions thereto but not (for some reason) the omissions. ... lists these changes and the reasons for them. The third and final appendix is an extract from an 1820 edition of the Quarterly Review, a nineteenth-century Tory version of the London Review of Books. The extract is not a review of Mary Shelley's `Frankenstein', but is principally concerned with the lectures of William Lawrence FRS and whether the life-force and greater mental capacities of humans (compared to other animals) is inherited or `super-added'. It is these extras - and the use of the 1818 text - that make this edition superior to others.

As with all reprints of classic works of literature, I recommend that the so-called introduction (which is really more of a commentary) is best read after the novel.



Evocative creation of a mood of bleak despair, 18 Feb 2007
This is primarily a novel that sets out to create an atmosphere of fear, horror and despair and succeeds admirably in so doing. Mary Shelley must have had an appalling dream but she brought it to life in wonderful, evocative language and at such a young age (only 19 when she wrote the book). The monster is so different from the monster of the films. Here he is no lumbering, stupid brute, but an agile, resourceful and calculating creature who can and does conduct a deep and thoughtful dialogue with his creator when explaining his background story. But at the same time the monster carries out horrible murders of Frankenstein's nearest and dearest and these deaths are shocking when they happen. The science is almost non-existent and we never find out how Frankenstein creates the monster nor indeed what the monster really looks like other than being repulsively hideous. But that is not the purpose of the book, which is to set a mood and raise philosophical questions about the purpose of scientific discovery. And Mary Shelley does this brilliantly.

Surprisingly, I enjoyed it, 11 Jan 2007
I normally steer well away of female novelists finding them too sentimental for my palate. However, Shelley's story, albeit far-fetched, is rich in imagery and the diction used is admirable. There appears to be some doubt as to whether the final version was "improved" by Messrs. Shelley and Byron, but I think that would be unfair on Mary.

I think it fully deserves its place among the classics.

Not what I was expecting, 26 Sep 2008
Anyone who thought that Frankenstein was the tall, slow, bolt-headed monster from the films will be very surprised by this gothic/horror story.
But, hopefully, like me, you will be pleasantly surprised. The story is about a young scientist named Frankenstein who becomes interested in creating life. He attempts to make a man out of acquired body parts. The result is a large, disfigured man. This "monster" is actually a sensitive and real human being. It is only after rejection by his creator that he starts to become more of a monster figure. 'Am I to be thought the only criminal, when all human kind sinned against me? I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion, to be spurned, and kicked, and trampled on.' This is the thought process that comes from rejection leads to the monstrous image. Although, I will not elaborate on this as it would spoil the story.
However, I will say that the key ideas in the book are definitely to do with how much power man should have and the problems caused by man's egotistical nature. If you do decide to read this book I am sure you will find that it is far more than a gothic tale or a horror story. It is infact more again to a heartbreaking tragedy.


False Advertising by Penguin?, 22 Aug 2008
Don't make the same mistake as me, and think the book shown in the 'Search Inside' facility is the book you get. It turns out this shows a more expensive penguin edition, the rather scruffy one I got didn't have the first 58 pages shown in the contents.

Poor show Penguin - 3 stars only, for cheating!

Focus on Emotional Tragedy and The Personal Responsibility of The Scientist, 04 Aug 2008
This book is a "must read" for all science fiction / horror lovers, as you will be able to, as previously pointed out by other reviewers, trace the roots and themes of the genre back to its beginnings.

The depth of the book, however, lies in the poignant questions Shelley raises about scientific discovery and creation. These issues are as valid today as they were at the time and have been literary motifs ever since. Shelley's discussion of these themes makes this book a classic, and as such it should be understood.

If you are only familiar with Frankenstein's monster through film adaptations, you will discover an entirely different story, depicting the monster as a tragic and unloved hero, who turns into a brute following the betrayal by his creator, Victor Frankienstein.

Shelley's story centres around the emotional tragedy endured by the monster rather than on the depiction of his crimes or his outward appearance. In this context, we have to mention that the reader does not even find out how Frankenstein assembled his monster or how he infused him with life. This aspect of the story is entirely left to the reader's imagination.


Interesting, 20 Apr 2008
I don't know why I put off reading this book for so long, in my mind I imagined this to be some standard gothic horror with a monster chasing civilians but the reality was much different. The book is far more complex, the characters more complicated and the idea of creation rebelling against creator throwing up various allegories. The book does admittedly take some getting into, but it is worth persevering with as it rapidly gets better.

Frankenstein - Immoral or Kinky?, 28 Jan 2008
Although Frankenstein is undoubtedly enjoyable due to its successful attempts at being a novel tale, superbly written and carefully considered; the real fascination and pleasure of the book is to be gained from modern analysis.
Since the birth of Freudian psycho-analysis came into mainstream literary criticism, we must question Shelly's true inspiration behind writing a horror novel and the curious characters within it.
It is clear that what lies on the surface of the tale (A maddened, genius scientist creating a creature, playing the role of God and suffering the consequences) is just the starting point for literary interpretation.
I would surmise the tale is a physical apparition of a polymerization of her super-ego formulating a will to over come nature, combined with a lust for a 'large powerful man' to create the menacing daemon of her work.

Science and desire, 30 Aug 2008
Inevitably dated by style and pace, not to mention a somewhat heavy-handed way with analogy, this remains a touchstone for gothic and speculative fiction. Any horror comes purely from the internal dialogues of Victor Frankenstein himself, and from the taunts of his creation, rather than from the kind of vivid and bloody description that is the mark of more contemporary scary stuff.

Some interesting questions rear their heads about science and desire, inception and revenge, not to mention some seemingly unintended ones - for a book by the daughter of an early anarchist and an early feminist, both women and politics are surprisingly absent. But worth a look.

Focus on Emotional Tragedy and The Personal Responsibility of The Scientist, 04 Aug 2008
This book is a "must read" for all science fiction / horror lovers, as you will be able to, as previously pointed out by other reviewers, trace the roots and themes of the genre back to its beginnings.

The depth of the book, however, lies in the poignant questions Shelley raises about scientific discovery and creation. These issues are as valid today as they were at the time and have been literary motifs ever since. Shelley's discussion of these themes makes this book a classic, and as such it should be understood.

If you are only familiar with Frankenstein's monster through film adaptations, you will discover an entirely different story, depicting the monster as a tragic and unloved hero, who turns into a brute following the betrayal by his creator, Victor Frankienstein.

Shelley's story centres around the emotional tragedy endured by the monster rather than on the depiction of his crimes or his outward appearance. In this context, we have to mention that the reader does not even find out how Frankenstein assembled his monster or how he infused him with life. This aspect of the story is entirely left to the reader's imagination.







"The author at once of my existence and of its unspeakable torments", 05 Mar 2008
This is a review of the Oxford World's Classics edition, edited and introduced by Marilyn Butler of Exeter College, Oxford. She explains in her note on the text why the 1818 version is preferred - "it delivers an original, specific and profound fable about the modern world in conditions of social change" - rather than the usual published text of the amended 1831 edition. I agree that the original edition has a raw edge, a directness, and a refusal to concede to societal norms that is not so prominent in the later massaged text.

I came to the novel with an open mind, but with an appreciation that Hollywood had cemented the story as a classic of gothic horror. And yet the monsters tale of his `adventures' with the de Lacey family, for example, seemed worlds away from the `traditional' tale as told by American cinema. (Hence, presumably, Kenneth Branagh's 1994 adaptation bearing the conscious title "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein".)

The novel is very well-written and conceived. It is interesting for its literary-historical and scientific context, but of far more interest to me are the philosophical issues that it (unconsciously?) raises. It is geographically incoherent in places, as is the plot, but plot is not really the reason for this novel, is it?

The actual physical creation of the monster is, surprisingly, sparsely described, covering barely two paragraphs, and even then only a vague illustration is given. Throughout the novel, there are only indistinct allusions to his form. Captain Walton, for example, merely says that he was "gigantic in stature, yet uncouth and distorted in his proportions. ... his face was concealed by long locks of ragged hair; but one vast hand was extended, in colour and apparent texture like that of a mummy".

Frankenstein's rejection of his creation so soon after having given life to it - indeed, at the very point of giving life to it - after so determined and intense a devotion to the cause, seems to me to mirror the immense shame and repugnance that civilisation can inculcate at the moment of sexual orgasm in `inappropriate circumstances'. Or, given the gender of the book's author, perhaps a more relevant analogy would be giving birth to a child conceived in shameful circumstances. His rejection of his act is absolute and unyielding. He does not return to his studies to rectify his mistakes in the creation of another, or seek to modify the result that he has created. Instead, he turns his back and falls into a great depression.

Meanwhile the monster plays the part of an extraterrestrial. Initially completely alien to his surroundings, Mary Shelley uses this position to allow him to comment as an outsider on the nature of humanity. The monster says how the de Lacey cottage was "the school in which I studied human nature." Thus, he who was the experiment has now become the experimenter. "Perhaps [he remarks], if my first introduction to humanity had been made by a young soldier, burning for glory and slaughter, I should have been imbued with different sensations", than those provided by the de Laceys and their humanistic literature.

On one level the story is akin to `Beauty and the Beast', `Cyrano de Bergerac', the `Elephant Man', or `E.T.'. But why did not Frankenstein simply learn to accept his creation? He is the creator, he is the monster's god. Is this a metaphor on man's place in God's creation? (At one point, he compares his situation explicitly with Adam.) Is this a comment on the Christian religion, when the monster describes Frankenstein as "the author at once of my existence and of its unspeakable torments" in a time of upheaval and speculation in post-Enlightenment but pre-Darwinian educated circles, when deism was becoming a reputable opinion? The monster again: "The fallen angel becomes a malignant devil."

Marilyn Butler's 42-page introduction, is of the usual high standard that one comes to expect from this publisher. She details Mary Shelley's beginnings, her family and her relationship with her husband. She goes on to describe their relationship with the radical science of the period in which they lived. She explains the ghost-story competition context from which the novel arose. There then follows a critique of the novel itself.
There are three appendices to this Oxford World's Classics edition. The first is Mary Shelley's preface to the amended 1831 edition, where she gives details about the inspiration for the tale and the story behind its creation. The second details the changes made to the text, or rather denotes the additions thereto but not (for some reason) the omissions. ... lists these changes and the reasons for them. The third and final appendix is an extract from an 1820 edition of the Quarterly Review, a nineteenth-century Tory version of the London Review of Books. The extract is not a review of Mary Shelley's `Frankenstein', but is principally concerned with the lectures of William Lawrence FRS and whether the life-force and greater mental capacities of humans (compared to other animals) is inherited or `super-added'. It is these extras - and the use of the 1818 text - that make this edition superior to others.

As with all reprints of classic works of literature, I recommend that the so-called introduction (which is really more of a commentary) is best read after the novel.



Evocative creation of a mood of bleak despair, 18 Feb 2007
This is primarily a novel that sets out to create an atmosphere of fear, horror and despair and succeeds admirably in so doing. Mary Shelley must have had an appalling dream but she brought it to life in wonderful, evocative language and at such a young age (only 19 when she wrote the book). The monster is so different from the monster of the films. Here he is no lumbering, stupid brute, but an agile, resourceful and calculating creature who can and does conduct a deep and thoughtful dialogue with his creator when explaining his background story. But at the same time the monster carries out horrible murders of Frankenstein's nearest and dearest and these deaths are shocking when they happen. The science is almost non-existent and we never find out how Frankenstein creates the monster nor indeed what the monster really looks like other than being repulsively hideous. But that is not the purpose of the book, which is to set a mood and raise philosophical questions about the purpose of scientific discovery. And Mary Shelley does this brilliantly.

Surprisingly, I enjoyed it, 11 Jan 2007
I normally steer well away of female novelists finding them too sentimental for my palate. However, Shelley's story, albeit far-fetched, is rich in imagery and the diction used is admirable. There appears to be some doubt as to whether the final version was "improved" by Messrs. Shelley and Byron, but I think that would be unfair on Mary.

I think it fully deserves its place among the classics.

Focus on Emotional Tragedy and The Personal Responsibility of The Scientist, 04 Aug 2008
This book is a "must read" for all science fiction / horror lovers, as you will be able to, as previously pointed out by other reviewers, trace the roots and themes of the genre back to its beginnings.

The depth of the book, however, lies in the poignant questions Shelley raises about scientific discovery and creation. These issues are as valid today as they were at the time and have been literary motifs ever since. Shelley's discussion of these themes makes this book a classic, and as such it should be understood.

If you are only familiar with Frankenstein's monster through film adaptations, you will discover an entirely different story, depicting the monster as a tragic and unloved hero, who turns into a brute following the betrayal by his creator, Victor Frankienstein.

Shelley's story centres around the emotional tragedy endured by the monster rather than on the depiction of his crimes or his outward appearance. In this context, we have to mention that the reader does not even find out how Frankenstein assembled his monster or how he infused him with life. This aspect of the story is entirely left to the reader's imagination.


A Long Day's Journey Into Horror, 14 Sep 2007
If you like horror, you owe it to yourself to read this book from the beginnings of the genre. You will enjoy seeing the themes in Frankenstein repeated in other horror novels that you will read in the future. The book and the movie have essentially nothing in common, so assume that you do not know the story yet if you have only seen the movie.

If you do not like horror, you probably won't like the book very much at all.

The story opens in the frozen Arctic wastes during an sea-going expedition to find a passage through the ice to the East. Aboard the ship after a strange meeting, Frankenstein tells his story. As a young man he wanted to make a splash in the sciences, and invented a way to create life. Having done so, he became estranged from his new being with significant consequences for Frankenstein and his creation. The two interact closely throughout the book, like twin brothers in one sense and like Creator and creation in another sense.

This book presents significant challenges to the reader. Like many books that relate to scientific or quasi-scientific topics from long ago, Frankenstein seems highly outmoded to the modern reader. In the era of psychological knowledge, the development of moods and character in the book will also seem primitive to many. A further drawback is that this novel takes a long time to develop each of its points (even after the eventual action is totally foreshadowed in unmistakeable terms), so patience is required as layer after layer of atmosphere and thought are applied to create a complex, composite picture. Finally, the structure of the novel is unusual, with layers of narration applied to layers of narration, creating a feeling of looking at never-ending mirror images.

So, you may ask, why should someone read Frankenstein? My personal feeling is that there are two timelessly rewarding aspects to the book that well reward the reader (despite the drawbacks described above). Either is sufficient to please you. First, the book raises wonderful ethical issues about the responsibilities of science and the scientist towards the results of scientific endeavors. These issues are as up-to-date now as they were when the book was written. Those who developed atomic weapons and biotechnology tools appear to have given little more thought to what comes next than Frankenstein did toward his creation. Second, the moods that are built up in the reader by the book are extremely vivid and powerful. The artistry of this book can serve as a guide for novelists for centuries to come, in showing how much the reader can be deeply engaged by the circumstances of the characters.

Why, then, did I grade the book at three stars instead of five? Few will fail to be annoyed by the scientific awkwardness of the story, and that is a definite drawback. Also, only the most dedicated students of style will avoid feeling like the book moves and develops its story too slowly. Less is more in novels. In this case, more is less.

I cannot help but comment that this book is perhaps the finest example of appearances being deceiving that exists in literature. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a close competitor in this regard, but that fine work definite has to fall behind Frankenstein. In this book, beings of physical beauty act in inhumane, ugly ways. Beings of great ugliness act in beautiful ways. The same being may act in both ways, in different circumstances. Looks are deceiving, and our perceptions are flawed even when our attention is fixed. If the characters could have overcome this form of stalled thinking, the horror would have been averted. So the lesson is that the misperceptions we aim at others rebound (like a reflection in a mirror) right back onto us.

If you have not yet read Paradise Lost, Frankenstein is a good excuse to read that poem. The development of the story in Frankenstein assumes a knowledge of that story about Satan leading a rebellion against God and being dispossessed into Hell.

After you have had a chance to absorb and appreciate the nice issues this book raises, ask yourself where you in your life are acting without sufficiently considering the implications of your actions. Then, commence to examine those potential consequences. You should be able to create more good results in this way, and take more comfort in what you are doing. Both will be excellent rewards for your introspection.

Not what I was expecting, 26 Sep 2008
Anyone who thought that Frankenstein was the tall, slow, bolt-headed monster from the films will be very surprised by this gothic/horror story.
But, hopefully, like me, you will be pleasantly surprised. The story is about a young scientist named Frankenstein who becomes interested in creating life. He attempts to make a man out of acquired body parts. The result is a large, disfigured man. This "monster" is actually a sensitive and real human being. It is only after rejection by his creator that he starts to become more of a monster figure. 'Am I to be thought the only criminal, when all human kind sinned against me? I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion, to be spurned, and kicked, and trampled on.' This is the thought process that comes from rejection leads to the monstrous image. Although, I will not elaborate on this as it would spoil the story.
However, I will say that the key ideas in the book are definitely to do with how much power man should have and the problems caused by man's egotistical nature. If you do decide to read this book I am sure you will find that it is far more than a gothic tale or a horror story. It is infact more again to a heartbreaking tragedy.


False Advertising by Penguin?, 22 Aug 2008
Don't make the same mistake as me, and think the book shown in the 'Search Inside' facility is the book you get. It turns out this shows a more expensive penguin edition, the rather scruffy one I got didn't have the first 58 pages shown in the contents.

Poor show Penguin - 3 stars only, for cheating!

Focus on Emotional Tragedy and The Personal Responsibility of The Scientist, 04 Aug 2008
This book is a "must read" for all science fiction / horror lovers, as you will be able to, as previously pointed out by other reviewers, trace the roots and themes of the genre back to its beginnings.

The depth of the book, however, lies in the poignant questions Shelley raises about scientific discovery and creation. These issues are as valid today as they were at the time and have been literary motifs ever since. Shelley's discussion of these themes makes this book a classic, and as such it should be understood.

If you are only familiar with Frankenstein's monster through film adaptations, you will discover an entirely different story, depicting the monster as a tragic and unloved hero, who turns into a brute following the betrayal by his creator, Victor Frankienstein.

Shelley's story centres around the emotional tragedy endured by the monster rather than on the depiction of his crimes or his outward appearance. In this context, we have to mention that the reader does not even find out how Frankenstein assembled his monster or how he infused him with life. This aspect of the story is entirely left to the reader's imagination.


Interesting, 20 Apr 2008
I don't know why I put off reading this book for so long, in my mind I imagined this to be some standard gothic horror with a monster chasing civilians but the reality was much different. The book is far more complex, the characters more complicated and the idea of creation rebelling against creator throwing up various allegories. The book does admittedly take some getting into, but it is worth persevering with as it rapidly gets better.

Frankenstein - Immoral or Kinky?, 28 Jan 2008
Although Frankenstein is undoubtedly enjoyable due to its successful attempts at being a novel tale, superbly written and carefully considered; the real fascination and pleasure of the book is to be gained from modern analysis.
Since the birth of Freudian psycho-analysis came into mainstream literary criticism, we must question Shelly's true inspiration behind writing a horror novel and the curious characters within it.
It is clear that what lies on the surface of the tale (A maddened, genius scientist creating a creature, playing the role of God and suffering the consequences) is just the starting point for literary interpretation.
I would surmise the tale is a physical apparition of a polymerization of her super-ego formulating a will to over come nature, combined with a lust for a 'large powerful man' to create the menacing daemon of her work.

Science and desire, 30 Aug 2008
Inevitably dated by style and pace, not to mention a somewhat heavy-handed way with analogy, this remains a touchstone for gothic and speculative fiction. Any horror comes purely from the internal dialogues of Victor Frankenstein himself, and from the taunts of his creation, rather than from the kind of vivid and bloody description that is the mark of more contemporary scary stuff.

Some interesting questions rear their heads about science and desire, inception and revenge, not to mention some seemingly unintended ones - for a book by the daughter of an early anarchist and an early feminist, both women and politics are surprisingly absent. But worth a look.

Focus on Emotional Tragedy and The Personal Responsibility of The Scientist, 04 Aug 2008
This book is a "must read" for all science fiction / horror lovers, as you will be able to, as previously pointed out by other reviewers, trace the roots and themes of the genre back to its beginnings.

The depth of the book, however, lies in the poignant questions Shelley raises about scientific discovery and creation. These issues are as valid today as they were at the time and have been literary motifs ever since. Shelley's discussion of these themes makes this book a classic, and as such it should be understood.

If you are only familiar with Frankenstein's monster through film adaptations, you will discover an entirely different story, depicting the monster as a tragic and unloved hero, who turns into a brute following the betrayal by his creator, Victor Frankienstein.

Shelley's story centres around the emotional tragedy endured by the monster rather than on the depiction of his crimes or his outward appearance. In this context, we have to mention that the reader does not even find out how Frankenstein assembled his monster or how he infused him with life. This aspect of the story is entirely left to the reader's imagination.







"The author at once of my existence and of its unspeakable torments", 05 Mar 2008
This is a review of the Oxford World's Classics edition, edited and introduced by Marilyn Butler of Exeter College, Oxford. She explains in her note on the text why the 1818 version is preferred - "it delivers an original, specific and profound fable about the modern world in conditions of social change" - rather than the usual published text of the amended 1831 edition. I agree that the original edition has a raw edge, a directness, and a refusal to concede to societal norms that is not so prominent in the later massaged text.

I came to the novel with an open mind, but with an appreciation that Hollywood had cemented the story as a classic of gothic horror. And yet the monsters tale of his `adventures' with the de Lacey family, for example, seemed worlds away from the `traditional' tale as told by American cinema. (Hence, presumably, Kenneth Branagh's 1994 adaptation bearing the conscious title "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein".)

The novel is very well-written and conceived. It is interesting for its literary-historical and scientific context, but of far more interest to me are the philosophical issues that it (unconsciously?) raises. It is geographically incoherent in places, as is the plot, but plot is not really the reason for this novel, is it?

The actual physical creation of the monster is, surprisingly, sparsely described, covering barely two paragraphs, and even then only a vague illustration is given. Throughout the novel, there are only indistinct allusions to his form. Captain Walton, for example, merely says that he was "gigantic in stature, yet uncouth and distorted in his proportions. ... his face was concealed by long locks of ragged hair; but one vast hand was extended, in colour and apparent texture like that of a mummy".

Frankenstein's rejection of his creation so soon after having given life to it - indeed, at the very point of giving life to it - after so determined and intense a devotion to the cause, seems to me to mirror the immense shame and repugnance that civilisation can inculcate at the moment of sexual orgasm in `inappropriate circumstances'. Or, given the gender of the book's author, perhaps a more relevant analogy would be giving birth to a child conceived in shameful circumstances. His rejection of his act is absolute and unyielding. He does not return to his studies to rectify his mistakes in the creation of another, or seek to modify the result that he has created. Instead, he turns his back and falls into a great depression.

Meanwhile the monster plays the part of an extraterrestrial. Initially completely alien to his surroundings, Mary Shelley uses this position to allow him to comment as an outsider on the nature of humanity. The monster says how the de Lacey cottage was "the school in which I studied human nature." Thus, he who was the experiment has now become the experimenter. "Perhaps [he remarks], if my first introduction to humanity had been made by a young soldier, burning for glory and slaughter, I should have been imbued with different sensations", than those provided by the de Laceys and their humanistic literature.

On one level the story is akin to `Beauty and the Beast', `Cyrano de Bergerac', the `Elephant Man', or `E.T.'. But why did not Frankenstein simply learn to accept his creation? He is the creator, he is the monster's god. Is this a metaphor on man's place in God's creation? (At one point, he compares his situation explicitly with Adam.) Is this a comment on the Christian religion, when the monster describes Frankenstein as "the author at once of my existence and of its unspeakable torments" in a time of upheaval and speculation in post-Enlightenment but pre-Darwinian educated circles, when deism was becoming a reputable opinion? The monster again: "The fallen angel becomes a malignant devil."

Marilyn Butler's 42-page introduction, is of the usual high standard that one comes to expect from this publisher. She details Mary Shelley's beginnings, her family and her relationship with her husband. She goes on to describe their relationship with the radical science of the period in which they lived. She explains the ghost-story competition context from which the novel arose. There then follows a critique of the novel itself.
There are three appendices to this Oxford World's Classics edition. The first is Mary Shelley's preface to the amended 1831 edition, where she gives details about the inspiration for the tale and the story behind its creation. The second details the changes made to the text, or rather denotes the additions thereto but not (for some reason) the omissions. ... lists these changes and the reasons for them. The third and final appendix is an extract from an 1820 edition of the Quarterly Review, a nineteenth-century Tory version of the London Review of Books. The extract is not a review of Mary Shelley's `Frankenstein', but is principally concerned with the lectures of William Lawrence FRS and whether the life-force and greater mental capacities of humans (compared to other animals) is inherited or `super-added'. It is these extras - and the use of the 1818 text - that make this edition superior to others.

As with all reprints of classic works of literature, I recommend that the so-called introduction (which is really more of a commentary) is best read after the novel.



Evocative creation of a mood of bleak despair, 18 Feb 2007
This is primarily a novel that sets out to create an atmosphere of fear, horror and despair and succeeds admirably in so doing. Mary Shelley must have had an appalling dream but she brought it to life in wonderful, evocative language and at such a young age (only 19 when she wrote the book). The monster is so different from the monster of the films. Here he is no lumbering, stupid brute, but an agile, resourceful and calculating creature who can and does conduct a deep and thoughtful dialogue with his creator when explaining his background story. But at the same time the monster carries out horrible murders of Frankenstein's nearest and dearest and these deaths are shocking when they happen. The science is almost non-existent and we never find out how Frankenstein creates the monster nor indeed what the monster really looks like other than being repulsively hideous. But that is not the purpose of the book, which is to set a mood and raise philosophical questions about the purpose of scientific discovery. And Mary Shelley does this brilliantly.

Surprisingly, I enjoyed it, 11 Jan 2007
I normally steer well away of female novelists finding them too sentimental for my palate. However, Shelley's story, albeit far-fetched, is rich in imagery and the diction used is admirable. There appears to be some doubt as to whether the final version was "improved" by Messrs. Shelley and Byron, but I think that would be unfair on Mary.

I think it fully deserves its place among the classics.

Focus on Emotional Tragedy and The Personal Responsibility of The Scientist, 04 Aug 2008
This book is a "must read" for all science fiction / horror lovers, as you will be able to, as previously pointed out by other reviewers, trace the roots and themes of the genre back to its beginnings.

The depth of the book, however, lies in the poignant questions Shelley raises about scientific discovery and creation. These issues are as valid today as they were at the time and have been literary motifs ever since. Shelley's discussion of these themes makes this book a classic, and as such it should be understood.

If you are only familiar with Frankenstein's monster through film adaptations, you will discover an entirely different story, depicting the monster as a tragic and unloved hero, who turns into a brute following the betrayal by his creator, Victor Frankienstein.

Shelley's story centres around the emotional tragedy endured by the monster rather than on the depiction of his crimes or his outward appearance. In this context, we have to mention that the reader does not even find out how Frankenstein assembled his monster or how he infused him with life. This aspect of the story is entirely left to the reader's imagination.


A Long Day's Journey Into Horror, 14 Sep 2007
If you like horror, you owe it to yourself to read this book from the beginnings of the genre. You will enjoy seeing the themes in Frankenstein repeated in other horror novels that you will read in the future. The book and the movie have essentially nothing in common, so assume that you do not know the story yet if you have only seen the movie.

If you do not like horror, you probably won't like the book very much at all.

The story opens in the frozen Arctic wastes during an sea-going expedition to find a passage through the ice to the East. Aboard the ship after a strange meeting, Frankenstein tells his story. As a young man he wanted to make a splash in the sciences, and invented a way to create life. Having done so, he became estranged from his new being with significant consequences for Frankenstein and his creation. The two interact closely throughout the book, like twin brothers in one sense and like Creator and creation in another sense.

This book presents significant challenges to the reader. Like many books that relate to scientific or quasi-scientific topics from long ago, Frankenstein seems highly outmoded to the modern reader. In the era of psychological knowledge, the development of moods and character in the book will also seem primitive to many. A further drawback is that this novel takes a long time to develop each of its points (even after the eventual action is totally foreshadowed in unmistakeable terms), so patience is required as layer after layer of atmosphere and thought are applied to create a complex, composite picture. Finally, the structure of the novel is unusual, with layers of narration applied to layers of narration, creating a feeling of looking at never-ending mirror images.

So, you may ask, why should someone read Frankenstein? My personal feeling is that there are two timelessly rewarding aspects to the book that well reward the reader (despite the drawbacks described above). Either is sufficient to please you. First, the book raises wonderful ethical issues about the responsibilities of science and the scientist towards the results of scientific endeavors. These issues are as up-to-date now as they were when the book was written. Those who developed atomic weapons and biotechnology tools appear to have given little more thought to what comes next than Frankenstein did toward his creation. Second, the moods that are built up in the reader by the book are extremely vivid and powerful. The artistry of this book can serve as a guide for novelists for centuries to come, in showing how much the reader can be deeply engaged by the circumstances of the characters.

Why, then, did I grade the book at three stars instead of five? Few will fail to be annoyed by the scientific awkwardness of the story, and that is a definite drawback. Also, only the most dedicated students of style will avoid feeling like the book moves and develops its story too slowly. Less is more in novels. In this case, more is less.

I cannot help but comment that this book is perhaps the finest example of appearances being deceiving that exists in literature. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a close competitor in this regard, but that fine work definite has to fall behind Frankenstein. In this book, beings of physical beauty act in inhumane, ugly ways. Beings of great ugliness act in beautiful ways. The same being may act in both ways, in different circumstances. Looks are deceiving, and our perceptions are flawed even when our attention is fixed. If the characters could have overcome this form of stalled thinking, the horror would have been averted. So the lesson is that the misperceptions we aim at others rebound (like a reflection in a mirror) right back onto us.

If you have not yet read Paradise Lost, Frankenstein is a good excuse to read that poem. The development of the story in Frankenstein assumes a knowledge of that story about Satan leading a rebellion against God and being dispossessed into Hell.

After you have had a chance to absorb and appreciate the nice issues this book raises, ask yourself where you in your life are acting without sufficiently considering the implications of your actions. Then, commence to examine those potential consequences. You should be able to create more good results in this way, and take more comfort in what you are doing. Both will be excellent rewards for your introspection.

Dated?, 12 Jun 2007
Shelley's intense and acutely observed tale of love, war, and the ignominious fate of mankind is very much a novel of its time, with themes common in 19th century literature. The prose is elaborate, the descriptions vivid bordering on flamboyant, but her visionary predictions, portraying the plague that eventually topples civilization in a manner recalling the AIDS epidemic, are startling and remarkable, and conceivably an influence on the likes of Ballard, Matheson and Shiel. This supposedly dated novel of the apocalypse is a surprising, hugely enjoyable, and oft-overlooked gem from the birth of science fiction.

A good concept, but it now seems dated and badly prejudiced , 04 Mar 2007
This book was recommended to me as a well-written apocalyptic vision, a pre-cursor to modern science fiction, and so forth.

True, the central premise of the book is an interesting one and has some resonance with elements of life today such as Avian flu or AIDS. The first person narrative of Verney's character as the human race slowly vanishes around him, and the sway between Romanticism and pessismism, are at times harrowing and challenging. Unfortunately that alone does not redeem the novel's flaws.

The first 150 pages are almost completely irrelevant (both Shelley herself and Pamela Bickley acknowledge that it goes on a bit), and I honestly believe you could read the introduction to this book, and then start reading at page 150, and the only thing you would miss of any consequence are some snippets of Shelley's vision of a Republic-style English (not British) Empire, which is the only aspect of the novel's setting that is not stuck in 1830.

The novel is set at the end of the twenty-first century but apart from the Governmental differences mentioned above, there is no 'science fiction' or 'future prediction' involved- the world of "The Last Man" is the world of the 1820s with a few select adjustments. Crucially, and for me this was the most jarring part of reading this book, the writing is still mired in some deep-rooted prejudices that Shelley exhibits unforgivably. The characters, and the writing, are classist (the ruling class is still heriditary and the 'domestic' class are so unimportant that their deaths barely get a mention), racist (the negro who is implied to have brought the plague across the Channel), sexist, religiously prejudiced, and xenophobic. These traits are exhibited so often throughout the book that a modern-day reader should be appalled.

Of course as Shelley wrote this book after the death of her husband then her depictions of grief are in parts very moving, but the way in which central characters are clearly modelled on people from Shelley's life frankly gets in the way of the story-telling.


Death and disease level all men, 13 Aug 2006
This novel is a combination of a `roman à clefs' and science fiction, with gothic and autobiographic elements.
In her vision of the end of the 21st century, Mary Shelley sees the Greek occupying Istanbul and England as a republic with three political parties (royalists, democrats and aristocrats). The leader of the democrats deserts his responsibilities through fear of the plague, while the intention of the head of the aristocrats (a highly idealized portrait of P.B. Shelley) is `to diminish the power of the aristocracy to effect a greater equalization of wealth and privilege and to introduce a perfect system of republican government.'
Byron (Lord Raymond) is not in the same league: `Power was the aim of all his endeavors. The selected passion was ambition.'

Her vision of mankind is pessimistic: `There was but one good and one evil in the world - life and death.'
For life, `The choice is with us; let us will it and our habitation becomes a paradise.'
But, `What is there in our nature that is for ever urging us on towards pain and misery? We are not formed for enjoyment; disappointment is the never-failing pilot of our life's bark, and ruthlessly carries us to the shoals.'
`It is a strange fact, but incontestable, that the philanthropist, who ardent in his desire to do good, who disdains other argument than truth, has less influence over men's mind than he who refuses not to adopt any means, nor diffuse any falsehood for the advancement of his cause.'

Man doesn't control his destiny and the whole of mankind is wiped out by the plague. But, even on the verge of total destruction, false prophets preach intolerance with their `pernicious doctrines of election and special grace'.

This book is brilliantly written: `He was no longer bent to the ground, like an over-nursed flower of spring that, shooting up beyond its strength, is weighed down even by its own coronal of blossoms.'

It has a few minus points: slow progression, too idealized main characters and a rather too simplistic cause of the whole destruction of mankind.
But, it remains a real discovery and a very worth-while read, with an excellent introduction by Pamela Bickley.

Many novels have the plague as subject. I recommend highly `Bassompierre' by Hugo von Hofmannsthal.


"The Last Man," the best of Mary Shelley's "other" works, 09 Nov 2003
Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin Shelley published "The Last Man" in 1826, eight years after her classic "Frankenstein" and four years after her husband Percy Bysshe Shelley died. Of all of her other novels, "The Last Man" is clearly the one that is of more than passing interest. In her Journal in May of 1824 Shelley wrote: "The last man! Yes, I may well describe that solitary being's feelings, feeling myself as the last relic of a beloved race, my companions extinct before me." The result was one of the first novels to tell a story in which the human race is destroyed by pestilence, which we have seen in novels from Richard Matheson's "I Am Legend" and Stephen King's "The Stand," and films such as the recent "28 Days Later..." However, "The Last Man" is also an early example of a dystopian novel set in the 21st century when England is a republic being governed by a ruling elite. Adrian, Earl of Windsor (and a representation of Shelley's late husband) introduces the narrator of the tale, Lionel Verney, who is the required outsider to describe and comment upon the world of the future.

Shelley's vision of the future is essentially a reaction against Romanticism and the failure of the movement to solve the problems of the world with art and imagination. This would stand in contrast to earlier English utopian works such as Francis Bacon's "The New Atlantis," which reflected the Age of Reason's belief that science would solve any and all problems. Shelley begins the story as a romance, with Lord Raymond (presumed to be modeled on Lord Byron) winning the hand of the lovely Perdita and being elected Protector. In contrast to the dire predictions of Thomas Malthus regarding unchecked population growth resulting in mass starvation, an ideal world seems to have been created. But then the plague breaks out in Constantinople and starts spreading. This plague is grounded more in fantasy than science, with Shelley clearly relying more on Boccaccio and Defoe, for her pandemic, which is not contagious (an interesting plot choice to be sure).

The point of the plague is that it allows Shelley to show the best and the worst of human nature. When the demagogue Ryland abdicates being Lord Protector, the altruistic Adrian takes his place and makes an appeal for brotherhood, even as anarchy runs rampant in the streets and eventually the main characters are forced to flee England, which has strong parallels to the expulsion from Eden. This sets up the idea at the end of the novel that the last survivors might be able to establish an earthly paradise and rebuild the human race after the plague has disappeared. I was rather surprised that Shelley kills off her female characters because I had expectations that this would be more of a feminist work. Of course, this is because I remember who her mother was, but "The Last Man" is clearly concerned more with her late husband.

"The Last Man" was probably Mary Shelley's least successful work during her lifetime, but today, which the interest in science fiction, as well as the real world threats of biological warfare and other weapons of mass destruction, this idea of how the world ends is quite pertinent. This is clearly her most important work after "Frankenstein," although obviously we are talking about a significant gap.

Mary Shelleyýs Other Masterpiece, 26 Oct 2001
"The Last Man" has always been completely overshadowed by the ever-present "Frankenstein" and as a result has been largely ignored by the reading public. This is a great loss as it is in some ways as great a work as its illustrious and much filmed and parodied predecessor.
"The Last Man" was written in the period following her husband Percy Shelley's death.
Set in the twenty-first century, it was enormously influential on the development of English science-fiction, particularly on HG Wells (see "The Time Machine", "The Island of Dr Moreau" and "The Invisible Man"), Olaf Stapledon and, less obviously, Arthur C Clarke (see "Childhood's End").
Central to the book's philosophical approach is a rejection of the romanticism of Lord Byron, whom she knew well, and her late husband. It blends astute political observation, a complex tale of doomed love and obvious portraits of PB Shelley and Byron into its subtle, melancholy mix. It is beautifully written and rewards both initial reading and, even more, re-reading. This Oxford edition is well documented with an excellent introduction. The cover picture is wonderful.

Not what I was expecting, 26 Sep 2008
Anyone who thought that Frankenstein was the tall, slow, bolt-headed monster from the films will be very surprised by this gothic/horror story.
But, hopefully, like me, you will be pleasantly surprised. The story is about a young scientist named Frankenstein who becomes interested in creating life. He attempts to make a man out of acquired body parts. The result is a large, disfigured man. This "monster" is actually a sensitive and real human being. It is only after rejection by his creator that he starts to become more of a monster figure. 'Am I to be thought the only criminal, when all human kind sinned against me? I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion, to be spurned, and kicked, and trampled on.' This is the thought process that comes from rejection leads to the monstrous image. Although, I will not elaborate on this as it would spoil the story.
However, I will say that the key ideas in the book are definitely to do with how much power man should have and the problems caused by man's egotistical nature. If you do decide to read this book I am sure you will find that it is far more than a gothic tale or a horror story. It is infact more again to a heartbreaking tragedy.


False Advertising by Penguin?, 22 Aug 2008
Don't make the same mistake as me, and think the book shown in the 'Search Inside' facility is the book you get. It turns out this shows a more expensive penguin edition, the rather scruffy one I got didn't have the first 58 pages shown in the contents.

Poor show Penguin - 3 stars only, for cheating!

Focus on Emotional Tragedy and The Personal Responsibility of The Scientist, 04 Aug 2008
This book is a "must read" for all science fiction / horror lovers, as you will be able to, as previously pointed out by other reviewers, trace the roots and themes of the genre back to its beginnings.

The depth of the book, however, lies in the poignant questions Shelley raises about scientific discovery and creation. These issues are as valid today as they were at the time and have been literary motifs ever since. Shelley's discussion of these themes makes this book a classic, and as such it should be understood.

If you are only familiar with Frankenstein's monster through film adaptations, you will discover an entirely different story, depicting the monster as a tragic and unloved hero, who turns into a brute following the betrayal by his creator, Victor Frankienstein.

Shelley's story centres around the emotional tragedy endured by the monster rather than on the depiction of his crimes or his outward appearance. In this context, we have to mention that the reader does not even find out how Frankenstein assembled his monster or how he infused him with life. This aspect of the story is entirely left to the reader's imagination.


Interesting, 20 Apr 2008
I don't know why I put off reading this book for so long, in my mind I imagined this to be some standard gothic horror with a monster chasing civilians but the reality was much different. The book is far more complex, the characters more complicated and the idea of creation rebelling against creator throwing up various allegories. The book does admittedly take some getting into, but it is worth persevering with as it rapidly gets better.

Frankenstein - Immoral or Kinky?, 28 Jan 2008
Although Frankenstein is undoubtedly enjoyable due to its successful attempts at being a novel tale, superbly written and carefully considered; the real fascination and pleasure of the book is to be gained from modern analysis.
Since the birth of Freudian psycho-analysis came into mainstream literary criticism, we must question Shelly's true inspiration behind writing a horror novel and the curious characters within it.
It is clear that what lies on the surface of the tale (A maddened, genius scientist creating a creature, playing the role of God and suffering the consequences) is just the starting point for literary interpretation.
I would surmise the tale is a physical apparition of a polymerization of her super-ego formulating a will to over come nature, combined with a lust for a 'large powerful man' to create the menacing daemon of her work.

Science and desire, 30 Aug 2008
Inevitably dated by style and pace, not to mention a somewhat heavy-handed way with analogy, this remains a touchstone for gothic and speculative fiction. Any horror comes purely from the internal dialogues of Victor Frankenstein himself, and from the taunts of his creation, rather than from the kind of vivid and bloody description that is the mark of more contemporary scary stuff.

Some interesting questions rear their heads about science and desire, inception and revenge, not to mention some seemingly unintended ones - for a book by the daughter of an early anarchist and an early feminist, both women and politics are surprisingly absent. But worth a look.

Focus on Emotional Tragedy and The Personal Responsibility of The Scientist, 04 Aug 2008
This book is a "must read" for all science fiction / horror lovers, as you will be able to, as previously pointed out by other reviewers, trace the roots and themes of the genre back to its beginnings.

The depth of the book, however, lies in the poignant questions Shelley raises about scientific discovery and creation. These issues are as valid today as they were at the time and have been literary motifs ever since. Shelley's discussion of these themes makes this book a classic, and as such it should be understood.

If you are only familiar with Frankenstein's monster through film adaptations, you will discover an entirely different story, depicting the monster as a tragic and unloved hero, who turns into a brute following the betrayal by his creator, Victor Frankienstein.

Shelley's story centres around the emotional tragedy endured by the monster rather than on the depiction of his crimes or his outward appearance. In this context, we have to mention that the reader does not even find out how Frankenstein assembled his monster or how he infused him with life. This aspect of the story is entirely left to the reader's imagination.







"The author at once of my existence and of its unspeakable torments", 05 Mar 2008
This is a review of the Oxford World's Classics edition, edited and introduced by Marilyn Butler of Exeter College, Oxford. She explains in her note on the text why the 1818 version is preferred - "it delivers an original, specific and profound fable about the modern world in conditions of social change" - rather than the usual published text of the amended 1831 edition. I agree that the original edition has a raw edge, a directness, and a refusal to concede to societal norms that is not so prominent in the later massaged text.

I came to the novel with an open mind, but with an appreciation that Hollywood had cemented the story as a classic of gothic horror. And yet the monsters tale of his `adventures' with the de Lacey family, for example, seemed worlds away from the `traditional' tale as told by American cinema. (Hence, presumably, Kenneth Branagh's 1994 adaptation bearing the conscious title "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein".)

The novel is very well-written and conceived. It is interesting for its literary-historical and scientific context, but of far more interest to me are the philosophical issues that it (unconsciously?) raises. It is geographically incoherent in places, as is the plot, but plot is not really the reason for this novel, is it?

The actual physical creation of the monster is, surprisingly, sparsely described, covering barely two paragraphs, and even then only a vague illustration is given. Throughout the novel, there are only indistinct allusions to his form. Captain Walton, for example, merely says that he was "gigantic in stature, yet uncouth and distorted in his proportions. ... his face was concealed by long locks of ragged hair; but one vast hand was extended, in colour and apparent texture like that of a mummy".

Frankenstein's rejection of his creation so soon after having given life to it - indeed, at the very point of giving life to it - after so determined and intense a devotion to the cause, seems to me to mirror the immense shame and repugnance that civilisation can inculcate at the moment of sexual orgasm in `inappropriate circumstances'. Or, given the gender of the book's author, perhaps a more relevant analogy would be giving birth to a child conceived in shameful circumstances. His rejection of his act is absolute and unyielding. He does not return to his studies to rectify his mistakes in the creation of another, or seek to modify the result that he has created. Instead, he turns his back and falls into a great depression.

Meanwhile the monster plays the part of an extraterrestrial. Initially completely alien to his surroundings, Mary Shelley uses this position to allow him to comment as an outsider on the nature of humanity. The monster says how the de Lacey cottage was "the school in which I studied human nature." Thus, he who was the experiment has now become the experimenter. "Perhaps [he remarks], if my first introduction to humanity had been made by a young soldier, burning for glory and slaughter, I should have been imbued with different sensations", than those provided by the de Laceys and their humanistic literature.

On one level the story is akin to `Beauty and the Beast', `Cyrano de Bergerac', the `Elephant Man', or `E.T.'. But why did not Frankenstein simply learn to accept his creation? He is the creator, he is the monster's god. Is this a metaphor on man's place in God's creation? (At one point, he compares his situation explicitly with Adam.) Is this a comment on the Christian religion, when the monster describes Frankenstein as "the author at once of my existence and of its unspeakable torments" in a time of upheaval and speculation in post-Enlightenment but pre-Darwinian educated circles, when deism was becoming a reputable opinion? The monster again: "The fallen angel becomes a malignant devil."

Marilyn Butler's 42-page introduction, is of the usual high standard that one comes to expect from this publisher. She details Mary Shelley's beginnings, her family and her relationship with her husband. She goes on to describe their relationship with the radical science of the period in which they lived. She explains the ghost-story competition context from which the novel arose. There then follows a critique of the novel itself.
There are three appendices to this Oxford World's Classics edition. The first is Mary Shelley's preface to the amended 1831 edition, where she gives details about the inspiration for the tale and the story behind its creation. The second details the changes made to the text, or rather denotes the additions thereto but not (for some reason) the omissions. ... lists these changes and the reasons for them. The third and final appendix is an extract from an 1820 edition of the Quarterly Review, a nineteenth-century Tory version of the London Review of Books. The extract is not a review of Mary Shelley's `Frankenstein', but is principally concerned with the lectures of William Lawrence FRS and whether the life-force and greater mental capacities of humans (compared to other animals) is inherited or `super-added'. It is these extras - and the use of the 1818 text - that make this edition superior to others.

As with all reprints of classic works of literature, I recommend that the so-called introduction (which is really more of a commentary) is best read after the novel.



Evocative creation of a mood of bleak despair, 18 Feb 2007
This is primarily a novel that sets out to create an atmosphere of fear, horror and despair and succeeds admirably in so doing. Mary Shelley must have had an appalling dream but she brought it to life in wonderful, evocative language and at such a young age (only 19 when she wrote the book). The monster is so different from the monster of the films. Here he is no lumbering, stupid brute, but an agile, resourceful and calculating creature who can and does conduct a deep and thoughtful dialogue with his creator when explaining his background story. But at the same time the monster carries out horrible murders of Frankenstein's nearest and dearest and these deaths are shocking when they happen. The science is almost non-existent and we never find out how Frankenstein creates the monster nor indeed what the monster really looks like other than being repulsively hideous. But that is not the purpose of the book, which is to set a mood and raise philosophical questions about the purpose of scientific discovery. And Mary Shelley does this brilliantly.

Surprisingly, I enjoyed it, 11 Jan 2007
I normally steer well away of female novelists finding them too sentimental for my palate. However, Shelley's story, albeit far-fetched, is rich in imagery and the diction used is admirable. There appears to be some doubt as to whether the final version was "improved" by Messrs. Shelley and Byron, but I think that would be unfair on Mary.

I think it fully deserves its place among the classics.

Focus on Emotional Tragedy and The Personal Responsibility of The Scientist, 04 Aug 2008
This book is a "must read" for all science fiction / horror lovers, as you will be able to, as previously pointed out by other reviewers, trace the roots and themes of the genre back to its beginnings.

The depth of the book, however, lies in the poignant questions Shelley raises about scientific discovery and creation. These issues are as valid today as they were at the time and have been literary motifs ever since. Shelley's discussion of these themes makes this book a classic, and as such it should be understood.

If you are only familiar with Frankenstein's monster through film adaptations, you will discover an entirely different story, depicting the monster as a tragic and unloved hero, who turns into a brute following the betrayal by his creator, Victor Frankienstein.

Shelley's story centres around the emotional tragedy endured by the monster rather than on the depiction of his crimes or his outward appearance. In this context, we have to mention that the reader does not even find out how Frankenstein assembled his monster or how he infused him with life. This aspect of the story is entirely left to the reader's imagination.


A Long Day's Journey Into Horror, 14 Sep 2007
If you like horror, you owe it to yourself to read this book from the beginnings of the genre. You will enjoy seeing the themes in Frankenstein repeated in other horror novels that you will read in the future. The book and the movie have essentially nothing in common, so assume that you do not know the story yet if you have only seen the movie.

If you do not like horror, you probably won't like the book very much at all.

The story opens in the frozen Arctic wastes during an sea-going expedition to find a passage through the ice to the East. Aboard the ship after a strange meeting, Frankenstein tells his story. As a young man he wanted to make a splash in the sciences, and invented a way to create life. Having done so, he became estranged from his new being with significant consequences for Frankenstein and his creation. The two interact closely throughout the book, like twin brothers in one sense and like Creator and creation in another sense.

This book presents significant challenges to the reader. Like many books that relate to scientific or quasi-scientific topics from long ago, Frankenstein seems highly outmoded to the modern reader. In the era of psychological knowledge, the development of moods and character in the book will also seem primitive to many. A further drawback is that this novel takes a long time to develop each of its points (even after the eventual action is totally foreshadowed in unmistakeable terms), so patience is required as layer after layer of atmosphere and thought are applied to create a complex, composite picture. Finally, the structure of the novel is unusual, with layers of narration applied to layers of narration, creating a feeling of looking at never-ending mirror images.

So, you may ask, why should someone read Frankenstein? My personal feeling is that there are two timelessly rewarding aspects to the book that well reward the reader (despite the drawbacks described above). Either is sufficient to please you. First, the book raises wonderful ethical issues about the responsibilities of science and the scientist towards the results of scientific endeavors. These issues are as up-to-date now as they were when the book was written. Those who developed atomic weapons and biotechnology tools appear to have given little more thought to what comes next than Frankenstein did toward his creation. Second, the moods that are built up in the reader by the book are extremely vivid and powerful. The artistry of this book can serve as a guide for novelists for centuries to come, in showing how much the reader can be deeply engaged by the circumstances of the characters.

Why, then, did I grade the book at three stars instead of five? Few will fail to be annoyed by the scientific awkwardness of the story, and that is a definite drawback. Also, only the most dedicated students of style will avoid feeling like the book moves and develops its story too slowly. Less is more in novels. In this case, more is less.

I cannot help but comment that this book is perhaps the finest example of appearances being deceiving that exists in literature. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a close competitor in this regard, but that fine work definite has to fall behind Frankenstein. In this book, beings of physical beauty act in inhumane, ugly ways. Beings of great ugliness act in beautiful ways. The same being may act in both ways, in different circumstances. Looks are deceiving, and our perceptions are flawed even when our attention is fixed. If the characters could have overcome this form of stalled thinking, the horror would have been averted. So the lesson is that the misperceptions we aim at others rebound (like a reflection in a mirror) right back onto us.

If you have not yet read Paradise Lost, Frankenstein is a good excuse to read that poem. The development of the story in Frankenstein assumes a knowledge of that story about Satan leading a rebellion against God and being dispossessed into Hell.

After you have had a chance to absorb and appreciate the nice issues this book raises, ask yourself where you in your life are acting without sufficiently considering the implications of your actions. Then, commence to examine those potential consequences. You should be able to create more good results in this way, and take more comfort in what you are doing. Both will be excellent rewards for your introspection.

Dated?, 12 Jun 2007
Shelley's intense and acutely observed tale of love, war, and the ignominious fate of mankind is very much a novel of its time, with themes common in 19th century literature. The prose is elaborate, the descriptions vivid bordering on flamboyant, but her visionary predictions, portraying the plague that eventually topples civilization in a manner recalling the AIDS epidemic, are startling and remarkable, and conceivably an influence on the likes of Ballard, Matheson and Shiel. This supposedly dated novel of the apocalypse is a surprising, hugely enjoyable, and oft-overlooked gem from the birth of science fiction.

A good concept, but it now seems dated and badly prejudiced , 04 Mar 2007
This book was recommended to me as a well-written apocalyptic vision, a pre-cursor to modern science fiction, and so forth.

True, the central premise of the book is an interesting one and has some resonance with elements of life today such as Avian flu or AIDS. The first person narrative of Verney's character as the human race slowly vanishes around him, and the sway between Romanticism and pessismism, are at times harrowing and challenging. Unfortunately that alone does not redeem the novel's flaws.

The first 150 pages are almost completely irrelevant (both Shelley herself and Pamela Bickley acknowledge that it goes on a bit), and I honestly believe you could read the introduction to this book, and then start reading at page 150, and the only thing you would miss of any consequence are some snippets of Shelley's vision of a Republic-style English (not British) Empire, which is the only aspect of the novel's setting that is not stuck in 1830.

The novel is set at the end of the twenty-first century but apart from the Governmental differences mentioned above, there is no 'science fiction' or 'future prediction' involved- the world of "The Last Man" is the world of the 1820s with a few select adjustments. Crucially, and for me this was the most jarring part of reading this book, the writing is still mired in some deep-rooted prejudices that Shelley exhibits unforgivably. The characters, and the writing, are classist (the ruling class is still heriditary and the 'domestic' class are so unimportant that their deaths barely get a mention), racist (the negro who is implied to have brought the plague across the Channel), sexist, religiously prejudiced, and xenophobic. These traits are exhibited so often throughout the book that a modern-day reader should be appalled.

Of course as Shelley wrote this book after the death of her husband then her depictions of grief are in parts very moving, but the way in which central characters are clearly modelled on people from Shelley's life frankly gets in the way of the story-telling.


Death and disease level all men, 13 Aug 2006
This novel is a combination of a `roman à clefs' and science fiction, with gothic and autobiographic elements.
In her vision of the end of the 21st century, Mary Shelley sees the Greek occupying Istanbul and England as a republic with three political parties (royalists, democrats and aristocrats). The leader of the democrats deserts his responsibilities through fear of the plague, while the intention of the head of the aristocrats (a highly idealized portrait of P.B. Shelley) is `to diminish the power of the aristocracy to effect a greater equalization of wealth and privilege and to introduce a perfect system of republican government.'
Byron (Lord Raymond) is not in the same league: `Power was the aim of all his endeavors. The selected passion was ambition.'

Her vision of mankind is pessimistic: `There was but one good and one evil in the world - life and death.'
For life, `The choice is with us; let us will it and our habitation becomes a paradise.'
But, `What is there in our nature that is for ever urging us on towards pain and misery? We are not formed for enjoyment; disappointment is the never-failing pilot of our life's bark, and ruthlessly carries us to the shoals.'
`It is a strange fact, but incontestable, that the philanthropist, who ardent in his desire to do good, who disdains other argument than truth, has less influence over men's mind than he who refuses not to adopt any means, nor diffuse any falsehood for the advancement of his cause.'

Man doesn't control his destiny and the whole of mankind is wiped out by the plague. But, even on the verge of total destruction, false prophets preach intolerance with their `pernicious doctrines of election and special grace'.

This book is brilliantly written: `He was no longer bent to the ground, like an over-nursed flower of spring that, shooting up beyond its strength, is weighed down even by its own coronal of blossoms.'

It has a few minus points: slow progression, too idealized main characters and a rather too simplistic cause of the whole destruction of mankind.
But, it remains a real discovery and a very worth-while read, with an excellent introduction by Pamela Bickley.

Many novels have the plague as subject. I recommend highly `Bassompierre' by Hugo von Hofmannsthal.


"The Last Man," the best of Mary Shelley's "other" works, 09 Nov 2003
Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin Shelley published "The Last Man" in 1826, eight years after her classic "Frankenstein" and four years after her husband Percy Bysshe Shelley died. Of all of her other novels, "The Last Man" is clearly the one that is of more than passing interest. In her Journal in May of 1824 Shelley wrote: "The last man! Yes, I may well describe that solitary being's feelings, feeling myself as the last relic of a beloved race, my companions extinct before me." The result was one of the first novels to tell a story in which the human race is destroyed by pestilence, which we have seen in novels from Richard Matheson's "I Am Legend" and Stephen King's "The Stand," and films such as the recent "28 Days Later..." However, "The Last Man" is also an early example of a dystopian novel set in the 21st century when England is a republic being governed by a ruling elite. Adrian, Earl of Windsor (and a representation of Shelley's late husband) introduces the narrator of the tale, Lionel Verney, who is the required outsider to describe and comment upon the world of the future.

Shelley's vision of the future is essentially a reaction against Romanticism and the failure of the movement to solve the problems of the world with art and imagination. This would stand in contrast to earlier English utopian works such as Francis Bacon's "The New Atlantis," which reflected the Age of Reason's belief that science would solve any and all problems. Shelley begins the story as a romance, with Lord Raymond (presumed to be modeled on Lord Byron) winning the hand of the lovely Perdita and being elected Protector. In contrast to the dire predictions of Thomas Malthus regarding unchecked population growth resulting in mass starvation, an ideal world seems to have been created. But then the plague breaks out in Constantinople and starts spreading. This plague is grounded more in fantasy than science, with Shelley clearly relying more on Boccaccio and Defoe, for her pandemic, which is not contagious (an interesting plot choice to be sure).

The point of the plague is that it allows Shelley to show the best and the worst of human nature. When the demagogue Ryland abdicates being Lord Protector, the altruistic Adrian takes his place and makes an appeal for brotherhood, even as anarchy runs rampant in the streets and eventually the main characters are forced to flee England, which has strong parallels to the expulsion from Eden. This sets up the idea at the end of the novel that the last survivors might be able to establish an earthly paradise and rebuild the human race after the plague has disappeared. I was rather surprised that Shelley kills off her female characters because I had expectations that this would be more of a feminist work. Of course, this is because I remember who her mother was, but "The Last Man" is clearly concerned more with her late husband.

"The Last Man" was probably Mary Shelley's least successful work during her lifetime, but today, which the interest in science fiction, as well as the real world threats of biological warfare and other weapons of mass destruction, this idea of how the world ends is quite pertinent. This is clearly her most important work after "Frankenstein," although obviously we are talking about a significant gap.

Mary Shelleyýs Other Masterpiece, 26 Oct 2001
"The Last Man" has always been completely overshadowed by the ever-present "Frankenstein" and as a result has been largely ignored by the reading public. This is a great loss as it is in some ways as great a work as its illustrious and much filmed and parodied predecessor.
"The Last Man" was written in the period following her husband Percy Shelley's death.
Set in the twenty-first century, it was enormously influential on the development of English science-fiction, particularly on HG Wells (see "The Time Machine", "The Island of Dr Moreau" and "The Invisible Man"), Olaf Stapledon and, less obviously, Arthur C Clarke (see "Childhood's End").
Central to the book's philosophical approach is a rejection of the romanticism of Lord Byron, whom she knew well, and her late husband. It blends astute political observation, a complex tale of doomed love and obvious portraits of PB Shelley and Byron into its subtle, melancholy mix. It is beautifully written and rewards both initial reading and, even more, re-reading. This Oxford edition is well documented with an excellent introduction. The cover picture is wonderful.

Science and desire, 30 Aug 2008
Inevitably dated by style and pace, not to mention a somewhat heavy-handed way with analogy, this remains a touchstone for gothic and speculative fiction. Any horror comes purely from the internal dialogues of Victor Frankenstein himself, and from the taunts of his creation, rather than from the kind of vivid and bloody description that is the mark of more contemporary scary stuff.

Some interesting questions rear their heads about science and desire, inception and revenge, not to mention some seemingly unintended ones - for a book by the daughter of an early anarchist and an early feminist, both women and politics are surprisingly absent. But worth a look.

Focus on Emotional Tragedy and The Personal Responsibility of The Scientist, 04 Aug 2008
This book is a "must read" for all science fiction / horror lovers, as you will be able to, as previously pointed out by other reviewers, trace the roots and themes of the genre back to its beginnings.

The depth of the book, however, lies in the poignant questions Shelley raises about scientific discovery and creation. These issues are as valid today as they were at the time and have been literary motifs ever since. Shelley's discussion of these themes makes this book a classic, and as such it should be understood.

If you are only familiar with Frankenstein's monster through film adaptations, you will discover an entirely different story, depicting the monster as a tragic and unloved hero, who turns into a brute following the betrayal by his creator, Victor Frankienstein.

Shelley's story centres around the emotional tragedy endured by the monster rather than on the depiction of his crimes or his outward appearance. In this context, we have to mention that the reader does not even find out how Frankenstein assembled his monster or how he infused him with life. This aspect of the story is entirely left to the reader's imagination.







"The author at once of my existence and of its unspeakable torments", 05 Mar 2008
This is a review of the Oxford World's Classics edition, edited and introduced by Marilyn Butler of Exeter College, Oxford. She explains in her note on the text why the 1818 version is preferred - "it delivers an original, specific and profound fable about the modern world in conditions of social change" - rather than the usual published text of the amended 1831 edition. I agree that the original edition has a raw edge, a directness, and a refusal to concede to societal norms that is not so prominent in the later massaged text.

I came to the novel with an open mind, but with an appreciation that Hollywood had cemented the story as a classic of gothic horror. And yet the monsters tale of his `adventures' with the de Lacey family, for example, seemed worlds away from the `traditional' tale as told by American cinema. (Hence, presumably, Kenneth Branagh's 1994 adaptation bearing the conscious title "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein".)

The novel is very well-written and conceived. It is interesting for its literary-historical and scientific context, but of far more interest to me are the philosophical issues that it (unconsciously?) raises. It is geographically incoherent in places, as is the plot, but plot is not really the reason for this novel, is it?

The actual physical creation of the monster is, surprisingly, sparsely described, covering barely two paragraphs, and even then only a vague illustration is given. Throughout the novel, there are only indistinct allusions to his form. Captain Walton, for example, merely says that he was "gigantic in stature, yet uncouth and distorted in his proportions. ... his face was concealed by long locks of ragged hair; but one vast hand was extended, in colour and apparent texture like that of a mummy".

Frankenstein's rejection of his creation so soon after having given life to it - indeed, at the very point of giving life to it - after so determined and intense a devotion to the cause, seems to me to mirror the immense shame and repugnance that civilisation can inculcate at the moment of sexual orgasm in `inappropriate circumstances'. Or, given the gender of the book's author, perhaps a more relevant analogy would be giving birth to a child conceived in shameful circumstances. His rejection of his act is absolute and unyielding. He does not return to his studies to rectify his mistakes in the creation of another, or seek to modify the result that he has created. Instead, he turns his bac