you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 day ago* (7 children)

downbear This take is so bad it borders on misogyny. No account for taste I suppose but you are just completely and utterly wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

    This doesn't seem like assuming good faith. They said they really didn't like a specific novel.

    Not that I don't think it's a weird take, I loved Frankenstein when I read it. But as you say no accounting for taste

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago* (4 children)

    I should have been more clear that it was supposed to be cheaky, but I guess it came off badly and for that @umbrella@lemmy.ml you have my sincere apology. But like, Shelly was a pioneer of what became modern novelization. I actually think people really bounce off it because it is so jarringly different from the popular conception of Frankenstein and the modern horror genre. I can say it certainly was not what I was expecting but once I got into it, it really captivated me. Calling it a shit novel just seemed unnecessarily spiteful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

    it's alright. what turns me off from this kind of art is that all that came after it is inspired by it already and frankly, usually builds upon better. sometimes this makes the old pioneers sound generic and bland. you will find me hating on stuff like the beatles just the same when i like a lot of the stuff they inspired.

    though rereading my post i did sound angrier and less ironic than i intended to and i can't blame you from reading it exactly how i wrote it in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments