Hol

I've come to learn that classics are classics for a reason, although I almost doubted this at first because it did take a while to get going. Once it did though, I couldn't get through the pages fast enough.

Everyone knows the story of Frankenstein, so no point in me treading over old ground. Tell me though, did anyone else think that Frankenstein was the name of the monster!? Be honest! I did. I felt pretty stupid that that was in-fact Victor’s surname. I don’t know how that alluded me for so long! As I clearly knew little about Frankenstein before I read this book, I feel I got more from it though.

This book is jammed packed with keen observations about humanity, so would have been a great novel to talk about if my book group had actually met! Unfortunately the meet was cancelled though, so if anyone wants to discuss it here, I’d be more than willing. The main point in this regard was the monster’s rejection by humanity. Regardless of his subsequent response, it was hard not to feel a level of pity for him. It’s this type of alternate character which really helps to lift a novel. It can be pretty boring if a protagonist is ALL good/bad.

There was also a great level of suspense which I really enjoyed.

The reason I've marked this down is because I did get frustrated at times, for example not being told the intricacies of the construction of the monster. This was conveniently rationalised when Frankenstein said he didn't want anyone to be able to replicate his mistakes by bringing life to a similar creature. The same goes for the appearance of the monster. Although I do appreciate ambiguity in a novel, I think it may have helped to have had more of an idea of what the monster actually looked like.

There was also the problem of repetition. If I hear the word ‘countenance’ again, it won’t be too soon!

Regardless though, this was a good read and brought some great ideas to the fore in consideration of the period it was written.