Yr Projections

5 years:
Practically everyone will have a smartphone and be constantly glued to some kind of technological device. Younger kids might have an MP3 player, but likely from age 12 upwards it'll be a phone they're glued to. People will want to be constantly connected to the internet or communicating with friends. Productivity will go down because no one can retain an attention span long enough to do it and there will be issues with trying to stop people from being so obsessive about it at work. Media news channels will be even more divided and people only watch the channel that depicts their political view of events, creating an even greater disconnect between different parties. The bias is not even subtle but actually obvious and people are easily blissfully unaware or aware but don't care because the bias matches their own. Both will think they're right and they're the only way and compromise will seem impossible, especially since no group is willing. The news will have lots of on-screen effects and graphics they can use to convey information, but most of it will be wasted on false data if used at all. Newscasters play the role of propaganda, trying to further convince viewers their bias is the right one and he only one.

15 years:
Phones will be starting to be replaced with computers in between the size of a smartphone and an ipad that just happen to have a phone feature, but it will likely be the least used feature of the device. There will be more electronic cars than before which are starting to gain some acceptance, but there will still be a sect that is hell-bent on keeping their gas-guzzling car, even though gas prices will be high. Some countries will be very modern and "green", with everything changed to be environmentally friend, while others (such as likely the US) have not really adapted or changed at all. Because some refuse to help make things better, conditions do not improve as much as others would like and those in denial use it as further evidence to prove their point ("You changed, but nothing's improved, so we were right in the first place not to do anything!") Those who've been trying will get upset about this and it will create dissonance between countries across the world, all of whom are trying to convince each other that they're right and the other wrong. Everyone is very much on edge.

50 years:
Those in denial of the world's problems have finally begun to dwindle thanks to old age taking its toll. There had been another world war, but by now the world is starting to recover. The countries which had been in the "denial" category before are starting to turn things around and the world is sharing a very enthusiastic spirit to change things. Things are looking better.  The media has been reinvented - to remove the partisan bias, people have been removed from the telling of news system. Now all media is portrayed through videos, infographics, or strict data and fact. There is still people who report and write stories, but they are no longer mainstream. Everyone uses electric cars and we are far less dependent on oil, with it now only be used in areas which have yet to adapt but are in process of it.

Starship Titanic

I'd played the game Starship Titanic when I was younger and was very excited to listen to the radio story. It was hilarious, which is to be expected. After all, it's in the same tone as Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which has the same quirky and fun narration. The characters all have good dialog and are fun to listen to.

I think one of my favorite parts was when the earthlings couldn't recall which planet was theirs and their navigator then proceeds to excuse himself quietly to the bathroom so he can bang his head repeatedly on the wall haha. I also like how they kind of poke fun at things you expect to happen by calling itself out on it (such as the "you might be wondering how she figured this out, but its really all rather complicated, so just accept and trust that she did"). It's just witty writing, told very well, and fun all around.

Seventh Voyage

I tried reading Clockwork Orange, but I just couldn't get into it or follow it at all (tried the audiobook too, but same problem). So since I didn't get far in there at all, I ended up reading a short story instead - Stanislaw Lem's Seventh Voyage.

I found the story to be pretty entertaining, and a rather ridiculous tale that at times was very complicated, but really the absurdity added to the humor of it. I liked how even when all of versions of him were together they still only argued and couldn't fix the ship, and it ended up being fixed by two children - at least, that's supposedly what happened. I really liked the last line and felt it was quite appropriate to the tone of the story. ("But that is how people are; they'll willingly give credence to the most far-fetched drivel, but not to the simple truth, which is precisely what I have presented here.")

It was a fun read. I saw Margarete Atwood was listed for this week as well. I'd read The Handmaid's Tale in the past and I remember liking it, though my memory on it is a bit fuzzy now since that was many years ago. I like her style of writing and was tempted to read the other listed, but I didn't have much time for reading this week and it looked to be rather long. Ah well.

I look forward to the readings for next week though haha!

Bloodchild

This week I read Bloodchild by Octavia Butler. It was good, but really creepy. I had a hard time reading the scene with Lomas because it was really disturbing and grossed me out (so I no doubt understand Gan's predicament). It was good though, and definitely an interesting concept. Still really disturbing though. Don't really have that much else to say at the moment...will probably write more after class.

Johnny Mnemonic

I was going to read William Gibson's Neuromancer, but I didn't get very far and couldn't stand reading a whole book in that format (the formatting, it buuurns! I need page indents and proper formatting!)...So I read Johnny Mnemonic instead because even though it was in the same formatting, at least it was shorter and more tolerable. Except there were unfortunately numerous typos which were distracting and annoying. (this is exactly why I don't download books to read on the computer)

I didn't really care for the story that much as I didn't really get it.  I thought the main characters were really boring and dull. They didn't have very unique or interesting personalities at all - nothing that really made them interesting. The story moved along, but didn't have a feeling of having accomplished much. The cyborg dolphin was...interesting. And I gave I shall give props for creativity on that one.

But I did learn that apparently my definition of cyberpunk has been completely, horribly wrong for all these years. I don't know why, but for some reason I always associated "cyberpunk" with "badass female characters who are a cyborg/robot". Since that is apparently not a requirement to cyberpunk, I now haven't a clue how cyberpunk is different that regular sci-fi. Is it just because of cyborgs? Or other modifications? Is the Cassandra Kresnov trilogoy I read this year still cyberpunk like I thought it was? I don't know anymore...I'm so confused at what the definition is. It doesn't seem that different than the rest of sci-fi anymore.

Babel-17

I read Samuel Daleny's Babel-17 this week and, well, I didn't particularly enjoy it. I had a lot of trouble getting into the story. The premise was interesting, but the way it was written had lots of ups and downs - sometimes I'd be into it, and sometimes I'd find myself quickly skimming. I found some parts to be rather confusing written and many parts felt strangely abrupt. There were quite a few parts where I felt they were just written to get from A to B to C, which needless to say, didn't make them enjoyable, convincing, or engaging to read.

Many of the characters I felt were rather...bland. Or I should say, your typical sci-fi heroes. Your leader with a skill she doesn't quite understand and she's a genius, the tight-knit/family crew situation, the rambunctious loudmouths...they all felt very familiar. Even Butcher, who of the crew was the one I liked the most, was kind of the typical dark crew mate with an unknown past. I supposed I liked Ryda's doctor too; he was alright, though like the others, not really remarkable in any memorable way.

Actually, the character I liked the most was Danil D. Appleby. Yes. The customs officer who gets referred to by his name a whole four times in the book. You would think after his being inspired by Ryda and her crew he'd be referenced to by name more frequently to give him more of his new identity...but no. He still remains as 'the customs officer'. I was kind of bummed reading the beginning scenes with him simply because I knew he was not important and would soon go away to be not seen again. I figured this based on his lack of a name identity and that he didn't have the same sci-fi hero personalities as the others. He was a quieter, shier character, which I think is what made him more interesting to me - there don't seem to be many of them in the sci-fi I've seen, at least not as main characters. And I think when they get thrown into dangerous situations, they can be just as interesting, so its a shame.

Ryda's telepathic moments of extremely long paragraphs were sudden and confusing, the end was not that surprising or interesting...so overall, I wasn't impressed. But I admit bias as I'm not a fan of most sci-fi.

Tryst in Time

I was interested in reading The Stars My Destination, but I didn't get around to it...I just didn't really feel like reading this week either. I did manage to read the short story Tryst in Time, however.

I admit I was not very enthralled with it at all. But in general I tend to find many sci-fi stories a bit boring, especially when they feel they have to explain to me how some new technology works, which usually isn't at all relevant to the story and is above my understanding anyway. I suppose I read too much fantasy where you just roll with the accepted fact there is magic and I want this mentality in sci-fi too - don't explain to me how it works, I'll just take your word for it that it does what you say somehow.

That said, I feel my experiences with sci-fi short stories tend to all be the same and this one didn't feel any different. I can't help but get this vibe that its trying to tell me something deep and meaningful or somehow symbolic, but I honestly just don't get it at all. The set-up seems simple enough, things happen, and the end is strangely and mysteriously cryptic. I didn't really understand why he kept encountering the same girl through time, and I didn't understand where they were in the end - the end of time? the beginning? All I know is I'm once again thinking, "I think I there was some kind of metaphor here, but I have no idea what I was supposed to get." There really isn't anything else I think I can say.

Warbreaker

This week we were assigned to read Brandon Sanderson's Warbreaker. Let me start off by saying, and pardon my language, that I FUCKING LOVED THIS BOOK.

When I first opened the pdf and saw it was over eight hundred pages, I thought, "My god, this is going to take forever to read. There's no way I'll be able to read the whole thing." So I didn't even plan to. But the book turned out to be incredibly captivating and I found myself sucked in almost right away. I was reading at night and as I started to get tired, I kept thinking, "Well, I'll read one more chapter..." Yes, one more chapter indeed, but the next thing I know it had been several chapters, I was almost halfway through the book, and it was four in the morning! No place seemed a good place to stop and I didn't just want to know what was going to happen next, I needed to know.

The book essentially took me two days to read. The second night was another one of staying up until past three in the morning. I had stopped at some point for the night, thinking I had more to read than I did, but then finished it the next day [today] within a half hour.

I don't know what exactly got me so enthralled in this book, but I suspect it was probably the multitude of everything that I liked about it. Really, where do I start?

I love color, and having it be such a central part of the story and the culture of their world really had my attention. The city T'Telir just sounded really amazing to me and I wish it was a real place I could visit. The whole system of their magic, which involves both color and breaths, I found just incredibly fascinating.

And the characters! I was especially involved with them; there was not a single character I did not like. They were all very real and well written. Even Vivenna, who was my least favorite, was still not a character I didn't like. I felt truly involved in their plights. I felt just as betrayed as Vivenna did by the mercenaries, and I never came to dislike or hate Denth, even at the end. I felt bad that Parlin die, even though he was hardly a presence in the book. Blushweaver's death was upsetting, and Lightsong seeing her die and learning who he was before he died, was all the more upsetting.  I really cared for the characters.

My favorites were easily Lightsong, Llarimar, Siri, and Susebron. Though again, that doesn't mean I didn't like the others...but when these four were involved, I found it especially hard to stop reading. Lightsongs's dialog was great, and I especially loved his interactions with Llarimar. That it turned out they were brothers seemed very fitting - and explained why Llarimar seemed the only one with the patience to put up with him! I even liked Nightblood - poor little sword doesn't know any better. It tries very hard to do as it was told.

I don't really know what to talk about other than how much I loved this book, so I suppose I'll end this post here. And now to catch up on all that sleep I missed reading it.

Anansi Boys

I read Neil Geiman's Anansi Boys this week. This is the third Geiman book I've read and I enjoyed it much more than the other two (Stardust and American Gods). I enjoyed his writing and found it a pretty funny read; it reminded me a bit of Obert Skye's writing in Leven Thumps which I loved.

I especially liked Spider throughout the whole thing despite the fact that in the beginning he was a complete jerk. Though he lies and is a storyteller like Lyra from Golden Compass, I guess the reason I like Spider but didn't like Lyra is that Spider lies with purpose. He usually has something he wants to get out of it and does it to enjoy the lie (even if its a jerkish reason, its still a reason), where as Lyra did so simply because she could and really for no reason at all. Plus unlike Lyra, Spider does not always lie - he realizes he doesn't want to lie to Rosie for instance, and with her he learns to be honest. He learns to be more considerate of others a bit where as Lyra never changed.

Anyway, Spider was my favorite and his interactions with Charlie were especially great. Charlie was a bit dull in the beginning, but after Spider comes into the picture, he becomes and acts a lot more interesting [which is appropriate, all things considered]. Rosie and Daisy's roles in the story felt a lot more subtler, but I don't want to say that they were any less important.

Geiman always has a way of writing about gods in creative ways and his characters are always fantastic and unique. Really my only complaint with the book at all is that I always feel the climax of his stories are, well, anticlimactic. I don't remember well enough of Stardust to recall if I felt the same with that one, but with American Gods this summer I most certainly did. I was hoping it wouldn't be the same with Anasi Boys, but it ended up being so.

In both Anansi Boys and American Gods, there is time spent with the tension and interest building and I come to expect some kind of grand resolution. But in American Gods, Shadow pretty much just tells everyone "You were tricked! Go home!" and that's the end of that. It felt especially terrible there when most of that book had been spent building towards a great war between gods that was supposed to occur, but didn't, not even really a little. In Anansi Boys Charlie sings and changes' Tiger's fate - trapping into the story in his song - and that's that. It's over in two pages. It didn't feel as much of a letdown as the other, but still a bit disappointing nonetheless. The resolutions between the characters was good and an adequate conclusion, but still...its called the climax for a reason. It's supposed to be the highest point of tension in the story. Yet in both of those books the tension felt much lower than it should have. Again, anticlimatic.

Well, the good news is that its restored my faith in Gaimen. After being unimpressed with Stardust and let down by American Gods, I almost didn't want to read another of his books. But I really did enjoy Anansi Boys so perhaps I'll read more of his books in the future [in hopes they are just as enjoyable with not so let downing climaxes].

The Golden Compass

I feel like Phillip Pullman's The Golden Compass shouldn't have been as difficult to get through as it ended up being. I read the first 98 pages or so and then switched to the audio book for the remainder, which didn't really help the experience any as I didn't like all of their voices. They were for the most part appropriately picked and suited the characters, but suited them in the way which enhanced the things I didn't like about them.

I really liked the concept behind the novel. The idea behind the daemons and the world was really brilliant and interesting. However, the characters were what really had me struggling to enjoy the story - especially Lyra. She has a tendency to be rather selfish and she lies nearly constantly. When you're lying "out of habit", it's a bit of a problem. One could chalk it up to her being a child, and to a degree I'd accept it. Children do tend to be a bit selfish and she is imaginative...BUT she still gives little to no thought to her lying, and that's what bothered me the most. There are never any consequences to her lying; nothing bad ever happens as a result of it.

The one time she does stop to think, "Oh wait, this could end up badly" is when she puts Yorrick in a situation that he must find the other bear. But it ends up he wants to find the other bear anyway and he wins, so still nothing ill comes of it. When something bad does occur because of her - that Roger is taken by her father - it has nothing to do with her lying and is more a random happenstance. She nearly completely forgets about Roger until they stumble upon the first severed child and she realizes it could be him.

Most of the book is constantly talking about dust. Dust, dust, dust, dust. Lots of talking of it with little explanation to what it is. When Lyra finally encounters her father and has the prime opportunity to ask the person who would know the most...well, despite thinking it would be best not to let him know she knows he's her father, its the first thing she blurts out. Her father is incredibly casual about it, which almost made it seem silly that he hid it in the first place. Her reasoning for being angry about not being told is that it made her "feel stupid when she found out"? That seemed a...strange way to put it. Well, besides that, when she FINALLY after all this time asks the question everyone has been wondering - what the hell is dust? - the answer is "Well, let me pull out my bible here..."

Really. Well. I have nothing against incorporating the religious, and while it continued to explain what we had already figured out about what the dust had to do with growing up, it still didn't explain much about WHAT it is and WHERE it comes from and WHY. I really didn't feel like it explained anything at all. I still don't understand what her father intends to discover, or why they want to separate them from dust. Just because the dust is proof of original sin? Well...uh...okay? And Lyra's reasoning for going is because if they want to destroy it because its bad, and they're bad, it must be good? Well, uh, alright then.

And then there's that they care more for daemons than people for whatever reason. When the find the severed child, he's a horrid, frightening sight - and they consider he might be better off dead than alive. Yet when they find the daemons who were severed, by George, this is terrible; we gotta help 'em! Her parents both seem insane, and its awfully convenient that this girl who thought herself an orphan was actually being cared for by all these people who were in fact in some way or other related to her all along. Too convenient and bizarre.

Then there's the scene where the airship guy just wanted to know if he was getting paid or not and ended up getting into a twenty minute philosophical discussion with the witch about fate. My god! Is he getting paid or isn't he?! I don't even think they ever answered it.

It's a shame that such an interesting concept had to be wasted with annoying characters and random ramblings. Bah...and this is all I really wish to discuss on the book. Much looking forward to moving on and not having to listen to Lyra's high-pitched whining any longer!

The Dark Tower 1 - The Gunslinger

For this week I decided to read Stephen King's first book of The Dark Tower series, The Gunslinger. I already knew I wasn't going to read The Hobbit or LOTR right away...I had tried before, and never again. It is exactly the type of books I don't really enjoy reading - waaaay too much description for me. It just bores me and then I lose interest in everything else that is happening. Unfortunately for me, that is exactly how most fantasy and even science fiction books are written. I'm rather picky in these genres...Many I don't find myself interested in because they sound the same as many before them, while others scare me away with their pages and pages of long descriptive paragraphs. Well, regardless...

The book was just kind of "okay" to me. The writing was fine, but I didn't find the story particularly engaging. It kind or irritated me that I had a lot of questions which weren't ever answered in this first book - like why Roland is obsessed with his journey to the tower, what exactly IS the tower, and where the heck are they anyway?! There seemed to be a discontinuity between time where they were. Roland seems to be from an older time, yet knows what a gas pump is. Yet the world of Jake from New York City was completely baffling to him and he didn't understand most of what he would talk about  of that place. Since they seem to be so disjointed in their times, I found myself baffled and wondering about where they must be and how they can be so disjointed. And it seems there is something wrong with the world, that its in some kind of chaos, yet I don't understand still how exactly or why. I can only assume the gunslingers' journey has something to do with saving it. And why is he the last anyway? Is he some kind of immortal and time has moved on, and that's how Jake has come to be in a more modern time? Or are they perhaps in some other dimension of field of existence where people come when they die (since Jake did die in NY before the man in the suit took him)? I really have no idea. Roland also seemed very apathetic and accepting he was told was to come, and he wouldn't really dispute it. His apathy certainly didn't help me feel any less apathetic towards the book.

I like my stories to make sense. It's not that I think they have to tell you everything, no, not at all - I like having to wonder about things. But I don't like being wondering about everything and getting little to no answers to anything by the end of the first book. But perhaps that's just me, and I'm the same person who doesn't feel the need to be described every flower in the field or every item that they packed...If they pull it out and its nothing unusual, I'll assume they packed it.

A Wild Sheep Chase

I enjoyed reading Haruki Murakami's A Wild Sheep Chase and found to be very engaging. The plot's mystery was really unique and intriguing, and I especially liked seeing the pieces start to come together and how things that initially seemed insignificant would play into the picture. However, the end left me a little bewildered. I think I understood some parts of it, but not all of it. That Rat was dead and the same being as the Sheepman I had already guessed, but for much after that I was not so sure. Why does the protagonist not tell that Rat is dead to anyone, like his friend J? Who is the man in the suit going to meet up at the house - would be able to meet Rat's ghost, or Sheepman? Is the sheep going to enter him so he can continue his boss' work? But then didn't Rat kill himself to destroy the sheep, or was it simply so he wouldn't be the one slave to it? And I am still not completely clear on why the man in the suit had him go on this journey himself when he already knew much of the answers already.

The story didn't seem very horror-like to me; more like just a mystery. I wouldn't consider myself that big of a horror fan; I have seen some movies, but if they seem more like gore films I tend to stay away. The psychological thrillers are a lot more exciting and interesting to me. Though I think the Japanese horror genre tends to be more psychological than perhaps some other horror films, and have more of a mystery to be solved story. My knowledge isn't that well in the area, but I think from the few I am familiar with that that statement could be true.

I don't really know what to talk about in particular about A Wild Sheep Chase though. I feel a bit confused still at the ending and can't think of what else to say. So this is all I'll put up for now, but shall be perhaps revised after the class discussion.

Interview with a Vampire

This week I read Ann Rice's Interview with a Vampire. Vampires are a subject I find, well, "okay". The nature of their being is interesting, but I usually find myself not all that interested in stories about them for whatever reason. My reaction to it now is just kind of like "Oh, vampires, don't even get me started". I think the appeal is supposed to be that they're sensitive beings who got thrust into being villains, so they're simply misunderstood. They have to watch the world change around them while they don't, and woe is them because they're also dead. They're not "human". I think this is what I have always disliked about vampires -they mull over and whine about how "not human" they are, yet they act, behave, and think in very human ways. They apparently have feelings and can care about others. Sure, they have to drink blood to survive, can't go out in the sun, etc. but on the inside, their minds are still human. So what's to whine about? They don't even have to kill the person - or people to begin with in most cases - to survive, and on the bright side at least they can consider themselves keeping the population in check. The fact they live forever unchanging is really far more disturbing than their killing ways, which they always do with a bit of remorse.

That said, what I did like about Interview with a Vampire was that not all of them where that way. Louis pretty much followed that to the letter, which left me not all that engaged, but once Claudia entered the picture I got more interested in the story. Claudia is forever trapt in the child's body - her mind ages and becomes very much adult, but her body never does. This bothers her. Also since she was so young, she is without knowledge of what it is to be human, unlike the others. The vampire life is all she's known or can remember; she is a much more collected and cool killer than Louis could ever be, despite his teachings. She knows the emotions as they do, but do not seem to hold the same meaning. She can hate and love to get what she wants. But although she has a very much adult mind, she still in some ways is still a child. She always wants someone with her, to love her - though at the same time it can be debated its only because she needs them to survive.

At the same time, as human as Louis acts, it seems clear he isn't and is just latching to the memory of what it is to be human - how he should feel, should act. He can say he loves someone such as Armand without much thought, and yet even when he eventually leaves, its more of "Oh, he's gone". But then, that is after he has finally chosen to leave behind his humanity side after Claudia and Madeline's death. It almost makes Armand, who seemed more of the calm, cool vampire, seem still more human than Louis in the end. Louis' struggle - the struggle to accept he's not human and then whether he continues to act human or not - is a very real one for him through the story. But even so he hasn't forgotten it completely - he can recall it all and relay it with as much detail and passion as if it had just happened. Its more the time continually going by which dulls what this means, and as he's lost all he cared for, its easier to maintain a colder exterior.

I found the boy listening to the tale's response to the story a bit ironic. Louis has told him of his anguish, and of all his loss, and even after learning from Armand has not made him feel any different about his curse...and how they agonize over their deadness. And then the boy wants to become a vampire - so that he "may truly live"! Yet, he's the one whose alive and who should appreciate his living state. The vampires continue to pain over what they can no longer feel or do, or that they cannot even die, and yet the boy longs for it! He thinks it sounds wondrous; he cannot understand as Louis does that he is the one whose better off. He is the one who can live, without guilt over having to sin to live, and can appreciate what comes in life because of the finality of death. To the immortal ones who understand their immortality, all else seems to hold little to no meaning because it doesn't last like them. They can't appreciate it like they could when they were alive. They simply observe things happen and continue living as they do. For those who can't handle the changes in the world, they fall further into despair until they decide they can't take it any longer and end their lives. At the same time you wonder how they aren't human (again, they act in human ways), but also how that makes them any more alive than the humans?

Overall I suppose I'd say I did enjoy it and it was without a doubt and interesting read, and one of the better vampire stories I've read (although I found Lestat's feeding on the little boy in a very sexual way really disturbing). I found the perspective on them to be engaging and somehow different, and especially the character of Claudia to be particularly interesting. Some parts I found dull, and Louis and his continual, constant struggling got annoying, but overall it wasn't a bad book at all.

World War Z

I attempted to read Monster Island, but found it difficult to read (original website didn't work, but the other site was hard to read for me because of characters appearing wrong and no spacing between paragraphs). So I gave up on that and decided to read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies which I already owned and had not yet read. I liked Pride and Prejudice when I read it in high school, so adding zombies makes one awesome version. Still, though I like the book, it was taking me a while to read. I only got maybe sixty or  seventy pages in.

So then I decided to read James' copy of World War Z by Max Brooks because I thought I could read it faster (which I did; finished the book in two or three days). The book painted a very realistic picture of what would happen to the world if there was an outbreak of zombies. Unlike your typical zombie movie which follows the one or two lone survivors, this book addresses real and practical questions - how would it start? How would governments react? Different cultures? How would people survive? Also unlike movies which usually only start at the beginning of the outbreak and end abruptly, the book follows years and gives a picture of the war's end.

The book is also told in a documentary style, going from person to person for individual interviews and giving a wide spectrum of views into what happened in this "zombie war". I think how Max Brooks did it was the perfect way for his story - it adds to his already realistic image of the story, making it feel more like nonfiction and making it more engaging. By not having all the answers as well, such as what happened to North Korea or how exactly the disease is able to operate, both adds to the realism as well as interest. You only know as much as the people whom the event happened to do. The people are very realistic as well, each have individual experiences and personalities. How they react to events and feel psychologically about them also seems real. There was clearly lots of careful thought put into every detail of the story, from the people to the events, and the event details.

I can't really find any fault to the telling of his tale; it is a perfect, realistic portrayal of what would happen to the world if there truly was a zombie outbreak. I enjoyed reading World War Z and I think I would consider it one of my favorite zombie tales, right next to Zombieland, which was a great and hilarious movie.

Frankenstein

It's quite remarkable how different a tale the book Frankenstein actually is from the story we all know from movies. I knew before that they were not the same, and that Frankenstein was the doctor's name and not the monster's, but to how much else was different was a surprise. They hardly seemed to even be the same story.

I didn't really feel like it was a horror story; to me, it simply wasn't very frightening in the least. I continually kept thinking of Jars of Clay's song "Good Monsters".

Not all monsters are bad, but the ones who are good
Never do what they could, never do what they could
All the good monsters rattle their chains,
And dance around the open flames,
And they make a lot of empty noise.
While all of the bright eyes turn away,
As if there wasn't anything to say,
About the justice and the mystery.
Do you know what you are?

I found myself very sympathetic to the monster and his plight - more so than Frankenstein, although it was clear to understand his position as well and certainly he wasn't acting necessarily unreasonable. It's likely he was acting how most of us would in such a situation.

Still, what a character Frankenstein is! How quickly he abandons his creation and stubbornly believes it to be an abomination. I found it easy to sympathize with the "monster", who only knows love from afar and cannot ever experience it himself. The monster may have ruined Frankenstein's life and killed all who he loved, but it doesn't feel quite unjust - and who has the heavier burden? Frankenstein who wanders with a heavy heart and becomes filled with a maddening desire to destroy the nightmare he made, whose people he loves and who love him are taken away one by one? Who despite his heavy heart and obsession for revenge is always able to be welcomed and sympathized by his fellow human race? Or the monster who wanders alone and unable to be loved despite his longings and good deeds? Whose own master refuses to listen to his please and desires to be good and to be at peace?

I think the monster far out-wins. He does ill deeds to be true, but in his manners it seems he still is and longs to be gentle soul (also supported by his end words). His actions make sense - if he can't get his own creator to love him or make him a companion to love him, is it not better he be constantly pursued by his creator than forever and constantly alone? In a way, to someone of such circumstance, wouldn't it seem better to be hated by one than to have no one any feelings to you at all? To not even know you exist? It reminds me of the cases of delinquent children who act out to get attention because negative attention seems better than none.

I can't help but wonder how things could have different for the so-called "monster". If Frankenstein had stayed longer when it awoke and taken responsibility for what he made, would he have realized then it was good? Could he have taught it to stay good? Could others have learned to love it if it already had Frankenstein's friendship? It's hard to say, especially knowing our ability to stereotype and judge people comes so easily. If Frankenstein had overcome his stubborn and overwrought fears of his imagination and made the companion, could the two have left him be? I do not believe Frankenstein's fears that the second would love violence would have been realized.

The first monster, born of no prejudice and knowing nothing, it makes sense it only longed for good and companionship. The monster never once expressed any joy or happiness with its deeds - what it feels it's had to do. Yet Frankenstein still insists its a horrid and violent creature. Even after hearing his story, Frankenstein still hesitates to sympathize and seems to follow more out of fear for the others he loves than because he truly sympathizes - which is likely why his other fear of a violent creature ultimately wins over his sympathy and prevents him from creating the partner. Frankenstein's fears are mostly unfounded as he believed it evil - a demon, or the devil - long before it killed William. Since it first awoke he feared what his own creation may do.

In a way then, what has happened to Frankenstein and his companions is his own fault. Not, as he believes, because he lets his monster live - but rather because he refuses to see his monster as anything but a monster. Really, all tragedy could have been avoided if he'd dealt with the responsibility of his creation from the beginning, regardless of whether that meant staying with it or killing it immediately, instead of running away. (True the monster could likely easily overpower him, but I think in those early moments when it is confused as to its existence and surroundings, it could probably be brought down somehow.)

Knowing the creature was innately good, one can assume the problem was not that it was created at all, but that Frankenstein ran away from his creation.

Still, Frankenstein is one of us for certain. His fears lead to his hate and he runs away from problems he creates and only when the problem becomes considerably worse is he driven to act - fueled now by further hate and thinking that his side is the only side and the right one. That sounds like how many people behave. Yet we're never the monsters?