No because the original was written by a talented woman who had to get by on the merit of her work. This will be the complete opposite of that hence “feminist”…
Let's not get too hasty. She was married to a writer who she herself credits with getting her to even write the book in the first place and people have spent every year since debating how much he helped write, with at least the editted in her lifetime versions being widely assumed to be him.
She certainly had talent, but like Amelia Earhart and most famous women of history, they'd be basically unheard of without their husbands unflinchingly propping them up to the masses.
I think its alright for its time period. I find most books from that particular era to be terrible, because its not so foreign that it gets "translated" to modern English. So it ends up in this verbose nonsense that undermines the actual content. Jules Verne is the worst in this regard.
Like, if you strip the story down to its actual content, then its a great story of a man playing God and his creation being lost without purpose while slowing becoming mad by it. But that's surrounded by literary diarrhea.
No because the original was written by a talented woman who had to get by on the merit of her work. This will be the complete opposite of that hence “feminist”…
Let's not get too hasty. She was married to a writer who she herself credits with getting her to even write the book in the first place and people have spent every year since debating how much he helped write, with at least the editted in her lifetime versions being widely assumed to be him.
She certainly had talent, but like Amelia Earhart and most famous women of history, they'd be basically unheard of without their husbands unflinchingly propping them up to the masses.
I agree with everything you're saying. But also the book Frankenstein just kinda sucks.
I think its alright for its time period. I find most books from that particular era to be terrible, because its not so foreign that it gets "translated" to modern English. So it ends up in this verbose nonsense that undermines the actual content. Jules Verne is the worst in this regard.
Like, if you strip the story down to its actual content, then its a great story of a man playing God and his creation being lost without purpose while slowing becoming mad by it. But that's surrounded by literary diarrhea.
True