In the way, way back in let's say...the 18th century, most plots were original and had innovative concepts. Frankenstein was no exception to this phenomenon. But then Mary Shelley just had
to be the one who came up with it. Sorry but I believe only a rare number of people can take a damn good idea and weave a great story with it and Mary just wasn't one of them. Say, Pride and Prejudice was new and interesting enough because Jane Austen knew how to write. I believe Mary Shelley just got boggled down by the redundant details of the Frankie world and this all culminated in a wild bestseller. This is the not-so-common case where a bestseller doesn't mean the book itself is well-written and rated good. Seriously, for a 200ish page book, there was so much superfluous information that detracted from the whole appeal. Must we really need to know the whole history of De Lacy, Safie, Felix, and the other forgettable girl?
And don't forget the stupid plot hole that even I noticed: Justine died not indirectly due to the monster. It was Victor's own cowardice and society's irrational condemnation. The jury and the whole murder case was so sloppy because the evidence was barely enough to really incriminate. Why didn't they compare the size of Justine's hand to the one printed on William's neck? What reason would Justine have in killing for a small bauble? Where is the research that should've easily explained what had led to the judge's conviction? Obviously, Shelley didn't bother to go into specifics on this but spent that waste time explaining Victor's childhood. Huh.
This just reminds me of another book Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde where the concept is stellar but the plot was just jumbled all over the place. The framework of the storyline was too loose and amateurish predictability, lack of actions, and unconvincing atmosphere of 'horror' is utterly aggravating. At least Stevenson knew to keep his story to a bare minimum because Shelley's tale need not be stretched out over the course of a decade.