Frankenstein remix

Hi guys,

I found this review about an interactive rendition of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and wanted to share it:

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/30/frankenstein_remixed_salpart/

Hmmm. Can't say that interactive novels have ever really got my attention before. I have mixed feelings.

My first instinct was antagonism towards it - taking liberties with the text and all that. Then I thought about it a bit and realised that was a knee-jerk reaction and that it was really no different to making a dramatisation or a musical of a book. It's actually quite an interesting idea.

Then I wondered about the level at which the reader would be interacting with the novel. Shelley was not just telling a good story, she had deeper things to say and ask. Would the reader be interacting only with the surface story? Would they be guided towards the deeper levels?

Then I decided that I'm never going to find out: the world seems to be always so full of new things and life is so short - we have to pick and choose and I think this is one facet on which I'm going to pass (mind you, it's not so many years since I said the exact same thing about the internet).

And need I point out that there has always been interaction - a two-way process - between thoughtful reader and good literature?

That looks like a very interesting take. When I have time, I'm gonna have to delve into it a little more and see what I think. Frankenstein is one of my favorite novels, and I have very strong opinions about it, so I'm leary about this sort of 'interactive' idea. (Isn't fiction already 'interactive'?)

Thanks for the heads up and link.

I've been resistant to this sort of thing at least since the early eighties: I kept freeing a poor shackled prisoner in a "choose-your-own-adventure book", and he kept killing me. It both offended my innate sense of justice and demonstrated that I'm really quite stupid!

I like the idea of multi-media supporting materials, like supercharged notes from a Penguin Classic, though.

>5 frahealee:

Not always (perhaps not often) Gothic, but I think it's well worth reading Mary Shelley's short stories; especially as you can get her complete works ridiculously cheaply on Kindle.

Second question first:
I grew up with various incarnations of the screen Frankenstein and I have childhood memories (this would be in the 'fifties) of us kids chasing each other round the back lanes, one of us being 'Frankenstein' - we never distinguished creator and creation - with arms held out in front. But I don't think I read the book or was particularly aware of the author till I did my degree, quite late in life, when it was a set book in one of my courses (the same possibly goes for Dracula). Before anything else, I believe my way into Gothic literature was Poe, and possibly Lovecraft (my early memories are more of his fantasies) - I read both by my late teens, I believe, courtesy of the local library. I still remember what the books looked like. And then, when I was older and had 'disposable income', there were those paperback, horror, short-story anthologies, where I probably first learned of all the other 'usual suspects'.

Your question on favourites has me stumped, to be honest. First of all, I don't think I've ever really connected the book to the film versions. Nowadays, I think Frankenstein one of the great novels, quite transcending both the genre and my love for it. I'd probably put it in my 'top ten' novel list of all genres. As for films, I don't think I can go beyond Karloff in the 1931 Frankenstein and the 1935 Bride of Frankenstein, and the 1957 The Curse of Frankenstein with Lee and Cushing; but to choose between them defeats me (having said that, I suspect there is a bit of nostalgia colouring my view of the latter - part of my youth - and that in reality the two James Whales are the greater films). But I think my subconscious has quite firmly separated films from book.

I've yet to see the Branagh film - probably because I can't get my head around the idea of De Niro as the creature. I really should get round to it.
I note that Mary Shelley, the film, is comparatively poorly reviewed, so I'm not going out of my way to see it until it turns up somewhere I can watch it for free.
Which is the Australian film you refer to?

ETA - Winston Churchill wrote something like, "Sorry this post is so long - didn't have time to write a shorter one."

>7 frahealee:

Ah - my mistake - I thought you were talking about two different films. I've actually seen I, Frankenstein and wrote about it 'luke-warmly' in 'Gothic films - part three'. All the Catholic connection must have gone over my head (brought up English baptist), so now I'm tempted to watch it again. It must have gone over my head that it was filmed in Australia, too.
I quite agree on Nighy's capacity to be downright scary or a funny man - a great actor.
Actually, judging by the post I wrote about it, I must have watched that film with a particularly powerful half-bottle of wine ...

... since at the time I didn't know what to call 'them' ...
Yes! The more traditionally Gothic stories in all those anthologies were my favourites, but I didn't know then that they were Gothic. It probably came from my childhood obsession with two hefty and ancient, handed-down books, one of tales of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table and the other of The Thousand and One Nights - they giving me an abiding taste for the exotic in my horror-stories, as opposed (mostly) to familiar, everyday settings. I'm a sucker for a decaying castle.

>10 housefulofpaper:
I need to read Frankenstein again. I read the 1818 version in the early 90s and have never read the revised and now "official" version. I have a nice Folio Society hardback edition I should read it before this bicentennial year is up.

My favourite version must be the two Whale/Karloff films. I'd soaked up a lot of the imagery second hand through popular culture - the 1970s might have been the high water mark for recycling scary or violent or somehow "edgy" material for children - but I didn't see the films (on TV) until I was 16.

There were two sources that gave more specific information, one about the novel and one about the films. Firstly, the novel. There used to be a weekly educational magazine for children called "Look and Learn" that consisted of illustrated articles on all manner of subjects. A hardback "annual"was issued for the Christmas market. It may have recycled material from the weekly magazine, I don't know, But the annual for 1975 did have a piece on the creation of the story, focusing on the Villa Diodati storytelling contest and featuring an illustration of the creature supposedly based on Mary Shelley's original description, as a counterpoint to the Karloff makeup.

The TV mini-series Frankenstein: the True Story was shown around the same time I think. I was at least aware of it sufficiently to wonder if it was real!

A year later I received for Christmas The Whoopie Book of Frankie-Stein, which needs some explanation...Frankie-Stein was a comedy version of the creature (closely based on the Karloff make-up of course but otherwise more like a children's version of Herman Munster) created in the 1960s by artist Ken Reid. By the 1970s the character was a mainstay of a weekly comic called Whoopie. The book is a big annual in all but name. Between the reprinted comic strips there were a few text-based articles, one of which was a chronological overview of "Frankenstein" in films, starting with the 1932 film and focusing on the Universal sequels before touching on the Hammer version and I don't recall what other films. I'm pretty sure Munster Go Home! was mentioned. The piece was illustrated with stills and publicity photos (I'm pretty sure Christopher Lee's makeup was included).

There was another version of Frankenstein (meaning the creature) around at this time but I didn't get to see very much of it: this was a version that Marvel created, I believe actually for their black and white magazine line in the States which sidestepped the Comics Code Authority but nevertheless it was included in a horror-based weekly UK comic. Like all UK comics at the time, it was sold to and thought of as being solely for children, even though all the Marvel UK comics reprinted material that was aimed at more of a teenage or college readership.

But my mother drew the line at horror comics and I didn't get my hands on a copy of Dracula Lives! (Marvel's Tomb of Dracula was the lead feature being reprinted) until many years later.

Weird and surreal experience tonight (it's 11:30pm as I start to type):

On holiday and knackered after a day's walking on sand dunes and salt marshes (and a winter putting on fat), I was vaguely looking at the Gothic collection on my Kindle for something to read and I fell asleep--this would have been about eight. I dreamed someone was reading aloud from a love-letter to Mary Shelley. I listened for a while before gradually waking up to find the voice still speaking! Tonight's edition of The Essay on BBC Radio 3, "'Dear Mary'--Continuing his imaginary correspondences with some of the world's great writers, Ian Sansom has put together a letter to Frankenstein author, Mary Shelley."

I suppose I'll re-listen to it on the iPlayer over a very late dinner ... saves the chore of deciding on something to read ...iplayer over a very late dinner ... saves the chore of deciding on something to read ...

Forgot to click 'Post message' ...

More weirdness: when I listened again it became clear that I'd actually heard it all, even though I was asleep--I hadn't got the sense of it first time round, but I could remember all the words and phrases.

>10 housefulofpaper:

I'm in a quandary.

Just started reading my nice new Chiltern Classics edition of Frankenstein over my wake-up mug of tea; having part-read the introduction to my old, Oxford World's Classics, softcover edition last night. Two of wossname's letters in and I started to wonder which of the original editions I was reading. Quickly discovered it is the 1831.

Now, my Oxford edition makes a very persuasive argument for its use of the 1818 (it puts the 1831 changes in an appendix). Not least, it suggests that many of the changes were more or less forced upon M S, and it makes clear how it changes the tone of the work.

Now I find myself faced with choices. 1818? 1831? Both? And it's too early in the morning ...

>13 alaudacorax:
...I started to wonder which of the original editions...

The wording of your quandary caused me pause for thought. Thank you for brightening my day.

>14 pgmcc:

I've mislaid a song. I was going to quote what I'm sure was an old music hall song still heard on radio in my childhood, "If I can spread a little sunshine as I go by"; but online searches aren't finding it.

>13 alaudacorax:

Decided to read the 1818 but read that appendix before and after. But this business has really piqued me, now, and I'm not moving on until I'm sure I'm sure I understand all the ins and outs and whys and wherefores of M S's* changes.

*It's weird. I've realised recently that I'm not comfortable with referring to Mrs Radcliffe or Miss Austen any other way—and I'm sure both ladies would have been offended by it if I did. In fact, when I was young the local library's edition of Mrs Radcliffe had just that as author. But when it comes to M S, I really don't know what to call her. I'm sure I've never come across her referred to as any other than Mary Shelley. I don't think I've ever come across 'Mrs Shelley'; 'Shelley' is just plain ambiguous; 'Mary' I'm sure is a liberty that would have got me handbagged back in the day ... why is life is never simple for me?

>15 alaudacorax:
It's not "Spread a Little Happiness" by any chance? Sting got it into the charts off the back of Brimstone and Treacle.

On author's names I usually just use their surname but not without feeling self-conscious about it. "Who do I think I am? An essayist in the London Review of Books or something?" - although in the case of Mary Shelley, with Percy hovering in the background (or indeed, making his own contributions to the manuscript), that's going to be too ambiguous. "Mary Shelley" it is, I guess.

>16 housefulofpaper:

Quite right. That's the tune I was remembering, but misremembering the words.

Another thing that jars with me is Marple, the TV show (doesn't seem to be a touchstone for it). Miss M., had she existed, would surely have been shocked and offended to be so-described, and I'm sure whoever decided on the name had no empathy or affection for the stories at all. And this is coming from someone who's not really a Christie fan!

>17 alaudacorax: Now I'm wondering how often I've heard the term "Marple" without the "Miss" in front of it. I'll have to find out which of the three series it would be, since I've never really payed that much attention to the wording.

I know I read the latter version of Frankenstein. I'll have to get the 1818 text as my excuse to re-read it. ;). I don't remember what reason was given for the changes in class.

>18 WeeTurtle:

Yeah ... I'm still not clear on that. Luckily enough, the section on it in The Gothic recommends reading the introduction and appendix in my old softcover edition (by one Marilyn Butler). Unluckily, after a morning of walking yesterday and, then, an afternoon of armed combat with my garden, yesterday evening I fell asleep over said introduction. Try again tonight ...