Category: Uncategorized

Posted on

Frankenstein the book vs the film: Character and Personality

The story of Frankenstein written in 1818 by Mary Shelley and its reenactment in 1931 are two very distinct forms of the same idea. There are various differences in plot points, characterization, thematic points, and even the ending. The main difference that sticks out to me is the manner of how evil is instilled in an individual. The 1818 version addresses how social constructs can play into the character and the attitude of a person and the 1931 adaptation believes that personality is innate and predetermined. There are examples in both versions of the text supporting these differing views.

Within the text, there is an instance where Mary hints toward her understanding of how personality is developed. The Monster tried repeatedly to gain the love and care that he would give out to others. From when he was keeping the old man company to when he saved the young girl, he was attempting to display himself as a sympathetic person who would rather turn the cheek than do harm to anyone. Just because of his appearance, everyone discriminated against the Monster and had prejudices of him being a horrible creature, even his creator Victor. Around the point in which the Monster met his breaking point and killed Victor’s younger brother, he proclaimed “I am malicious because I am miserable. Am I not shunned and hated by all mankind?” (Shelley, 102) The Monster was mistreated and became filled with rage and anger due to others; they refused his kindness and met him with hate at every turn. The Monster was fed up with the lack of reciprocation and became sadistic and harmful due to how others treated him on a constant basis. Mary Shelley seemed to believe that personality and character are developed through one’s experience in society.

In contrast, the film depicted the acquirement of character and personality as a predetermined in each human. Scriptwriters portrayed this ideal is by explaining that the brain in which the Monster acquired would determine his intelligence and morals. The initial brain retrieved for the Monster was that of a normal person, which insinuates that normal people are already made with morals. When the normal brain is dropped, it is switched with a criminal one; Dr. Waldman earlier explained that there were physical differences between the brain of a normal person and a criminal. Waldman and the little girl are then murdered seemingly because of the evil brain put inside of the Monster. Therefore, the brain in which he was given determined his outcome rather than how he was treated in society. This comes clear as a point attempting to be made by the screenwriters when the Monster is not treated terribly because of his looks and kills a little girl attempting to be his friend.

Intentions and messages within different versions of the story can be easily seen by the manner in which similar overarching themes are portrayed. The ideology of Mary Shelley in 1818 clearly reflected how character is learned through social interactions, and the message carried through this novel. Creators involved in Frankenstein the movie reflected their beliefs of character being an innate quality that people have from the beginning. The stories were written in different scopes and took two different forms to reflect what the authors found as the most important message to convey to the audience.

Posted on

The Importance of Family in Frankenstein

Throughout her 1831 novel, Frankenstein, Mary Shelly frequently comments on the importance of family in keeping a person sane and the detrimental effects of either neglecting family or being neglected by family. When Victor Frankenstein first starts telling his story, he comments on how “no youth could have passed more happily than [his}” (21). His parents loved him and he had great companions that were all very supportive of his endeavors. He was free to live his life as he pleased and carve his own path, which was a luxury that most kids were not given. Once he left for school and started to pursue his independent studies, he was so consumed in this work of his that he completely stopped talking to the people who had raised and loved him all those years and played a huge role in making him the person that he is. This eventually led to his downfall as the project that he was so consumed in ended up killing most of the people he loved, both directly and indirectly. This may have been Mary Shelly’s way of warning the reader that it is important to allocate time for family before it is too late. After the completion of his project, Frankenstein finally returned to having contact with his family members, but their happy days were numbered as they started dying one by one at the hands of the creature and Frankenstein frequently fell sick. If Victor had maintained connection with his family throughout his time in Ingolstadt, perhaps he would’ve somehow realized the extent to which his project would be detrimental and could’ve tried to keep the same quality and happiness of his previous life while he was away at school.

In contrast, the creature that Frankenstein created was not given a happy, nourishing environment early on, like his creator had received. He was shunned from the very beginning, which impacted him deeply as he exclaimed to Victor that “you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us” (68). The creature even tried to create a family with people that weren’t his creator by attempting to be a part of the family that he had been secretly watching for months because he felt a close connection with them, even though they did not feel the same way. Unfortunately, the creature was never able to find a group of people that would accept him as a family member because of his outward appearance.

Although there is a contrast between both their situations, there also exists a similarity between the creature and Frankenstein. They both did not suffer in the same way, but they both felt some type of suffering from not having anyone to openly talk to about what they were going through. Victor neglecting the family he had in order to focus on work, left him very weak and ill. He had to deal with all the guilt he felt for creating the creature internally, which ended up affecting his physical health. On the other hand, the creature’s lack of companionship and inability to relate to anybody else, led to him taking out his anger with violent measures.

Mary Shelly understood the importance of family since much of her family life was marked with death. Her mother died giving birth to Mary and Mary’s first child died a few days after her birth. Also, two of her extended family members and her husband died later on in her life. Because Mary Shelly did not get enough time to spend with her family before their passing away, she uses Victor Frankenstein and his creation as a way to highlight the importance of maintaining healthy relationships with family members.

Posted on

Companionship

What is the ultimate goal of life? Some people would say it is to live every day to the fullest and not worry about seeing tomorrow. Others are determined to build wealth or leave something behind in hopes they are remembered. However, it seems the most important goal in life, which is often overlooked, is to make intimate connections with others. It doesn’t matter who you are, you crave and long for a connection with another living person.

Connections are formed starting at a very young age. Children are dependent on their parents for everything and parents feel responsible to give their children everything. There is a direct biological link between parents and children. It is also important to note that a child is a physical representation of the connection between mother and father. However, this alone is not enough and we search out our own links. Robinson Crusoe, Jane Eyre, Wide Sargasso Sea, and Frankensteinall display this search for others.

Robinson Crusoe is unique because it allows readers to see what someone truly craves when it is gone. Crusoe landed on the island with little to nothing and was entirely alone. He was able to build and salvage everything he needed to survive. There was one thing though that he desired above everything else, the company of another person. Crusoe says, “I cannot explain by an possible Energy of Words, what a strange longing or hankering of Desires I felt in my Soul upon this Sight; breaking out sometimes thus; O that there had been but one or two; nay, or but one Soul sav’d out of this Ship, to have escap’d to me, that I might but have had one Companion, one Fellow-Creature to have spoken to me, and to have convers’d with! In all the Time of my solitary Life, I never felt so earnest, so strong a Desire after the Society of my Fellow-Creatures, or so deep a Regret at the want of it.” Crusoe had always longed for adventure and wanted it at all costs. He sacrificed his family for his desires, only to long for the company of a stranger.  Defoe writes, “Those people cannot enjoy comfortably what God has given them because they see and covet what He has not given them.” Crusoe was one of those people.

In contrast to Robinson Crusoe, Jane Eyre, Wide Sargasso Sea, andFrankensteinall have characters which have never truly experienced what it’s liked to be truly loved by someone. Jane Eyre was an orphan who was sent away to an awful boarding school by her Aunt. She falls in love with Rochester only to discover that he is already married. Jane later trades three quarters of her inheritance just to be a part of a family. She had been poor all of her life, but a family was worth more to her than money. Charlotte Bronte wrote, “There is no happiness like that of being loved by your fellow creatures, and feeling that your presence is an addition to their comfort.”

Antoinette Cosway is similar to Jane Eyre in many ways. Antoinette was treated poorly during her childhood. Her father was dead and her mother constantly yelled at her. Although Antoinette gained a large inheritance from her step father, she still longed to be with someone. She gave up her entire wealth to be with Rochester. She even asked for the help of voodoo so he would love her once more.

The last example of an innate desire for personal connection and sense of fulfillment is Frankenstein. The creature was created from random pieces and brought to life in an unnatural way. He was cast away by everyone because of his dreadful appearance. Through observation and learning, the creature was able to understand his wish for a mate, someone to make a connection. A creature born of unnatural circumstances, lacking in age and experience, was able to feel and determine the need for another.

These four different texts were written at different times, different locations, and by authors of different backgrounds, but all of them point to a desire of acceptance and need of another. Everything people do is caused by an underlying desire to feel linked to another person. Although wealth or adventure is what everyone tries to obtain, they would quickly trade it when they are completely alone.

Posted on

A Letter to Mary Shelley

 

Mary Shelley/Mrs. Percy Shelley (will we ever know?),

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on creating such a successful piece of literature!  What an accomplishment!  Frankenstein is an incredibly interesting story that poses many important questions about society and life in general.  The way you came up with the book is an entertaining story as well.  However, with all great (interpretive) literature comes many questions.  I love the plot of the story and the intricacy of the characters, I just feel as if I was left wanting to know much more about them.

My first question would have to be, if the monster wasn’t actually that physically grotesque and homely, why was Victor so disgusted by him?  Why did he immediately abandon him without, either thinking of the consequences OR at least attempting to communicate with him?  What immediately turned him away from the monster?  I guess that was more than one question.  I feel like all of the physical adaptations of Frankenstein recreate the monster’s image to make it make more sense, so I don’t understand why Frankenstein was so extremely disgusted by his creature in the first place.  If anything, you would think that he would be proud of what he made.  He spent his whole life consumed by the idea of creating sentient life, and when he finally did, he wasn’t even proud of what he had done.  If I had created life from nothing I know I would be extremely proud of myself.

Another part of the plot that I felt was left unresolved was Justine’s character as a whole.  If she knew the consequences of admitting to the crime, why did she give up and admit to something she didn’t do?  It seems as if she either convinced herself that she actually did murder William, or she just gave up in defending herself.  Either way, I don’t really understand why she did what she did.  If my life was on the line I would never plead guilty. This part of the plot always confuses me when I read and re-read it.  One the other hand, I love the connection between Justine’s name and the word ‘justice’.  Very ironic!

Another thing I think about a lot is the fact that Victor destroyed the female monster.  What would have changed if he hadn’t?  Would the monster still have murdered numerous people, and would an additional monster mean additional deaths?  Or, would they be content together and avoid all of the killings?  I feel as though changing this small detail would have changed the story completely, or at least certain aspects of the monster’s character.

One final plot point that I found to be left ambiguously unanswered is the monster’s moral dilemma at the end.  In class we discussed whether or not his feelings of remorse and self-hatred were genuine, but when I read it myself I had no doubts that they were.  I was strong in my opinion until I heard other students debate whether or not he actually felt remorse and grief.  Did you intend for this to be a genuine interaction between the monster and Waldon?  How are we supposed to feel at the end of the story?  I understand that there is no real right response to a book, but how did you intend the audience to perceive the monster at the end of the novel?

This book fosters fantastic conversations.  It’s easy to debate the motives, the personalities and the validity of each and every character.  There are many ambiguous aspects of the story, which, in my opinion, make it a good and interesting read.

Posted on

Blog Post #2 Wilson Library

Initially, before our class went to Wilson library I did not think that I was going to be as intrigued by this visit as I ended up being. The first book that I observed in the collection was the paperback version of Frankenstein published in 1983. What drew me to this particular book was the brightly colored cover that showed a large graphic of a women lying on a bed and the creature standing in the background. The striking use of yellows and reds in this image quickly draws a reader’s eyes to this edition of Frankenstein as opposed to the more neutral colored editions also present in the collection. However, the image on the cover of this book confused me because I feel as though it doesn’t represent the story of Frankenstein very well.

The main focus in the cover is of a woman lying on a bed with a lot of her chest exposed. If this was the first image I saw to represent the story of Frankenstein I would expect the story to be a romantic one.The Mary Shelly’s 1818 version of Frankenstein was definitely not a romance. The most prominent relationship shown in this book was that of Elizabeth and Victor, but the story focused much more on the creature’s feelings rather than those between Elizabeth and Victor. Therefore, it would make more sense if the creature was the main focus on the cover, rather than in the background of image on the book. Elizabeth and Victor’s relationship was also not very romantic. In the beginning of the book when Elizabeth enters Victor’s family there is always an expectation from Victor’s mother that they will marry, but once Victor goes to school and begins his work on the monster he completely ignores Elizabeth as well as all the other people in his life. It comes to the point that Elizabeth has to send letters to Victor practically begging him to write the family back and update her on his sickness. When Victor falls ill again towards the end of the book Elizabeth asks him if he is in love with another woman, and Victor has to assure her that he is not.

Another reason that the book cover focusing on the woman doesn’t make sense to me is because women were not represented well in Frankenstein. Elizabeth is the woman that gets the most detail written about her in the book, but it is a very small selection of the book compared to the vast amount on Victor and the creature. The way women are treated by the other characters in Frankenstein also leads to their poor representation. Aside from Victor’s lack of attention for Elizabeth, it is also shown through the trial scene that the rest of the town does not give women much validation. When Justine is falsely accused of murdering William she attempts to defend herself, but, realizing her voice is useless, she simply gives up and confesses to the crime. Elizabeth is also helpless in her ability to convince the town to stop Justine’s execution. The male, Victor, is the only person with the power to stop Justine’s execution since he would be believed if he chose to explain the situation. This scene exemplifies the passive role women play in the novel, so choosing a male on the cover of the book would make more sense.

Posted on

Wilson Library Visit

As a class, we had visited Wilson Library. The different materials that we were able to look over showed how stories such as that of Frankenstein, Robinson Crusoe, Sherlock Holmes, and Jane Eyre were repurposed over time. One of the materials that I looked at was a comic book adaptation of the classic Sherlock Holmes story, The Hound of Baskervilles. What I found to be pretty interesting, was a page of the comic in which a group of suspects was laid out, through photos and description of each them. This gave an interactive element to the text so that the reader felt as they were more involved in the search for the criminal. I am not entirely familiar with the original source material, but what I do know is that this particular story is not very action-packed. But the comic book gave off a very different impression, as the first image of the comic book shows Sherlock Holmes punching somebody, which is a particularly violent image for a detective known for his deductive reasoning rather than his fighting prowess. There is also another image within the comic book that shows Sherlock holding a gun. Which got me to thinking about how this adaptation of The Hound of Baskervilles could be adhering to the action-packed format that is synonymous to that of a comic book. A comic book warrants spectacle, which is what this particular story could have originally been lacking, so it may have been essential to the authors to make the story seem more exciting by inserting more violence. The changing of Sherlock Holmes’ character reminded me of the movie adaptation of Sherlock Holmes in 2009, in which they turned Sherlock Holmes into an action hero. The movie was filled to the brim with different action set pieces and it seemed as if the greatest commonality between the characters in movies and characters that were based on in the book, were their names. The movie was also incredibly stylized and fast-paced, which is a staple of Guy Richie’s film-making. It’s definitely interesting to see how people take the original source material and how they try to make it their own, but then in certain aspects, it seems like these stories are repurposed completely based off the brand associated with its namesake. There comes a certain point in which an adaptation deviates so much from its original source that it brings up the question of why didn’t a particular author or film-maker, just take their own story. Making a comic book or film about a classic story, can definitely work in one’s favor if an interesting take is brought to the table, but when it seems like elements of a story are used just for the reason that they are recognizable to a general audience, that is when adaptations seem unnecessary. But yet, I digress because I did not read all of the comic books, so regardless of the vivid imagery that I saw in the comic book, it Is possible that these first few images were utilized as a sort of framing to give the audience an expectation that the story will be exciting and fast-paced. This idea of framing was also very apparent in one of the other materials that I came across during our library visit which was the series of reviews regarding Jane Eyre. All the reviews talked about how fantastic Jane Eyre was, calling it one of the most exciting novels to be put to pen and paper. These reviews prime the reader to have lofty expectations of the novel, which could work to its detriment, in that readers could be disappointed in the quality of the writing, or to its benefit if readers forgive the shortcomings of the novel because they think that the book is “a classic”. It is evocative of somebody reading reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and believing that a film will be good, just off the fact that it has a good rating on the somewhat credible site. I found these two materials during my Wilson Library visit to be the most interesting to me, in that they brought up the discussion of why adaptation exist, how can people repurpose stories in an effectual manner, as well as the idea of priming and how exactly it interacts with a reader.

Posted on

Wilson Library Reflection

A recent visit to the Wilson Library’s special collections -specifically to study pieces concerning Frankenstein, Robinson Crusoe, Sherlock Holmes, and Jane Eyre– has brought forth the importance of visual and material elements in the perception of media. These are meant to lend a certain notion of the content inside to the reader as soon as they pick up a work, before they can even begin to read the words. When viewing the pieces at Wilson Library, the most heavily discussed and prevalent elements included cover designs, illustrations, and binding/printing materials. 

In particular, the Robinson Crusoe collection had a variety of different designs and editions, most of which relied on the addition of illustrations either printed along with the story or drawn in by other readers. For instance, one edition examined, The farther adventures of Robinson Crusoe; being the second and last part of his life, : and of the strange surprizing accounts of his travels round three parts of the globe. Written by himself. ; To which is added a map of the world, in which is delineated the voyages of Robinson Crusoe, featured a map of Crusoe’s voyages. Fictional writers often choose to include maps in order to add a sense of legitimacy or to immerse the reader more fully in the story of a fantasy world. In this case, the author’s reason probably aligns with the former. Another reason could be that the map may show particular geography that justifies decisions that Crusoe makes while on the island. The life and adventures of Robinson Crusoe of York, mariner : with an account of his travels round three parts of the globe written by himself was a version that had belonged to George Cruikshank, with his hand-drawn illustrations inside the front cover and inside title page. The binding itself was relatively cheap: cardboard cover and small size. However, the drawings of Friday dancing and Crusoe add some interest and leave the reader with impressions of Cruikshank’s own interpretation/vision of the events occurring in the novel. 

Yet another Crusoe example, The adventures of Robinson Crusoe
by Daniel De Foe ; embellished with numerous engravings, after designs by J.J. Grandville, John Proctor, and others, sets an entirely different expectation of the novel due to its design and illustrations. On the surface, the pages of this edition read more like a storybook with elaborate borders on every page and many images scattered throughout. In this way, a reader may be less likely to take Crusoe’s story as a real one as Defoe tries to emphasize in other versions of Robinson Crusoe. 

As observed at the library, authors and publishers make very specific decisions regarding the use of visual or material elements to achieve a certain purpose, whether it is appealing to different types of audiences or intentionally misleading readers. After examining the various editions available in the special collections, determining the intended impacts of visual aspects of a piece of literature or other media will be much easier and more meaningful as the experience has highlighted the importance of the distinctions made and how they can affect the audience mindset.

Posted on

“The Devil’s Brood”: Wilson Library visit

At Wilson Library, we looked at a few different adaptations of Frankenstein. One particular adaptation that stuck out to me was a book titled “The Devil’s Brood: The New Adventures of Dracula, Frankenstein & the Universal Monsters” by David Jacobs. This book takes the iconic character of Frankenstein’s creature and uses it, along with other Universal “monsters,” to create a horror story. While I didn’t read the book, by looking at the front cover, the synopsis on the back cover (which is also used in the accompanying letter), and the other two books in the Universal Monsters trilogy, I was able to learn a lot about this Frankenstein adaptation.

The cover of the book clearly identifies what type of adaptation this novel is. Dark purple skies, an eerie full moon, spooky green fog, and four classic monsters give the cover a typical horror-story feel. Of the four monsters, there is a mummy with raised arms, the Wolf Man crouching on a bridge, classic Dracula with a long purple cloak, and the 1931 Frankenstein’s Monster with green skin and neck bolts. The Scooby-Doo like cover not only tells the reader that this novel is a horror story, but also makes me believe it is geared more towards younger readers, perhaps teens and young adults. Besides the title, there are two tag lines on the front cover: “Fear is Universal” and “A new novel of classic terror based on the Universal Monsters.” These two lines reinforce the book’s horror genre and identify the author’s intent of writing a new story utilizing characters that the readers are already familiar with. One specifically interesting thing about the title is that the creature is named “Frankenstein,” like it is often mistakenly done in pop culture, while in the original novel, Victor Frankenstein is the author that creates the unnamed monster.

The synopsis on the back of the book, which is also used in the publisher letter we saw at Wilson Library, tells a little bit about the storyline. As I suspected based on the book’s cover, Frankenstein’s monster, along with other classic monsters, are evil creatures that have “reawakened to torment the world.” We also learn by reading the synopsis that the protagonist is an American gangster.

By some of the phrasing in the synopsis, such as “reawakened” and “return,” made me wonder if this book was a part of a series. After a little research, I discovered that “The Devil’s Brood” is the second book in a trilogy based on classic Universal monsters. The first book, written by Jeff Rovin, is named “Return of the Wolfman,” and the third book is “The Devil’s Night” and was also written by David Jacobs. My guess is that Universal wanted to create new profitable material (without necessarily having to invest in new characters and stories) and hired different authors to create popular stories based on existing classic characters.

This novel was intriguing to me because it looks exactly like what I would expect from a Frankenstein adaptation. Although, after reading the 1818 book, I now realize that the popular 1931 movie version of Frankenstein is not as true to the original as I initially thought. However, as a young reader, I could definitely see myself reading this book and I’m sure it would have influenced the way I approached the character of Frankenstein’s creature.

Posted on

Frankenstein: A Film Adaptation for the Modern Day

Mary Shelly’s immortal Frankenstein deserves a modern-day adaptation that brings her story into the 21st century and introduces it to an entirely new generation of viewers. While there have been numerous film adaptations to date, they generally have fallen upon mixed reviews, to be generous. Diluting the story and themes, as in 2014’s, iFrankenstein; Victor’s Monster has inconceivably become some type of action hero. Therefore, I purpose that we embark upon a film adaptation set in the modern day, taking into account modern-day social/societal dynamics & challenges, politics, technology, burgeoning innovations and ethics. With so many themes that can be expanded upon from a new adaptation, there would be more than enough content to develop multiple films.

I have made an attempt to draw upon Shelly’s original works in an attempt to identify some of the key structure of her story that can be easily adapted to captivate audiences of today.

For starters, who is to say that a modern day Frankenstein needs to be constrained by Victor’s monster and its’ physical characteristics so extensively and nauseatingly repeated over and over in film adaptations (E.g. the patchwork of body parts, grotesque appearance, lumbering physical characteristics, etc.)? Instead, the focuses should be on current attempts to develop AI and human collaborations. utilizing robotic limbs and lab-grown/manufactured organs, anatomical components. Think actorLogan Marshall – Green’s Grey Trace in the recent film Upgrade or 2014 remake, Robo Cop’s Alex Murphy, both have undergone some type of metamorphosis and become new characters.

In Shelly’s novel Robert Walton, who takes up Victor Frankenstein’s quest to find and kill the monster but never does, remarks on how nothing is impossible in their current age, how knowledge and progress are inherently good.

This theme that knowledge and progress are inherently good allows for an intertextual representation of Frankenstein. A new film adaptation should not feel constrained to the physical construction of a monster, a story set forth in modern day could and should explore current philosophical debates that connect consciousness and AI and the increasing connection between man and machine.

Furthermore, where Shelly chooses to focus on the impact that the monster has on Victor and those he loves, a modern-day adaptation should focus on the impact that the introduction of a modern day monster has on the world that it has been introduced to. Tackling philosophical issues like what constitutes a human being, what differentiates AI from human thought, and at what point does a machine become human and human become a machine.

There is also another avenue that could be approached one in which the application of real-time theories and current scientific research is used to develop a monster that is far more plausible than Shelly’s original and far closer to the horizon then the story than 2015’s Ex Machina.

I suggest drawing upon current events such as the recent news of Yale neuroscientist Nenad Sestan and his team, reanimating pigs’ brains. Sestan managed to pump the brains with artificial blood using a system called BrainEx, and they were able to bring them back to life for up to 36 hours (Curtis, 2018). Basing an adaptation upon real-time science and event would add to the believability. I would also suggest that the new film is shot documentary style so as to add to the realism, a la The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield.

By creating an adaptation that focuses on these key points a new film would captivate and provoke thought for an entirely new audience.

References

Curtis, B. (2018). Scientists reanimate disembodied pigs’ brains – but for a human mind, it could be a living hell. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/scientists-reanimate-disembodied-pigs-brains-but-for-a-human-mind-it-could-be-a-living-hell-95903

Posted on

When is enough enough?

Dear Mary Shelley,

 

I am writing this letter to pose an unresolved question from your book Frankenstein. In the book you wrote, “A human being in perfection ought always to preserve a calm and peaceful mind and never to allow passion or a transitory desire to disturb his tranquility. I do not think that the pursuit of knowledge is an exception to this rule. If the study to which you apply yourself has a tendency to weaken your affections and to destroy your taste for those simple pleasures in which no alloy can possibly mix, then that study is certainly unlawful, that is to say, not befitting the human mind.” I just want to say that you would probably tremble if you saw the education system today! It seems that the desire for good grades ruins the studies a lot of times and doesn’t actually benefit students. On a more serious note, however, I would like to know when you think one should know that they should abandon their efforts of obtaining education. There have been so many inventions that are the product of numerous failures. Take, for example, WD-40. The hugely successful product got its name because of the number of attempts it took to perfect it. Forty attempts is a large number and could easily seem frustrating. It seems like the frustration could affect the creators in many different ways and yet they didn’t stop and created a successful and useful product. Should they have stopped? And if so when? I wonder how much of a difference it would have made if the story was written where Victor got it right on the first try or if it was written to where it took him 100 tries. Perhaps it would make the reader more sympathetic either way. If it only took one attempt readers may be sympathetic because it was his first try and there was so much ignorance of the matter. If it took him 100 tries one might be more sympathetic because he was clearly passionate about the creature and was trying his best; he would have just so happened to fail. All in all, I wonder if the intent and amount of energy put into something add or subtracts from the actual results and when one should know to give up their aspirations. When is enough enough?

 

Sincerely,

Veronica Griffin