Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 9343611" data-attributes="member: 85555">But that doesn't mean there isn't original intention. This seems like obfuscation. Yes there is always this degree of uncertainty, especially with historical works. There have even been people who argued it was Percy Shelley and not Mary who wrote it (though my understanding is the vast majority of people believe this is Shelley's work, especially the 1818 edition). And yes there are editors. I think any effort to understand a work should consider its production and if possible its editors. And yes the writer may talk with people, may get ideas from people. Ultimately though they are still the ones making the decision in the writing process (though an editor may weigh in after). I would very curious if textual analysis is able to reveal anything about the editing of the book (I know for example in my historiography courses they seemed to be able to discern a great deal about the synoptic gospels through textual analysis, would be curious what light it can shed on a novel in this respect). I am a writer and a publisher. I write my own games. I have also co-written games. Yes there are often more people involved in a project than it seems. But I also have found most editors not to be terribly heavy handed, usually they are there to help you better realize your goals in writing the thing. And when you work with a co-writer, you have many conversations about what it is you are trying to achieve. It isn't just a bunch of stuff going in a blender and coming out without focus. There is purpose to what you write. You don't always succeed, but I do think intentions and goals, matter. There is usually a vision. Even if there are other people involved in supporting you through conversation, colleagues, etc, the writers are ultimately the ones making the decisions and the ones who get praised or blamed. And by most accounts of the creation the creation of Frankenstein, it was very much a product of Shelley. I am sure she bounced ideas off Percy, or was inspired in ways by him and their inner circle. I don't think that takes away from her role as the author. Everyone lives in the presence of others who inspire them. It is what you do with that that matters. I think it would be foolish to believe any random person living in Mary Shelley's shoes would have created this great novel simply by existing in the same environment, getting ideas from the same people, etc. The unique factor here is Shelley herself. Also just as a side point, Shelley's description of the creation is rather vague. Much is left to the reader's imagination and I think that the original Frankenstein movie in 1931, arguably doesn't violate any of her intentions in terms of method (especially if you start looking into things Shelley said about it). From what I remember there are references to digging in charnel houses and slaughter houses, hints about galvanism, etc. The most intriguing aspect to that for me, is it implies the creature is comprised of both animal and human parts. The biggest different in the Karloff version is the lack of eloquence and intellect. But like I said, I think they had every right to make those changes. I don't think Shelley ought to control future reimagining of her work (though i understand why some people get upset when movies deviate a lot from the books). My only point about that is I think it becomes disingenuous when people try to claim that the movie depicts the creature accurately from the book. The movie and the book are quite different</blockquote>

Verification