|
Post by berkley on Jul 3, 2014 2:13:42 GMT -5
I've been doing something similar the last few years. I remember that when I started - I think it was around 2007 - my primary motive was to read a few famous books I'd always been interested in but had never gotten round to - I remember that William Blake's long verse epics and Joyce's Finnegans Wake were two of the major things I had in mind at the time. I arbitrarily chose the Elizabethan period as my starting point and figured I'd make it up to our contemporary era in a couple years at the most.
But the more I got into it, the more books I discovered I wanted to read, so that after all this time I'm still only up to 1868 - finished Dostoevsky's The Idiot last month and just started George MacDonald's At the Back of the North Wind tonight. As hondobrode said, you start to get a feel for what was going on in the literary world at the time and you find yourself wanting to read things you never felt much interest in, or even heard of, before. I never thought I'd become a fan of Walter Scott or Jane Austen or Anthony Trollope, but I rank them among my favourite novelists now - and those are just a few examples.
Once I realised how long this was going to take I started trying to read at least one or two more modern books every month, so I have skipped ahead and read Finnegans Wake already (as difficult as its reputation says it is, but worth the effort; plan to re-read it when I get to that point in my timeline).
Anyway, look forward to hearing more about your reading experiences, mrp. I think you'll find that the more you read from any given era the more you become attuned to its style, so you'll eventually feel more comfortable with what feels now like the slow pace and wordiness of books like Frankenstein. For me, much of the pleasure of the writing from that era and earlier is in how they construct their sentences and put their words together, and I think you'll find the same thing after a while.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2014 22:41:16 GMT -5
Still making my way through Frankenstein, have only been able to get through a chapter or two a day, and am just a little more than half way through it (Ole Vic has just agreed to hear his creation's tale...), and frankly I am marveling at how little of it I know as I am really only familiar with the Universal features and not the original story. I knew the movie took a lot of liberties, but I don't think I have even read one scene that was adapted truly in the film...not a bad thing, just a little taken aback and can't help but chuckle how modern fans would react to Universal's liberties in adapting the book in today's fan(atic) driven audiences. Fans complain about Peter Jackson's changes or changes to the Marvel movie characters/plots and the DC films, I can imagine hardcore fans of the book going ballistic if something as freely adapted as the Universal pic were released in today's market. It certainly wouldn't have been received well enough to be considered a film classic as it is now, which is perhaps a sad statement on modern audiences.
-M
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Jul 6, 2014 1:20:09 GMT -5
Amazing. I'd never have guessed that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2014 3:02:43 GMT -5
I read that the movie Dr. Frankenstein was somewhat based on Nikola Telsa while he was in the mountains experimenting with electricity.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jul 6, 2014 4:31:41 GMT -5
I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly but didn't Roy Thomas do a more faithful adaptation of Frankenstein in the 70's comic or the Monsters Unleashed magazine? Or at least more much more faithful than the Universal version
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 6, 2014 4:42:24 GMT -5
My wife is a huge fan of the Mary Shelley Frankenstein. I enjoy it, but where I get hung up is that the story does so much to homage Paradise Lost that I have a hard time not comparing it to Paradise Lost, and when I do that, Frankenstein inevitably comes off as a pale imitation, only executed through science instead of divinity. I find the freely adapted Universal film far more original in comparison. Shelley's monster was never going to outdo Milton's Satan, but Karloff's monster is one of art's greatest protagonists in his own rite.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 6, 2014 4:45:44 GMT -5
frankly I am marveling at how little of it I know as I am really only familiar with the Universal features and not the original story. There's exactly one scene that makes it into Bride of Frankenstein. I don't recall any of the original film coming from the book at all. They even swapped Victor and Henry's names. It really does get a lot of flak for this, but most detractors also recognize that the film is a classic all its own; it just isn't Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. And, slightly off topic, it really irks me when people refer to the monster as "Frankenstein".
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Jul 6, 2014 6:39:51 GMT -5
I caught up on a few of the classics, ranging from Shelley's Frankenstein to George Eliot's Middlemarch by downloading the free audiobook versions from librivox.org and listening to them while I am at the gym or jogging. Some of those volunteer readers are really good. Some I downloaded and deleted immediately because I could not see myself listening to that person's efforts for 12 hours or so.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jul 6, 2014 7:52:19 GMT -5
The 1931 Frankenstein's screenplay is largely based on a stage adaptation from earlier in the century, though "opened up" to include its memorable outdoor scenes like the drowning of little Maria and the climax's showdown in the burning windmill. That's the origin of the long creation sequence, which is barely a page in the novel. There have been more faithful adaptations, notably a 1970s made-for-TV movie with Bo Svenson as the monster and the Kenneth Branaugh/Robert DeNiro version (though even it spent its final third on an unsettling tangent undreamt of by Mary Shelley). Heck, even the Mister Magoo version is more faithful than James Whale's! And yes, the adaptation by Gary Friedrich and Mike Ploog that ran in the first three issues of Marvel's The Monster of Frankenstein is easily the best comics interpretation, as faithful as the Classics Illustrated version but considerably more dynamic in both script and art.
Cei-U! I summon the Ingolstadt Chamber of Commerce!
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 6, 2014 7:54:13 GMT -5
And yes, the five-issue adaptation by Gary Friedrich and Mike Ploog that ran in the first three issues of Marvel's The Monster of Frankenstein is easily the best comics interpretation, Better than Bernie Wrightson's?
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jul 6, 2014 7:58:42 GMT -5
Wrightson illustrated the novel (beautifully, I might add). He didn't adapt it to comics.
Cei-U! I summon the point of order!
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 6, 2014 8:33:00 GMT -5
Wrightson illustrated the novel (beautifully, I might add). He didn't adapt it to comics. It may not count as an adaptation, but it's still an interpretation. I summon the heckle!
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jul 6, 2014 8:59:58 GMT -5
Where's the eye-roll emoticon when I really need it?
Cei-U! I summon the exasperated sigh!
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 6, 2014 9:37:39 GMT -5
In terms of great novels, I typically find that I've only read about a dozen or so on any of the more prominent Top 100 lists when I peruse them. This bugs me. I recently picked up "Shakespeare for Beginners" on a recommendation because Shakespeare has been at the top of my list to get into for years. I've only read a few plays myself, and even with the standard guides that accompany most of them, I felt it was too much like work to be enjoyable. I need some solid groundwork to base everything on.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 6, 2014 12:14:09 GMT -5
In terms of great novels, I typically find that I've only read about a dozen or so on any of the more prominent Top 100 lists when I peruse them. This bugs me. I recently picked up "Shakespeare for Beginners" on a recommendation because Shakespeare has been at the top of my list to get into for years. I've only read a few plays myself, and even with the standard guides that accompany most of them, I felt it was too much like work to be enjoyable. I need some solid groundwork to base everything on. I sympathize. Did you read them aloud at all? That is the one sure way to get the feel for Shakespeare. Wrap your voice around the lines and you will almost immediately have a better sense of what is going on. Will you understand every single line right away? Of course not, but remember that virtually every word in Shakespeare is still in the dictionary. He's writing not in Old English, but in early Modern English, and he is an artist who works in words. Notice how frequently he summarizes in a less difficult line composed of one- or two-syllable words the more complex images and ideas that a character has been saying in a soliloquy. In fact, most of the most recognizable, frequently quoted lines in Shakespeare are composed of one- or two-syllable words that any child's vocabulary contains. (I give you "To be or not to be..." for example.) Another hint: read the poetry as if it's prose, and the prose as if it's poetry. In other words, break yourself of the habit of reading a line of poetry, pausing Dr. Seuss-style, and then reading the next line. Shakespeare's lines spill over into the next line frequently (called Enjambment), and reading the planes of poetry accordingly make a huge difference. Likewise, (and this is why you must read aloud), take a breath when you're reading the prose passages to help you to hear the power of the images that Shakespeare creates. Also, I would recommend choosing a play to read that you can also watch or listen to as you're reading. You can then stop and start the spoken version if you need to reread or follow what's going on. Again, seeing and hearing how the lines are read, both for meaning and for feeling, can go a long way toward helping one's understanding of the lines. If you can, take in a theatrical performance of a play. Often, that can be an eye-opener as well. You can usually find the BBC versions of the plays that were made in the late 70s and early 80s on-line. Most are essentially straightforward versions, but they are easy to follow with text in hand, as they are not "cinematic" in style. I would not shy away from the recent spate of Shakespeare films, either. It's just that the BBC versions were made with the purpose of having a performed version of the text of each play always available. I would recommend using two or three annotated editions, too. If you're going paperbacks, the Folger Library editions (Washington Square Press) are old reliables that have been updated with excellent articles and background information, the groundwork that you may be referring to. I also recommend the Penguin versions, which are equally accessible. Both are inexpensive and easy to find. Don't know what you've read already, though most of us know Romeo and Juliet and/or Macbeth well from high school. Start with one like that. You know the stories and the characters. Those two are not particularly long and the language is not complicated, especially compared to some of the later plays. Reread a summary without worrying about spoiler alerts. Every one of the plays rewards rereading, trust me.Time enough for plunging into a new play once you get your (metric) feet wet in familiar waters. Please don't give up on this noble pursuit. Shakespeare is you often ruined for us by teachers who assign it to be "read" overnight, as something to be gotten through, without recognizing the absolute necessity of performing it in their classes. Others, whose distaste for Shakespeare, born of a lack of understanding, wind up coloring their students' attitudes toward it, making Shakespeare seem as if it's like a foul-tasting medicine that you have to take. Stick with it, Trebor. It's hard at times, but it's the hard that makes it great, as Jimmy Dugan says.
|
|