Customer Reviews

The Casebook of Victor Frankenstein: A Novel

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The Casebook of Victor Frankenstein is a super novel and one which gets better and better as it goes on. Peter Ackroyd is well known as a contemporary authority on London, and few writers today or at any time previously have so single-mindedly memorialised this wonderful city: Ackroyd has written not just London's widely acclaimed Biography, a companion piece about the Thames: Sacred River that flows through it, and biographies of its more famous sons (William Blake and Geoffrey Chaucer) and some historical fiction largely set in the city.

In this context it comes as no surprise that Peter Ackroyd's reworking of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is also set largely in the city, despite the original's setting in and around Geneva. On a broad scale Ackroyd's historical themes are unified: the galvanic force of electricity invigorates and brings life; in the same way the river flows through and animates the great metropolis. Life having been given, in each case does as it will, as dirty and degenerate as it is upstanding and honorable, and it is surely no coincidence that Ackroyd's creature makes his home in the wild reaches of the Thames estuary, and draws strength and wickedness in equal measure from its frequent immersion in the river, both at Limehouse and up river at Marlow.

Ackroyd's historical rendering of early nineteenth century is (as far as I can tell!) flawless and as usual is exquisitely, intricately observed, and his adoption of the register of a novelist of the period is equally well rendered.

The other interesting aspect of this novel is the depiction of the romantic poets and their entourage: "Bysshe" Shelley features from the outset as a struggling and somewhat neurotic gadfly; we meet Lord Byron somewhat later (a pompous, overbearing, spoilt fool) together with Mary Shelley herself (depicted far more sympathetically as the real artist amongst a bunch of dilettantes) and Byron's long-suffering physician/drug supplier, John Polidori. The interactions of these historical figures, with their own (fictional) creation Victor Frankenstein in their midst - together with, unannounced, *his* fictional creation (yet another sweet irony!) - drives the plot for the last half, across the continent to Villa Diodati for the famous night of Gothic ghost stories and then inevitably, like a moth to a light, back to the sacred Thames for the final denouement.

It's a slow burner, but the more I reflected on a neat little tweak at the death, the more my admiration grew for Peter Ackroyd's achievement here. And the book's title is a neat little in-joke in itself.

A modern - post-modern, even - Prometheus indeed.

Olly Buxton

The Casebook of Victor Frankenstein by Peter Ackroyd is a retelling of the gothic classic Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. As with all retellings, one approaches the new version with trepidation. Is there a need to retell a story that has already been told so well? Will this version offer anything new or interesting? What, if anything will be lost in translation?

When I began the novel, I stepped back a bit from my own expectations and tried to allow Ackroyd to give me the pleasure of revisiting a story I found compelling and provocative. I quickly realized that story is told in first person by Victor Frankenstein I was put off. After all, for all intents and purposes, Shelley's version is told in the first person. Is there a need to tell the same story in the same point-of-view? My resistance grew, mostly because what details were added are lu1rid or meant to be salacious (after all, Shelley could not dare write in detail about erections and penises, could she?). Sadly, they are also predictable. Characters enter the stage with the inevitability of their future clearly evident.

But of course one would expect a story that is retold to be somewhat predictable. And the fact is, for those readers who are disinclined to read classic literature because it is tedious or tiresome or the tone too archaic, Ackroyd's choice to tell this story again serves a purpose. He departs enough from the classic by inviting Mary Shelley herself into the cast of characters, along with Percy Bysshe Shelley and Lord Byron. The flavor of London is very well written. One cannot argue that Ackroyd knows his history and contextualizes the story both in content and voice. His ability to weave details leaves few, if any, stones unturned. And although the conclusion is different from the original novel's, it is not as surprising as it should have been. (How surprising would it have been had the author chosen to carry the story forth to the same ending, one that in Shelley's version occurs off the stage of the page? Perhaps bringing something new to an expected ending is too much to ask but if the ending must be changed can it not be changed in such a way as to surprise the reader?)

What this retelling lacks is the spiritual and philosophical implications of Shelley's original vision. Given the evolution of society, the threat of science over religion is perhaps no longer an issue but there is still so much room for debate on the ethical implications of where science crosses lines of morality in the face of necessity. At what point does the need for knowledge become more necessary than the need for morality? And in a world where we can create virtual selves by simply logging into a website, what are the implications of revivifying something that is dead?

In the end, Ackroyd presents a novel that waters down the original making it perhaps more palatable for the masses but offering little in the way of real meaning. A good summer beach book for those who don't want their summer reading light. Or perhaps the type of book one would read to fill a rainy afternoon in autumn. But for my tastes, I'll stick with the original which is, to this day, a more provocative story than many being published today.

Ackroyd has to have a portal into pre-20th century England and Europe. He has this knack of taking us back to those days and immediately immersing us into that society. We travel with Victor Frankenstein, Bysshe Shelley and Lord Byron as the events unfold.

The Editorial Reviews and blurb by Ackroyd above will tell you plenty about the goings on. We take a tour that is more mystery than horror as Victor experiments with his electrical fluids.

This is a page turner - the finish comes too soon. The author's language puts you in the period without hitting you in the head with it. He delves in depth with the story and doesn't bore the reader with the superfluous.

If you have a liking for Victorian England, Frankenstein stories and a good yarn - grab a copy, brew a cuppa and enjoy.

Ackroyd's new version of the classic tale by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley is interesting and clever, but ultimately unsatisfying because it fails to explain Dr. Frankenstein's obsession with creating life, leaving his actions inexplicable. But the same criticism can be applied to the original version (which I read for the first time after reading Ackroyd's novel). In both versions, Frankenstein becomes obsessed with understanding the secrets of nature and life while still a child; but neither author really accounts for his obsession. Additionally, Frankenstein in both novels lacks moral integrity; he creates his creature but recoils in disgust from him, leaving him alone and confused. (I avoid the use of the term "monster" and use "his" and "him" instead of "its" and "it" intentionally since it is actually the scientist rather than the creature who is monstrous.) Shelley and Ackroyd both make it clear that the creature's evil acts follow from his abandonment; Shelley makes it absolutely clear when the creature narrates his story to his creator that he was actually born with a pure, almost angelic spirit capable of love and goodness. Only his rejection, first by Frankenstein and then by the family he has secretly helped and protected, turns him to evil. While Dr. Frankenstein's immorality and strange obsession is part of the warning about science that Shelley was imparting, they make him an unappealing character hard for readers to care about.

I actually like Ackroyd's version more than Shelley's. While Shelley deserves the credit for her imaginative creation of the Frankenstein tale, her writing style is excessively romantic and melodramatic. While that is a reflection of the dominant currents in European literature at the beginning of the 19th century, I found long stretches of her story dull and pathetic. The best part of her version is the part when the creature narrates his life story from his birth to his reunion with Dr. Frankenstein many months later. Ackroyd's style is obviously much more modern.

Ackroyd cleverly reimagines many of the key incidents of Shelley's version including the creation of the creature (in London rather than in Ingolstadt), a key murder committed by the creature, and the creature's desire that Frankenstein create a bride for him. He also cleverly weaves Mary Shelley, Percy Bysshe Shelley, and Lord Byron into the story and even includes the real-life events that lead Shelley to pen her tale. But he also injects some of his own ideas into the story, especially near its end.

This novel has intellectual appeal, but very little emotional resonance.

Mysterious, horrifying, intellectually stimulating, mystical, philosophical, poetical, moody, dark, spooky, romantic, historical. A great tale told again with a foreboding yet shocking twist. I cried out with a shocked laugh on the last page! In short, I loved this book. I must read more of Mr. Ackroys's books if this is a sample of what to expect!

Thanks for an absolutely fun Halloween read!

When I was given this book as a gift, I decided to read the original first, which (shockingly) I had never done before. So the differences were made very clear to me when I read Ackroyd's retelling. Although it is not relevant to a discussion of Ackroyd's book, I was very surprised by how different Shelley's original is from the popular version of the story that we are familiar with (probably from the movies). Shelley does not focus at all on the process of creating the monster, on the challenges that Frankenstein overcame in order to accomplish it, or even, except in the most vague terms, what the monster looks like.

I admit, I am not sure what Ackroyd's retelling adds to this. He moves the story to London, apparently just because he is more familiar with that city than with Ingolstadt, where the original "creation" took place. He adds a lot more detail about Frankenstein's research process, although in this case Frankenstein simply re-animates a freshly deceased corpse. For my money, that's a zombie. Which is a different kind of story than one about a "constructed man" and the god/creator dynamic which is how Frankenstein has come to be seen. I get what Ackroyd is trying to do here, but it seems to me those themes are already present in Shelley's original in a much more subtle yet effective way. Ackroyd simply repaves the same street and connects it to a larger historical context (English literature, German philosophy, and so forth).

This novel is certainly well written, and an easier read than the original, since Ackroyd is a modern writer who knows how to play to modern sensibilities. Even so, I found the original more rewarding and, ultimately, more meaningful.

I can hardly imagine what this man has learned in order to provide us with this lovely reinvention. His personal bibliography is a clue; though, for those of us who have not read his previous literary offerings, this tale is a gift. I read it over a few Fall evenings with lots of rain, wind, and darkness. Ahhh.

This story has so many levels of learning, and Mr. Ackroyd has intuited them all. I devoured this book and look forward to settling in to more of his writing. It is one of the most literate fictional offerings I've found in a long time, and that is in addition to a fantastic story, an addictive adventure, a moral mystery, and a thrilling horror all in one. Personally, I found the ending to be most satisfying as well, which is very important to me in rating a great book. This is a GREAT book!

Peter Ackroyd is as much a denizen of the 19th century as an individual living in the 21st century. I have greatly enjoyed Ackroyd's biographies of Blake and Turner. Ackroyd's bold re-imagining of Mary Shelley's groundbreaking novel is rich and rewarding for the reader. The best way to approach Ackroyd's "Casebook of Victor Frankenstein" is to let the words wash over you and lead you to new streams of thought and discovery. Highly recommended.

With a popular story like Frankenstein, that has been retold so often in books and movies, a modern author has to navigate between doing justice to the original, and introducing enough new elements to make his remake worth reading. Ackroyd's novel generally works well on both counts, and is likely to please his many fans and win him some new ones. The writing is fine, and the period setting is evocative. Ackroyd has taken some liberties with his "real" characters, and much more liberty with the fictional characters of Mary Shelley's original book, while still keeping a lot of the feeling and the atmosphere of this classic story.

Ackroyd's ending is likely to be controversial. The most I can say here, without giving anything away, is that it subverts the whole story that has preceeded it. Some readers will like it and other readers won't, but do try to avoid spoilers if you want to get the most out of this novel.

This is a fantastic book, but then I'm a sucker for sequels and retellings of well-known stories. Ackroyd has the period down cold, the language, the mind-set of the people, the essence of the Romantic poets. It's actually a terribly funny book if you share my sense of humor. To hear the creature blather on at length in purple prose (in stark contrast to the Frankenstein monster we're all familiar with from the movies) had me howling. I know that was the spirit of the original, but it just tickles my funny bone. I suspect some will feel cheated by the ending, but I think it's perfect.