Must-read book of the week
 

Yeah, from now on I will be pestering GFY weekly with book recommendations. You people need some culture :winkwink:


Mary Shelley - Frankenstein

You've seen the movies, you've seen the spin-offs, you've seen the parodies - but have you ever actually read the book? If not, you should.
Frankenstein, the book, is not at all the corny monster story many people expect it to be. Rather, it's a delicious novel combining gothic and romantic elements, which can both be read as a delightful ghost story, and as a sharp, insightful commentary on both society and the nature of man, including such timeless themes as the hazards of hubris and technology, society's attitude towards women and, in a way, children, man as a tabula rasa, and much much more.

Read it if you haven't!

Thanks for the recommendation!

I have read that one actually..was interesting and a good read

What is this book thing you speak of?

In days now long forgotten, people had this thing called "paper", and they used it to write on - much like computer screens, only they actually wrote on the paper itself, with something called a "pen", or, later on, with "typewriters" (think of them as a laptop without a screen, which directly puts your typing onto paper). Using these devices, people wrote things called "books", which contained all sorts of writing, from fiction (like Hollywood movies, but without the visuals), to science, to philosophy.

Read it when I was 10 or 11. Classic pulp fiction.

Tee hee, good response, punkworld.

I'm always reading too much at once... right now I'm almost towards the end of American Psycho, in the middle of Watership Down, and at the beginning of the Art of War.

I also love to read the "For Dummies" books on travelling to other countries. That way I'm well versed when they hire me as a sexy international spy. :upsidedow

Pulp? Are you fucking kidding me?

Same here on reading too much at once... right now I'm reading Dead Souls, The Man Without Qualities and The Republic. I'm especially impressed by The Man Without Qualities, since although it's from the first half of the 20th century, it anticipates quite a few contemporary philosophical themes.

cool recommendation, i'm puttin it on my to-read list

I'm just finishing The Rum Diary by Hunter S. Thompson.

I've read Frankenstein long ago but as far as classical monsters go I still prefer Dracula.

I'm a book lover myself so I hope this thread keeps up :thumbsup

Wow, I haven't read that since high school. Great book.

If you like minimalist/nihilistic type stuff like Fight Club, check out Contortionist's Handbook.

(by the way, a note to anyone looking for good books to read: I'll be adding a new book to the list each week, and will very slowly work towards the 'harder' classics of literature. read them at your own pace, and by the time I get to War and Peace and Ulysses, you'll be ready :winkwink: )

When it comes to horror, stories and writing, I never kid.

You wrongly take pulp fiction to be a derogatory term. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are works of fiction produced with a mass-market in mind, stories whose intent is to tell a good tale, evoke emotion, titilate the senses. Practically every modern novel falls into this category, as do many of the great classics, such as Frankenstein.

Read that soooo long ago. I should re-read it though.

May I suggest Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini. Great book.

Main Entry: pulp fiction
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: sensationalized, poor-quality writing
Etymology: from its being printed on rough pulpy paper
Usage: informal
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pulp%20fiction

Sorry, but it is a derogatory term. Pulp fiction is Danielle Steel, Robert Jordan, Michael Crichton, John Grisham, Anne Rice, etc. Pure entertainment, the equivalent of most Hollywood genre-movies.
That isn't to say that this type of writing doesn't occasionally produce timeless classics (e.g. The Hound of the Baskervilles). However, perhaps its most important overall characteristic is its lack of philosophical and literary pretensions. Frankenstein, however, quite clearly does concern itself with these things. For example, it delves into the concept of man being shaped by society, explores some of the ideas of Rousseau and Milton, incorporates ideas of Mary Wollstonecraft (Mary Shelley's mother, who wrote A Vindication on the Rights of Women), etc.

You read it when you were 10 or 11, and it is understandable that at that age, it read like a simple, well-written horror story. However, there is a lot beneath the surface, and that clearly distinguishes it from "pulp fiction".

Everything Is Illuminated - By Jonathan Safran Foer
Great book just finished it last week.
Now I have just started Sex Drugs & Coco Puffs - By Chuck Klosterman.

Anything by Kurt Vonnegut would be a great choice as well.

I should read it

You amuse me. Your entire understanding of pulp fiction derives from reading dictionary.com. What is more amusing is your pseudo-intellectualism, your verbosity, and your assumption that my views on Frankenstein were set in stone at the age of 11, never to evolve. No one denies the importance of Frankenstein or its modern day relevance (particularly with the medical profession). However, this was a pot-boiler, written by a novice writer in a matter of days. It was intended as entertainment, to put the chills up your spine, and yes to deal with some issues rife at the time in literature. In reality, there are very few works of fiction that could not be classified as pulp fiction.

Twit.

Actually, I used dictionary.com as an authorative source (which dictionaries tend to be regarding common definitions) to show you that your definition of the term "pulp fiction" is not the one commonly used. By coming up with your own definition of "pulp fiction" and then proceeding to use it as a blanket term covering almost all literature, you effectively remove any meaning your original post could have had. If just about all fictional literature is "pulp fiction", what point is there in even using the term?

Furthermore, since you said so explicitly you read it at 10 or 11, I assumed you only read it once. If that is the case, it is quite likely that you simply missed many of the references in the book, and even if your views have evolved, without reading it again there will simply be many things in the book you didn't recognize for what they were at the time of reading it. Now, assuming you read the book rather than memorizing it, it is near impossible that your views on the book developed to accomodate all those things you never actually saw in the first place.

Now, aside from that, what you said about the book being written in a matter of days is simply untrue. In fact, it took Mary Shelley almost a year to write, and the second version, which is the one most commonly read these days, was published over a decade later, and was heavily revised. Also, it should be quite clear from Mary Shelley's preface, in which she reminisces about the many memories she has from when she was writing the book, while her husband was still alive, that she spent more than "a few days" writing it.

Finally, judging from your original post in this thread, I believe you are the last person who should accuse anyone of pseudo-intellectualism. I am entirely convinced that by both mentioning to have read the book at a fairly early age, and then referring to it as "pulp fiction", your sole intention was to show yourself as a snobby intellectual.
However, your painful lack of knowledge quite clearly disqualifies you as an intellectual, therefore, you are exactly what you accused me of being: a pseudo-intellectual.

:321GFY

i love the movie, will check out the book :)

I'm not going to read the above. Why? You bore me and you will not see reason. An argument with you is truly futile. I admit when I'm wrong, you - it appears - will keep battling along despite your obvious ignorance.

You act as if no one on gfy is cultured or educated. The truth is that Frankenstein was intended to be an entertaining read for the masses and, therefore, can be classed as pulp fiction (in the literary sense of the meaning, not dictionary.com).

I've written over a 100 horror screenplays in the last 16 years and, when it comes to the cultural history of horror and it's origins, I'm informed.

I have not read the book, but I have seen the movie. Bob De Niro was convincing

In other words, you have no reply to the arguments I gave, are unaware of the literary meaning of pulp fiction (the literary meaning: stories published in pulp magazines from the turn of the century to the early 1950's - the pulp era - which was the basis for the current common usage of the term), and are, simply put, quite fond of speaking out of your ass.

Frankenstein was an early precursor to pulp fiction, but it most certainly was not pulp fiction itself. Aside from that, to say that almost all fictional literature falls into the category of "pulp fiction" is plain bullshit.

There are many cultured and educated people on GFY, but you are not among them :2 cents:

I haven't seen those film versions yet so I guess it would be great if I read the novel first. :)

The book is very much worth reading. Keep in mind that she was 17 when she wrote it. The girl was brilliant and disturbed at the same time.

I will read that book one of this days. Thanks for recommending that to us!

:thumbsup count me in :thumbsup
:thumbsup books keep me sane :thumbsup

Thank you for that.

movie is actually enough, there are better books to digest in paper

I would check that book as soon as I am finished reading Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut.

Actually, I have already purchased a copy of that book. I must finish another novel first then I will proceed woth Frankenstein.