What do you think?
Rate this book
Frankenstein/Dracula
"Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley is the story of a 'patchwork' or makeshift man: a 'monster' made by a thoroughly misguided scientist from assembled body parts and a judicious bolt of electricity. Frankenstein's monster is not all that he seems, however, and despite this tale ultimately being one of sadness, revenge and terror, it is also one of loneliness and unrequited love, which challenge a reader not to have sympathy for Dr. Frankenstein's grotesque creation."Dracula" is a classic and bone-chilling tale of 'the' vampire. Told through a series of letters and diary entries, Jonathan Harker travels to Transylvania, a land depicted so darkly in Bram Stoker's novel that it lends a real air of fear to the whole story. Once there, he meets the blood-thirsty count, and things start to get very intense for all who become involved, including valiant Van Helsing, who plans to thwart the Vampire...but will he succeed?
Hardcover
Published January 1, 1995
38 people are currently reading
973 people want to read
About the author
Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley
1,496 books8,500 followersMary Shelley (née Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin, often known as Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley) was an English novelist, short story writer, dramatist, essayist, biographer, travel writer, and editor of the works of her husband, Romantic poet and philosopher Percy Bysshe Shelley. She was the daughter of the political philosopher William Godwin and the writer, philosopher, and feminist Mary Wollstonecraft.
Mary Shelley was taken seriously as a writer in her own lifetime, though reviewers often missed the political edge to her novels. After her death, however, she was chiefly remembered only as the wife of Percy Bysshe Shelley and as the author of Frankenstein. It was not until 1989, when Emily Sunstein published her prizewinning biography Mary Shelley: Romance and Reality, that a full-length scholarly biography analyzing all of Shelley's letters, journals, and works within their historical context was published.
The well-meaning attempts of Mary Shelley's son and daughter-in-law to "Victorianise" her memory through the censoring of letters and biographical material contributed to a perception of Mary Shelley as a more conventional, less reformist figure than her works suggest. Her own timid omissions from Percy Shelley's works and her quiet avoidance of public controversy in the later years of her life added to this impression.
The eclipse of Mary Shelley's reputation as a novelist and biographer meant that, until the last thirty years, most of her works remained out of print, obstructing a larger view of her achievement. She was seen as a one-novel author, if that. In recent decades, however, the republication of almost all her writings has stimulated a new recognition of its value. Her voracious reading habits and intensive study, revealed in her journals and letters and reflected in her works, is now better appreciated. Shelley's recognition of herself as an author has also been recognized; after Percy's death, she wrote about her authorial ambitions: "I think that I can maintain myself, and there is something inspiriting in the idea". Scholars now consider Mary Shelley to be a major Romantic figure, significant for her literary achievement and her political voice as a woman and a liberal.
Mary Shelley was taken seriously as a writer in her own lifetime, though reviewers often missed the political edge to her novels. After her death, however, she was chiefly remembered only as the wife of Percy Bysshe Shelley and as the author of Frankenstein. It was not until 1989, when Emily Sunstein published her prizewinning biography Mary Shelley: Romance and Reality, that a full-length scholarly biography analyzing all of Shelley's letters, journals, and works within their historical context was published.
The well-meaning attempts of Mary Shelley's son and daughter-in-law to "Victorianise" her memory through the censoring of letters and biographical material contributed to a perception of Mary Shelley as a more conventional, less reformist figure than her works suggest. Her own timid omissions from Percy Shelley's works and her quiet avoidance of public controversy in the later years of her life added to this impression.
The eclipse of Mary Shelley's reputation as a novelist and biographer meant that, until the last thirty years, most of her works remained out of print, obstructing a larger view of her achievement. She was seen as a one-novel author, if that. In recent decades, however, the republication of almost all her writings has stimulated a new recognition of its value. Her voracious reading habits and intensive study, revealed in her journals and letters and reflected in her works, is now better appreciated. Shelley's recognition of herself as an author has also been recognized; after Percy's death, she wrote about her authorial ambitions: "I think that I can maintain myself, and there is something inspiriting in the idea". Scholars now consider Mary Shelley to be a major Romantic figure, significant for her literary achievement and her political voice as a woman and a liberal.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
September 27, 2015
4.5 stars (for Frankenstein).
October 19, 2022
This classic horror novel needs no introduction but does need some clarification. The Universal Horror Film version of the monster has become ubiquitous in Western culture and overshadows the depiction of the creature in the novel. The mute, zombie-like Boris Karloff incarnation is physically similar to but lacks the persuasiveness, cunning, and agility of the book's monster. The monster learns to speak and is quite eloquent and self-aware, especially of his needs for a companion. The book has a different story and a much closer link between the doctor and his creation.
The parallel between Victor Frankenstein and the monster is fascinating. Frankenstein has great ambition and curiosity. He wants to be a great scientist but gets off on the wrong foot in his youth by reading Paracelsus and other (unknown to Frankenstein) scientifically discredited writers. When he goes to university, some professors mock him for reading worthless trash. One teacher takes pity on him and helps guide him to more fruitful learning. Frankenstein keeps his desire to create life hidden even from his greatest sympathizers (i.e., that professor and his family). He works alone and eventually has success, a success that horrifies him so much that he flees his own lab. He can't face what he's done now that he can see it more clearly. He goes home to recover from the stress.
The newly-awakened monster also flees the lab. He struggles to understand the world around him and receives no help at all from anyone. People who see him are revolted by his appearance and always choose the "fight" part of the primitive "fight or flight" response. The monster eventually finds an isolated cabin with a father and two adult children. He listens to their conversations, learning a language and how people normally interact. He chops wood for them at night and is an unseen benefactor, just as he benefits from them. When he finally reveals himself to the father (who is blind and so does not have an immediate negative reaction), he almost makes a human connection. Then the son and daughter return and the son beats on the monster. The monster is forced to flee again. He discovers who his true creator is and goes to the Frankenstein home in hopes of finding a sympathetic creator. The monster persuades Frankenstein to make him a female companion so that he won't be alone and won't cause problems for Frankenstein and the rest of humanity. He's killed Frankenstein's younger brother and put the blame on an innocent woman who is executed, so the monster has already demonstrated a malicious cunning that could (and does) make Frankenstein's life miserable.
Both Frankenstein and the monster are in desperate need of other people in their lives to support them. The doctor has had mixed responses from the academics; the creature has had nothing but hard treatment from anyone. The monster goes to the only person he thinks might help him; the doctor seeks out no help with his problems (either creating another monster or getting rid of the monster he has created), even though he has a loving family and an academic friend who would give the assistance he needs. If Frankenstein had shown care and support to his creation, the story would be very different. Both need genuine love and affection in their lives. The creature does not have it because everyone else cannot see past his physical deformity. Frankenstein has it but is unwilling to be completely honest with anyone, so he can't benefit from their love in any way other than superficial. Frankenstein is clearly culpable; the monster is more a victim of circumstance (though he has culpability too).
The book is an amazing look at obsession and the need for love. The central characters struggle with each other and with themselves but cannot win. Their main problem is isolation, self-imposed in Frankenstein's case. A lot of the horror was avoidable. Making bad choices spirals out of control and leads to a tragic ending.
Highly recommended.
Check out the discussion on A Good Story is Hard to Find Podcast 125.
The parallel between Victor Frankenstein and the monster is fascinating. Frankenstein has great ambition and curiosity. He wants to be a great scientist but gets off on the wrong foot in his youth by reading Paracelsus and other (unknown to Frankenstein) scientifically discredited writers. When he goes to university, some professors mock him for reading worthless trash. One teacher takes pity on him and helps guide him to more fruitful learning. Frankenstein keeps his desire to create life hidden even from his greatest sympathizers (i.e., that professor and his family). He works alone and eventually has success, a success that horrifies him so much that he flees his own lab. He can't face what he's done now that he can see it more clearly. He goes home to recover from the stress.
The newly-awakened monster also flees the lab. He struggles to understand the world around him and receives no help at all from anyone. People who see him are revolted by his appearance and always choose the "fight" part of the primitive "fight or flight" response. The monster eventually finds an isolated cabin with a father and two adult children. He listens to their conversations, learning a language and how people normally interact. He chops wood for them at night and is an unseen benefactor, just as he benefits from them. When he finally reveals himself to the father (who is blind and so does not have an immediate negative reaction), he almost makes a human connection. Then the son and daughter return and the son beats on the monster. The monster is forced to flee again. He discovers who his true creator is and goes to the Frankenstein home in hopes of finding a sympathetic creator. The monster persuades Frankenstein to make him a female companion so that he won't be alone and won't cause problems for Frankenstein and the rest of humanity. He's killed Frankenstein's younger brother and put the blame on an innocent woman who is executed, so the monster has already demonstrated a malicious cunning that could (and does) make Frankenstein's life miserable.
Both Frankenstein and the monster are in desperate need of other people in their lives to support them. The doctor has had mixed responses from the academics; the creature has had nothing but hard treatment from anyone. The monster goes to the only person he thinks might help him; the doctor seeks out no help with his problems (either creating another monster or getting rid of the monster he has created), even though he has a loving family and an academic friend who would give the assistance he needs. If Frankenstein had shown care and support to his creation, the story would be very different. Both need genuine love and affection in their lives. The creature does not have it because everyone else cannot see past his physical deformity. Frankenstein has it but is unwilling to be completely honest with anyone, so he can't benefit from their love in any way other than superficial. Frankenstein is clearly culpable; the monster is more a victim of circumstance (though he has culpability too).
The book is an amazing look at obsession and the need for love. The central characters struggle with each other and with themselves but cannot win. Their main problem is isolation, self-imposed in Frankenstein's case. A lot of the horror was avoidable. Making bad choices spirals out of control and leads to a tragic ending.
Highly recommended.
Check out the discussion on A Good Story is Hard to Find Podcast 125.
December 7, 2023
3.5
My rating is for Frankenstein.
My rating is for Frankenstein.
October 24, 2023
Dracula 2/5 ✨
Frankenstein 4/5✨
Frankenstein 4/5✨
October 25, 2024
I listened to both of these as audiobooks.
I could have sworn I had read these or at least parts when I was younger. But, after listening to these I think my memories are from all the other media representations of these stories. I've read other comics & books, and watched every TV show & movie. Even the stories, TV shows, and movies about the creation of these stories. I really enjoyed these stories. It's very interesting to see/hear the original material.
I could have sworn I had read these or at least parts when I was younger. But, after listening to these I think my memories are from all the other media representations of these stories. I've read other comics & books, and watched every TV show & movie. Even the stories, TV shows, and movies about the creation of these stories. I really enjoyed these stories. It's very interesting to see/hear the original material.
October 8, 2024
Dracula was definately better than Frankenstein for me. Frankenstein was just hard to get into after reading Dracula.
October 16, 2024
For the record, I only read the Frankenstein half ofnthis book.
That did NOT play out as I imagined. I always assumed this story took place in one location and the monster was hunted down by villagers and burned. Im not certain why i thought that, but that's not the case at all. Mary Shelley had a strong grasp of the English language. Her descriptions are enchanting and poetic. I haven't read a book that uses words in the same manner.
My only gripe is that there's no distinction between characters. Yes, you know who is speaking and who is doing what, but the dictionary is the same for each character. The monster, who had to learn language, spoke as eloquently and philosophically as his creator, who in turn speaks and writes identically to his father, professors, and friends. But the words are beautiful and I forgive it.
That did NOT play out as I imagined. I always assumed this story took place in one location and the monster was hunted down by villagers and burned. Im not certain why i thought that, but that's not the case at all. Mary Shelley had a strong grasp of the English language. Her descriptions are enchanting and poetic. I haven't read a book that uses words in the same manner.
My only gripe is that there's no distinction between characters. Yes, you know who is speaking and who is doing what, but the dictionary is the same for each character. The monster, who had to learn language, spoke as eloquently and philosophically as his creator, who in turn speaks and writes identically to his father, professors, and friends. But the words are beautiful and I forgive it.
October 19, 2025
Basically the definition of anti-climax, but whatever. It's a classic.
My review of Frankenstein can be found elsewhere.
My review of Frankenstein can be found elsewhere.
October 24, 2025
Dracula was a 2/5. I know it’s a slow burn, but the pacing was painful.
Frankenstein was a solid 4/5 despite a weak start.
Frankenstein was a solid 4/5 despite a weak start.
October 28, 2025
Frankenstein story not what I thought it was after years of only movie adaptations.
June 4, 2015
I struggled between three stars and four stars with these two books. Considering that they were written in the 19th century, and I don't read many novels from the 19th century, I have a feeling they were excellent novels in their time. But, given the context of the 21st century and the evolution of writing during that time, especially in the horror and science fiction drama, specifically the horror novels that I've read, these two would be more of a three star rating. Don't get me wrong, I think Stoker and Shelley were geniuses in their day, and the contribution of these novels to popular culture is immeasurable. I did enjoy the discussion and depictions of the natural surroundings and geography of the settings in both books. I feel like Dracula had a little more action than Frankenstein, but Frankenstein was a little more dramatic and emotional. I think I felt more for the characters in Frankenstein. They both reminded me of Greek or Shakespearean tragedies. Again, if I read these books at face value in today's context I think the actual writing would be a three-star for me, but the impact these characters that Stoker and Shelley created on culture and the number of stories and characters that have been expounded on since then, make both of these novels seminal moments in the history of horror and science fiction literature. I contemplated that with awe the whole time I read these novels. I am intrigued to learn more about these characters and the books, plays, novels and movies that have spun off over time.
January 9, 2009
I read Frankenstein first. This book I'd rate two stars. Slow start, but the fifth chapter was as good as promised. Terrifying premise, and very real. And then some of the later chapters switched to philosophical treatise, which wasn't as interesting. I skipped over a lot of those. The story of how this novel evolved was the amazing part; the author was only 18/19, Lord Byron challenged her and other writers to write a horror story, and she had this dream.
The four stars of this review was really for Dracula. Unrelenting suspense, although sometimes the characters did head scratchers, the kind that makes a reader say, "Don't go into that room after dark!! Duh!" Some details seemed really bizarre, but the author ties up the details very nicely. The movie which starred Winona Ryder was very exploitative of the story's Freudian elements. It was good to read the original, devoid of Hollywood sensationalism, and to see why this book is considered the best of horror fiction.
The four stars of this review was really for Dracula. Unrelenting suspense, although sometimes the characters did head scratchers, the kind that makes a reader say, "Don't go into that room after dark!! Duh!" Some details seemed really bizarre, but the author ties up the details very nicely. The movie which starred Winona Ryder was very exploitative of the story's Freudian elements. It was good to read the original, devoid of Hollywood sensationalism, and to see why this book is considered the best of horror fiction.
January 11, 2018
this is for Dracula only. I'd rather save Frank for another day when I'm feeling this genre. I really loved the story. It was suspenseful and wonderfully written. I loved how Dracula was so gentlemanly and accommodating to Mr. Harker in the beginning of his stay at the castle. It was almost hard to see him as the villain. It was somewhat annoying though that Van Helsing seemed to go from a respected Dr. to a bit of a drama queen.
Dec 5-6 2017
so I finally read Frankenstein....it started a bit slow and boring, but by chapter 5 things finally got interesting. I have to admit my favorite chapters were those told by the "monster" himself. this story was nothing like I expected. I cant help but wonder how different things would have been if only he were given time with the blind man. or even just kind words from Frankenstein himself.
Dec 5-6 2017
so I finally read Frankenstein....it started a bit slow and boring, but by chapter 5 things finally got interesting. I have to admit my favorite chapters were those told by the "monster" himself. this story was nothing like I expected. I cant help but wonder how different things would have been if only he were given time with the blind man. or even just kind words from Frankenstein himself.
March 23, 2019
I thought I had read these a long time ago, when I found this copy from my aunt from way back in 1974. So, I thought I would read these. I saw all the movies, so I knew the stories. DRACULA was an amazing story and well written. It was different than what I thought it would be and I thoroughly enjoyed it. FRANKENSTEIN was a bit of a disappointment. I enjoy the story and I felt pathos for the monsters and for Frankenstein, but I thought the writing was not as beautiful or as fluid. I also think that there were threads that were not handled clearly and characters that were not fleshed out or even discussed after one or two mentions. (Frankenstein brother, Edward, isn't even discussed and he is the only family member let alive by the end.)
October 31, 2017
A re-read for me; I remember reading this book in my mid twenties, but appreciated it more this time round. The Victorian era was certainly the high watermark of British literature and storytelling. In this book we have two classic horror novels, which in my opinion neither film or TV adaptation has ever fully done justice to the books. Indeed, the written word of Dracula in particular, has at times, been totally forgotten in modern screenplays. These are as the title states two "Classics of Horror". and must reads for any lovers of "proper" literature! :)
Read
November 5, 2017Dracula
0/5
-Was looking forward to this book because I wanted to get into more classics. My main three points of negativity:
*Two main characters are barely featured in the book
*The book was too long
*The more I read the book, the less interested I became
Frankenstein
0/5
-Was looking forward to this book because I wanted to get into more classics (Same as Dracula)
-10 chapters in (of 16), book never caught my attention
-Main character not very interesting
0/5
-Was looking forward to this book because I wanted to get into more classics. My main three points of negativity:
*Two main characters are barely featured in the book
*The book was too long
*The more I read the book, the less interested I became
Frankenstein
0/5
-Was looking forward to this book because I wanted to get into more classics (Same as Dracula)
-10 chapters in (of 16), book never caught my attention
-Main character not very interesting
June 12, 2017
I just rated the stories with three stars and I am already starting to feel guilty. There are the classics, the modern variations might be a better read in the 21st century, but they would never have been written if Dracula and Frankenstein had never existed. So please take your time and give it a chance. The classics deserve it.
October 17, 2021
These editions I bought a few years ago they are without introductions that other editions may have and are a really nice set to own,in smaller hardback editions easy to carry in luggage.
Dracula and Frankenstein both incredible books I cannot believe its taken me so long to get round to reading them.
Dracula and Frankenstein both incredible books I cannot believe its taken me so long to get round to reading them.
January 1, 2019
My goal for 2018 was to finally read this book that I've had for many, many years.
11:50 P.M. 12/31/2018 and Finished!
I found both of these books extremely tedious and am clueless as to the how and why of them being considered "classics".
Blech!
11:50 P.M. 12/31/2018 and Finished!
I found both of these books extremely tedious and am clueless as to the how and why of them being considered "classics".
Blech!
Read
October 13, 2023Frankenstein was super whiny and reeked of male entitlement. The writing was great and I’m still impressed by Mary Shelley but dang was I bored. Dracula was amazing. I’ve never read Dracula before and other than being over dramatic, ridiculous at times, and definitely sexist, it was a fun listen.
October 24, 2007
Great Halloween read...muah haha
April 26, 2008
Really good. Both books are monster classics that can be understood in modern times!
January 4, 2012
Read dracula first, finished it on Dec 1 2008.
Started reading Frankenstein October 2011 and am now about half way done with it.
Started reading Frankenstein October 2011 and am now about half way done with it.
October 29, 2008
Even though I didn't love either book that much I loved that they were combined in one volume here. The two books are just meant to be together.
August 1, 2009
Two classic horror stories merged into one book, i don't think modern horror could touch these two.
Read
April 15, 2010fiction,fantasy
December 5, 2011
I plan to read only the Dracula portion of this book at this time.
May 28, 2012
I didn't read Frankenstein, too much of the same context and genre for me. Sometime I'll get to Shelley's book, but right now I need some modern romance.
June 27, 2012
Just reading Frankenstein
August 8, 2012
Both classics for very good reasons, these books should be read especially by people who are familiar with the stories only from the movies.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews