Stunning novel. I'm shocked to see that it has not been rated higher by people on this poll. Eclipses Dracula and J&H for me by a long way.
Stunning novel. I'm shocked to see that it has not been rated higher by people on this poll. Eclipses Dracula and J&H for me by a long way.
Dracula, yes. J&H, hell no. One of the reasons that is but ridiculous to suggest that Percey that wrote Frankstein instead of Mary is that the text is very flawed to be his. The same reason applies to J&H, Stevenson is a much better narrator than Mary, his capacity to suggest many things and yet pick just enough words is everywhere in J&H, hell, he was able to hide that they are one and the same until the end, most people thinking it was a normal policial novel until the end.
Well I suppose it is all down to individual opinion and all. I am a fan of J&H don't get me wrong, but I just find Shelley's prose stunning and feel that the novel has great depth and an agonising sense pathos and feeling.
I understand you like more Frankstein, it is all fair. But it is not a matter of opinion that Stevenson prose is just more refined than Mary.
Of course, both, are, philosophy wise, powerful pieces. Stevenson also. This, Mary have nothing behind anyone.
Dracula is just the worst of two, theme and execution wise.
I would have to disagree about it not being a matter of opinion regarding Stevenson's and Mary's prose. I think even if we take away all elements of each story Mary's writing is quite beautiful and flowing and better than Stevenson's in my opinion. It is a shame that she didn't write much else apart from a short children's story called Maurice. I rate both but for me Mary Shelley is the better writer based upon Frankenstein.
As regards to Dracula I think it is an excellent first third, but falls dramatically after that, at least in places. Overall it is a good text but way behind Frankenstein in terms of quality. Stoker also never managed to write anything else of significance and after reading a few short stories of his he doesn't overly impress there too.
I think most people would be spilt between Frankenstein and J&H to be honest and from there it is just opinion and preference of style.
Mary wrote more than Maurice and Frankstein, included one of the first apocalyptic modern stories, the Last Man. Interesting enough, it is a bit bitter also even anti-romantic, but it just shows more of her flaws too. I think it is rather easy to find.
You see, if you try to argue why Shelley prose is better, it is not more a matter of opinion, it is ?
Anyways, Shelley does not flow so easily, sometimes her syile is a bit heavy, slowing the text, trying to impress with effects more than narrative. Stevenson never had such flaw, his prose was one of the most clean and agile proses of the XIX century, know all too well clean the text to the basic without giving only action - his characters are rich enough, as the dialogues. He had more resources also, chaning themes and forms like Mary never did (maybe she could, she wrote much less than him, so she could not refine her technique). It is no wonder that Henry James called Stevenson the perfect narrator because with him the words seemed always the be in the perfect place at the perfect time. Another evidence is that Stevenson influence is stronger than Mary, exactly because of his precise prose. Which is not way something against Mary, but I bet much of the low ranking of Frankstein that surprised you here is caused by it. It is a strong book.
One of the flaws of J&H is his fame. Stevenson gives us a surprise final, but today everyone knows the relation between Jekyll and Hyde, and the impact is different. A little of oblivion would be helpful to J&H. Also, both Frank and Jekyll face the problem of cinema, who banalized the works, and focused on themes (mad scientists playing god and the transformation of the doctor) who are not relevant to the original works, or even, almost absent.
Anyways, potato, potato...
Dracula good parts (indeed the "gothic" initial part) is exactly the stuff Stoker borrowed from other sources mostly, funny enough. The middle of the romance (the london part) is indeed a mess and in the end time x space is in a bubble... Very flawed indeed. Nowhere near Frankstein or J&H.
Oh great I will check out The Last Man then, I didn't know about that.
Interesting you say that Shelley does not flow so easily, for to me she does. She flows beautifully and I would place the novel in my top 5, maybe top 3 because of it. Of course I am not merely identifying personal like with critical like, I would place Frankenstein very high up there in terms of English novels, definitely above the little short story by, what's his name, something Steven?
I would place the lower ranking on here of Frankenstein due to the style of the prose with most people being used to short sentenced contemporary novels. With. Sentences. Like. That. And similes expressing things as blue as the sky. Ouch!
I would champion Frankenstein in the top 20 novels written in English of all time. I would put that little short story you like at around 90/100.
At least we seem to totally agree on Dracula.
Of course this ranking business doesn't mean much, but you get the general idea of what I am talking about.
Edit: actually when you look at the ratings on here it is quite high really with 40% of people giving it 4/5 or more.
Last edited by LitNetIsGreat; 04-30-2009 at 06:21 PM.
There is one mother, which is Victor's own. Her death is one of the things that prompts him to start his research to revivify flesh. It's almost certain that his animalistic obsession with his project stems from the loss of his mother. Then the adopted sister (sorry, I can't remember her name) fills in that "mother" role and she eventually becomes the target of the Wretch's oedipal rage.Originally Posted by Michael T
It is funny, however, that Victor's actions effectively supplant the role of woman in procreation, and then the wretch exacts the real consequences of Victor's tinkering.
I'll drink whisky instead of water.
I would say that even Dracula still a great book. If Stoker is flawed in the narrative aspects of the book, he still manages to hide dracula too well increasing the effect of his evil. I would not rank Frankstein that high, but It is just a matter of numbers and it always depends on what we consider for the ranking. Frankstein themes are certainly a top one. From science, pedagogy, alienation...
At least we seem to totally agree on Dracula.
Of course this ranking business doesn't mean much, but you get the general idea of what I am talking about.
Edit: actually when you look at the ratings on here it is quite high really with 40% of people giving it 4/5 or more.
The appeal of those books will always grant them a higher popular rank, something that I doubt Joyce or Melville will receive.
About Last Man, Lovecraft ranks it highly as one of the best horror novel of XIX century.
Scheherazade, I commend you on your comments on Frankenstein; what you have written is excellent and I agree with you assessment. I was wavering between voting for the highest and next highest; this is sort of why I sometimes dislike rating book or movies with a number system; but I voted for "unplug the phone..." haha... that one always makes me laugh. Personally, I have read the book twice and I probably would venture to read it a second time; I love the book. I recently listened to a condensed narration, audio, and enjoyed that very much, as well. I may have held back from the highest score, because I do think the plot has some minor flaws, or perhaps leaves out some details, that would better explain some things about the monster; however, I may be very wrong about that, because we don't know all and this makes for more mystery and conjecture. I agree, if one looks at the novel in the context of the time-frame, then it all makes perfect sense and it is as you said, a book far 'ahead of it's time'. Another thing one cannot refute, is that this book is very unique; also, that such a young woman wrote it; this part still amazes me; Mary Shelley had a wonderful imagination. The restraint, in use of blantant violent details, is absolutely necessary to build up suspense and keep one wondering, long after the final page is turned. I am pleased she used that restraint and kept this book inline with the others you mentioned, that merely suggest the creepiest of the horror. Frankenstein is a horror fiction, true; it is not realistic; but to me it does it's job and goes beyond mere horror to become a wonderfully thought provoking book; which in many aspects, does still apply to the moral questions looming up for scientists and the public today. Therefore, this book remains timeless. It continues to fascinate me.
"It's so mysterious, the land of tears."
Chapter 7, The Little Prince ~ Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
I have just brought home Frankenstein on audio today, to listen to over the holiday, as I've been meaning to read it for a while, and will hopefully get around to the book at some point. Unfortunately it's abridged, but on the plus side it's narrated by Kenneth Branagh, (steady there Janine), and I'm looking forward to it. I am planning on reading Peter Ackroyd's novel, The Casebook of Victor Frankenstein, so I wanted to read the original first.
Oh, I've just realised that I already have it on audio, narrated by another actor, and forgot....... Oh well, I can listen to both
.
That is what makes this novel great for me. Yeah some of the writing is clunky and yes some of the plot turns and allusions are a bit obvious but considering how young Mary Shelly was when she wrote Frankenstein I think she did remarkably well.
It's funny seeing how Percy edited Mary's original text, for example altering some of her terms for polysyllabic equivalents. I read about this in the Norton publication of the book, it has a list of Mary's choices and a list of Percy's. Nonetheless I agree for her age it is remarkable. She was a *cough* kate bush of the 19th century...
...It could be argued.
Frankenstien is an allegory for the oppressed Victorian woman...
Frankenstein is an paean to beauty. For aesthetes like the Shelleys: beauty seems truth. And aren't Felix and Agatha De Lacey and his love, Safie, truly beautiful people?
Or is it a satire on beauty?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
