Frankenstein by Mary Shelley book review + thoughts on the differences between 1818 and 1831 texts
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 07. 2024
- Subscribe and turn on notifications for a new video every day at 5pm UK time, noon Eastern, 9am Pacific
___
Join my Discord to chat books and stuff: / discord
___
Currently accepting crime, pulp and horror books for review. Email CriminOlly (at) gmail.com
___
If you'd like to support the channel you can donate via Ko-Fi or buy me a book from my Amazon wishlist.
Ko-FI: ko-fi.com/criminolly
Amazon: www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/...
___
Music: Who's Afraid of Halloween by Alfred Grupstra from Pixabay
The differences between the versions are small but significant. Actually there were more than two versions. If you ever have a chance (when you aren’t on some crazy challenge) check out Leslie Klinger’s New Annotated edition. He lays out all the differences and some of the reasons behind them.
Thanks for the suggestion was able to find a copy in my library system and was able to place a hold on it.
Cheers Michael!
What version would you suggest for someone who has never read it before? I’m stuck on which one I should read.
I read Frankenstein twice in college. Once in a lit class and the other in a woman's studies class. It was very different takes on the material with the lit class following the hubris route and the women's studies focusing on the fact that MS was pregnant pretty much the entire time she wrote the 1818 edition. She almost died from a miscarriage and there were these journal entries about her dreaming about her seeing her dead baby and it coming back to life. That was harder to get through than the novel.
Oh that's interesting, I didn't know she was pregnant when she wrote it. I can imagine the critiques were hugely different!
If I may offer: Dr. Frankenstein is the monster who "created" the Creature.
Very true
I dont see Victor frankenstein being the "monster", yes he runs away from responsibility once the creature is created but that's it, the creature destroys Victor's life haha
I've been waiting for this one, Ollie! I'd agree with all you said there. One major difference I would point out is the relationship between Victor Frankenstein and his doomed love interest Elizabeth - in the 1818 edition she is his cousin, but in the 1831 edition she is an orphan and thus not blood relative. I don't know if Shelly ever commented on the reason for that change, but I suspect it shows something of the shifting sexual mores of the intervening period.
Because the novel is so thematically strong, discussion understandably tends to focus on the profound philosophical, moral and technological questions it raises, meaning we forget how *Romantic* it is. Reading it again after many decades I was really struck by the range of landscape writing, and how the human drama is situated against a backdrop of vast, often terrifying elemental forces of nature - panoramic vistas of mountains and icescapes, battered by storms and lightning.
Interesting! I didn't pick up on that change re Elizabeth! And yes totally agree that the descriptions of landscapes and the natural world are great
Well said! One of my favorite books. I have always been struck by the utter heartbreak felt by the creature. In my mind he felt abandoned and desperate to be ‘human.’
Yes, 100% agree
Frankenstein came out before Darwin's Voyage on the Beagle (1831 to 1836) from which he drew his theory of evolution. One of the first major writers to tackle evolution in a novel was H G Wells in Time Machine (1895) and The Island of Dr Moreau (1896). Darwin's influential book "On the Origin of the Species" was published in 1859.
Ah! Well that shows how crap I am at research! Thanks Jim
@@CriminOllyBlog I used to think Frankenstein and Dracula came out around the same time, but Frankenstein is way earlier. Mary Shelly was well ahead of her time.
Hi Olly, I've just finished reading the 1818 text for the first time. I absolutely loved the book and was blown away by the fact that Shelley wrote it between the ages of 18-20. I was also surprised by the differences between Hollywood's Frankenstein and the original novel. I might re-watch the Kenneth Branagh 1994 film, which I believe is the closet to the novel. I'd like to read the 1831 revision too but as you said, I've also got too many books on my list at the moment. Cheers.
I don't think I've ever seen the Branagh film, but probably should give it a go. Thanks for commenting and sorry it has taken me so long to reply.
Thanks Olly for this nice and knowlegable video. I wanted to know the difference in both the versions and you explained it really well
My pleasure!
@@CriminOllyBlog Olly there are many lines , paragraphs in a book which is really difficult to understand, especially a situation or character like what is easier to get in a movie. Its also difficult to remember the last page of book while continuing it on another day( coz of my busy schedule.).Do you think it is a right way to understsnd or to do justice with a book?
@@deepakchaube2584 I think if it's not working for you at the moment you should put it aside
@@CriminOllyBlog i really want to read Oly. Do you think not understanding few difficult paragraphs or sentences is something which is important?
Shelley’s trusted friends, Ed Trelawny later revealed that Frankenstein was the creation of her husbands brain. That would certainly tie in with the destruction of the missing journal covering the period of June 1816 where any conceptual notes by Percy couldn’t be allowed to survive
1818! Joshua over at @CoffeeCatsandKing recently read the 1831 version and came down solidly on the idea of the creature being the villain of the book. I am determined to convince him otherwise at some point before I depart this mortal plane. We'll see. Also, you totally should have done the entire video in monster makeup like your thumbnail!
Ha ha I should have!
My favorite book of all time, just reread it and it is amazing that it gets better with every reading! I have had dozens of short stories published and am proud to say this book is the core of at least half my stories. It just has so many aspects to it and it is amazing how evil the monster does become and is remorseful at the end. I love the Universal and Hammer movies but they don't capture the magic of the book, but do come close. Read the 1818 version ,it is better and I think one of the best books ever written.
Shelly's husband helped write it. That's accepted now, it's a co-authored book.
She wrote the book and he added bits and pieces, it is her book
I have read Frankenstein the later edition but have the 1818 on my list to read soon. Looking forward to reading it as I was surprised at how much I enjoyed my first reading.
Hope you enjoy it!
Thanks for another great video Olly! Can’t really remember much of this book, as I read it in high school… and I was NOT A FAN of reading in those days. I struggle reading “classics” like this… idk why… maybe it’s because of the language/verbiage in them or maybe just the feeling that they are too old for me to relate to.
I think you definitely have to get your head in the right place for reading older books like this
This is an incredibly great book. Excellent commentary on so many things. Economy. Medicine. Technology. Gender. Religion. Unbelievably inspired.
It really is!
Always loved this, but I was going to reread this is 2023. I’m doing it as a little project where I read my daughters all time favourite books. Frankenstein is number one for her. It’s a good excuse to reread it. The other books I’m reading for it are books I wouldn’t normally read. Love this review though and the fact that she rewrote it decades later is fascinating. I think you’re right pointing out the significance of the evolution of Adam through the book, and Darwin’s influence is also interesting.
Hope you enjoy the reread! That sounds like a really lovely project!
I don't know which version I read, because it has been a while, but there are several aspects that make the book impressive.
Cutting edge resuscitation science has not improved much since 1818. We still cannot resuscitate people who have been dead long enough for brain death to occur and we cannot resuscitate those who have illnesses or injuries that are incompatible with life, unless we correct those problems, but the time to correct them would have been before the person died.
There were no chest compressions in the novel, but it is interesting that little progress has been made from the fiction imagined by an 18 year old with no medical training, although she did have the opportunity to listen to many of the smartest people in England discuss science. Mary Godwin (later Mary Wollstonecraft and then Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley by marriage) was 16 when she started writing the novel.
We have barely made more progress at resuscitation than a teenager did 204 years ago in a novel. Most of our progress has been in finally admitting that the treatments doctors, nurses, and paramedics have been using have been producing more harm than benefit. Many of us are not even that honest about the harm these treatments continue to cause.
The most dramatic improvement in resuscitation came in one giant leap - when the focus was placed on high quality chest compressions and ignoring the medical theater of advanced life support (drugs and advanced airway devices).
There are two treatments that work during cardiac arrest - high quality chest compressions and - when it is appropriate to shock - rapid defibrillation (electricity).
The Godwins lived near the site of execution of criminals in London, so they had a lot more familiarity with dead bodies than your average person today.
Out of a challenge one night at Villa Diodati in 1816 came Frankenstein by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley and The Vampyre (a vampire story 70 years before Dracula) by Dr. John Polidori (died 1821). The people who were there, but failed to come up with memorable stories were the then famous writers - Percy Bysshe Shelley (died 1822) and Lord Byron (died 1824). Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley didn't die until 1851.
Then there is the very "woke" aspect of the book - since woke appears to be the term the far right uses to avoid criticism for abuse of undeserved privilege. OTOH, Dr. Frankenstein does develop the understanding of resuscitation in the book, so it is not entirely undeserved privilege, but it is privilege that is abused to the detriment of everyone around the doctor, because that is the way abuse of privilege works.
Imagine if we were to educate people to behave responsibly, rather than teach them to incant mindless talking points, such as, "It's not my fault. Responsibility is for other people." The endless repetition of the meaningless talking points reminds me of the math class from Fahrenheit 451, where they are just reciting the math tables, to memorize the answers, rather than learning how to do the math. If the doctor had taken responsibility for his actions earlier, how many fewer people would have died? There are several places where the doctor could do something that, even if he never made a bride for the creature, might have avoided the attacks. The doctor does not appear to be much different from a child pulling the wings off of a fly to see what happens. The child and the doctor are in the privileged position of not having to consider the consequences of their actions, unless held accountable by others.
.
Fascinating - and I do completely agree with your characterisation of the doctor.
@@CriminOllyBlog It is a fascinating topic.
Several people have written about how she understood so much so young. One is The Lady and Her Monsters by Roseanne Motillo. I know that I read something, but I no longer remember if this book was what I read.
.
Low IQ: The Monster is Frankenstein
Normal IQ: Dr. Frankenstein is the Monster
High IQ: The Monster is Frankenstein
Very good!
One of those books I’ve always wanted to read but still haven’t 😢 I adored the National Theatre Live adaptation of it though and need to check it out. When I get Xmas break here in a couple weeks I gotta catch up on all my reading!!
It's definitely worth a read! I need to watch that NT adaptation
Oh yeah. Frankenstein is a great novel indeed. I have read it once on my own and once as part of a study in an English class. It is very well written and the subject is still very relevant today. Perhaps the greatest work of SciFi/horror ever written. Everyone should check it out. Love the thumbnail too by the way.
Thanks! Glad you liked the thumbnail!
I didn't know there was more than one version. I read Frankenstein back in high school ages ago and really liked it. I'm sure I would get a lot more out of it now if I re-read it, being much older and maybe slightly wiser haha.
I didn't realise either until recently!
Great video Olly! I read this for the first time this year. Didn’t really work for me unfortunately.
Sorry to hear that!
The thumbnail is giving surprised Kevin Bacon
LMAO!
Love Frankenstein! But it has been 45+ years since I read it. I rarely want to reread a book. I like the memory of my first impressions. Also, the book to me is not horror, but fantasy. Horror for me involves real things, not imaginary or supernatural ones. I read that Koontz one about cockroaches several years ago and still have nightmares - lol.
That's a fair point about the genre - it's often called the first science fiction novel
Not sure which one I've read. it was from a library. Last year believe it or not. It's quite an incredible work and nothing like I expected, in a good way. It's a masterpiece. So enjoyable and fresh. You'd have to assume that Shelley had more than a passing interest in psychology. It's as entertaining as it thought provoking. I wasn't aware there were two versions. I want to buy a copy after reading it and I'm glad to know that there are two versions. Will check.
Fresh is a great way to describe it - it's amazing how bright and engaging it is for such an old book
@@CriminOllyBlog Surprising isn't it? I love reading really old books. The language is wonderfully amusing to modern ears and can be downright hilarious. Frankenstein's monster being so articulate and emotionally sensitive in one so big is quite a revelation and that characteristic feels quite unwitting on the part of the author and thus the charm of the book remains highly original even today. The fact Shelley was so young leaps from the pages.
@@allisterwhitehead I know what you mean, there's a lack of artifice to it all that makes it all the more effective
Thanks! Will try to find the earlier take
Didn't care for the novel when I was a kid cause after the creation was able to speak seemed like he never shut up.
I'm much more tolerant now (a bit anyway).
ha ha he does go on a bit
I've read Frankenstein 3 times; once each of the 1818 and 1831 versions, and the first time I read it I don't know which version it was. Each time I've read it they were so spaced out I wasn't able to recall or notice any of the differences lol.
Regardless I'll probably stick to the original, for the sake of it being the first, and continue to reread it. A masterpiece of literature for sure.
(I've also been meaning to reread Dracula. Haven't read it since my teen years)
I need to reread Dracula, it's been decades!
Anyone interested in the origins of the novel should watch Ken Russell's utterly insane film 'Gothic' about all the goings on at the Villa Diodati.
Ha! I can't remember if I every actually watched that
Loved the video. Like you say the fact that she was only 18 is ridiculously mind-boggling. I was wondering, have you ever had an interest in writing stuff yourself, being such an obvious lover of literature? If you have and I missed it apologies in advance 😌
I have indeed! I self published a few things some years ago
@@CriminOllyBlog amazing 👏 have you done a video on them? I'd love to hear more about your writing ✍️
@@frenzykitty I haven't. In fact I've never even thought about that. I'll give it some thought :)
Have you reviewed HE DIED WITH HIS EYES OPEN by Derek Raymond? Brit noir. Just finished reading it.
Ha! That's the subject of today's video!
I just watched the movie 🍿 I absolutely love Frankenstein.
It's a great story
I've always taken Frankenstein as a parent child relationship where birth is called into question as immoral in a way. Like a "I didn't ask to be born" kind of thing.
Fascinating! Yes, can definitely see that in it
Oh I'm curious to see all the differences now that they've been labelled as "incredibly philosophical"
Both versions are worth a read for sure
Great video, but a DNF on “Great Expectations”!? It’s a great book, and not even that long. Give it another try!
I may do at some point! I do feel kind of bad about it
I can’t remember if I have ever read either version. So I’m going to say no. But, I did see a theatrical play based on the version of speak of and it was utterly fantastic. Many of the points you covered rang true with my memory of it. Need to read this sucker next year. Maybe if Horror Mayhem is a thing. Also, I can’t unsee that thumbnail. 😂🫣
You should definitely read it! Hopefully the thumbnail isn't as traumatising for people as the Psycho one
@@CriminOllyBlog Close! Must be the hair. 😂😉
Shame it doesnt go into more detail about the body part assembly, I probably wont read it now 🤭
LOL
Does this quote apply to Frankenstein?:
- We decided to play God, create life. When that life turned against us, we comforted ourselves in the knowledge that it really wasn't our fault, not really. You cannot play God then wash your hands of the things that you've created. Sooner or later, the day comes when you can't hide from the things that you've done anymore.
"Battlestar Galactica" (Commander Adama)
That thumbnail!
LOL glad you liked it
@@CriminOllyBlog Great review as well. It really IS quite impressive that this was written by an 18-year-old girl, with the themes and philosophy.
@@ShannonsChannel Thank you! And yes it really is
I’ve read both and prefer the original. The main differences are in taking away some of the edge of Shelley’s youthful, unconventional attitudes.
I also have a strange interpretation of the book. I don’t think there was a creature. Victor was insane, and failed to do what he set out to do. He then ‘created’ the monster in his own mind and did the killings himself. There are two points in the book that undercut this interpretation: the timing of his arrival after the murder of his younger brother, and the captain’s seeing the creature in Victor’s cabin at the end. Those inconsistencies are minor, however, when compared with Victor’s landing in Ireland at the precise point where the creature has killed his friend. If the interpretation is that Victor is telling the truth about what happened, then the creature left Victor, travelled south to kidnap the friend, then across England and the Irish Sea, holding the friend hostage (or dead), all in a couple of days, while only being able to travel at night and on foot to avoid being seen. In the meantime, Victor takes a boat out to sea and does adrift, only to happen to land on the Irish coast where the friend has been killed? Victor’s explanation is impossible, but his killing his friend as a result of his insanity is quite possible.
It would also explain why he can’t make a mate for the creature. Because he could never make the creature in the first place. Why does the captain see the creature? He wants to - to explain his own failure to find the northwest passage and give him an excuse for turning back. The result of Victor’s obsession gives him the reason to abandon his own. That leaves the timing of the first murder, and I have no better explanation here than that Victor is lying. But that doesn’t cut it.
Thus I feel like the book lends itself to two different interpretations of the story, neither of which are internally consistent. I think that’s one of the reasons the book still feels so modern.
That's a really interesting take on it! I hadn't considered that at all, but it certainly works
Read it recently and thought if was awful. It does not surprise me at all that it was written by a teenage girl. It's all about feelings and there is a lot of crying. There's no horror and the science fiction aspect is so absurd it wouldn't fly in a children's cartoon. What amazes me is how this rubbish got published in the first place let alone become a classic.
I prefer the original
Me too!