How Close is Guillermo del Toro’s FRANKENSTEIN to Mary Shelley’s Original Novel? An Expert Scholar Weighs In

When Guillermo del Toro set out to make Frankenstein for Netflix, he was taking on a story he’s described as his “Bible.” With Oscar Isaac as Victor Frankenstein, Jacob Elordi as the Creature, and Mia Goth as a reimagined Elizabeth, del Toro’s version promised something deeper than just another monster movie. But how true is it to Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel?

To find out, Variety reached out to Julie Carlson, an English professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and an expert on British Romantic literature and the Shelley family.

In this Q&A, Carlson shared her thoughts on how del Toro’s interpretation aligns, and diverges, from the book that started it all.

A Love Letter to Shelley’s Brilliance

When asked if she enjoyed the film, Carlson said: “I did. I always like when serious artists take serious work seriously. I did feel, certainly in comparison to other renditions, there was real love for the book and for Mary Shelley’s brilliance.

“It was more faithful to the framed narrative, to the ways that Victor and the Creature get to tell their own story. And also, I thought it did a good job of capturing the language in the book. The Creature, at times, is very lyrical — not as lyrical as in the book, but still it’s clear there’s all kinds of philosophical pronouncements going on.”

Del Toro himself has said his Frankenstein is about the “human spirit,” not science gone wrong. “It’s about forgiveness, understanding and the importance of listening to each other,” he told Variety.

Carlson agrees that this emotional focus shines through, even when the film takes creative liberties.

Victor’s Past and the Power of Shame

One of del Toro’s biggest changes involves Victor’s backstory. His father is now an abusive physician who may have sacrificed his wife in a failed experiment. This new layer of trauma shifts the heart of the story.

“It’s less about hubris, although of course that’s there, and more about shame,” Carlson explained. “The way the father slaps [Victor] around when he can’t learn his lessons, and then he strikes the Creature when the Creature doesn’t learn as quickly as he wants him to — I think that’s interesting.

“It seemed to me there was a little less Faustian stuff about knowledge and power, and more about knowledge and shame and not living up to the name Victor or his father’s reputation.”

This shift grounds Victor’s obsession not just in ambition, but in the wounds of his upbringing, which is an angle that humanizes him without absolving his actions.

Reinventing Elizabeth

One of the more interesting reimaginings is Elizabeth, played by Mia Goth. In the novel, she’s Victor’s fiancée and a mostly passive character. In del Toro’s version, she’s a scientist, an entomologist engaged to Victor’s brother William.

“The Elizabeth stuff is very different,” Carlson said. “She’s quite passive in the book; she doesn’t have much to do. Here, she’s very independent, she’s a scientist herself, an entomologist.

“It seemed to me that this was one of those moments where [del Toro] is really in the book, because there is a kind of throwaway line where Victor describes Elizabeth as ‘playful as an insect.’ And so, it was very interesting that that’s her passion in the film.”

Elizabeth also acts as the film’s moral compass, calling Victor out on his self-delusions, which is something Shelley hinted at, but never gave her the agency to fully express.

The Creature and Elizabeth’s Connection

In Shelley’s novel, Elizabeth and the Creature never meet until he kills her on her wedding night. In del Toro’s story, their bond becomes one of empathy, and, to some, something more.

“I think she identifies with him,” Carlson noted. “One of the first things she says to him is, ‘Are you hurt?’ Yes, there’s a real connection, but it’s not so eroticized for me. She does say, when she’s dying, ‘Love is brief; I am glad I found it with you.’

“So maybe, yeah, it skirts those edges. But I think a couple of times she says, ‘I’m odd,’ because she’s an entomologist and no one understands her. So I think there is a sympathy between the Creature and Elizabeth that is about being a subordinated figure.”

In the film, this connection brings tenderness to the tragedy which emphasizes shared loneliness instead of romantic melodrama.

A Softer Creature and Shifting Themes

Del Toro’s Creature is one of the most human portrayals yet. He’s articulate, expressive, and more victim than villain.

“I do really like that he humanizes the Creature and does a lot more with face-to-face communication,” Carlson said. “It’s almost like [French philosopher Emmanuel] Levinas in that way: when you behold the face of the other, you can’t murder them.

“But it skirts over some of the questions of responsibility that I think Mary Shelley already, even at 19, is wondering about.”

While Shelley’s Creature inspired fear and pity, del Toro’s version leans heavier into empathy, reflecting his long-standing fascination with monsters as misunderstood souls.

The Missing Social Critique

Carlson also pointed out what’s lost in translation. “I think the film downplays what was so strong in Shelley’s Frankenstein: the social critique,” she explained. “It’s more about war, militarism, capitalism — which is fine.

“But in the book, the sympathy for the Creature is about how nobody can stand him because of how he looks. It’s about how people read you. And the film doesn’t do that, certainly not at the beginning.”

Where Shelley explored oppression, prejudice, and the treatment of women, del Toro turns the focus inward, and more on shame, creation, and the burden of playing God.

Honoring Shelley’s Spirit

Despite its deviations, Carlson sees del Toro’s film as one of the most faithful adaptations in spirit. “It’s closer to the multi-layered nature of Shelley’s text. It really does divide the film like the book and frames it in the same way.

“And it’s really not a horror film, it’s a gothic film,” she said. “I would certainly say it’s more like the book, and it’s trying to honor not just the book, but Mary Shelley and that whole group [Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, etc.].”

Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein may not mirror Mary Shelley’s novel page for page, but in its soul, in its compassion, pain, and search for understanding, it beats with the same heart.