I just finished reading Frankenstien. It came highly recommended by my girlfriend, so it when straight to the top of my "to read list" (and right now, I have literally 30 books in a pile on my floor that represent that backlog).
It was a really great piece of Victorian literature. A very engaging story, with great pose and themes that draws the read into this tale. Personally, I really love the verbose pose, grand themes, and epistolary narratives that seem to mark most of the literature. I have been on a gothic reading kick for the last couple of months. I have finished Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Dracula, the yellow wallpaper, the monkey's paw, and various Edger Allen Poe and H.P. Lovecraft. I highly recomend all these works for gaining cultural capital because a fair amount of references and allusions today can be found that hark back to these works.
Surprising to me, out of what I knew of all these works, Frankenstein's popular movie represent is perhaps the most widely different version of all these novels. The movie seems only similar in name, and not by plot, characters representations, or themes. Dracula and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde vary on many points, but similar enough you can recognize the kernel of novel at the center. The only other movies that varies this much from the source is anything based on H.P. Lovecraft's work. I have never seen any movies that is even remotely close to the source material, and generally just borrows the names of characters and scenes, but leave everything else.
Even in today's movie/television world, I think there is something to still be said about reading the original source novel. In my experience, rare is the time when I think the movie is the superior work of art when compared to the novel.
Anyways, just a little rant about books.
Skeptical Simon
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment