First of all I am quite obsessed w this book because often when media adapts from myths (I count Frankenstein as a modern myth) they are either good [myth] media or a good text on their own and rarely both - this book is absolutely both, and my Frankenstein brain rot played only a very little part in my appreciation of it
Saadawi takes an aspect of the Frankenstein myth that is typically purely aesthetic (the stitched together body parts) and loads it with a perfectly matched symbolic narrative of the loss and fragmentation of community and identity during war. I love the way this is written - even some sentences that aren't about the whatsitsname reflect this theme and it brings my English major heart a lot of joy
This narrative takes a Turn into exploring how war is reproduced and cyclical which is fascinating and makes perfect thematic sense but didn't land as well with me as the first bit (see my later comments about the latter part of the book)
I also can't write a review without mentioning the Incredible writing style and structure of this book. The symbolic narrative of fragmentation and lost parts us reflected in the writing style - Saadawi reveals information extremely selectively, openly admits when there is something he is not telling us, and even reflects on this through a character who does the same thing. The multiple perspectives and the incompleteness of each perspective without the other perspectives also reflects this theme. Again, brings my English major heart joy. This too lost its sparkle (as the kids say) for me in the latter part of the book (again, see my later comments)
As a piece of Frankenstein media, I also enjoy the nods to be original in how the book is structured - fictional paratexts, narration sandwiched within narration possibly mediated by each narrator, and of course,

the whatsitsname's own testimony in the middle of the book

This book earned a 4.75 in the first 60 pages, and I was full convinced I'd have to change my criteria for a 5 so I could give it a 5. Unfortunately, I do think I need to reread this book to fully appreciate it because the second 60% or so weren't as clear to me and I genuinely don't know if it's because it's actually not as good, because I don't have intimate knowledge of the historical context, or because I had an entirely unrelated breakdown at around that point and wasn't processing
So 4.75 for now but I am so very excited to read this book again and hopefully understand it better

Wonderfully dark book. funny in an insane, sad way. Story itself isn’t funny! frankenstein as a concept, a man made from death, works perfectly in war torn iraq. the bodies of victims seeking revenge, the inability to quantify evil and innocence, because the country and city has become enmeshed with violence, despair, hatred. a perfect metaphor, as far as it goes. terrorism is prompted by something, and those evil acts do not exist in a vacuum. those who do evil do not usually wake up and decide to be evil, there is injustice done to them, their family, their loved ones. it’s a cycle of violence creating violence, revenge creating reason to seek revenge. The “normal” people live in the book within the context of the violence, exploit it, suffer from it, ignore it. Complex and beautifully written novel, gripping and easy to read. hard to digest.

I must confess, I was never a huge fan of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. I reread it over and over again in high school and college, and I could never get into it. Something about the text was too dense and archaic for me to connect to - which is not normally a problem I have with classics.

When I came across Frankenstein in Baghbad, I thought the concept of a surrealist look into early Iraq War era Baghdad was an interesting concept, but I was skeptical that I'd find the same stumbling blocks with this version as the original. After all, it takes place in a time and setting very different from my own, just like Shelley's original.

But Saadawi's work is different. I realized pretty quickly that this book is much, much closer to my time and place than I thought it would be. It demonstrates, with an unparalleled hand for metaphor, the monster that is the cycle of revenge which makes up the wheels of war.