Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

"You will rejoice to hear that no disaster has accompanied the commencement of an enterprise which you have regarded with such evil forebodings."

Gaining a passionate, yet unguided knowledge for science, young Victor Frankenstein arrives at university with an unquenchable thirst for learning and advancement.  When he involves himself in an isolated solitary experiment to create life, the resulting creature so appalls and revolts him, that he cannot contain his revulsion.  The consequent rejection of his creation culminates in a series of tragedies that could not even have entered Frankenstein's imagination.

Theodor von Holst
from 1831 edition
source Wikipedia

Initially, the book begins with an introductory sub-plot of Robert Walton, a scientific adventurer who is on a naval quest to find a northern passage or discover the secret of the magnetic poles.  Walton is portrayed as a man intoxicated with the desire for knowledge, a clear indication that his character mirrors that of Victor Frankenstein, and his idealistic dreams parallel those of the friend he rescues (Frankenstein).  At the beginning of Frankenstein's story, we see how he immerses himself in science and, by doing so, isolates himself from the friends and acquaintances around him, and remains housebound, separated from the outdoors. Without companionship and nature, the very things that feed our souls, he is blind to the spiritual aspects of humanity, seeing only the physiological perspective of a scientific creation.  In effect, he rejects his own Creator to put himself in His place.

In fact, the first sentence of the book, the beginning of a letter from Robert Walton to his sister, gives the reader a clue as to the lack of awareness the scientist can develop to the world around him:  "You will rejoice to hear that that no disaster has accompanied the commencement of an enterprise which you have regarded with such evil forebodings."  In a frenzied quest for new discovery, the scientist can often lose any objectivity and will marginalize the prudent advice given by others, who have perhaps more objective insight.

In Frankenstein's story, we get a cautionary tale of the consequences of unexamined and incautious actions based on a deification of science, yet therein also lies a theme of abandoned responsibility.  If Frankenstein had attempted to communicate with the creature and valiantly hid his disgust of it, would the outcome have been different?  Could he have humanized his creation with sympathy and nurturing?  I have my doubts. Upon the creature's flight and escape to the woods, he discovers a family living there and, by observing them, he learns to read and write and is exposed to profound literature, which reveals both goodness and evil to him. The creature learns what it means to be human and, in fact, admires the goodness of the family.  However he ultimately chooses evil, using his rejection by humans as an excuse for his deviant actions.  Victor Frankenstein was another unsympathetic character.  Numerous times he had a chance to attempt to stop the evil he had created, yet each time he did nothing, often at the expense of a human life.  I was actually quite disgusted with him.  His inaction was almost on a level with the creature's atrocities.

Boris Karloff
as Frankenstein's monster
source Wikipedia

While I found the plot of this novel in some senses exaggerated, in a general sense it brought up a number of important issues for reflection.  Are we responsible for what we create and, if so, to what degree?  Is knowledge something to be pursued with unlimited passion, or should we approach it with a healthy respect, and should restrictions be put on our pursuit of it?  Does the development of character, values and morality depend on genetics or environment? Shelley brought attention to these universal and timeless issues which segued into more specific questions related to the story.  Should the creature be pitied?  Does his abandonment, rejection and isolation justify his actions of revenge?  Was Frankenstein's rejection directly responsible for the tragic circumstances, and therefore, was he completely to blame for his own fate?  Is the creature evil, or simply a misunderstood creation, who, if loved and nurtured, would have developed love and empathy and a conscience, like most other human beings?

The story of Frankenstein was birthed during a trip to Geneva in 1816. Together with her husband, the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, Mary Shelley spent the summer there with their companion, Lord Byron.  After Byron proposed that they each write a ghost story, Shelley found herself at a loss for inspiration.  It was only after a conversation about the "re-animation of a corpse," that Shelley had a waking dream:

"I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together.  I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half vital motion.  Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world."

And so Frankenstein was born.

Portrait of Mary Shelley (1840)
Richard Rothwell
source Wikipedia

Mary Shelley was the daughter of William Godwin and Mary Wollstoncraft Godwin, the former a philosopher, novelist and journalist, the latter also a philosopher as well as a writer.  With such notable antecedents, Shelley's exposure to books was unusually vast for a female of her era.  Here is a chronological list of the works of literature which she read during the years of 1814 to 1821.

Here, also, are two other excellent reviews of Frankenstein by M. Landers and Majoring in Literature for your reading pleasure!  Enjoy!

Count Magnus and Other Ghost Stories by M.R. James

"By what means the papers out of which I have made a connected story came into my hands is the last point which the reader will learn from these pages."  (from Count Magnus)

I first must say that horror genre isn't really my thing, even if the book is a classic.  So, despite the fact that I decided to read at least one scary story for the month of October, I was not approaching this read with much joy or interest.  How fortunate that I decided to choose M.R. James, who has perhaps changed my opinion of ghost stories forever.

The back of my Penguin Classic, "Count Magnus and Other Ghost Stories" says:  "M.R. James, referred to by H.P. Lovecraft as 'one of the few really creative masters in his darksome province,' was a pioneer in the history of the English ghost story, transforming the ghost from a wispy, ethereal figure into an aggressive, malevolent, and all too palpable force of evil ……"

My favourite story in this compilation was "Casting the Runes."  Eerie and terrifying, it gave the main character some power over the dark force and, instead of becoming a victim, he emerges as triumphant over his spectral foe.  This story was apparently the basis for a classic horror film, "Curse of the Demon" (which I've never seen).

I also enjoyed, "Oh, Whistle and I'll Come to You, My Lad," where blowing a whistle has very unexpected repercussions, "Canon Alberic's Scrap-book," "The Ash Tree", which, for me, was one of the scariest in the book, "Number 13," a creepy tale about a haunted hotel room, and "Count Magnus," where the reader learns to be careful what you ask for.

Montague Rhodes James specialized in medieval illuminated manuscripts and was the provost of both Kings College, Cambridge, and Eton College.  He is known for redefining the ghost story by "using contemporary settings and abandoning trite Gothic clichés."  He was highly articulate, extroverted and sociable and, though he never married, was known for having a great number of treasured friendships.

His introduction to ghosts came at a young, and perhaps impressionable, age:  "What first interested me in ghosts? This I can tell you quite definitely. In my childhood I chanced to see a toy Punch and Judy set, with figures cut out in cardboard.One of these was The Ghost. It was a tall figure habited in white with an unnaturally long and narrow head, also surrounded with white, and a dismal visage.  Upon this my conceptions of a ghost were based, and for years it permeated my dreams."

What was particularly refreshing about James' stories was that his treatment of his subject was very subtle.  His stories were full of shadows and dark blots, old trees personified and deaths with no concrete explanation.  He gives the reader just enough for a rough outline, then leaves them to use their imagination to formulate even more terrifying surmises based on his carefully crafted descriptions. One feels that these malevolent spirits should never have been disturbed.  Brrr!

I have The Haunted Doll's House and other Ghost Stories sitting on my bookshelf and I can't wait to pick it up and fade into the supernatural world of James' ghostly tales.

Something Wicked This Way Comes by Ray Bradbury

"The seller of lightning rods arrived just ahead of the storm."

What better time to read this book than during the days leading up to Halloween.  I expected a terrifying, nail-biting, ride of horror but to my surprise, the story left me completely flat.

A carnival comes to a small town and two boys, Will & Jim, are anticipating its amusements; what they experience instead is an evil that almost defies their abilities to comprehend and their efforts to contain.  Finally, Will's father, stumbles on a way to defeat the devious ghouls and all is saved .......... for now ........

After reading up on Bradbury's making of the novel, it was initially conceived as a screenplay.  Perhaps this is part of the reason why the book felt so awkward to me.  A visual conception full of lyrical language, darkness and evil, in a setting with conventional characters in a commonplace town .......... hmmmm ........  Bradbury does not really explore any of the characters other than Jim, Will and his father.  Even the Illustrated Man, the leader of this nefarious group, is not developed past a description of him and a few instances where he is able to evoke fear.  And as for the language, the florid, and at times, awkward description was distracting from the plot.  Not that it couldn't be used to an advantage, perhaps like a symphony or as even a Greek chorus, but Bradbury wielded it in a stumbling manner, interspersing it through both the characters and narrative alike.  An example:

"It was indeed a time between, one second their thoughts all brambled airedale, the next all silken slumbering cat."

Well, okay, that's a nice image but the reader has to pause and think how to apply it to the narrative.  It appears he is setting up the following sentences in the paragraph, which are a list of contrasts, but how does it really fit into the story?

And this one:

"Since now learn otherwise.  Sometimes the man who looks happiest in town, with the biggest smile, is the one carrying the biggest load of sin.  There are smiles and smiles; learn to tell the dark variety from the light.  The seal-barker, the laugh-shouter, half the time he's covering up.  He's had his fun and he's guilty.  And men do love sin, Will, oh how they love it, never doubt, in all shapes, sizes, colors, and smells.  Times come when troughs, not tables, suit our appetites.  Hear a man too loudly praising others, and look to wonder if he didn't just get up from the sty.  On the other hand, that unhappy, pale, put-upon man walking by, who looks all guilt and sin, why, often that's your good man with a capital G, Will.  For being good is a fearful occupation; men strain at it and sometimes break in two.  I've know a few.  You work twice as hard to be a farmer as to be his hog.  I suppose it's thinking about trying to be good makes the crack run up the wall one night.  A man with high standards, too, the least hair falls on him sometimes wilts his spine.  He can't let himself alone, won't lift himself off the hook, if he falls just a breath from grace ............. Oh, it would be lovely if you could just be fine, act fine, not think of it all the time.  But it's hard, right?  with the last piece of lemon cake waiting in the icebox, middle of the night, not yours, but you lie awake in a hot sweat for it, eh?  do I need tell you?  Or, a hot spring day, noon, and there you are chained to your school desk and away off there goes the river, cool and fresh over the rock-fall.  Boys can hear clear water like that miles away.  So, minute by minute, hour by hour, a lifetime, it never ends, never stops, you got the choice this second, now this next, and the next after that, be good, be bad, that's what the clock ticks, that's what it says in the ticks......."

A great piece of philosophy but it kind of dribbles off and falls into nothing.  Did Will learn anything from it?  The reader will never know because it is not addressed again.  Did Will's behaviour change between before his father imparted this wisdom to him and after?  Not really.  Will was basically good throughout the book, Jim was a boy who liked to live on the edge and the father was a scholar cum philosopher who liked to contemplate the world around him.  No -- character -- development.

All in all, I didn't hate the book but I found it distracting, disjointed, and poorly developed.  If I hadn't read it, I wouldn't have missed it.

Rating:  C