EP246: The Bride of Frankenstein

[DKT]

EP246: The Bride of Frankenstein

By Mike Resnick

Read by Julie Davis

Originally published in: Asimov’s — Download and read the text

Guest Host: Alasdair Stuart of Pseudopod

Victor can be so annoying. He constantly whistles this tuneless song, and when I complain he apologizes and then starts humming it instead. He never stands up to that ill-mannered little hunchback that he’s always sending out on errands. And he’s a coward. He can never just come to me and say “I need money again.” Oh, no, not Victor. Instead he sends that ugly little toady who’s rude to me and always smells like he hasn’t washed.

And when I ask what the money’s for this time, he tells me to ask Victor, and Victor just mumbles and stammers and never gets around to answering.

Rated PG: for spousal annoyances

[bumdhar]

Initially I thought this story would have been better if it wasn’t about the cinematic Frankenstein but “a Frankenstein.” The whole motif is dull to me. I would rather see some rich gal marry a mad scientist; they live out on some ranch in the middle of Utah or something, where he conducts his experiments to reanimate dead matter and go from there.

Also due to the characterization of the wife (maybe by the reader) I couldn’t help but think about the wife in “Young Frankenstein.” By the end of the story, however, I forgot about my initial misgivings. The arc of the Baroness’ acceptance of her life, her station, and the creature, is well executed, and this was the theme of the story—far outweighing my hang-ups about place.  It was altogether, a solid story.

[Talia]

It was fun hearing Mr. Resnick read this live. (if I'd been a little quicker I could have nabbed a signed manuscript of it, but I was beat out for it. Instead I got one of a story I actually liked a bit better).

I liked it, but again, I don't peg it to take home the award.

[micah_gideon]

Maybe I was preoccupied with other things and missed something, but this one just missed the mark. It started off sounding a bit tired as the Frankenstein story has been done so many times and in so many different ways. Maybe I never got much past that or maybe it didn't but the narrator's change of heart felt too abrupt as there was little hint as to her change of heart - mostly it felt as if it was me thinking you can't possibly really be like this, can you? or you are unrealistically conceited. Maybe it was this that led me to see her as a one-dimensional character? I don't know, but didn't connect for me.

[KenK]

I have to hand it to Resnick on this one. I didn't see where this was going or what the ultimate denouement would be and so the suspense lingered throughout the entire narrative, and which I greatly appreciated.

I sort of agree with Bumdhar's comments but I would respond that Frankenstein and other classic tropes are used oftentimes by authors because nearly everyone has a "mental landscape" of the principal characters and the universe they inhabit. Just like the way we use scripts for common or repetitive tasks in programming.

This one I could see winning a Hugo because of the optimistic theme, tension and suspense which will all please a lot of readers/listeners, because in the end the Hugo is pretty much a popularity contest.

[Boggled Coriander]

I'm pretty sure the Wall Street Journal mention was a shout-out to Young Frankenstein, since that's what the monster was reading in the final scene of the movie.  There were probably some other movie references that whizzed right by me.

[Unblinking]

Another Hugo lukewarm response for me.  I didn't hate it, didn't love it.  Frankenstein is well-trodden ground, so it's hard to come up with anything that feels new, and I just don't think this pulled it off.  And while I liked the reader's voice, I think she could've made her voice change as the character changed.  She made the character sound apathetic even when the text suggested she was supposed to be sympathetic--the tone worked perfectly in the beginning when the character was completely narcissistic, but as she gained an affection for the other characters, I think the tone could've softened (at least within those moments of sympathy) to enhance the story.

[ElectricPaladin]

It sounds like my opinion is mirrored in a lot of other readers. The story was good, but it wasn't great. Sure, the sarcastic and world-weary Baroness was interesting and the ending made me smile, but the story didn't make me go "woah" the way a Hugo award winner should.

[ajames]

Resnick, Resnick, Resnick - really, what's there left to be said about his stories that hasn't already been said? And been said on Escape Pod? This one gets a thumb, maybe a thumb and a half up from me - taking on the Frankenstein story and making it your own is no easy task.

But the reason I am commenting is the outtro - bravo Alisdair, you managed to capture something often found in the better intros and outtros from Steve - an observation on life that was both personal and related to the story, but much more than just a recap, interpretation, or thought evoked by the story. Rather, an outtro that showed how the story mattered to you, and to us all...

[Dem]

Oh dear! This is the second Hugo nominee to underwhelm me but this time it looks as though I'm not entirely alone. I found this derivative, psychologically shallow, predictable, and almost fanzine-like in its dependence on a well known and multiply told tale. The characters, for me, were undercooked and stereotypical so that the only surprise would have been if each had retained their archetypal profiles right the way to the end. Much more satisfying if the Baroness had shown herself to be the sociopathic manipulator she was set up to reflect, or the 'monster' degenerates in tragic emotional self discovery and loss and dies in misery with neither Baron nor Baroness caring much about it. Why would I care? Because they would be following the rules of form and function. Bad science leads to unethical practice. Relationships built on self interest are generally cold and lacking in empathy. And the meek don't usually inherit the earth so the monster becomes a tragic figure, restored only to discover love and then find he is unloved.
And by the way, he already had a brain so why did he not have any memories or evidence of prior learning? Humph!
Very nice writing though, from a purely linguistic perspective, and nicely narrated.

[alllie]

Nice to see some character development for a change. And surprising. I kept on expecting the Baroness to end up dead and the bride or just dead and deserving her fate. Instead I was surprised when she grew as a person and became a better human being. I agree that it would have helped if her voice had taken on a more sympathetic tone as she changed.

Nice to hear Alasdair Stuart as the host.

[deflective]

this year's hugo reception on ep also seems to be suffering from high expectations.  so far none of the stories have really wowed me but there have been stories i liked much less in previous years.

this was a solid story in many ways and under other circumstances i would have enjoyed it thoroughly.  but, as Resnick's hugo nominee, it fell a little short of expectation.

[contra]

I loved this story.

As said previously, its not easy to take Frankenstein and do something different with it.  Let along make the monster overall improve the good doctors life, and those around him. 

The way I took this story, all the rest of the story as many peopel know it happened; if not exactly how they happened in the original book; after this story.

But in the context of this story, the horrible ending that everyone comes to doesn't matter because they had those moments where they were happy.  And those moments of hope that he was looking for, to him, the rest of the story would be worth it. 

It's such a simple idea; and was done so well.

[Scattercat]

I think the worst thing that can be said about a story is that it was "okay."  Not great, not awful.  Just kind of there.

This story, for me, was okay.  I was glad to see a personal growth ending rather than a ha-ha-the-bitch-had-it-coming ending, but it IS Resnick, so I'm not terribly surprised.  (Though he had some considerably darker stories in the past, I haven't seen one recently that wasn't hovering right on the borderline of schmaltzy.  Usually not quite going over, but always sort of toeing the line, as it were.)  For me, the Baroness' growth as a person was just a little too fast and easy to make much sense.  I mean, if the Doctor really married her for love, you'd think that his supposed solicitous attention and generosity of spirit and such would have sparked her self-revelation a little earlier, if it was this easy to do.  That was kind of the hardest thing for me to get ahold of; how did this apparently cruel and imperious woman manage to so capture the heart of the "nice guy" Doctor, and how did he manage to woo and win her without ever having any sort of serious heart-to-heart conversation?  I couldn't see any way for them to end up where they started, in other words.  If they weren't already married and it was a story of their relationship beginning, then it would fit better; she seems to be a little too quickly won over considering the amount of disappointment and resentment she expresses in the early part of the story.

Also, I'm a bit bothered that the signs of her relationship with her husband improving are:

1) She pretends to be interested in his work (despite it being all just so dreadfully complicated for her womanly brain.)
2) She cooks him dinner (because a woman's place is in the kitchen.)
3) She agrees to have sex with him again (because a husband has a right to his wife's body, and sex between married couples is a case of the woman submitting to the man and granting him access rather than something that both parties desire and enjoy.)

The bits in parentheses are my personal reactions.  I have no idea what Mr. Resnick's attitudes or political leanings are and I wouldn't presume to judge from the story.  That's just how the events came off to me; it feels, for lack of a better word, old-fashioned.  Very Taming of the Shrew.  Mrs. Frankenstein overcomes her frigid independence and learns the joys of housewifery or something.  I dunno.  It bugged me.

[Listener]

Ah, what would Hugo month be without another Mike Resnick story about a non-traditionally-human creature who, by its actions and words, changes a human character for the better. The story covered ground that has been already covered by many authors -- and many Resnick stories ("The Big Guy" and the one about the robot working at the church come to mind).

Resnick is a good writer, no doubt about it. But because I've heard him write this story so many times, I'm not that interested. It's like "ER" was in its last four seasons -- great writing, great acting, but there were no stories left to tell. Stanley Tucci as a troubled, hardass ER chief? Already did that with Kerry Weaver. Doctor dying of an illness? Oops, that PA lady already had AIDS. Angry African-American doctor who kicks ass but rubs management the wrong way? Sorry, Pratt, but Benton did that for like six years before you got there.

Another thing that contributed to me not really loving the story was the reading. She nailed the wife's voice, but the action was sooooooo sloooooooow and her slow reading made it even slower (similar to an issue I had with "N-Words").

All that said... of the three Hugo stories I've heard so far, this is the best IMO. But I'm hoping the next one is on par with "Exhalation" or "Impossible Dreams", instead of just average.

[Unblinking]

The bits in parentheses are my personal reactions.  I have no idea what Mr. Resnick's attitudes or political leanings are and I wouldn't presume to judge from the story.  That's just how the events came off to me; it feels, for lack of a better word, old-fashioned.  Very Taming of the Shrew.  Mrs. Frankenstein overcomes her frigid independence and learns the joys of housewifery or something.  I dunno.  It bugged me.

Very good points.  My only reaction to this is that the story took place in a different time.  If she had taken current attitudes toward marriage and sex, then you might have complained at the anachronism...

[Swamp]

I split off the Hugo nominee disscussion to here.  Feel free to further discuss the Hugo Award merits or dissappointment in that thread.  This is a place for discussion of this particular story. 

The discussion was not a bad thing.  Focus drifts from time to time and topics need to be split.

[Scattercat]

The bits in parentheses are my personal reactions.  I have no idea what Mr. Resnick's attitudes or political leanings are and I wouldn't presume to judge from the story.  That's just how the events came off to me; it feels, for lack of a better word, old-fashioned.  Very Taming of the Shrew.  Mrs. Frankenstein overcomes her frigid independence and learns the joys of housewifery or something.  I dunno.  It bugged me.

Very good points.  My only reaction to this is that the story took place in a different time.  If she had taken current attitudes toward marriage and sex, then you might have complained at the anachronism...

Except that *within this story* she starts out independent and forthright, up to and including reading her own copy of the Wall Street Journal and apparently managing her own stock portfolio prior to having Victor siphon it away.  So no anachronism worries here.  I don't tend to get uptight about anachronisms unless the story is trying for dead-set realism.

[Wonko]

When the doctor asked what kind of brain Igor brought him, the first thing I thought of was Igor saying "Uhh... Abby someone. Normal. Abby Normal."

[cercle]

Of the nominees so far this was the best, or rather : the better one.  The story was mildly interesting, but very quickly it became predictable and a little tedious.  I wonder what this would have done without the Resnic name on it.  Well read, which more or less carried the story for me.  A different take on a classic story is hardly original anymore. In itself no reason not to do it anyway, but everything put together this story was OK, but nothing more.

[knorphus]

I understand Sci-Fi isn't just about space, but I thought this one and many of the more recent escape pod stories have been bordering on fantasy. Where is the space opera, the doomsday, the technological fatalism these days? I want to learn about math when I hear stories, I want authors who understand the edges of science and stretch them out to create a masterful sci-fi work. Frankenstein was sci-fi in the early 1900's, completely un-stimulating. I didn't even finish the story to get the supposed great ending.

[Talia]

I want to learn about math when I hear stories

I sure don't. Bleh.

Incidentally, Hugos are for both sci fi and fantasy. It makes more sense to just run them all on one podcast instead of splitting it up into podcastle and EP, as EP was running it this way even before Podcastle came to be.

So yes, normally you'd probably find this on Podcastle, but this is Hugo nominee month and they are running all nominated stories regardless of genre.

[Unblinking]

Also, the original Frankenstein is considered by many to be SF.  Analog, for instance, is a "hard" SF magazine, and they require their stories to be based in some aspect of science that is vital enough to the story to not be removable--they list Frankenstein as an example of this.  I'd call it more fantasy-like by today's standards, but I suppose it was based on the science of the time, hypothesizing that because dead muscles can be stimulated by electricity, then one could reanimate a corpse on a permanent basis.

[DKT]

I understand Sci-Fi isn't just about space, but I thought this one and many of the more recent escape pod stories have been bordering on fantasy. Where is the space opera, the doomsday, the technological fatalism these days? I want to learn about math when I hear stories, I want authors who understand the edges of science and stretch them out to create a masterful sci-fi work. Frankenstein was sci-fi in the early 1900's, completely un-stimulating. I didn't even finish the story to get the supposed great ending.

I'm going to guess you dig this week's "Bridesicle" more, even though the math there isn't too advanced. I've very curious to see how people react to "Spar," which is a very different kind of space opera.

[gateaux]

I really loved this one! The characters and setting, though based on an already established cannon, were really interesting and I could picture it all perfectly in my head. I actually expected the sulky wife to run off with the monster at the end.

[blueeyeddevil]

This one was all right, though I felt its narrative voice got a bit muddled.

This story isn't the best reworking of the Frankenstein trope I've encountered, the best was in an episode of Fantasy and Science Fiction I read when I was fourteen, wherein the monster is reenvisioned as a child...
[goes and checks the F&SF site]
Argh, when I go to the back issues page, it actually shows the front cover of the issue I'm talking about, but I can't blow it up to read who was in the issue. If you go there, it's on the bottom right of the diplayed covers, from 1992. Does anyone remember the story I'm talking about?

Sorry, back to the story.
The moral transformation of the narrator is unprecipitated; she seems to enjoy being cruel, so someone pointing out her cruelty doesn't seem like a believable reason for her deciding to change her ways.
There are so many more issues raised than answered by this story in terms of sexual equality, social morality, etc. It was cute, but nothing that will stick with me.

[Mercurywaxing]

I liked this one.  I especially liked the twist.  Usually in this kind of story the woman ends up creating the monster through her attitude, or she stays independent and leaves.  I can understand how some would hate it, but she learns to compromise and become a woman of her time: cooking, showing (or feigning) interest and supporting her husband, and eventually have sex with him.  Basically, if this story were written in the time of Frankenstein this is likely how the heroine would have been presented if the author wanted to keep her a heroine at the end instead of a kind of antihero.  While it wouldn't have stood the test of time like the original, the character development is pretty much spot on for the time.

The reading was slightly weak.  The woman didn't soften, and I think that would have helped the tone and the story.  I suppose that continued harsh attitude was a nod to our times, a way of saying that she isn't truly fufilled and is compromising.  Really, though, that's not quite how it was written.

[Heradel]

Frankenstein was sci-fi in the early 1900's

1818, actually.

[Xenoix]

I love the sleeping beauty and cinderella quality of the story amped  by technology of a potential reality.

[SacredCaramel]

Frankly, this story quite amused me as a twisted concatenation of Mary Shelley's work with Desperate Housewives (and no, I'm not embarrassed to admit to liking the show, it's an excellent mental escape, requiring little mental effort on my part; besides, anything that makes the wife laugh while studying for the Bar Exam is a good thing).  I had no trouble picturing Gabrielle Solis as the female lead.  Was this a hardcore SF story, no.  Not everything needs to be.  Y'all know the story is bad if my mind drifts off into a story of its own while the podcast is forgotten in the background; this one didn't have that effect.  It kept me from falling asleep on my driving route, and that's what I ask of this podcast. 

[Ocicat]

I liked this story more than I usually like Resnick, but it still fell flat for me.  Partly because the wife's transformation was fairly unconvincing, but mostly because the story is based on the movie version of Frankenstein. 

I'm a huge, huge fan of Shelly's novel.  After hearing this I actually doubt Resnick has read it.  The movie creature has almost nothing in common with the novels, and it was clear that Resnick's tale used the more commonly known movie version.  Which just isn't anywhere near as complex or interesting, IHMO.

[mbrennan]

I ended up stopping this one, because the story wasn't creating any suspense for me and the reading was (as someone else said) so very slowly paced.  I know audio needs to go slower than ordinary speech tends to, but in this case it was too much.

[Nerraux]

I enjoyed it, and it has furthered the solidification of Resnick as a premier storyteller in my mind.

[mranlett]

I ended up stopping this one, because the story wasn't creating any suspense for me and the reading was (as someone else said) so very slowly paced.  I know audio needs to go slower than ordinary speech tends to, but in this case it was too much.

I actually really liked the story and the narration with one exception - I was really bothered by the voice given to the bride of Frankenstein.  Way too slow and monotone for what was supposed to be a perpetually irritated woman.  The voice of the monster fit, Igor fit, etc.  The unnamed bride... no way.

I did like the perspective the story was told from though, very entertaining if somewhat predictable.

[Wilson Fowlie]

Another thing that contributed to me not really loving the story was the reading. She nailed the wife's voice, but the action was sooooooo sloooooooow and her slow reading made it even slower (similar to an issue I had with "N-Words").

I rarely notice really slow readings, as I have my player set to play things faster without rising in pitch (a feature I value above almost all others and I wish were more prevalent in MP3 players in general).

However, I disagree with you somewhat about the wife's voice.  (We really don't seem to be able to agree on this issue of voices, do we? )  I wasn't sure why Ms. Davis did a different voice for the wife-as-character than she did for the wife-as-narrator.  Same person, telling the same story; why would she parody her own voice?  This bugged me a few times as I was listening.

[eytanz]

This one fell flat for me. Maybe it's because I never saw the Frankenstein movie but I did read the novel, but it felt to me like the story had really very little to do with its setting - it was just a retelling of the story where haughty outsider learns the error of her ways through the simpler folk around her (as seen in movies like Doc Hollywood and Cars), only that this time, it's in Frankenstein's castle. The juxtaposition seemed to me arbitrary and didn't actually add anything to the story except a punny title.

Oh, and one line that stood out for me was when the monster stood "by a wall full of Jane Austen and Bronte novels" - it must have been a pretty small wall.

[Wilson Fowlie]

Oh, and one line that stood out for me was when the monster stood "by a wall full of Jane Austen and Bronte novels" - it must have been a pretty small wall.

Maybe Victor collected several editions of each...

[wakela]

I have no idea what Mr. Resnick's attitudes or political leanings are and I wouldn't presume to judge from the story.  That's just how the events came off to me; it feels, for lack of a better word, old-fashioned.  Very Taming of the Shrew.  Mrs. Frankenstein overcomes her frigid independence and learns the joys of housewifery or something.  I dunno.  It bugged me.

Yes.

I'm a huge, huge fan of Shelly's novel.  After hearing this I actually doubt Resnick has read it.  The movie creature has almost nothing in common with the novels, and it was clear that Resnick's tale used the more commonly known movie version.  Which just isn't anywhere near as complex or interesting, IHMO.

I thought the same thing.  I had a feeling that we were supposed to find the idea of a speaking and emotionally sophisticated monster interesting -- as the MC did--, but monster of the book was much deeper.  Although Resnick does use the name Victor Frankenstein, which is from the book (the guy in the movie is Henry).  However, Igor is in neither.  Igor was in Young Frankenstein, and he's sort of a generic hunchback assistant in other things.  Resnick was probably just mashing the Frankensteins together, taking bits and pieces from each.  Of course Resnick has every right to use whatever parts of the various tellings he wants, and it seems he was using those that a mass audience would be most familiar with, but I think it comes off as being a little lazy. 

This one fell flat for me. Maybe it's because I never saw the Frankenstein movie but I did read the novel, but it felt to me like the story had really very little to do with its setting - it was just a retelling of the story where haughty outsider learns the error of her ways through the simpler folk around her (as seen in movies like Doc Hollywood and Cars), only that this time, it's in Frankenstein's castle. The juxtaposition seemed to me arbitrary and didn't actually add anything to the story except a punny title.

Oh, and one line that stood out for me was when the monster stood "by a wall full of Jane Austen and Bronte novels" - it must have been a pretty small wall.

I thought exactly the same thing about the wall of Austin and Bronte.

I think I've heard more stories from Resnick than any other author, and this may be my last one.  They're too predictable, schmaltzy (thanks scattercat), manipulative, simplistic.  I don't feel like I'm inhabiting a world when I listen to one.  They start to fall apart when you pick at the details (Victor isn't allowing her to spend her own money, and he's the sympathetic one?  He falls in love with someone who's not even likeable?) I come to science fiction for something new, but I never get that from his stories. 

[Planish]

... I was surprised when she grew as a person and became a better human being. I agree that it would have helped if her voice had taken on a more sympathetic tone as she changed.

Nah. I like it better when villains hang on to their prickly exteriors as they change for the better.
Repurposing their Evil Powers to Do Good, as it were. I'm sure there's at least one TV Trope that deals with that. *cough Fonzie cough*

[stePH]

Maybe this story took place in an alternate world wherein Bronte and Austen were more prolific?

I've very curious to see how people react to "Spar," which is a very different kind of space opera.

It's in space, yeah, but "space opera" to me involves an epic story with a large cast of characters... not just two beings fucking in a can.

[Wilson Fowlie]

I've very curious to see how people react to "Spar," which is a very different kind of space opera.

It's in space, yeah, but "space opera" to me involves an epic story with a large cast of characters... not just two beings fucking in a can.

Dude, spoil much? 

[DKT]

ETA: On second thought, I've redirected my comment here.

[stePH]

I've very curious to see how people react to "Spar," which is a very different kind of space opera.

It's in space, yeah, but "space opera" to me involves an epic story with a large cast of characters... not just two beings fucking in a can.

Dude, spoil much? 

What's to spoil? 

[Paranatural]

I rather liked this one. It wasn't all that predictable. At first I really didn't enjoy it because of what a bitter and uncaring person Mrs. Frankenstein was, but it got progressively more interesting.

[Unblinking]

I've very curious to see how people react to "Spar," which is a very different kind of space opera.

It's in space, yeah, but "space opera" to me involves an epic story with a large cast of characters... not just two beings fucking in a can.

Dude, spoil much? 

What's to spoil? 

I'm not sure I'd call it a spoiler if it's spoiling something that's shown in the first paragraph.  More of a teaser, really. 

[DKT]

Actually, I think that was the first sentence. Impressive opening, really.

[Unblinking]

Actually, I think that was the first sentence. Impressive opening, really.

definitely an attention-getter, and it foretells exactly how objectionable this story might be for you.  If someone is bothered by this sort of thing, at least they find out right away instead of later in the story.

[Wilson Fowlie]

I think it was probably the word just in stePH's comment that I found spoiler-y.  It implies that that's what happens for the whole story, not just the opening.

And it wouldn't have bothered me in "Spar"s own thread, but here in the thread of the story before it, I feel it is misplaced.

[stePH]

I think it was probably the word just in stePH's comment that I found spoiler-y.  It implies that that's what happens for the whole story, not just the opening.

So again, what's to spoil?

[eytanz]

I think it was probably the word just in stePH's comment that I found spoiler-y.  It implies that that's what happens for the whole story, not just the opening.

So again, what's to spoil?

The nature of the story. There could be many possible stories that start the same way Spar did but end up going in a totally different direction.

I get that a lot of people here don't like Spar. That's perfectly reasonable and understandable. I don't understand why the people who dislike it seem to be content to be disrespectful not only to the story, but to their fellow forum members who may have a different opinion of it.

[Talia]

I donno, I don't get that StepH's comment was a spoiler. Its pretty obvious right from the start what's going on in the story. His comment reveals his feelings about the story, that's all.

I don't see it as being disrespectful towards other forum members either....

[eytanz]

I donno, I don't get that StepH's comment was a spoiler. Its pretty obvious right from the start what's going on in the story. His comment reveals his feelings about the story, that's all.

I don't see it as being disrespectful towards other forum members either....

Posting a spoiler (and it is a spoiler) in a thread for a different episode, then arguing that it isn't a spoiler with the implication that that's because the story itself didn't have much content to spoil, is disrespectful.

I would be quite obliged if some mods take this whole discussion to the Spar thread, actually as that will solve the problem.

I should point out, however, that I wasn't directing my comment specifically at StepH, but more at an attitude taken by several forum members who dislike the story.

[Unblinking]

I donno, I don't get that StepH's comment was a spoiler. Its pretty obvious right from the start what's going on in the story. His comment reveals his feelings about the story, that's all.

I don't see it as being disrespectful towards other forum members either....

I agree with this.  The "just" is a matter of opinion, and the rest of it was stuff that happened in the first sentence.  But anyway...

[Wilson Fowlie]

Bride of Frankenstein('s monster) images.

(Warning: one image NSFW.)

[alllie]

Bride of Frankenstein('s monster) images.

(Warning: one image NSFW.)

I really enjoyed that. So many reinterpretations of Elsa.

Of course Elsa was made to be the bride of the monster. This story was about Victor Frankenstein's wife.

[luka datas]

terrific story, with terrific character work by the narrator