Showing posts with label Frankenstein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Frankenstein. Show all posts

Thursday, February 21, 2019

Third Time's a Charm: Jeffrey Bardwell's Rotten Magic

Title: Rotten Magic
Series: The Artifice Mage Saga (#1)
Author: Jeffrey Bardwell
Genre: Fantasy / Steampunk 
Publisher: Twigboat Press
Pages: 336

What Goodreads has to say:

Destiny in one hand. Doom in the other. Which will destroy him first? 

Artificers are the gilded princes of the Iron Empire. Mages are violent criminal outcasts. Devin competes to become the best artificer in the empire . . . but he's secretly a mage. 

Devin, a young skilled apprentice, dreams of becoming the master of his craft if he can only resist the sinuous allure of magic. His secret grows heavier as he claws his way to the top of his competitive, cutthroat guild. Friends and rivals start taking notice when Devin glorifies in the persona of the dragon and builds mechanical armor to match. He's also started hearing voices in his head: the stout words of the being he calls 'the artificer' and the sly, oily voice of 'the mage.' How long can Devin be satisfied with fake dragon armor when the promise of true arcane power whispers in his ear? 

Embark on Devin's dark, epic journey in Book One of The Artifice Mage Saga. Join the fantasy steampunk brawl of metal vs. magic where sorcery is bloody, science is greasy, and nobody's hands are clean.

What I have to say:

I don't usually talk about my own writing on here, but I'm gong to make a brief exception right now.

It took me a few years to realize how my writing process works. It's like this:

1. Write a book.
2. Read through it and make a few edits.
3. Decide it's probably the next great American novel.
4. Wait several months.
5. Read it again.
6. Realize it needs a complete rewrite.

As such, it's easy for me to understand why author Jeffrey Bardwell has rewritten Rotten Magic twice (well, at least twice, as far as I know).

I'm also happy to say that this third (and, as he tells me, final) incarnation of Devin's story is not only the best yet, but a more complete, satisfying story than either of the previous two versions.

First of all, I LOVE LOVE LOVE that the story starts in Devin's village before he gets accepted into the Artificer's Guild. He's still a poor, innocent country boy with stars in his eyes. Reading the first few chapters of the story, I just kept thinking, "Yes! Yes! Yes! This is where Devin's story starts."'

It's soooo much more interesting and satisfying to start here when he's an ignorant young bumpkin who wants nothing more than to study at the Artificer's Guild. He's never seen the Iron City: he has no idea what he's in store for, or what the Artificer's Guild is really like.

It gives the tragedy that follows (in this book and the sequels) so much more weight. And it makes Devin's character arc so much more compelling.

I equally loved getting to see Devin's first encounter with Drusilla, Benny, and all the other students. The first two Rotten Magics started with Devin already in his last year of apprenticeship--at which point he'd been living in the Iron City for a few years and was already enmeshed in the tangled web of the Artificer's Guild, with Benny as his nemesis and Drusilla as his best friend.

In those other two drafts, I never realized what I was missing. It's so fun to see these relationships take shape. It's so fascinating to see Devin transform from his first to final year as an Artificer.

For anyone who hasn't had the benefit of seeing this story slowly take shape (and it's been so interesting to see), I'll stop talking about the changes and just dive into the story itself.

Magic. Steampunk. Characters so complex you cheer for them one moment and cringe for them the next. You love them, hate what they're doing, and find the whole thing so utterly fascinating you can't look away from the impending train wreck. WHAT'S NOT TO LOVE HERE? THIS IS EVERYTHING I WANT IN A BOOK.

Devin is such a fascinating character, and perhaps equally fascinating is Drusilla. Though I'm still perplexed by her actions in the final chapter (how does she think turning Devin over to the Black Guards is going to free him?), I so love Drusilla's character and her inner monologues:

And of course you're only doing this for Devin's sake, I told myself. Because his behavior has grown so bizarre, his inventions so dangerous. Not from any sense of jealousy? Not because never in your craziest dreams could you have imagined such an awesome flame-throwing device? And you, the lamper's daughter, no less!

As for Devin himself, he's your ultimate troubled hero. I love the boy to death and want nothing more than for him to succeed. But from the moment he first kindles a fire from his fingertips--not even a fire, really, just a faint, fleeting warmth--you know where this is all headed.

Oh, did I mention? Magic is forbidden in the Iron Empire. Devin's not only a crazy brilliant artificer--he's secretly a mage.

Also, he's unstable as heck. Is it something to do with the magic? Does magic make a person unstable? Dangerous? Is Devin really--like the mages on all those propaganda posters--a monster?

I love it, I'm here for all of it--even the train wreck at the end.

And writing this, the spirit of my former English major (writing her senior thesis on Frankenstein adaptations) just resurfaced. Because what screams Frankenstein's monster like a troubled boy--cast out by his fellows and denied fellowship until he's desperate--igniting a room full of innocent bystanders (well, admittedly, they are Black Guards who are probably going to arrest him, but still....)?

Whenever the Artificer's Guild students play Knights and Dragons--a bit like Capture the Flag, but the Flag is the Dragon and once you find him, well let's just say it's a bit more violent than Capture the Flag--Devin is ALWAYS the Dragon. Dragon Boy. That's his nickname. Why not just call him a monster and have done with it?

But somehow, like Frankenstein's monster, Devin may be the least monstrous of them all. He's so innocent. And yet--he's anything but innocent. It's complex, it's fascinating, it's beautiful. It's Rotten Magic 3.0.

This is where I break into applause.

Rating:


(Y'all saw that coming, right?)



Until tomorrow.


P.S. -- Now you all know how to bribe me into giving a great review. Just write a book with Frankenstein parallels.

Thursday, March 31, 2016

Victor Frankenstein: MEET YOUR MAKERS

This poster. There are better ones but I picked this one because it cracks me up.

Title: Victor Frankenstein
Director: Paul McGuigan
Screenplay: Max Landis
Starring: James McAvoy, Daniel Radcliffe, Jessica Brown Findlay, Andrew Scott (or Prof. Xavier, Harry Potter, Lady Sybil, and Moriarty)
Release Date: 25 November 2015 (but it took FOREVER to release onto DVD)

Length: 1 h 50 min
Rating: PG-13 for macabre images, violence and a sequence of destruction (that's seriously what it says)
Genre: Drama, Sci-Fi, Thriller


Well, after waiting a ridiculously long time for the film's release on Amazon, I finally watched the new Victor Frankenstein movie, starring Daniel Radcliffe, James McAvoy, and Jessica Brown Findlay. I expected it to be awful, and it wasn't, so that right there was enough to make me happy. But I was also impressed by a few things in the movie that I want to briefly comment on.

First, let's just get out of the way all the random BBC cameos. Was there anyone in this movie who hasn't worked for BBC? I don't think so. It was like a Muppet movie but with all BBC cameos. That was fun. 

Second, the physical appearance of Frankenstein's Monster. (It's probably not a SPOILER that the Monster gets created, but if you want the reveal of its physical appearance to be a surprise, skip this paragraph.) This is always a vital but difficult aspect of any Frankenstein adaptation: how to portray the Monster. Obviously, the most iconic is Boris Karloff's uncanny blend of life and death in the 1931 black and white Frankenstein. Other adaptations have gone out of their way to avoid making the Monster look too much like Boris Karloff's, but it's nearly impossible to replace an icon, and no other adaptations have ever succeeded in supplanting Karloff's Monster's place in pop culture. The makers of Victor Frankenstein obviously understood this, and so they didn't try to replace Karloff's Monster: they built on it. Frankenstein's Monster in this film is reminiscent enough of Karloff's to evoke that cultural touchstone in the viewer's mind, but different enough not to look like a direct copy. I found that stroke brilliant and sensitive. (Also the moment when someone mispronounced Frankenstein's name as "Fronk-in-shteen" = score.)

Thirdly, I really liked the focus on Igor as another of Victor Frankenstein's "creations." Since the focus of this movie wasn't on the Monster but rather on Igor, the makers of the film had to find another way to evoke the Frankenstein creation myth, and I thought it was very well done with the character of Igor. Victor took him from the circus and changed him from a misused, animalistic hunchback to a civilized, refined human being. At one point in the film, Victor claims that he created Igor. We can debate whether or not that's strictly true - just as we can debate whether it's true for Frankenstein's Monster.

The setting, costumes, visuals, and feel of the movie were imaginative and fun. It had that steampunk fantasy feel, but not to the point where it was overdone. I probably could have done without the demon monkey monster, but there had to be some element of horror in the film (since it was Frankenstein) so I guess maybe we needed the demon monkey for scares; the rest of the film was a little morbid but not really frightening. 

On to the acting. James McAvoy and Andrew Scott (the film's villain) are both fantastic actors, and it shows no matter what role they're in. McAvoy was perfect as the obsessive mad scientist and Scott was great as the similarly obsessive God-fearing policeman. Is there a mirroring going on there? I hadn't thought of that. That's kind of cool.

Jessica Brown Findlay (of Downton Abbey fame) is also great, though I'm not sure the role really let her show off her full acting talent, but that's OK. I can't exactly say the same thing for Daniel Radcliffe. I love him but I'm not going to lie and say he's a great actor. Harry Potter he could do, and did great, but this role naturally demanded a large spectrum of emotions and transformation, and Radcliffe just isn't really suited to that. A more seasoned and skilled actor could have played the role with about twenty times more pathos, complexity, ambiguity, and depth.

Also, the relationship between Igor and the female lead (played by Findlay) was a little hard to swallow. I can see them being friends, definitely, but it was hard for me to believe that Findlay's gorgeous and intellectually mature character would want to have a romantic relationship (and a bit more than that, too) with Radcliffe's sympathetic but rather flat character. That said, I liked the relationship that existed between Frankenstein (McAvoy) and Igor (Radcliffe). That one was a little more believable, and pretty well played overall.

Lastly, a small complaint: why does Victor Frankenstein always have to have a neglectful father and a brother who died young? Can we get some more creative plot points, please? It's becoming boringly predictable. I know not every Frankenstein adaptation has these elements, but most of the ones I've seen/read recently have. The dead brother plot point was well done in Kenneth Oppel's Frankenstein prequels, but now it's just getting to be a cliche. Frankenstein's brother doesn't have to die for him to be interested in creating life. Maybe he's just naturally curious. Or maybe there's some other reason; we can try to be a little more original than that.

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Birdwing by Rafe Martin


Title: Birdwing
Author: Rafe Martin
Publication Date: 2005
Number of Pages: 359 (but the font is fairly big)
Purchase: AmazonBarnes & NobleebayAbe BooksThe Book DepositoryPowell's Books

What Goodreads has to say:


A boy marked by physical difference--one arm is an enchanted wing--finds his strength and purpose in this stirring fantasy. A Washington Post Best Kids Book of 2005 and Book Sense Winter Pick.


Once upon a time, a girl rescued her seven brothers from a spell that had turned them into swans. But one boy, Ardwin, was left with the scar of the spell's last gasp: one arm remained a wing. And while Ardwin yearned to find a place in his father's kingdom, the wing whispered to him of open sky and rushing wind. Marked by difference, Ardwin sets out to discover who he is: bird or boy, crippled or sound, cursed or blessed. But followed by the cold eye of a sorceress and with war rumbling at his kingdom's borders, Ardwin's path may lead him not to enlightenment, but into unimaginable danger.

What I have to say:


The premise of this book is brilliant - it's why I wanted to read it. Doesn't every child who hears the Grimm's fairy tale of the Six Swans wonder about that one brother who is left with a wing at the end? His name is Ardwin, and this is his story. It probably should have been told a long time ago, but no matter; It's told now.

Birdwing was a well-written story, with likeable characters - Ardin (Birdwing) is especially sympathetic, and I enjoyed watching his character arc unfold. The language at times is beautiful, and the atmosphere feels otherworldly and mythic, but still human enough to be relevant. 

In fact, I find that if I stop thinking of Birdwing as simply a novel, and think of it instead as a fairy tale or myth, it's better. That's not to say the story was bad, but I do think it has a few flaws if you take it as a modern novel, and if that's what you're expecting, I think you'll find a sweet, thoughtful story, but you might be a little disappointed.  

In fact, the description of Ardwin towards the end of the book - as a young prince with one swan wing, a lion skin vest and worn traveling cloak, carrying an old heavy sword and a spear slung over his shoulder, with a lion's tooth hanging around his neck - is a good symbol for the style and setting of the story. The young man looks almost barbaric, but in a grand and mythic way. And his figure represents the weaving together of the human and faery worlds that is such a prominent part of the book and, in fact, of Ardwin himself.

I particularly enjoyed Ardwin's discussion with his sister, Rose Red, the heroine of the Six Swans story, who - quite literally - never really has a chance to share her side of the story in the fairy tale. Birdwing gives a voice to those characters in the fairy tale who have never been allowed to share why they acted the way they did and what the experience did to them. The characters in Birdwing are, in the typographical sense, heroes, heroines, and villains, but in this story they are human, and allowed to share their motivations, desires, and emotions. And it's about time.

Illustration by P. J. Lynch

Someone on Goodreads commented that the story of Birdwing feels very disjointed; and I think they're right. That may have been part of the reason I wasn't engrossed in the story. I wanted to finish it, and I wanted to find out what happened to Ardwin and how he resolved his dilemma, but it was more a general interest and desire to finish the book than a glued-to-my-seat level of engrossment. 

I think I might have enjoyed this book more if I had read it when I was younger, and C. S. Lewis would probably have something earth-shattering and brilliant to say about that, but as it is, I enjoyed Birdwing

The story is alternately sweet, funny, sad, and mythic. 

A few of my favorite moments: the description of Ardwin, mentioned above, in the second half of the tale; the moment I realized that the story was, to a certain extent, a Frankenstein adaptation, and the description of the madness of King Ulfius. And I have to say just a little about that last one. Though crazy Ulfius only appears in a couple short chapters, the way the author showed his madness was chilling and brilliant. I love a villain that makes me shiver, especially when he's totally deranged and there's no negotiating with him; it raises the stakes, and a good story should generally have high stakes, or we won't be invested. 

So maybe the ending was a little anti-climactic, from this standpoint, but then again, it was the perfect ending to a fairy tale, and, to tell the truth, an epic battle scene fighting a deranged king who's trying to cut the hero's arm off didn't really match the style of the rest of the story anyway, so it made sense that the impending climax of the book was resolved in the end in a way that was pretty clean and eucatastrophic*.

In the end, Birdwing finds its greatest success in doing what it set out to do from the moment of the story's conception: the tale is an exploration and attempt to understand, as the author puts it, "the wing we all have" - why we have it, and how we can live with it.

I leave you with one share-worthy quote from Ardwin Birdwing himself: 

Ardwin said to the children, "Do you still have the feathers I gave you?" 
"Yes," said Annie and the others.  
"Good. Keep them. One day - who can say when, but when the time is right - a wind will come and it will lift you where you need to go. For now, prepare," he continued. "Learn all you can. Study maps and books, music and stories. Grow strong. You will have wings, not like mine, but your own. Those feathers are the sign."


*See Tolkien's essay "On Fairy Stories" or my post on the Tolkien Reader.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

It's Alive! (Maybe) + Giveaway

Everyone wants to (re)create Frankenstein.

The book was getting adapted in Mary Shelley's lifetime - most famously when she attended a play only to discover when it started that it was an adaptation of her novel. (#famouswriterprobs)

The most recent film adaptation starred Daniel Radcliffe and James McAvoy in Victor Frankenstein. (Don't worry - you'll get a review. I just haven't seen the movie yet.)

But recreating Frankenstein is not an easy task. To date there have only been two successful film adaptations (always excluding the above-mentioned film which I'm sure will be the best yet): Whale's 1931 adaptation starring Boris Karloff, and Mel Brooks' parody Young Frankenstein.

Maybe it's this repetition that makes it so hard to piece together a new creation from the old scraps of a corpse that has been reanimated regularly for almost 200 years.

And for that reason, when a Frankenstein adaptation succeeds, it demands attention.

Kenneth Oppel's Apprenticeship of Victor Frankenstein trilogy (I use the word in the hope that the two book series will have offspring) is the best Frankenstein story, outside of the original novel and the 1931 film, that I have encountered.

If you've been here before, you might recall my review of the first book in the Apprenticeship trilogy, This Dark Endeavor, in which I praised the novel to the skies.

A review of the second book, Such Wicked Intent, would probably read similarly.

But because I don't like to do the same thing twice, (come on, you know this blog would be boring if it was consistent) this post will review two Frankenstein novels side by side - like two brothers, one of whom is trying to resurrect the other from the dead.

And, aside from both being YA Frankenstein adaptations, that plot point is the main thing Such Wicked Intent has in common with This Monstrous Thing - the steampunked Frankenstein story by emerging writer MacKenzi Lee.


The two resurrection plots differ in the details, of course: when his brother dies, Alasdair tries to reanimate him using clockwork; when Victor's brother dies, he tries to grow a new body in the hope that he can bring his brother's spirit back to inhabit it.

Oppel's book is a prequel to Mary Shelley's novel; Lee's is a re-imagining of Mary Shelley's world, in which the Frankenstein story is based on true events and the monster is created using gears and clockwork.

I found Lee's story interesting in that it featured Mary Shelley as a prominent character, and I liked the theme of Frankenstein meets Steampunk (because seriously, that's an awesome idea and why didn't I think of it?) I liked the characters, especially Alasdair (the Victor Frankenstein parallel), and Clemence (the capable girl with a secret). And the second half of the book completely hooked me. It was a fun story and one that I enjoyed.

But - and I mean this with no disrespect to MacKenzi Lee, whom I regard as awesome - This Monstrous Thing didn't quite live up to the expectations I had formed for it after reading the reviews on goodreads. It was and is a good story - and the first sentence of the book gave me chills - but when I place it beside Kenneth Oppel's Such Wicked Intent, I find that it pales a bit in comparison.

Oppel's Victor Frankenstein novels are alive(!) with passion, suspense, and a strong undercurrent of the Gothic. The characters are strong and vibrant, and the whole story has a dark, creepy edge that makes you shiver but with delight (if it were really, truly horrifying I wouldn't read it, so you can rest assured it's safe for you). Victor's character is so spot on it hurts, and I loved seeing Henry Clerval grow in this book. Elizabeth was as fiery as ever, and Konrad so likable that you really feel it when he - ok, he's already dead at the start of this book, so not a huge spoiler, really. Let's just say, lots of hyperventilation towards the end of the book.

Lee is a debut author with lots of promise; Oppel is a seasoned writer who knows how to manipulate the variables to in turn manipulate his readers. The choice to switch to present tense when Victor is in the spirit world is brilliant - especially since Victor feels the spirit world as more real and present than the living world, which uses the past tense. Oppel implies so much with just a change in tense. And that is why his Frankenstein story lives while so many others fall flat on their face and die.

Kenneth Oppel is a master storyteller, and as a creator, he puts Victor Frankenstein to shame.

Anyone else think this tombstone faintly resembles R2D2?

I've mentioned several Frankensteinian (if that's not a word it should be) stories in this post. And you could take one home. Or, rather... it could come to your home. That sounded ominous. But all I meant was that if you comment on this post, your name will be entered in a giveaway for one book or movie from the following list of Frankenstein-related fiction:

Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley

This Dark Endeavor OR Such Wicked Intent, by Kenneth Oppel

This Monstrous Thing, by MacKenzi Lee

Frankenstein, the 1931 film starring Boris Karloff

Young Frankenstein, the 1974 film by Mel Brooks


If you win, you can choose ONE of these items which will then be shipped to you. The item condition may not be Like New, but it will be decent, and it's free. (:

To enter the giveaway, answer one of the following questions by commenting on this post:

What's your favorite Frankenstein adaptation?

Have you seen the new Victor Frankenstein movie? What should I know? (no spoilers)

What is the worst Frankenstein adaptation you have ever seen?

Or, if none of these questions pertain to you, what do you think of when you think "Frankenstein?"


I'll announce the winner on this blog a month from now, so check back in on March 4th to see if you're the lucky one. May the odds be.... no. Good luck.

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Kenneth Oppel's This Dark Endeavor

10860716 
Title: This Dark Endeavor
Author: Kenneth Oppel
Series: The Apprenticeship of Victor Frankenstein (#1)
Publisher: Simon & Schuster
Publication Date: 2011 

What Goodreads has to say:

Victor Frankenstein leads a charmed life. He and his twin brother, Konrad, and their beautiful cousin Elizabeth take lessons at home and spend their spare time fencing and horseback riding. Along with their friend Henry, they have explored all the hidden passageways and secret rooms of the palatial Frankenstein chateau. Except one.

The Dark Library contains ancient tomes written in strange languages and filled with forbidden knowledge. Their father makes them promise never to visit the library, but when Konrad becomes deathly ill, Victor knows he must find the book that contains the recipe for the legendary Elixir of Life.

The elixir needs only three ingredients. But impossible odds, dangerous alchemy and a bitter love triangle threaten their quest at every turn.

Victor knows he must not fail. Yet his success depends on how far he is willing to push the boundaries of nature, science and love—and how much he is willing to sacrifice.

What I have to say:

"We found the monster on a rocky ledge high above the lake. For three dark days my brother and I had tracked it through the maze of caves to its lair on the mountain's summit. And now we beheld it, curled atop its treasure, its pale fur and scales ablaze with moonlight."

After a long fight with the monster, the narrator and his identical twin brother succeed in killing it. As the monster dies, the narrator kneels down beside it.

"'Why,' I asked her. 'Why was it only me you attacked?'  
'Because it is you,' she whispered, ' who is the real monster.'
And with that, she died, leaving me more shaken than I could describe... I turned my gaze to the pile of treasure.
'We have more than can ever be spent,' my brother murmured.  
I looked at him. 'The treasure is mine alone.'"  
... Back and forth across the ledge we fought... before long I had smacked the sword from his hand and forced him to his knees. Even as he stared at me with my own face, and pleaded with me in my own voice, I plunged the sword into his heart and stole his life.  
I gave a sigh of utter relief and looked up at the moon, felt the cool May air caress my face.  
'Now I shall have all the riches in the world,' I said. 'And I am, at last, alone.'"
So begins This Dark Endeavor, Kenneth Oppel's young adult prequel to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. But don't worry, the opening scene is only a play, put on by teenage Victor Frankenstein, his twin brother Konrad, their cousin Elizabeth, and the trio's close friend Henry Clerval. Clearly, though, not everything in the play is fictitious. In fact, looking back on this opening chapter after having read the whole book, I'm kind of getting goose-bumps. The play that Victor and his friends put on introduces several of the themes that run throughout the book:


1. Monster/Animal

2. Twins

3. Sharing "treasure"

4. Being alone


In listing the themes or undercurrents of the novel, I would only add one more to this list:


5. Science vs. Religion vs. Alchemy


That's not to say that these were the only themes of the book, but they were the main ones that I detected. I'd like to explore some of them in greater detail, because I think that the way the author sets up these themes and then has his characters interact with them is very interesting and well-thought-out. But first, I'd like to record some of my overall impressions of the book, as this is primarily a book review.


First of all, let me just say that I really loved this book. It had its faults (which I will get to in a second) but over all I found it extremely engaging, very well-written and at times thought-provoking, and wonderfully Gothic. In other words, the author delivered. Because Frankenstein itself is engaging, thought-provoking, and the most successful Gothic novel of all time, readers who pick up a prequel to Mary Shelley's classic would expect it to incorporate all of these things as well, though perhaps on a slightly smaller scale (as it is a YA novel). And that is just what Kenneth Oppel gives us.

There were many times when I could not put this book down. I had to read just one more chapter, not only to find out what happened next, but also because the writing was so fun and the main character so interesting. It's been a while since I've read anything so engaging, especially towards the end. It was super intense. Also, a word of caution, this book gets rather violent in its final chapters (it is the prequel to Frankenstein, after all). It was pretty bloody and a little sickening. Also riveting.

At several points in the novel, I was surprised by the deep questions the story was engaging with, as well as by the way that the author dealt with these questions. For example, I was not expecting to find in a YA thriller a deep discussion on Atheism and religion. Victor's family is very liberal and thus he and his parents are atheists; but his cousin Elizabeth was raised by nuns and is a devout Catholic. Victor's parents never discourage Elizabeth from practicing her religion, even going so far as to make sure that she has a ride to Mass whenever she needs it. As the story progresses and the lives of all the characters darken, many of them begin to find out just how far their beliefs go, and if the stance they have taken on the subject of religion is in fact the right one. The author never directly answers this question, but definitely prompts readers to think about it through the lens of the story.

Finally, this novel was CREEPY. And by that, I don't mean that it kept me up at night imagining things coming at me out of the darkness, or that it gave me nightmares. I mean that it was deliciously creepy, in true Gothic style. There is a hidden library in the Frankenstein family mansion, containing forbidden books on alchemy and magic. Elizabeth sleepwalks at night, but she never remembers it in the morning. The forest nearby houses fierce animals like wolves and vultures, and there are caves beneath the lake that contain monstrous fish thought by many to be extinct. You get the idea. This is a book that makes you shiver, but in such a way that you want to shiver again.

Another thing I loved about this book was that it is indeed a prequel - and a very careful and thoughtful prequel at that. Kenneth Oppel has obviously done his homework and, as far as I can tell, thought a great deal about the original novel by Mary Shelley. He sets everything up perfectly, and adds new layers to the story of Frankenstein. One example, and something that I particularly enjoyed about this story, is the protagonist: Victor Frankenstein. He is a very likeable character (at least in my opinion) and easy to empathize with, but he is also deeply flawed in all of the ways that Mary Shelley's protagonist is flawed: he's rather arrogant, so passionate that he sometimes frightens Elizabeth, and dead-set on accomplishing something once he's fixed his mind to it, whether or not it's a good idea.

That being said (and I think this may be my one criticism of the novel) there were a few moments in the book that were so obviously hearkening forward to Frankenstein that I almost laughed aloud. Some examples are: a street named "Wollstonecraft Alley;" a metaphor around the middle of the book that makes a comparison with a ship locked in ice; and Elizabeth's dream about her wedding day, in which a strange voice tells her, "I will be with you on your wedding night." Though that last one is kind of interesting, as the voice could actually belong to a few different characters - Victor, Konrad, and of course the monster, included. These moments in the book were really the only places where I felt that the author might be straining a little too hard in order to build a connection with Frankenstein. I guess it felt somewhat forced. But, I must admit that I also kind of enjoyed these moments. They were nods to people who had read Frankenstein, and it was fun to "pick them out" even if that didn't require much effort. Maybe my problem is that these nods made it so that This Dark Endeavor was not a self-contained book. And to the objection that a prequel is never self-contained (if anyone wants to make that objection) I point to The Hobbit. The Hobbit is self-contained because you don't have to read The Lord of the Rings trilogy in order to understand The Hobbit. I've never heard of anyone just reading The Hobbit and never going on to the trilogy, and certainly you will have a richer, deeper experience if you read all of the books; but you can read just The Hobbit and not have any confusion resulting from not having read the trilogy beforehand. Part of that is undoubtedly because Tolkien wrote The Hobbit first - his original readers (as well as himself) didn't have the trilogy in front of them: they only had the "prequel" which wasn't even a prequel at the time, but a stand alone novel. And I promise this is not a review about The Hobbit, so I'll get back to This Dark Endeavor. My point is that, when you insert things into your book which readers will only understand and/or enjoy if they've read another book, you limit your audience and, I think, weaken your own story - because you're relying on that other story to make your story more enjoyable. But this is a minor criticism, and it didn't prevent me from enjoying the story.


And now that I have given you my general impressions, I'd like to get back to the opening scene of the story and give you a taste for how it introduces the major themes of the novel.

1. Monster/Animal

This first chapter is titled, "Monster," which gave me pause for a moment. Thinking back on it, it gives me even more pause. Who is the monster that the title refers to? Just reading the title on its own, before plunging into the actual text, I thought of Frankenstein's monster, and I assume that is primarily what Oppel meant his readers to think of. But once we get into the chapter itself, things become more complicated. Obviously, there is the fictional monster in the play, who the main character and his brother must slay in order to free the town and break the enchantment. I will call this monster #2, as monster #1 is the original monster created by Victor Frankenstein in Mary Shelley's novel. But then, Elizabeth (Victor's cousin) wears the costume of the monster and acts as the monster in the play, so could she be the monster referred to in the title (monster #3)? Then, of course, there is the possibility that Victor himself is the monster, since the play monster tells him so with her dying breath ("It is you who are the real monster"). And what makes this question even more interesting is that it seems equally possible for all of these candidates to be the monster based on supporting evidence from the text. I'll skip over monsters #1 and #2, because those two are kind of obvious, and move on to Elizabeth.

Elizabeth is beautiful, devoutly religious, and often gentle and kind. But she has a dark side.... (cue dramatic music). As already mentioned, she sleepwalks. She also has a resolve and a passion fully capable of matching Victor's. When Victor, Henry, and Elizabeth venture into the Sturmwald forest and are attacked by vultures, Elizabeth bites one in defense. At another point, she helps Victor rip open an animal and search through its organs. In short, Victor's claim that his twin brother, Konrad, sees Elizabeth's angel, but he sees her animal, seems well justified.

But the obvious candidate for monster is Victor himself. Probably we do not even need to read This Dark Endeavor to know that; Frankenstein is enough. But This Dark Endeavor is full of evidence, nonetheless. Despite his deep love for his brother, Victor is insanely jealous of Konrad, and willing to go to great lengths to prove that he is at least the equal of his twin. Also, despite his brotherly love, he deceives and steals from Konrad. When Elizabeth writes a note to Konrad, Victor intercepts it and doesn't tell his brother. When Elizabeth meets Victor in the dark and thinks that he is Konrad, Victor does not enlighten her. Besides this, there are the character flaws I have already briefly mentioned above. He is proud, even arrogant, with a desperate need, that manifests itself repeatedly, to do things on his own in order to prove something to someone. Also he is driven by an almost demonic passion. He completely disregards his father's orders over and over again, even breaking the laws of the city in order to succeed in his "dark endeavor."

Maybe the title of "monster" does not belong to one character alone. There need not be only one monster whom we call the monster; it is truer and far more interesting to see each individual character as "monstrous" or animalistic in their own way. The book does not contain one sole, definitive monster, but several.

Anyway, I hope my discussion of this topic has given you a taste for how delightfully complex and multi-faceted this book is. Also, it's a lot of fun. So if you're looking for a good read, go ahead and pick it up. Let me know what you think.