General Chit Chat

[DelBubs]

I do a really boring job, so my mind is constantly on a wander. While kinda watching Van Helsing tonght, I got to thinking, just how good is Stokers book 'Dracula' ? Is it actually a literacy masterpiece, or is it afforded classic status because of the character introduced? In that vein, Frankestein ?

Also, nice little pic here, about the fourth message down.

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f...3&PN=1&TPN=210

[Legerd]

Yeah, that Multiverse Squadron cover is nice. I like how Talisman is right up front.

I think Stokers' Dracula is a masterpiece personally. I believe it was the first novel to take the vampire mythos and flesh it out, creating an origin and giving it a face by which we all recognize it. Its influence can arguably be seen in every vampire novel/play/movie that followed it.

Frankenstein is not only a classic, but a story that created a new genre of horror. The man-made monster born of science and human hubris has become a theme that is more relevant today than when Mary Shelley wrote the book. Like Dracula, Frankenstein has been the model on which numerous stories have been based. What's more, the term "Frankenstein's monster" or more often (though wrongly) just "Frankenstein" has become part of our language meaning a man-made problem.

[rplass]

Then you might like this image. Don't know much about it but I like the guy in the middle, what's his name??? haha!

http://grok558.blogspot.com/2008/08/...-imagined.html

Love,
rplass

[Legerd]

That Jerry Rascoe has talent!

[DelBubs]

Another Multiverse Pic here.

Regarding Stoker, Drascula never appealed to me as a novel. I think I read about half way through and gave up. Lot's or periods of inactivity and there was nothing there to draw me back. FRankenstein on the other hand is a great read. So much more to identify with.

[Le Messor]

Is that All-Star Squadron an Amalgam, or should I read the word 'Multiverse'?

Cool, btw; and Guardian seems to be leader!

Personally, I found Dracula more readable than Frankenstein (or The Modern Prometheus), just in terms of style and modern tastes; but I read a bit of Victorian literature from time to tome. (Yes, that was a typo, but I kept it.)

As for classics, who knows what gets something defined as such? Not I. Both worth reading, though; if only to figure out the differences between the novels and the movies ('specially Frankenstein). Oh, and the face bumps on Buffy's vampires? They're in Dracula. That one surprised me!

What's more, the term "Frankenstein's monster" or more often (though wrongly) just "Frankenstein" has become part of our language meaning a man-made problem.

Respectfully, I disagree. The monster is never given a name in the book; but Frankenstein is his creator's last name; and Victor (note: I'm not calling him 'The Doctor'; in the novel, he isn't) is the closest thing he has to a father. Ergo, his name should also be Frankenstein. Ipso facto! Vis-a-vis! Concordantly!

- Le Messor
Xander: Flowers for m'lady.
Buffy: I think they call those balloons now.
Xander: Well... put them in water. Maybe they'll grow.

[Legerd]

What's more, the term "Frankenstein's monster" or more often (though wrongly) just "Frankenstein" has become part of our language meaning a man-made problem.

Respectfully, I disagree. The monster is never given a name in the book; but Frankenstein is his creator's last name; and Victor (note: I'm not calling him 'The Doctor'; in the novel, he isn't) is the closest thing he has to a father. Ergo, his name should also be Frankenstein. Ipso facto! Vis-a-vis! Concordantly!

Some people might go with that Lefty, tree-hugging, bleeding heart logic, I don't. 'Close' is only good in horseshoes and hand grenades, it wouldn't hold up in a court of law, which is where the two of them would have ended up had the book been written nowadays.

[DelBubs]

One of the things I enjoy about about this subject is when chatting with certain people they refer to the creature as Frankensteins Monster. However in my mind that raises the question as to whether the creature is actually a monster. Who is the real monster in all of this. Victor Frankenstein chose to play God by creating the creature. How much of a monster is the creature as it only seems to be reacting to circumstances and situations. Surely the real Monster is the scientist? He created something without giving thought to outcome?

[Legerd]

I consider Vic to be an arrogant jerk who fails to consider the consequences of his actions. Then, later, he acts like a child by running away from his responsibilities. The monster though chooses to get his revenge by murdering Vic's younger brother and his wife, not to mention other acts of deliberate cruelty, which I think earns him the title.

[DelBubs]

Why ? The creature has had no guidance, it reacts purely on instinct. When it kills the young girl, it's by accident not malice. Anything it does after that is by instinct, someone chases you with a blazing torch your gonna try to defend yourself with no thought to outcome.

'Frankensteins Innocent' seems more appropriate.

[Trewqp]

Well, if the monster acts like that act on instinct, i dont want it around.


Also, i have a cold and a headache. I blame it on you, Delbubs.

[Legerd]

Why ? The creature has had no guidance, it reacts purely on instinct. When it kills the young girl, it's by accident not malice. Anything it does after that is by instinct, someone chases you with a blazing torch your gonna try to defend yourself with no thought to outcome.

'Frankensteins Innocent' seems more appropriate.

The girl may have been an accident, but he deliberately killed Frankenstein's brother and wife to hurt Vic. He did it for revenge pure and simple.

[DelBubs]

Why ? The creature has had no guidance, it reacts purely on instinct. When it kills the young girl, it's by accident not malice. Anything it does after that is by instinct, someone chases you with a blazing torch your gonna try to defend yourself with no thought to outcome.

'Frankensteins Innocent' seems more appropriate.

The girl may have been an accident, but he deliberately killed Frankenstein's brother and wife to hurt Vic. He did it for revenge pure and simple.

I think we're missing the point here, of course he did it out of revenge, a basic human reaction, without any growing up or guidance we give in to human nature (what we are without a parents guidance). The creature was given a grown up body with an empty template, circumstance and specific situation dictated behaviour.

How can we hold it to our standards?

(Edited due to my original rudeness.)

[Le Messor]

Some people might go with that Lefty, tree-hugging, bleeding heart logic, I don't. 'Close' is only good in horseshoes and hand grenades, it wouldn't hold up in a court of law, which is where the two of them would have ended up had the book been written nowadays.

Again, I must disagree. Where they'd actually end up is Jerry! Jerry! This episode: My father is a mad student who creates monsters in his spare time.

Close also works for government.

Also, in the absence of any other father / name, I'm gonna stick with Frankenstein. If we got another of either (like, one of the bodies' originals) I'd be fine with that. ('scuse me while I cough up blood from this heart thing... no, really, this is a serious medical condition).

Why ? The creature has had no guidance, it reacts purely on instinct.
I think we're missing the point here, of course he did it out of revenge, a basic human reaction,

Still a monster, in my book. (Available for $29.95 at terrible bookstores everywhere!)

- Le Monster (wow, that was actually a Freudian typo.)
"It's not what inside that defines us. It's how we act." (or words to that effect. And, yes, I just quoted Katie Holmes. Does that make me a monster?)

[DelBubs]

Why ? The creature has had no guidance, it reacts purely on instinct.
I think we're missing the point here, of course he did it out of revenge, a basic human reaction,

Still a monster, in my book. (Available for $29.95 at terrible bookstores everywhere!)

Does it have an index and a colouring section?