Mary Shelleys' 'Frankenstein'.

I have a reference to Gullivers Travels in a story I’m working on. I looked up its word count and got answers from 30K to 182K depending oh how abridged it was. Just for reference…
I was probably at uni before I knew that he visited four lands, not two. Even now, I couldn't tell you what the other two are. Something with horses?

It all sounds very "Lit author has a good idea but keeps going well past it's best-before date."
 
I was probably at uni before I knew that he visited four lands, not two. Even now, I couldn't tell you what the other two are. Something with horses?

It all sounds very "Lit author has a good idea but keeps going well past it's best-before date."
Laputa the flying island of impractical mad scientists, and then the land of wise horses the Houhynyms, where mere humans were known as Yahoos.

Of course Swift really did have the captain of the ship called Master Bates (unlike the Captain Pugwash myth), though missed out naming Roger the cabin boy.
 
Shelley’s please.

And the final single quote after the period would be a nice touch.
 
Can I just say I'm tired of this book being interpreted as a warning against the the dangers of science? What if it's about the creators abandonment of his (intentional for many reasons) creation? Be it god or man? I can't be the only one. I'll stop here and see what happens.
I saw a review of the new del Toro adaptation complaining that the Doctor was played as a less sympathetic character than the Monster. Cut to Bramble muttering "you didn't read the book, did you?"

I don't know what Mary Shelley's intention was but for me it sure seemed like the cause of the tragedy was Dr. F's refusal to parent his own creation.

Plot bunny: those school education classes that are meant to teach kids that raising babies is a ton of work so don't do it until you're ready to commit to being a good parent? That but for mad scientists.
 
Can I just say I'm tired of this book being interpreted as a warning against the the dangers of science? What if it's about the creators abandonment of his (intentional for many reasons) creation? Be it god or man? I can't be the only one. I'll stop here and see what happens.
But why would it be a bad thing that it were a warning? There was much anxiety about the rationalisation of what was then theological conceptions of reality. So of course it was a warning. You may be tired of it, but the zeitgeist of the time was such. Of course that wasn’t the only thing it was about, it was also clearly about the insignificance of women, and the supposed supremacy of male thought. It was about the history of civilisation and humanity’s innate tendency to destruction. But it is als a warning against the dangers of science. They’re all there
 
Back
Top