Frankenstein’s monster doesn’t deserve any sympathy; he’s pure evil. I know this contradicts the opinions of the characters in the book. He does suffer mightily and unfairly despite all efforts at kindness.
The problem is that his solution is to create another to suffer as he has. He even instructs the Doctor to make her hideous like him so that she’ll have no choice but to be his companion. The doctor wonders if this will be enough to stop the “bride” from going rogue.
These are the only two times in the novel anyone considers that the “bride” might have motivation or pathos of her own.
He also refers to his potential bride as the “female” which, well ya know.
Interesting way to look at the story. It certainly is an odd choice for a book written by a woman. A daughter of a notable 19th century feminist no less.
To be fair, Shelley was on some other shit… She was exceptional. I don’t believe there was anyone at that time writing anything like it. She pretty much spawned entire major genres like horror and science fiction.
Oh, I may have a book (series) for you! The Alchemist’s Daughter by Theodora Goss. It starts with Mary Jekyll—the daughter of Dr. Jekyll—and expands to find Sherlock and Watson, a daughter of Hyde, Justine—the woman made to be Adam Frankenstein’s bride, and other women left in the path of various men who tested the limits of humanity. It even talks about Shelley’s book and why she might have written it as she did. The second book expands into the wife and daughter of Van Helsing.
I’m about 75% of the way through the second book and have been loving them. They’re very post-modern though, with the characters somewhat frequently interrupting the narrator to discuss the way the story is written. I love that sort of thing but know it’s not for everyone!
What I didn’t like in the title is the erasure of the women’s name in profit if her relation to a (presumed) male: she’s not Amanda, she’s just the alchemist’s daughter. It’s a trend in naming books too.
But now I see this whole thing is actually the subject matter of the book, so it makes sense to use this trend.
Ah, interesting callout; I can totally understand why that is a turn-off. My sister recommended the book to me so I didn’t give the title any thought.
The story is definitely about that trope, and mostly turning it on its head. It’s about the women, with the underlying theme that they are what they are because of men but they own who they are and their future.
I hope if you give it a shot that you enjoy it as much as I do!
Frankenstein’s monster doesn’t deserve any sympathy; he’s pure evil. I know this contradicts the opinions of the characters in the book. He does suffer mightily and unfairly despite all efforts at kindness.
The problem is that his solution is to create another to suffer as he has. He even instructs the Doctor to make her hideous like him so that she’ll have no choice but to be his companion. The doctor wonders if this will be enough to stop the “bride” from going rogue.
These are the only two times in the novel anyone considers that the “bride” might have motivation or pathos of her own.
He also refers to his potential bride as the “female” which, well ya know.
Interesting way to look at the story. It certainly is an odd choice for a book written by a woman. A daughter of a notable 19th century feminist no less.
In fairness it’s two men discussing a woman, in her era it makes sense that’s only to ensure she’s subservient to them.
Looks like dark romance isn’t a new phenomenon at all lol.
To be fair, Shelley was on some other shit… She was exceptional. I don’t believe there was anyone at that time writing anything like it. She pretty much spawned entire major genres like horror and science fiction.
Oh, I may have a book (series) for you! The Alchemist’s Daughter by Theodora Goss. It starts with Mary Jekyll—the daughter of Dr. Jekyll—and expands to find Sherlock and Watson, a daughter of Hyde, Justine—the woman made to be Adam Frankenstein’s bride, and other women left in the path of various men who tested the limits of humanity. It even talks about Shelley’s book and why she might have written it as she did. The second book expands into the wife and daughter of Van Helsing.
I’m about 75% of the way through the second book and have been loving them. They’re very post-modern though, with the characters somewhat frequently interrupting the narrator to discuss the way the story is written. I love that sort of thing but know it’s not for everyone!
Funny I avoided that book because of the title, and now I realize how deliberate the choice was.
Deliberate in what way?
What I didn’t like in the title is the erasure of the women’s name in profit if her relation to a (presumed) male: she’s not Amanda, she’s just the alchemist’s daughter. It’s a trend in naming books too. But now I see this whole thing is actually the subject matter of the book, so it makes sense to use this trend.
Ah, interesting callout; I can totally understand why that is a turn-off. My sister recommended the book to me so I didn’t give the title any thought.
The story is definitely about that trope, and mostly turning it on its head. It’s about the women, with the underlying theme that they are what they are because of men but they own who they are and their future.
I hope if you give it a shot that you enjoy it as much as I do!
I feel like the Frankenstein might have been a product of a poor upbringing.
Doctor Frankenstein is the real monster in the story.