Archive for June, 2010

23
Jun
10

Frankenstein

I’m halfway through the book, and so far it is a lot less romantic than I expected.

Egotistical college sophomore creates monster in his apartment, then disappears for two years?  Huh??  Is this the right book?  Where’s the lightning?  The castle?  The climactic moment when the mad scientist screams, “It’s alive!” 

So far, not impressed.  

People are usually shocked to hear Mary Shelley was only 18 when she wrote this story.  To me, it seems pretty obvious.  The main character is rather emotional, experiencing bouts of melancholy at every turn, which to me is indicative of her teenage mindset.  As a child, Mary Shelley was neglected emotionally, but was reared with an emphasis on education, therefore the writing is kind of detached.  How do you describe emotions?  She seems to relate them from an outside perspective, instead of making her audience truly feel what her characters are feeling.

“My abhorrence of this fiend cannot be conceived. When I thought of him, I gnashed my teeth, my eyes became inflamed, and I ardently wished to extinguish that life which I had so thoughtlessly bestowed. When I reflected on his crimes and malice, my hatred and revenge burst all bounds of moderation. I would have made a pilgrimage to the highest peak of the Andes, could I, when there, have precipitated him to their base. I wished to see him again, that I might wreak the utmost extent of abhorrence on his head.”

See how empty that is?  Do you feel the character’s pain here?  I don’t know, maybe I’m missing something, but I feel like I’m reading an instruction manual on human behavior.  And now I will cry.  And now I will have anger.

And now I will wait patiently for this book to live up to its name.

Finished:  Warning **Spoilers*

This is just the strangest book.  I admit, I’ve never seen the movie, but my impression of Frankenstein was always a giant, moaning, unintelligible creature who walked with his arms straight out like a zombie.  Instead, the very first encounter that Mr. Frankenstein (this is actually the name of the “scientist,” not the monster) had with the creature was quite different.  He  coincidentally (there are a lot of unbelievable coincidences in this book) runs into the monster in the ice caves just above the town he lives in.  Coming toward him is a giant, terrifying, deformed “Frankenstein,” and instead of the moaning retardation you’d expect, these are the first words out of his mouth:

“I expected this reception,” said the daemon. “All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us. You purpose to kill me. How dare you sport thus with life? Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind. If you will comply with my conditions, I will leave them and you at peace; but if you refuse, I will glut the maw of death, until it be satiated with the blood of your remaining friends.”

Strange how Hollywood twists things.  Anyway, the monster takes over the narrative at this point, which becomes the most compelling, although sad, part of the book.  In a brief nutshell, the monster started out full of love, but after being repeatedly shunned and even attacked by humans, based on his looks alone, his heart became hard and bitter.  He finds the scientist, and (reasonably) demands that he make a female version of himself, so he can be loved.  Poor guy just wanted love.  He threatens to kill the scientist’s whole family if he doesn’t comply (feel the love?)

The scientist, although abhorring the idea, decides he better do it lest he lose his whole family.  But then he begins to realize he can’t control the emotions of his creations.  What if the female detests the creature, and takes out her vengeance on the world?  Worse yet, what if they have a whole pack of little monster babies (though they would be human, which Luke pointed out. Or why couldn’t he make her infertile?), and bring destruction to generations of humans?  He realized it would be selfish of him to make the female – not like this would be new to the scientist; the whole reason the monster needed companionship is because he was a selfish creator to begin with - and he couldn’t risk the whole of humanity to save his measly family.  He refuses to do it.  This means that the Bride of Frankenstein was another Hollywood creation (which I secretly admit to being happy with – Mrs. Frankenstein was hot!)

As promised, the monster kills his whole family, and the scientist dies on his voyage to seek revenge.  The monster finds his body, and runs off into the sunset vowing to kill himself, too.  The end.

I know there are some themes here that make this book a classic, worthy of top 100 lists the world over, but to me it was sloppy.  I can handle depressing, which this book definitely was, but the hypocrisy of all the characters was too much for me.  The scientist was disgusted by the creature he had hand-picked to be beautiful.  He willingly chose not to create a female companion, then sought revenge on the monster for doing exactly what he said he would do.  The monster went back and forth between heartbreaking despair and gleeful vengeance so many times it was hard to tell his mood at any given moment.  Finicky monster. 

I guess this is a story of the monster within us all.  Or something like that.

18
Jun
10

Dracula

This is the kind of classic novel that makes me glad I started this list of books to read, or else I may never have picked this one up.  Some of the classics we take for granted, because we (think we) know the story so well already. 

The only image I had of Dracula was Bela Lugosi, with his black widow’s peak.  After reading Bram Stoker’s original novel, I wonder where that image ever came from.  The Dracula played by Gary Oldman was far closer to the image I had in mind while reading the book.  Dracula had a moustache!

Immediately after finishing the book I watched Francis Ford Coppola’s movie adaptation.  While there were some amazing scenes and casting (Tom Waits played the lunatic!), this was very much NOT Bram Stoker’s Dracula.  Stoker’s Dracula was a love story, but never between Dracula and Mina.  She was repulsed by him, and it was her true love and devotion to her husband that destroyed Dracula in the end (stake in heart, not broken heart).  Mina was a strong, devoted, brilliant woman, and Coppola stripped her of those virtues, making her a weak-minded, love-sick traitor.  Booooo. 

Anthony Hopkins gets a bunch of thumbs up from me for his role of Van Helsing.  I didn’t know that the Van Helsing name/ character was invented by Stoker; I always thought there were deeper, more factual roots.  Coppola did a very good job of casting the role; Hopkins fit the character even better than the mental image I had in my mind. 

I didn’t know much of the history of the Dracula character; there are loose ties to Vlad the Impaler, but Count Dracula is really just a figment of Stoker’s imagination.  He set the stage for literally hundreds of vampire movies, books, etc., all putting a different twist on the vampire “rules” (sadly, this is where sparkly vampires come into play).  According to Wiki, as of 2009, an estimated 217 films feature Dracula in a major role.  That’s some powerful writing.  Much like Frankenstein, Wolf Man and the Mummy, these characters have taken on a life of their own and far surpassed the death of their creators, proving them truly immortal.

09
Jun
10

Stranger in a Strange Land

For starters, I want to respond to my friend who said this book was stupid. . . It is - if you’re reading it for the first time as an adult.  But this book became an instant cult classic and is even cited by some to be the “most popular science fiction novel ever written.”  It’s cheesy, philosophically tame, and its moral taboos are nothing shocking – and it’s the perfect story for a 14-year-old science fiction geek.

Brief synopsis:  A human raised by Martians returns to earth.  He is still “merely an egg,” (akin to a human 3-year old), and his innocence is slightly irritating.  He’s a little too “puppy dog” to be tolerable.  Within a two year period he “grows up,” and becomes a spiritual leader and revolutionary.  He starts a church where he teaches humans the Martian language, telepathy, telekinesis and out of body experiences. 

This book was referred to me by someone who cites it as his first introduction to polyamory.  The poly lifestyle described in this book is in its truest form - pure joy at sharing the beauty of love and sex, with not a stitch of jealousy.  It’s like poly utopia.  For his time, I’m sure Robert Heinlein was really pushing the envelope, and I admire that about him and the story.  He also takes his shot at spiritual philosophy, describing how each of us is connected with other people (or objects) by “grokking,” them (fully knowing and appreciating them), and thereby become one with them.  This concept was so popular, “Grokking” is now in the English Dictionary.         

Having read it for the first time in 2010, this book did not wow me.  There were parts that were utterly nauseating in their sappiness, (“Thou art God, my brother” at every turn, and loosely using the term “grok” to the point of irritation).  It didn’t push my boundaries or stretch my imagination very far, but I can see why so many people have deemed it worthy of being on book lists nationwide.




The Book List

Go to. . .


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.