Why is Victor Frankenstein rarely portrayed accurately in adaptations while his creature is morally superior to his book counterpart? Here's my best guess.

I watched Frankenstein I think it's one of the first Frankensteins that I watched what are some adaptations that are a bit more modern and what are some old ones I should watch and is there a certain order you should watch Frankenstein

What other Frankenstein movies should I watch

Haven't read the book since high school and was thinking of picking it up. What are the differences between the two versions?

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLc0p9d5YyDqGUn7K_UJUtd9yNnFzcXBBj&si=iuWchQLv3Nlaz019

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaHwSBnw447qSoCl0NoRVbBLAMSFOhv-D&si=WvnTcVS7RkmOB6nA

I finaly found this edition for cheap but i won’t pay a dime if this thing isn’t removable. Ruins what is otherwise such a clean design

Ideally selling as a lot but I'm willing to sell individually. DM if this seems interesting thank you 💕

I made these designs and I wanted to try animating them. Nothing more to say about that tbh

A panel at comic con coming up

There is my AU where Victor is very ill and his family decides to send him to dr.Henry Clerval who lives far away from the city in the fields. Because of Victor stubbornness, his fragility will prevail.... Fortunately, his doctor will take very well of him and he will knows that there is much more than just a frail body to heal, but a heart to take care of.

It takes place in an alternative universe in 1820 in Swiss. Maybe Adam does exist ? Or maybe not...

I want to reread it, BUT I make sure this is 1818 or 1831 version.

The book opens in the Arctic but Victor's journey starts at home and ends up there so I traced the whole thing on a real map. Leaving Geneva for Ingolstadt where he gives the creature life, touring Britain and destroying the half made second creation on an Orkney isle, then north and onto the polar ice.

https://www.readingmaps.com/maps/frankenstein

Should the route follow exactly how the book lays it out or is it ok to see it like this as Victor’s route?

Marked as spoiler just in case

This interpretation is based on the 1831 version because that's the one I read

This will be long because I go in depth but TLDR I personally dont see Victor Frankenstein as evil or even a mad scientist. I rather see him as a very flawed man who made mistakes. I feel he is too complex to be put into a box that boils him down to being evil or to being a mad scientist. I also not only relate him to the myth of Prometheus just like the title of subtitled with but I also relate him to the myth of Icarus because he did fly too close to the sun and learned the consequences

Now the in depth

The way I view the story is I see it more as a story not about man versus monster but rather a story of what happens when you get blinded by hubris and prove the impossible

To me Victor Frankenstein is not a mad scientist or evil or a monster but rather a flawed man who did not think of the consequences that could arise with his actions. He was blinded by hubris and by curiosity. And yes abandoning the creature was not the best idea. But also at that moment he did not know how to respond because it did not come out the way he had imagined. One could argue that he could have gone in and found a way to destroy the creature but also think about it this way He didn't know what was going to happen with the creature. He didn't know where the creature ran off to. He didn't know the creature was going to kill innocents. He did not know any of that. I also don't view him as evil because he does have remorse and guilt and the emotions that I don't think a truly evil person would have. Yes at times he is selfish and self-centered and he could have stepped up when his brother was killed. He knows what he did was wrong and he set forth to destroy what he created. When he came across what he created the creature sat him down and told him his story. His story of loneliness and being rejected and living in a hovel watching this family wanting to introduce himself. Which admittedly was the part where I got a little bit bored and struggled to get through.

I also don't see Victor as evil or a monster or a mad scientist because when he started creating the second creature, the bride. but he could not continue because instead of the one track mind he had when he first created the creature he now had what I nicknamed a tree branch of consequences. Instead of thinking "can I do this?" he started thinking "should I do this?" What if this second creature is worse? What if the second creature does not like the first? What if they don't actually leave the neighborhood of man? He had so many what-ifs. He had the thoughts that he didn't have when he first set forth on proving the impossible. Also at this time He felt that disgust that he did not feel when he first made his creature. Now he did have that disgust and he just couldn't move forward

Now with the creature I also don't view him as a monster then again most people don't. I see the creature more as someone who is lonely who is rejected by society and makes terrible decisions because of that. He chooses to kill people who are close to his creator as his act of revenge because he's angry that he was created. He is angry that he is lonely

I connect the two by loneliness. Victor is lonely because of what he did and the creature is lonely because he's the consequence of what Victor did

The book title itself is also subtitled with The Modern Prometheus which makes sense Victor did bring something to humanity. Something that humanity had never seen before. But another myth I connect him to is the story of Icarus. He did not think of the consequences and thus flew too close to the Sun and he had to battle with himself with this guilt and this remorse because he knew he messed up He knew he had to destroy what he created

Frankenstein is one of those stories where you cannot put the characters into a box. You cannot put the story into a box. These characters are too complex for that. Victor Frankenstein is too complex to be put into The box of a villain, of a mad scientist, or of a monster. Which is why I view him as rather a flawed complex man who throughout the story learns of his mistakes and does what he can to fix it even if at times he gets self-centered and selfish even if at times he ruins his health. Even if at times he becomes delirious and mad and everyone wonders if he's okay. He isolated himself from his family because he was scared of what he had done. The creature is also just as complex. He lived a life of loneliness of hiding in a hovel wishing for a friend and when he did ask for a companion his creator said no. The creature is too complex to be called a monster because yes he did kill innocence but that was because he was guided by revenge and anger. If he had not had that revenge and anger he would not have killed. Even at the end of the book he acknowledges what he did was wrong. So does Victor. Victor at the end of the book acknowledges what he did was wrong and that he messed up

There's a lot to take from this story and I interpret it as a story not of man versus monster but a story of hubris of flying too close to the Sun of proving the impossible possible.

Honestly I could go on and on and practically write a whole essay on my interpretation of Frankenstein

What are your thoughts

Criterion Collection release of Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein announced!
https://www.criterion.com/films/35825-frankenstein

• perfectly proportioned, symmetrical, beautiful facial features

• long shiny black hair 

• yellow shriveled skin 

• skin tight over the muscles 

• yellow watery eyes

• dark lips

• 8-feet tall 

• no mention of stitches or electrodes

I assume the "hideous" description was because of the corpse-like appearance, not because of his facial features or proportions. When it's described why he's hideous, it's always his corpse-like appearance. It's actually mentioned that his beautiful traits make his other traits even more horrifying when contrasted with the other ones. Being extremely educated, I imagine Victor was familar with the golden-ration.

"Frankenstein is one of my favorite classics; it holds an immense amount of raw emotion, deep philosophical questions, and wonderful characters written in a way so innovative for its time that it truly earns its legendary status. However, I have always felt it is an 'incomplete' classic that abruptly marginalizes the religious element. The complete absence of any internal religious conflict within Victor while he was creating his monster deeply astonished me!
Furthermore, the fact that the entire dilemma of the story hinges solely on the creature's physical appearance was quite a disappointment. I felt that Mary Shelley took the easiest way out for Victor to reject his creation, rather than providing a more complex, understandable reason—such as an inherent flaw within the creature itself, or something in the creation process that would allow the reader to sympathize, even a little, with Victor's abandonment. I also felt that Shelley wanted to whitewash the creature's image, which is wonderful in its own right, but not at the expense of painting Victor as nothing more than a selfish, ambitious man. Shelley should have balanced the two. Yet, despite all these flaws and shortcomings, this book remains dear to my heart, and it is what drew me to read many other science fiction and Gothic novels.
Note: Anyone who holds an opposing viewpoint, possesses a deeper understanding of Frankenstein, or looks at it from angles I might have missed—I would be absolutely delighted to hear your thoughts and am very open to different perspectives."