Re: Frankenstein

On 5 Jul 2024 22:31:26 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Cryptoengineer  <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/4/2024 12:02 PM, Paul S Person wrote:

On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 18:00:30 -0000 (UTC), Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
 
<snippo RC attempt to defend Queen Victoria and so their hatred and
contempt for anything that has happened since>
<you lost, guys (and I /mean/ "guys"), get over it>
 
All I remember of /Frankenstein/ -the-book was how hard it was to get
through. And so a pain to read.

>
Few books written by 18 year olds are page turners AND well written.
>
It was a first novel, and it shows.

>
I liked it when I read it at age 14.  It was mostly filled with long
digressions about the nature of life, which I found interesting although
I might find them less novel today.  And it was not a large book.

It /seemed/ (to me) like a long book. That's because it took a long
time to get through, being mostly uninteresting.

I should note, in fairness, that I also found /Pride and Prejudice/,
when required to read it some time later, to also be indigestible.

I mean, really, a book about girls whose sole concern was marrying a
wealthy man and whose sole fear was that they would find out that he
really wasn't wealthy? This worked in /Tim Burton's The Corpse Bride/,
but that's a lot shorter. And the same cultural environment worked
well in /No Name/ (Wilkie Collins, probably best known for /The Woman
in White/ or /The Moonstone/).

And using /Frankenstein/ and Shelley to attack IVF (and so imply that
people produced through IVF -- which Shelley could have known nothing
about, as it hadn't been invented yet -- are monsters) and de Sade to
blame the French Revolution on (Durant suggests Roussou and the French
Philosophes -- and the pig-headed nobles, including the RC hierarchy
-- as the cause) is a sure sign of mindless (but well-written)
propaganda.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"