• mhague@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        It’s Dean Koontz’s Frankenstein, not sure how popular that series was… The monster was named Deucalion, he was a good persona if I remember right… and he could teleport around the world.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Yeah, not something I’m familiar with personally, but considering what a huge author he is, I’m sure a lot of people here recognize it.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • Reyali
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      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!

          • Moah@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            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.

            • Reyali
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              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!

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I feel like the Frankenstein might have been a product of a poor upbringing.

      Doctor Frankenstein is the real monster in the story.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • AFallingAnvil@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        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.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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.

  • MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    1 day ago

    My take is that Frankenstein is a surname, and, as Victor was the monster’s progenitor, they are both Frankenstein. If the context is clear enough for some pedant to “well, actually”, then it is clear enough to understand which Frankenstein is being discussed.