The Kindle reviews were right about Frankenstein being difficult to read

Mary Shelley’s 1818 preface begins with this passage:

The event on which this fiction is founded has been supposed, by Dr. Darwin, and some of the physiological writers of Germany, as not of impossible occurrence. I shall not be supposed as according the remotest degree of serious faith to such an imagination; yet, in assuming it as the basis of a work of fancy, I have not considered myself as merely weaving a series of supernatural terrors. The event on which the interest of the story depends is exempt from the disadvantages of a mere tale of spectres or enchantment. It was recommended by the novelty of the situations which it develops; and, however impossible as a physical fact, affords a point of view to the imagination for the delineating of human passions more comprehensive and commanding than any which the ordinary relations of existing events can yield.

This turns out to be more difficult than it “should” be.

Sentence by sentence:

1. “The event on which this fiction is founded has been supposed, by Dr. Darwin, and some of the physiological writers of Germany, as not of impossible occurrence.”
   • Words are familiar, but the structure is backwards.
   • Core: “The event has been supposed not impossible.”
   • Everything else hangs off it: “on which this fiction is founded,” “by Dr. Darwin and some writers of Germany.”
   • Verb phrase “has been supposed … as not of impossible occurrence” is clumsy to my ear; the intention is simple: “Some thinkers have suggested this could happen.”
2. “I shall not be supposed as according the remotest degree of serious faith to such an imagination; yet, in assuming it as the basis of a work of fancy, I have not considered myself as merely weaving a series of supernatural terrors.”
   • Here “supposed” = “taken” or “considered,” not “expected.”
   • “According faith” = “granting belief.” Verb use of “accord” is odd to me.
   • She’s saying: Don’t think I believe this, but I’m also not just telling a spooky story.
   • One sentence doing two jobs; in my head I want to split it.
3. “The event on which the interest of the story depends is exempt from the disadvantages of a mere tale of spectres or enchantment.”
   • This one is clearer, but still overframed.
   • “Exempt from the disadvantages” is a negative route to a positive claim.
   • She means: The central event avoids the usual problems of ghost stories.
4. “It was recommended by the novelty of the situations which it develops; and, however impossible as a physical fact, affords a point of view to the imagination for the delineating of human passions more comprehensive and commanding than any which the ordinary relations of existing events can yield.”
   • Long, layered, and the main point is buried.
   • Strip it: “It affords a point of view … more comprehensive and commanding than ordinary events.”
   • “Recommended by the novelty of the situations” = “I liked the fresh situations it created.”
   • “Delineating of human passions” = “showing human feelings.”
   • Intention: This impossible premise is a better lens on human nature than realistic plots.

Overall:

• The sentences are long, but not just long—they are differently organized from how I now think.
• She uses words I know, but in roles that feel slightly off: “supposed,” “accord,” “event,” “interest,” “recommended.”
• The ideas are structured indirectly: negative phrasing, heavy framing clauses, abstract nouns (“delineating,” “relations,” “occurrence”) that blur edges.

The real difficulty: It isn’t the complexity of the ideas—it’s the mismatch in sentence architecture and word usage. The prose looks modern enough to lull you into thinking it should be easy, but the logic moves on different rails. Reading Shelley means adjusting not just to vocabulary, but to how thoughts are structured and delivered.