Frankenstein

[Akita Suggagaki]

I watched Guillermo del Toro’s production and appreciated it. But I knew it took liberties. I read Mary Shelley’s novel a few years ago. So I am reading it again slowly. It begins with the letters from the ship captain to his sister. He is out to find the North Pole.

His one lament is that he does not have a friend to share his quest. He struggles with loneliness. The movie portrays him as a gruff old seaman.

I welcome others who would like to share their thoughts about the movie and/or novel.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

How is the creature brought to life in the book.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

-
​

How is the creature brought to life in the book.

I’ll let you know when I get there

 

[Servus]

I thought the book was pretty boring.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I thought the book was pretty boring.

I have read some boring books. I try to take my time and really engage.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

-
​

How is the creature brought to life in the book.

No big deal. He somehow does it in his apartment when he is still a student. Doesn’t make much sense. Nothing like any movie.

 

[d taylor]

No big deal. He somehow does it in his apartment when he is still a student. Doesn’t make much sense. Nothing like any movie.

-
​

Interesting, so no lighting strike.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

-
​

Interesting, so no lighting strike.

No, Not much mention of how he did it. And then he just leaves it in his apartment alive and goes for a walk because he can’t stand the sight of it. Poor thing doesn’t hang around doing nothing.

 

[d taylor]

No big deal. He somehow does it in his apartment when he is still a student. Doesn’t make much sense. Nothing like any movie.

-

​

I wonder if that area was something she did not know how to resolve pictorially.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

-

​

I wonder if that area was something she did not know how to resolve pictorially.

I don't think she knew much about science other than their capabilities already exceeding their wisdom.

 

[Tom D]

I thought the book was pretty boring.

It's a literary novel, after all.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It's a literary novel, after all.

I suppose some people also find Dostoyevsky boring. And yet for others he is one of the greatest.

 

[Tuur]

I don't think she knew much about science other than their capabilities already exceeding their wisdom.

She knew the science of the time. and that muscle of the dead would twitch under voltage. She extrapolated from what was known then. There's a strong argument that, by the standards of her time, she was writing hard SF.

 

[Tuur]

It's a literary novel, after all.

It's considered literary, but it's style seems to be conventional. I read it once, but the style made it difficult. I couldn't even get past the first chapter of Ben Hur. On the other hand, I can't make it through Atlas Shrugged, either. I once saw it called Mary Sue Shrugged, and that sums up my feelings about it.

If you want an interesting comparison, read some of The Skylark of Space by E.E. Smith and compare it with the writings of G.K Chesterton. IIRC, they were contemporaries.

 

[bèlla]

The movie wasn't too bad and the book was alright. I like Dostoevsky and Russian literature. But I wouldn't call him the greatest among them. I think Tolstoy's better. I've read a lot of Rand and enjoyed Atlas and several others. It may be easier if you read The Fountainhead first. And if that's too much start with Anthem.

~bella

 

[Sif]

I've always taken the novel Frankenstein to a a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's work Emile, Or Treatise on Education. In college I had the good fortune to be reading Rousseau's work in one class as I was reading Mary Shelley's work in another.