For a long time I equated "Frankenstein" with the monster, yes.
I finally read the novel at some point in my life and was surprised at how much I liked it ~ and how much it was NOT what I had thought it would be. I don't see it as horror at all. I find the novel practically a love story -- the unrequited love of the monster for his creator/doctor. At least, that's my take on it. :)
This post was edited by WelbyQuentin at March 30, 2017 5:28 PM MDT
In a way. The story is an example of science run amok and is referenced over and over again every time we figure out how to do something without gaining the wisdom whether or not it should be done at all. Tis a cautionary tale that monsters can be made from the minds of monsters, having no ethics, morals or conscious and drunk on arrogance.
This post was edited by O-uknow at February 23, 2019 4:47 PM MST
Yes, and "The" Batman is not "Batman"; The Lone Ranger is not The Long Ranger*; Bruce Lee did not portray The Green Hornet, but did portray The Green Hornet's assistant and driver; etc.
*My younger brother used to drive me crazy with that one when we were kids.
Yes ... I knew that even before I read the novel. And yes, the real "monster" was Frankenstein ... not his creation. And the creation was NOT made from body parts of dead people. Or at least, the novel does not say it was.