ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 13, 2011 There's two versions of Frankenstein. The original was supposedly a little more subversive than the later, padded out version. Do you know which one you read? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pabosher Posted June 13, 2011 There's two versions of Frankenstein. The original was supposedly a little more subversive than the later, padded out version. Do you know which one you read? The original 1818, I believe? Not entirely sure. Do you know of some specifics? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 13, 2011 The original 1818, I believe? Not entirely sure. Do you know of some specifics? Unfortunately not. I just heard that the first one was more controversial, and the later version kind of softened it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brkl Posted June 13, 2011 Unfortunately not. I just heard that the first one was more controversial, and the later version kind of softened it. Wikipedia doesn't agree with you, so you must be wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJW Posted June 14, 2011 Wikipedia doesn't agree with you, so you must be wrong. Or at the very least needing citation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 14, 2011 Wikipedia doesn't agree with you, so you must be wrong. From Wikipedia: "On 31 October 1831, the first "popular" edition in one volume appeared, published by Henry Colburn & Richard Bentley. This edition was heavily revised by Mary Shelley, partially because of pressure to make the story more conservative, and included a new, longer preface by her, presenting a somewhat embellished version of the genesis of the story." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brkl Posted June 14, 2011 Yup, and the original is 1818. BTW I didn't mean to sound like a dick in my last post, I just had to go to work immediately. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 14, 2011 Yup, and the original is 1818. BTW I didn't mean to sound like a dick in my last post, I just had to go to work immediately. You didn't sound like a dick, especially after I proved you wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brkl Posted June 14, 2011 No! You said the original wasn't 1818, and it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
syntheticgerbil Posted June 14, 2011 I was trying to find comparison text on that, or just something that springs to mind, because now I'm wondering what version of Frankenstein I read years ago. I don't know if I still have the book though to check. It would be at my parents or something. Also for how classic Frankenstein is supposed to be, it felt like a very disjointed novel, even though most was enjoyable until the very end. The ridiculous part where the monster is being chased on a dog sled at the end just seemed like some kind of idiotic chase scene from a cartoon or bad comedy movie, not the way I would want a horror novel to end. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 14, 2011 No! You said the original wasn't 1818, and it is. And where did I say this? Hmm? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brkl Posted June 14, 2011 Where I misread you, that's where. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 14, 2011 Where I misread you, that's where. Zing! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pabosher Posted June 14, 2011 I read the 1831 edition. The main differences are A: in the original, Elizabeth is a blood relative to Victor (cousin or half-sister or something) and in the revised, she is just an adopted sister. B: in the original, Victor's actions are more horrifying, in that they're all calculated and down to his own cognitions and decisions. In the revised edition, he is driven by a "resistless and frantic impulse" throughout, and basically his actions are decided by fate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 14, 2011 It'd be cool if there was some very easy way to know which version you've got without reading the whole thing. The copyright isn't clear in my copy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thyroid Posted June 16, 2011 I know I shouldn't be excited, but I am. Those books were a huge part of my childhood. Youtube. Please don't be another Harry Potter novel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 18, 2011 Very interesting. I have a feeling it's going to be a computer game, for some reason. Hmm. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wubbles Posted June 20, 2011 I'm pretty sure Rowling has said a bunch of times that she wants to write a new Harry Potter novel featuring Harry as an adult. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orv Posted June 20, 2011 I'm pretty sure Rowling has said a bunch of times that she wants to write a new Harry Potter novel featuring Harry as an adult. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted June 20, 2011 I'm pretty sure Rowling has said a bunch of times that she wants to write a new Harry Potter novel featuring Harry as an adult. Which is fairly obvious. Replace "wand" with "wang" and you've got the adult version of Harry Potter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 20, 2011 Dude, you don't like anything. Not even planking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orv Posted June 20, 2011 Dude, you don't like anything. Not even planking. I actually quite enjoyed Harry Potter. I even enjoyed the movies. That said, I think it can be left where it is. I don't think it needs to be continued. (Not that you're not right. /bitter) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 20, 2011 I actually quite enjoyed Harry Potter. I even enjoyed the movies. That said, I think it can be left where it is. I don't think it needs to be continued.(Not that you're not right. /bitter) Lol. Well I sort of agree. The epilogue at the end of Harry Potter nearly ruined the entire series for me, but maybe, just maybe, a book with him as an adult could rectify it --- or totally and utterly obliterate the entire thing forever. Hmm. Maybe you're right. She should leave it alone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Moelman Posted June 20, 2011 Lol. Well I sort of agree. The epilogue at the end of Harry Potter nearly ruined the entire series for me, but maybe, just maybe, a book with him as an adult could rectify it --- or totally and utterly obliterate the entire thing forever. Hmm. Maybe you're right. She should leave it alone.Yeah for as good as the rest of the book was, I didn't like that bit very much. While I would definitely read any future HP books I think I'd rather she just move on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orv Posted June 20, 2011 My issue is that I don't know what kind of author Rowling is. My concern is that she'd continue the series for money. She might not be doing that, it may be what she really wants to do. But that's what I'm afraid of, and writing purely for the money. . .passion writes better stories than cash. (But the epilogue was shit, yes.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites