I have decided I am going to write my weekly book posts on Sundays. It just seems suitable and this way I will be able to keep track of when I need to do them. I think I function better with structure.
That said, I am not doing a proper, eloquent, intelligent post today. [Those do happen... sometimes... occasionally... maybe.] I need to save all my real words for my essays and I don't like the book I am 'reviewing', as it were.
I know that lots of people have to read Frankenstein for GCSE but luckily I dodged that bullet. I have, unfortunately, had to read it twice since coming to university. The second reading, last week, did not endear it to me any more than the first one did. Yes, it can raise many interesting discussions but the book itself is poo.
Supposedly Frankenstein was the winning ghost-story in a competition between Mary Shelley, Percy Bysshe Shelley and Byron. A) There aren't any ghosts. B) It doesn't really follow the format of a ghost-story. C) How rubbish were Shelley and Byron's stories?? There are too many frames within the novel - Walton, Frankenstein, the creature, Felix and Agetha's narrative, blah blah blah... Frankenstein is so whiny and fainty and unsympathetic. None of the characters are engaging and the ending is a big let down. Generally dull.
Told you I didn't really have any spare words. So yeah, I think it is rubbish. I know it is 'seminal' but don't bother. On the plus side, it is quite short.