What do you think?
Rate this book
Three Gothic Novels: The Castle of Otranto; Vathek; Frankenstein
The Gothic novel, that curious literary genre which flourished from about 1765 until 1825, revels in the horrible and the supernatural, in suspense and exotic settings. This volume, with its erudite introduction by Mario Praz, presents three of the most celebrated Gothic novels: The Castle of Otranto, published pseudonymously in 1765, is one of the first of the genre and the most truly Gothic of the three; in its blending of two kinds of romanticism, ancient and modern, it is a precursor of Romanticism. Vathek (1786), an oriental tale by an eccentric millionaire, exotically combines Gothic romanticism with the vivacity of The Arabian Nights, and is a narrative tour de force. The story of Frankenstein (1818) and the monster he created is as spine-chilling today as it ever was; as in all Gothic novels, horror is the keynote.
The cover shows a detail from The Nightmare by J.H. Fuseli.
The cover shows a detail from The Nightmare by J.H. Fuseli.
505 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1765
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
October 13, 2021
3.5 stars if ratings for all three are combined, otherwise 3 for the first two, 4 for Frankenstein.
Took me a while to finish, but was very interesting, and it was nice to compare the books with each other. The novels are: Walpole’s “The Castle of Otranto”, Beckford’s “Vathek”, and Shelley’s “Frankenstein”. Notes at the end of the book offer some explanations to some parts in the stories. Stories where anxiety exists with no possibilities to escape, and redemption is not guaranteed.
Walpole’s story: A supposed true tale from Medieval Italy, where a marriage has been arranged, but after its strange failure, the father-in-law becomes obsessed with the bride, and an ancient prophecy comes true.
This is a really odd story, going on a bit long in some parts, but really weird in some scenes, especially at the start (the ). I do like how the obsessive master of the castle, Manfred, gets . A bit boring but the strange parts make the reading worth it.
“Vathek”, meanwhile, deals with a sultan’s strange obsession of getting something from a mysterious and cruel stranger, that has an impact not just on his family, but on those that he rules. Much cruelties and travel occurs before he reaches what he think he deserves, but does he really get it?
This story can be seen as having clear examples of orientalism and racism, and one can only think, ‘WTF are you doing? Can reaching your goals really be worth all that: losing others’ respect, your own faith, and so on? And what a corrupting influence his mother is. I also found what they did to the mummies in this story quite sad (and also remember how mummies were used as fertiliser and medicine etc. in real history before their value was really seen). There is a few beautiful scenes and the riches and some enjoyments described was interested. In the end this is a story, and an example of what an endless search of knowledge and desirable things can do. Not necessarily enjoyable to read, and one might want to skip it, but in its silliness it was still oddly interesting to watch the road of destruction and the ending ‘reward’ happen.
“Frankenstein”: when an obsessive young man manages the impossible, the consequences are more than he had expected.
No Igor, no stiff monsters, no . The author tells in introduction of how the story came to be, and the place where it was begun became part of the man landscapes the book has. Her husband’s preface (the Darwin in it is Charles Darwin’s grandfather) and influence during the writing are there, but I think most of it is all her.
Part of it is told in letters, by another explorer who is in the end . Like, Vathek, this is another story warning of a too much interest in knowledge, with great images of the nature and the weather that are also a great influence to the mood of the story.
Some things are worth noting: Frankenstein is more shattered by the death of his than of his . The fate of one of his brothers, Ernest, is left open, as Frankenstein is more concerned with dealing with his monster creature.
The creature here is described as both handsome and ugly, but capable of learning. In him we can find another theme of being an outsider
I like “The Last Man” story a bit more (longer, more beautiful images, and the general theme of the story), but this one was a really good one too, making you think about its themes a long time. Obviously the best of the three.
Do you necessarily need to own all three of these? No, but it’s not a waste of time for most readers. Clearly I had the most to say about “Frankenstein”, which is why the rating. Every story had some interesting images, and interesting themes, even if the quality of the story might not have been strong. Gothic literature, that’s what they all are.
Took me a while to finish, but was very interesting, and it was nice to compare the books with each other. The novels are: Walpole’s “The Castle of Otranto”, Beckford’s “Vathek”, and Shelley’s “Frankenstein”. Notes at the end of the book offer some explanations to some parts in the stories. Stories where anxiety exists with no possibilities to escape, and redemption is not guaranteed.
Walpole’s story: A supposed true tale from Medieval Italy, where a marriage has been arranged, but after its strange failure, the father-in-law becomes obsessed with the bride, and an ancient prophecy comes true.
This is a really odd story, going on a bit long in some parts, but really weird in some scenes, especially at the start (the ). I do like how the obsessive master of the castle, Manfred, gets . A bit boring but the strange parts make the reading worth it.
“Vathek”, meanwhile, deals with a sultan’s strange obsession of getting something from a mysterious and cruel stranger, that has an impact not just on his family, but on those that he rules. Much cruelties and travel occurs before he reaches what he think he deserves, but does he really get it?
This story can be seen as having clear examples of orientalism and racism, and one can only think, ‘WTF are you doing? Can reaching your goals really be worth all that: losing others’ respect, your own faith, and so on? And what a corrupting influence his mother is. I also found what they did to the mummies in this story quite sad (and also remember how mummies were used as fertiliser and medicine etc. in real history before their value was really seen). There is a few beautiful scenes and the riches and some enjoyments described was interested. In the end this is a story, and an example of what an endless search of knowledge and desirable things can do. Not necessarily enjoyable to read, and one might want to skip it, but in its silliness it was still oddly interesting to watch the road of destruction and the ending ‘reward’ happen.
“Frankenstein”: when an obsessive young man manages the impossible, the consequences are more than he had expected.
No Igor, no stiff monsters, no . The author tells in introduction of how the story came to be, and the place where it was begun became part of the man landscapes the book has. Her husband’s preface (the Darwin in it is Charles Darwin’s grandfather) and influence during the writing are there, but I think most of it is all her.
Part of it is told in letters, by another explorer who is in the end . Like, Vathek, this is another story warning of a too much interest in knowledge, with great images of the nature and the weather that are also a great influence to the mood of the story.
Some things are worth noting: Frankenstein is more shattered by the death of his than of his . The fate of one of his brothers, Ernest, is left open, as Frankenstein is more concerned with dealing with his monster creature.
The creature here is described as both handsome and ugly, but capable of learning. In him we can find another theme of being an outsider
I like “The Last Man” story a bit more (longer, more beautiful images, and the general theme of the story), but this one was a really good one too, making you think about its themes a long time. Obviously the best of the three.
Do you necessarily need to own all three of these? No, but it’s not a waste of time for most readers. Clearly I had the most to say about “Frankenstein”, which is why the rating. Every story had some interesting images, and interesting themes, even if the quality of the story might not have been strong. Gothic literature, that’s what they all are.
October 31, 2022
Uma colecção de três clássicos da literatura gótica, do qual se inclui o magnífico "Frankenstein". O que estava mais interessada em ler era " O Castelo de Otranto" ( pois já havia lido "Frankenstein"), por ser considerado a primeira novela gótica e ter inspirado a criação do castelo de Drácula. Provou ser uma história original com um castelo amaldiçoado, espíritos malignos e um conde ambicioso.
Contudo não consegui resistir, e fiz uma releitura da obra prima de Mary Shelly. De novo a vontade do monstro em querer ser amado, em ter contacto humano e fugir da sua solidão me arrebatou de novo. Victor continua a ser um egoísta, que permitiu todas aquelas mortes e nunca quis comprometer a sua criação. Não consigo simpatizar com ele, apesar das atrocidades cometidas pelo monstro considero ele mais humano do que o seu criador.
Vathek é dos três o de mais difícil compreensão, tem clara inspiração no mundo oriental e apenas começa a ficar interessante nas últimas páginas com o aparecimento do demônio que atormenta o califa.
Contudo não consegui resistir, e fiz uma releitura da obra prima de Mary Shelly. De novo a vontade do monstro em querer ser amado, em ter contacto humano e fugir da sua solidão me arrebatou de novo. Victor continua a ser um egoísta, que permitiu todas aquelas mortes e nunca quis comprometer a sua criação. Não consigo simpatizar com ele, apesar das atrocidades cometidas pelo monstro considero ele mais humano do que o seu criador.
Vathek é dos três o de mais difícil compreensão, tem clara inspiração no mundo oriental e apenas começa a ficar interessante nas últimas páginas com o aparecimento do demônio que atormenta o califa.
October 22, 2023
Frankenstein - 4/5
July 16, 2013
Actually 3 1/2 stars as a sort of average for the three books in this anthology.
Castle of Otranto: Pretty awesome. One commenter described it as being kind of Shakespearean, and I agree - you can enjoy it as if Shakespeare decided to sit down and write a haunted house novella. You can see the very beginnings of modern horror tropes here (panicked servants seeing things, ancestor in the portrait comes to life, etc.), but you also get all of the classic (melo)drama of lit. from this time period (star-crossed love, true heir in disguise, accidental and tragic stabbings...) Fun to read.
Vathek: Less awesome. Hence not 4 stars for the anthology. So many eunuchs. So racist. I guess I knew where it was going (reaching for more knowledge than man is meant to have is never good. all fictional characters should stop trying), which is fine, but I wasn't interested enough in how the Caliph got there, so the middle kind of lagged. Also, remember for class - bees can be Muslim? (page 238)
Frankenstein: Also pretty awesome, although I didn't reread it. The point of reading this anthology now was to get ahead for this fall, but I've read this one a lot. And taught it this past fall. So I think we're good.
Castle of Otranto: Pretty awesome. One commenter described it as being kind of Shakespearean, and I agree - you can enjoy it as if Shakespeare decided to sit down and write a haunted house novella. You can see the very beginnings of modern horror tropes here (panicked servants seeing things, ancestor in the portrait comes to life, etc.), but you also get all of the classic (melo)drama of lit. from this time period (star-crossed love, true heir in disguise, accidental and tragic stabbings...) Fun to read.
Vathek: Less awesome. Hence not 4 stars for the anthology. So many eunuchs. So racist. I guess I knew where it was going (reaching for more knowledge than man is meant to have is never good. all fictional characters should stop trying), which is fine, but I wasn't interested enough in how the Caliph got there, so the middle kind of lagged. Also, remember for class - bees can be Muslim? (page 238)
Frankenstein: Also pretty awesome, although I didn't reread it. The point of reading this anthology now was to get ahead for this fall, but I've read this one a lot. And taught it this past fall. So I think we're good.
December 14, 2020
DNF voor 'Vathek': op blz 118 van het boek ben ik gestopt. Wat een raar, stom, gek verhaal. Ik zal het wellicht niet begrijpen, maar ik hou er ook maar mee op. *1
Als eerste had ik Frankenstein gelezen en het verbaasde mij hoe weinig eigenlijk het hele "bouw proces" in het boek voor kwam. Het gaat meer over de zoektocht van het monster naar zijn maker en daarna de maker naar zijn monster. Ontroerend op sommige punten en weerzinwekkend op andere. *4 (deze haalt het gemiddelde erg omhoog en het is ook de dikste van de 3)
Mijn mening over het eerste verhaal zal ik later hieronder plaatsen. *2
Het kasteel van Otranto: wat een raar geschreven boek. Geen " om beginnen van gesproken zinnen aan te geven. Hopen dat je de juiste zinnen aan de juiste personen bedenkt.
Ook een warrig verhaal waarin toevallig is zoals het gaat. Nee, niet echt voor herhaling vatbaar.
Als eerste had ik Frankenstein gelezen en het verbaasde mij hoe weinig eigenlijk het hele "bouw proces" in het boek voor kwam. Het gaat meer over de zoektocht van het monster naar zijn maker en daarna de maker naar zijn monster. Ontroerend op sommige punten en weerzinwekkend op andere. *4 (deze haalt het gemiddelde erg omhoog en het is ook de dikste van de 3)
Mijn mening over het eerste verhaal zal ik later hieronder plaatsen. *2
Het kasteel van Otranto: wat een raar geschreven boek. Geen " om beginnen van gesproken zinnen aan te geven. Hopen dat je de juiste zinnen aan de juiste personen bedenkt.
Ook een warrig verhaal waarin toevallig is zoals het gaat. Nee, niet echt voor herhaling vatbaar.
May 12, 2024
read Frankenstein for uni, damn this is a great piece of writing, i would have eaten this up in 1818. Justice for Clerval and Elizabeth 😔✊
October 17, 2015
THE CASTLE OF OTRANTO: 5 stars
So beautiful!! It was breathtaking, riveting and exciting. And the atmosphere was the beauty of a true Gothic novel. All the characters were rich and clearly defined; I personally loved Isabella the most. However, the ending wasn't properly resolved :( I would have liked to have seen what happened a while after (SPOILER!)..... Matilda's death.
But it was gorgeous! LOVED it! I have been wanting to read this forever, and it didn't disappoint.
VATHEK: 2 stars
It was very hard to read and had a very rich vocab (well, by rich I mean I couldn't understand it very well, lol). It was also very dark and rather satanic, but it was ok...I'd wanted to read Vathek for ages, and I can't say I'm disappointed because I honestly didn't know what to expect. But there were parts that made me cringe and it just got a bit too...dark.
FRANKENSTEIN: 5 stars.
I simply loved it. I've been wanting to read this masterpiece for ages, and I wasn't disappointed. Beautiful descriptions, vivid and creative characters, and a terrifying monster whose anguish almost made me cry. The pain he inflicts on the humans around him as well as the murders he commits really tugged at my heart strings; I found Elizabeth and Clerval's deaths so sad :(
It was brilliant.
So beautiful!! It was breathtaking, riveting and exciting. And the atmosphere was the beauty of a true Gothic novel. All the characters were rich and clearly defined; I personally loved Isabella the most. However, the ending wasn't properly resolved :( I would have liked to have seen what happened a while after (SPOILER!)..... Matilda's death.
But it was gorgeous! LOVED it! I have been wanting to read this forever, and it didn't disappoint.
VATHEK: 2 stars
It was very hard to read and had a very rich vocab (well, by rich I mean I couldn't understand it very well, lol). It was also very dark and rather satanic, but it was ok...I'd wanted to read Vathek for ages, and I can't say I'm disappointed because I honestly didn't know what to expect. But there were parts that made me cringe and it just got a bit too...dark.
FRANKENSTEIN: 5 stars.
I simply loved it. I've been wanting to read this masterpiece for ages, and I wasn't disappointed. Beautiful descriptions, vivid and creative characters, and a terrifying monster whose anguish almost made me cry. The pain he inflicts on the humans around him as well as the murders he commits really tugged at my heart strings; I found Elizabeth and Clerval's deaths so sad :(
It was brilliant.
Read
July 21, 2019Castle of Otranto (2[-3] Nov 2017)
This novella has been described by a critic as a 'reworking of Shakespeare', and it isn't hard to see why. Less a pioneer Gothic novel, than a sort of Hamlet, liberally reworked and adapted to prose in under a hundred pages. At times the pacing was dramatic, and at other times less so. 3.5/5.
Vathek (21 July 2019)
Written by ‘an eccentric millionaire’ according to the blurb, and ends off with a very Faustian moral message. I haven’t started going through JSTOR yet but I bet the vast majority of criticism on this novel is Marxist. I say Faustian because it’s really more Faustian than Gothic (of course it has Gothic elements). To me at least...
This novella has been described by a critic as a 'reworking of Shakespeare', and it isn't hard to see why. Less a pioneer Gothic novel, than a sort of Hamlet, liberally reworked and adapted to prose in under a hundred pages. At times the pacing was dramatic, and at other times less so. 3.5/5.
Vathek (21 July 2019)
Written by ‘an eccentric millionaire’ according to the blurb, and ends off with a very Faustian moral message. I haven’t started going through JSTOR yet but I bet the vast majority of criticism on this novel is Marxist. I say Faustian because it’s really more Faustian than Gothic (of course it has Gothic elements). To me at least...
June 28, 2010
I have only finished the first book: The Castle of Otranto. The layout of this book was bad. Without the use of quotes or some other notation, it was difficult at times to understand who was speaking. The text also runs together with few paragraph breaks in an apparent effort to save pages. As for the story, I was disappointed on its lack of Gothic descriptions. I expected more from the original Goth novel.
April 17, 2008
For class, we only read Vathek, but I have read Frankenstein several other times already. I'll have to go back and read The Castle of Otranto when I have a chance. As for Vathek, it's a pretty good story, if you can get through the antiquated style.
March 2, 2023
Het intro essay begon veelbelovend en maakte enthousiast. Ik heb er interessante informatie uit gehaald waardoor ik dacht na het lezen van de eerste uit dit boek nog eens Piranessi te willen lezen ter vergelijk... echter... laat maar! Naast dat het essay een neerbuigende aflatende daling maakt en uiteindelijk niets heeft toegevoegd wat ik tijdens het lezen kon meenemen kon ik sowieso vrij weinig van het eigenlijke boek lezen.
1. Otranto is niet te volgen gezwemer van een megalomane man die dramatisch kinderlijk acteert voor een vrouw zonder enige heldere aanleiding (behalve ' ikwilhetikwilhetikwilhet') waarop vervolgens net zo slecht te volgen scenes ontstaan...
2. Vathek kon ik met moeite de eerste drie bladzijden van doorstaan, maar was al helemaal niet te volgen zo saai en niet pakkend
3. Frankenstein had ik heel graag in deze versie willen lezen, maar een tweede reden waarom ik na de eerste drie bladzijden van het tweede verhaal het boek heb weggelegd is het feit dat het een zeer oude kopie betreft en mijn allergieen het niet aan kunnen om het boek nog langer onder ogen (en neus) te hebben.
Toch, omdat ik het verhaal van Frankenstein reeds ken en weet het te waarderen en ik toch interessante informatie aan het eerste deel van de introductie heb kunnen halen, 2 sterren.
ps. ik heb het boek helaas moeten weggooien, het was niet meer te redden zo oud en versleten, de bladzijden vielen ook al uit elkaar...
1. Otranto is niet te volgen gezwemer van een megalomane man die dramatisch kinderlijk acteert voor een vrouw zonder enige heldere aanleiding (behalve ' ikwilhetikwilhetikwilhet') waarop vervolgens net zo slecht te volgen scenes ontstaan...
2. Vathek kon ik met moeite de eerste drie bladzijden van doorstaan, maar was al helemaal niet te volgen zo saai en niet pakkend
3. Frankenstein had ik heel graag in deze versie willen lezen, maar een tweede reden waarom ik na de eerste drie bladzijden van het tweede verhaal het boek heb weggelegd is het feit dat het een zeer oude kopie betreft en mijn allergieen het niet aan kunnen om het boek nog langer onder ogen (en neus) te hebben.
Toch, omdat ik het verhaal van Frankenstein reeds ken en weet het te waarderen en ik toch interessante informatie aan het eerste deel van de introductie heb kunnen halen, 2 sterren.
ps. ik heb het boek helaas moeten weggooien, het was niet meer te redden zo oud en versleten, de bladzijden vielen ook al uit elkaar...
January 3, 2017
This book has been sitting on my "currently reading" shelf since November because I keep forgetting to move it!
This was one of the first books I started in my "gothtober" reading month, and I didn't end up finishing it until a couple of days after Halloween.
While I loved "Castle of Otranto," I have to say that most of "Vathek" was boring and went over my head. I'm sure there was profound imagery and metaphor there, but I just did not absorb any of it. "Castle" was excellent though. I guess it's called the original work of gothic fiction by many, and that makes me even more impressed with it. I could totally see where all of the gothic tropes we know came from based on this book. It was very well done. A bit predictable, but that's just because I've read his type of book before. It is still original, despite me having figured out many of the plot points. The whole thing was cold, dark, and moved quickly.
"Frankenstein" was a re-read for me and I enjoyed it this time as much as I did the first time I read it! I actually may have even liked this reading of it better because the first time I read it was for a class in college and it was a completely analytical read.
This was one of the first books I started in my "gothtober" reading month, and I didn't end up finishing it until a couple of days after Halloween.
While I loved "Castle of Otranto," I have to say that most of "Vathek" was boring and went over my head. I'm sure there was profound imagery and metaphor there, but I just did not absorb any of it. "Castle" was excellent though. I guess it's called the original work of gothic fiction by many, and that makes me even more impressed with it. I could totally see where all of the gothic tropes we know came from based on this book. It was very well done. A bit predictable, but that's just because I've read his type of book before. It is still original, despite me having figured out many of the plot points. The whole thing was cold, dark, and moved quickly.
"Frankenstein" was a re-read for me and I enjoyed it this time as much as I did the first time I read it! I actually may have even liked this reading of it better because the first time I read it was for a class in college and it was a completely analytical read.
January 19, 2024
This review refers to Frankenstein only. I've had this book sitting on my shelves since the mid-1970s but had never tackled any of the novels. So, finally, after being told by several friends that I really ought to read Frankenstein, I decided the time had come.
Yes, it's definitely worth reading - once - but don't ask me to read it again! I found it really hard work and boring. I suppose it didn't help that I knew the story pretty well already, and early 19th century literature isn't really a favourite period of mine. But still it is definitely a unique work. It's been copied many time but this really is an original. The fact it was written by such a young woman adds another layer of interest.
So, I would say I'm glad I'd read it but I'm also glad I won't have to read it again.
Yes, it's definitely worth reading - once - but don't ask me to read it again! I found it really hard work and boring. I suppose it didn't help that I knew the story pretty well already, and early 19th century literature isn't really a favourite period of mine. But still it is definitely a unique work. It's been copied many time but this really is an original. The fact it was written by such a young woman adds another layer of interest.
So, I would say I'm glad I'd read it but I'm also glad I won't have to read it again.
November 17, 2017
I have read all these three stories and all of them are really great. I definitely recommend this book!! Besides, all three of them are very significant. The Castle of Otranto is considered to be the very first (official) Gothic story every published (1764). The Gothic genre officially starts with its publication. A very entertaining book with all the characteristics of the so-called "first" or classic Gothics which were published by the hundreds from 1790 until about 1820. Vathek: an exotic Gothic which keeps your interest alive until the very end. And what more to say about Frankenstein? Such a dear, such a loved book!!
November 23, 2021
While entertaining to trace the evolution of it through these three novels, Frankenstein is the most put together (pun intended) of the lot. This is certainly due to the synthesis of form and subject (humanity as the author of its own destruction) as well as the more grounded prose style of the author. It certainly doesn’t hurt that there’s layere here (a framed epistemological narrative, encasing another narrative? That’s my type) as well as secondary characters who at least are given some minor personality. Definitely glad I revisited Frankenstein, not particularly thrilled just yet by the other two.
December 11, 2021
Frankenstein, as expected, superb. Vathek quite interesting, although tiring at times - more important for its historical significance than its literary merit. As to the Castle of Otranto... well, no courage to go through it.
September 5, 2017
Frankenstein was really interesting, but when I got to the last page I flipped over expecting one last chapter because Shelley just left me hanging.
February 26, 2023
The Castle of Otranto 2/5 ⭐
Vathek 1/5⭐
Frankenstein 5/5 ⭐
Vathek 1/5⭐
Frankenstein 5/5 ⭐
Want to read
February 26, 2023**** The Castle of Otranto (1764) • Horace Walpole
Vathek (1786) • William Beckford
***** Frankenstein (1818) • Mary Shelley
Vathek (1786) • William Beckford
***** Frankenstein (1818) • Mary Shelley
August 15, 2019
I've only read one of the books so far, but I'm marking it as 'read' since I read it for my work's book club.
FRANKENSTEIN
Some quick notes, since my lengthy partly-complete review was just lost when I accidentally closed the browser tab.
- I never knew that the monster's name was NOT Frankenstein. Now I do! Of course I'd heard the phrase "Frankenstein's monster" around a lot, but the fact that the monster has no name never really computed.
- The typical image in one's head through imagery seen on TV/from old movie versions of this story is that of a largely brainless monster who can barely speak words and is just bad in general. This image didn't match what I read about in the book - Frankenstein's monster was well spoken (in French, at least), eloquent, and he sure had a lot to say after he got a decent grasp on the language. Dem monologues.
- This book seemed to me to have two good guys (the monster and Frankenstein), and also two bad guys (again, the monster and Frankenstein). These two guys both started out innocent, full of good intentions. The monster in particular started out totally innocent, a clean slate whose instinct was to seek out love, friendship, etc. Circumstances that unfolded meant both men turned to first despair, then eventually revenge - and they only wanted to destroy each other in the end. That was until a) Victor was on his deathbed and let go of it all, and b) the monster, seeing Victor dead, let go of it all and went off to kill himself (we think).
- The major themes seemed to me to be: love, loss, revenge, fate. Oh, and in Victor's case, the lesson learned about seeking too great heights. Victor advised his ship captain friend not to reach too high - just to enjoy a placid life, because reaching too high could lead to ruin and misery.
- The book had lovely description throughout - one of my favourite quotes was: "... the fangs of remorse tore my bosom and would not forgo their hold." The book was full of flowery, totally awesome language. Not quite as good as all the "smiting/smote" that went on in Malory, but pretty good all the same.
- The landscapes described in the book were mesmerising to me - in particular I felt the urge to get on a plane and go to Germany, and sail down the Rhine to see all those inaccessible hilltop castles crumbling to earth. Actually, I've been to Switzerland and seen some of those castles, but not the inaccessible ones.
- I thought it was interesting that Mary Shelley seemed to have such knowledge of the plight of the Native Americans at the hands of European explorers/settlers, even at the time this book was published - 1818, and written much earlier than that. Some people today seem to have a hard time accepting that these atrocities happened, but Mary Shelley knew it!
I think that might be all I have to say at this time. But suffice to say I very much enjoyed the read, and I'm glad it was an option for me to vote for for our book club. ;)
FRANKENSTEIN
Some quick notes, since my lengthy partly-complete review was just lost when I accidentally closed the browser tab.
- I never knew that the monster's name was NOT Frankenstein. Now I do! Of course I'd heard the phrase "Frankenstein's monster" around a lot, but the fact that the monster has no name never really computed.
- The typical image in one's head through imagery seen on TV/from old movie versions of this story is that of a largely brainless monster who can barely speak words and is just bad in general. This image didn't match what I read about in the book - Frankenstein's monster was well spoken (in French, at least), eloquent, and he sure had a lot to say after he got a decent grasp on the language. Dem monologues.
- This book seemed to me to have two good guys (the monster and Frankenstein), and also two bad guys (again, the monster and Frankenstein). These two guys both started out innocent, full of good intentions. The monster in particular started out totally innocent, a clean slate whose instinct was to seek out love, friendship, etc. Circumstances that unfolded meant both men turned to first despair, then eventually revenge - and they only wanted to destroy each other in the end. That was until a) Victor was on his deathbed and let go of it all, and b) the monster, seeing Victor dead, let go of it all and went off to kill himself (we think).
- The major themes seemed to me to be: love, loss, revenge, fate. Oh, and in Victor's case, the lesson learned about seeking too great heights. Victor advised his ship captain friend not to reach too high - just to enjoy a placid life, because reaching too high could lead to ruin and misery.
- The book had lovely description throughout - one of my favourite quotes was: "... the fangs of remorse tore my bosom and would not forgo their hold." The book was full of flowery, totally awesome language. Not quite as good as all the "smiting/smote" that went on in Malory, but pretty good all the same.
- The landscapes described in the book were mesmerising to me - in particular I felt the urge to get on a plane and go to Germany, and sail down the Rhine to see all those inaccessible hilltop castles crumbling to earth. Actually, I've been to Switzerland and seen some of those castles, but not the inaccessible ones.
- I thought it was interesting that Mary Shelley seemed to have such knowledge of the plight of the Native Americans at the hands of European explorers/settlers, even at the time this book was published - 1818, and written much earlier than that. Some people today seem to have a hard time accepting that these atrocities happened, but Mary Shelley knew it!
I think that might be all I have to say at this time. But suffice to say I very much enjoyed the read, and I'm glad it was an option for me to vote for for our book club. ;)
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 15, 2024
It took me so long to finish this book. The old english, the words I did not know, the lack of spaces, punctuation marks and lack of new lines/paragraphs from Otranto...all of it were making it difficult to read the book. Seriously, the enter key was used maybe 5 times in thise whole story. It was a continuous block of text. Sadistic people.
Was it worth it? HECK YES. I will never forget some of the images presented in these novels.
My ranking is like this:
1. Frankenstein (by far the easiest to read, very good, very nice, very profound. I loved the multiple uses of the word "gay" when expressing happiness. I related so much to the monster and I even got some book recommendations from this novel. I'm for sure gonna read Milton's "Paradise Lost" at some point)
2. Vathek (The hardest to read. The story line got lost and abandoned multiple times. But where it lacked in construction, it 100% made up in motives and creative writin
The beginning was SO GOOD, then it lost me a bit, then the story got a bit weird with the human football match, but I liked that part too ngl :))) . The journey was meh, BUT the ending is no less than sublime. Excellent, worth every page getting there. Very much a racist and classist society, William did some projections for sure)
3. Castle of Otranto (worst one from the collection, but still a good read. Who would have thought that in a novel so concentrated on God and religion, the word "ejaculation" would be used so many times :)). Good old english.
Aside from the constant ejaculation, I did not expect to laugh so many times. I'm not sure if the author intended to make this novel so funny, but the Stan and Bran dynamic between Jaquez and Diego got me good. On the other hand, the dialog between Hippolita, Matilda and Isabella shocked and angered me so much. I did not expect drama at every page. Hippolita sucks so much ass. I had hopes for her, but no, just the husband obsessed, internalized misogyny, mother trope. But this is the first gothic novel ever and it was published in 1764, so I can't look at it with todays lenses.
All in all, I liked the work. It made me feel so many things, I got invested in the characters and in the story, even tho it was written in a sadistic way, it was easier to get through than Vathek.)
Was it worth it? HECK YES. I will never forget some of the images presented in these novels.
My ranking is like this:
1. Frankenstein (by far the easiest to read, very good, very nice, very profound. I loved the multiple uses of the word "gay" when expressing happiness. I related so much to the monster and I even got some book recommendations from this novel. I'm for sure gonna read Milton's "Paradise Lost" at some point)
2. Vathek (The hardest to read. The story line got lost and abandoned multiple times. But where it lacked in construction, it 100% made up in motives and creative writin
The beginning was SO GOOD, then it lost me a bit, then the story got a bit weird with the human football match, but I liked that part too ngl :))) . The journey was meh, BUT the ending is no less than sublime. Excellent, worth every page getting there. Very much a racist and classist society, William did some projections for sure)
3. Castle of Otranto (worst one from the collection, but still a good read. Who would have thought that in a novel so concentrated on God and religion, the word "ejaculation" would be used so many times :)). Good old english.
Aside from the constant ejaculation, I did not expect to laugh so many times. I'm not sure if the author intended to make this novel so funny, but the Stan and Bran dynamic between Jaquez and Diego got me good. On the other hand, the dialog between Hippolita, Matilda and Isabella shocked and angered me so much. I did not expect drama at every page. Hippolita sucks so much ass. I had hopes for her, but no, just the husband obsessed, internalized misogyny, mother trope. But this is the first gothic novel ever and it was published in 1764, so I can't look at it with todays lenses.
All in all, I liked the work. It made me feel so many things, I got invested in the characters and in the story, even tho it was written in a sadistic way, it was easier to get through than Vathek.)
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 30, 2015
The Castle one was kind of interesting, you have to kind of get into a rythym with the language and then it goes a bit faster. It's almost more a comedy of errors. Manfred was a complete cretin, sneaky and gross, The horror part of it to me, wasn't where the gigantic helmet or other body parts came from, it was the idea that Manfred then thought he would marry Isabelle, as if! And the daughter, why she didn't hang herself, I'll never understand! Vathek, I didn't care for that much. He was like a cross between Ludwig the swan king and his lavish castles, and fantasy land, and the creepy character in Joyce Carol Oates, The Accursed, and his version of hell. Anyway, it wasn't something I could get into that much. Frankenstein, now that was interesting, and you certainly shouldn't think that because you've "seen the film" you know the story, because it doesn't bear the vaguest resemblance to Mary's book. It sounds like Mary would have been content to have it be a short story, which came about one stormy night on the lake in Geneva with Lord Byron and Polidori, but, Shelley talked her into fleshing out the story. I found the part where the monster is beginning to become conscious of being conscious interesting, sight blurry at first gradually coming into focus, hearing, putting two and tow together. It is an interesting question, should Victor have created a female for the monster? The monsters logic, when he made his case, was sound, and although he'd murdered, you could still sympathize with how he felt about his loneliness and not hard to believe that he would happily have gone to another country and lived happily ever after. But then, Victor wasn't off in wondering if he did create a woman for him, she might be a creep and reek havoc, and if they procreated? Well, Victor was a smart guy, did he not get all he had to do on that account was not give her a uterus?!!! Anyway, I'm glad I read it.
February 15, 2013
Review of 'The Castle of Otranto' - 'Entertainingly warped morality'
I began reading this book as research for a Regency romance I was writing that contained references to Gothic novels. I realised although I thought I had the concept of a Gothic novel, the ones I've read previously ('Frankenstein' and 'Wuthering Heights') are deemed Gothic by virtue of their narrative structure, rather than the actual content. 'The Castle of Otranto' would, I thought, be a 'proper' Gothic novel.
Well, initially I thought I wouldn't persevere with it as the start is just ridiculous but I began to find the story strangely compelling and the characterisation and dialogue very funny. The problem I find in reviewing this book is that I couldn't take it seriously - I think it's hard for a modern Western reader to entertain the notion that the author's intention in writing this book could ever have been serious.
What I loved most about 'The Castle of Otranto' was the warped morality. The story centres around Manfred's decision to divorce his current wife and marry a younger woman. Manfred is just an egotistical brute but it's very funny when the narrator's voice intervenes -quite frequently- to assure us that Manfred isn't really that bad! Also, the total lack of speech marks or paragraphing to indicate who's speaking just adds to the comedy of reading the story as you often get lost in the dialogue.
Overall, I'm awarding 3 stars because I found the book entertaining. If you're inquisitive about the Gothic novel and you're not intent upon taking 'The Castle of Otranto' too seriously, it's worth a read.
I began reading this book as research for a Regency romance I was writing that contained references to Gothic novels. I realised although I thought I had the concept of a Gothic novel, the ones I've read previously ('Frankenstein' and 'Wuthering Heights') are deemed Gothic by virtue of their narrative structure, rather than the actual content. 'The Castle of Otranto' would, I thought, be a 'proper' Gothic novel.
Well, initially I thought I wouldn't persevere with it as the start is just ridiculous but I began to find the story strangely compelling and the characterisation and dialogue very funny. The problem I find in reviewing this book is that I couldn't take it seriously - I think it's hard for a modern Western reader to entertain the notion that the author's intention in writing this book could ever have been serious.
What I loved most about 'The Castle of Otranto' was the warped morality. The story centres around Manfred's decision to divorce his current wife and marry a younger woman. Manfred is just an egotistical brute but it's very funny when the narrator's voice intervenes -quite frequently- to assure us that Manfred isn't really that bad! Also, the total lack of speech marks or paragraphing to indicate who's speaking just adds to the comedy of reading the story as you often get lost in the dialogue.
Overall, I'm awarding 3 stars because I found the book entertaining. If you're inquisitive about the Gothic novel and you're not intent upon taking 'The Castle of Otranto' too seriously, it's worth a read.
November 21, 2013
Frankenstein I have already read and reviewed.
Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto is an early piece of gothic. The story is highly melodramatic with bevies of swooning maidens, over-wraught heroes and plotting baddies. The writing is highly 'tell don't show' and as such gets somewhat tiring. Also none of the speech is laid out on modern lines (new line; speech marks) so it's sometimes confusing as to who says what.
There are some supernatural elements but these tended to fall away as the narrative progressed- some of the spooky events (such as the walking painting) had no real purpose to them but added to the atmosphere. It's an interesting period piece but doesn't hold up as a thrilling read in this age.
Vathek is more easily comprehensible- it actually reads quite a bit like a Conan the Barbarian story with extravagant landscapes and improbable palaces, luxury, decadence, terror and despair- yup, all the good ingredients. There isn't a great deal of structure to the plot we just ramble on from one scene of outrage to the next in company with the irrepressible Vathek. There are definite shades of Lovecraft, Howard and other 2oth century masters of the macabre within.
(in fact after reading through Wikipedia it reminded me of Lovecraft's 'Dream Quest of Unknown Kaddath' which is very similar in tone
Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto is an early piece of gothic. The story is highly melodramatic with bevies of swooning maidens, over-wraught heroes and plotting baddies. The writing is highly 'tell don't show' and as such gets somewhat tiring. Also none of the speech is laid out on modern lines (new line; speech marks) so it's sometimes confusing as to who says what.
There are some supernatural elements but these tended to fall away as the narrative progressed- some of the spooky events (such as the walking painting) had no real purpose to them but added to the atmosphere. It's an interesting period piece but doesn't hold up as a thrilling read in this age.
Vathek is more easily comprehensible- it actually reads quite a bit like a Conan the Barbarian story with extravagant landscapes and improbable palaces, luxury, decadence, terror and despair- yup, all the good ingredients. There isn't a great deal of structure to the plot we just ramble on from one scene of outrage to the next in company with the irrepressible Vathek. There are definite shades of Lovecraft, Howard and other 2oth century masters of the macabre within.
(in fact after reading through Wikipedia it reminded me of Lovecraft's 'Dream Quest of Unknown Kaddath' which is very similar in tone
June 25, 2016
This review is only for The Castle of Otranto and Vathek, because I intend to read Frankenstein at a later date, at my own leisure, with plenty of time for reflection.
I'm beginning to realise that it's hard for me to rate Gothic fiction, because I read it for fun. Even when I can't appreciate plot or characterisation, I appreciate the atmosphere, the air of mystery and terror. That's definitely the case with Otranto.
Vathek, on the other hand, is just overall bad. I'm not even sure it should count as Gothic because the setting is entirely wrong, and there's just no sense of impending doom. The characters are ridiculous rather than ominous, and I lost interest in the story multiple times.
I'm beginning to realise that it's hard for me to rate Gothic fiction, because I read it for fun. Even when I can't appreciate plot or characterisation, I appreciate the atmosphere, the air of mystery and terror. That's definitely the case with Otranto.
Vathek, on the other hand, is just overall bad. I'm not even sure it should count as Gothic because the setting is entirely wrong, and there's just no sense of impending doom. The characters are ridiculous rather than ominous, and I lost interest in the story multiple times.
August 25, 2012
"But alas! my lord, what is blood? what is nobility? We are all reptiles, miserable sinful creatures. It is piety alone that can distinguish us from the dust whence we sprung, and whither we must return." - Friar Jerome - The Castle of Otranto
"and he succeeded better as his generosity was unbounded and his indulgences unrestrained: for he did not think, with the Caliph Omar Ben Abdalaziz, that it was necessary to make a hell of this world to enjoy Paradise in the next." - Vathek
"for nothing contributes so much to tranquilize the mind as a steady purpose - a point on which the soul may fix it's intellectual eye." - Frankenstein
"and he succeeded better as his generosity was unbounded and his indulgences unrestrained: for he did not think, with the Caliph Omar Ben Abdalaziz, that it was necessary to make a hell of this world to enjoy Paradise in the next." - Vathek
"for nothing contributes so much to tranquilize the mind as a steady purpose - a point on which the soul may fix it's intellectual eye." - Frankenstein
March 1, 2024
3'5
I've only read The Castle of Otranto and Frankenstein for a class so...
As for the Castle of Otranto, it was introduced to us a the first gothic novel, and i guess i came with high expectations that were not meet. I loved the stock gothic elements in the story, the constant fear that something would happen to Isabella. However, the story did not feel constant for me, some parts were too fast whereas some were painfully slow that i would just skim over the pages.
I would give it a 3
Frankenstein, a reread for me, seems to get more intricate and complex every time i read it. I find myself having new feelings and thoughts on the characters and their actions.
A 4 for me
I've only read The Castle of Otranto and Frankenstein for a class so...
As for the Castle of Otranto, it was introduced to us a the first gothic novel, and i guess i came with high expectations that were not meet. I loved the stock gothic elements in the story, the constant fear that something would happen to Isabella. However, the story did not feel constant for me, some parts were too fast whereas some were painfully slow that i would just skim over the pages.
I would give it a 3
Frankenstein, a reread for me, seems to get more intricate and complex every time i read it. I find myself having new feelings and thoughts on the characters and their actions.
A 4 for me
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 29, 2015
Saved but the story of Mary Shelley "Frankenstein", this collection of gothic novels introduces the Gothic genre from its first steps. The Castle of Otranto starts with the most promising qualifications just to disappoint the reader with its mild ending. The narrative style and vocabulary were simple and not of my taste while Frankenstein shouted out Percy Shelley to specific parts. The narrative, especially by the point of view of the monster was excellent, mostly interesting and emotionally moving. The vocabulary and writing style were spontaneous, emotional and welcoming.
August 25, 2015
For me Frankenstein was painful. Mostly because I felt like Dr. Frankensein was crazy for even wanting to make the monster in the first place. I also had a hard time with the romantic writing, perhaps this is something that I could appreciate better now but I failed to see why we needed the description of the beautiful mountains just as the monster was getting angry and about to do something interesting.
September 10, 2010
I know, I know, it's taken me an AGE to get through this book.
I whizzed through The Castle of Otranto. It's absolutely bonkers and filled with chivalrous knights and good, swooning Christian ladies... I loved it!
Vathek was what got me down. It's like two completely different books stitched together in the middle and more than a little impenetrable. Very memorable though.
Frankenstein... well; what took me so long? Glorious.
I whizzed through The Castle of Otranto. It's absolutely bonkers and filled with chivalrous knights and good, swooning Christian ladies... I loved it!
Vathek was what got me down. It's like two completely different books stitched together in the middle and more than a little impenetrable. Very memorable though.
Frankenstein... well; what took me so long? Glorious.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews