What Are You Reading?

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

I just hardly finished reading "So B. It" by Sarah Weeks. It was a fantastic book. Her book (who's title slips my memory right now) is also really good.

[Alaizabel Cray]

Lisey's Story, by Stephen King

[Godslayer Jillian]

After finishing Dracula, now I'm reading Frankenstein.
I want to see which of these pieces of literature deserves the name of best horror novel.

[Alaizabel Cray]

I loved Frankenstein. More so than Dracula I think. I don't think I could really choose one as "the best horror novel", but Frankenstein was just amazing, I couldn't put it down.

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

Originally Posted by Alaizabel Cray

Lisey's Story, by Stephen King

My step mother is reading that. She loves Stephen King. She says it's pretty good. Is it???

[Don't Look Behind You]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

After finishing Dracula, now I'm reading Frankenstein.
I want to see which of these pieces of literature deserves the name of best horror novel.

I actually hated both. But to compare bad with worse I suppose Frankestein was better.

I understand that when these two books were written, the style of writing as well as the view on evil and morals was different, but I still think that Dracula is a very boring book that is not about Dracula at all and Frankenstein a book writen by an author that wan't sure what she wanted to say by the whole thing.

Both dissappointed me terribly. In Frankenstein, Marry Shelly seems to have an idea that she doesn't manage to develop since she is too preoccupied with shocking the reader. And in Dracula, its all about noble men that kill the evil beastie, let alone the terrible, at least for me, style Stoker wrote in where each character wrote absolutely the same. I managed to finish the book only by imagining little hints as to the world of Dracula and hoping that Stoker just didn't dare to write more about Dracula's side of the story in fear of his reputation.

I can respect both books for the impact they made during their time and I even thank Stoker every time I read that he was the one who set the roots for the elegant image of the vampire as we know it today. And I like Shelly's biography. But Dracula or Frankenstein as books are something terrible in my oppinion.

[She_Is_My_Sin]

Meh, I managed to plough through Dracula. It was ok. Occasionaly a tad dull, but not awful. I preferred it to the film with Keanu Reeves & Winona Ryder in. Gawsh that was a horrible film.

As for Frankenstein, I haven't read it yet. Though I do have a copy somewhere. I'll give it a try sometime.

[korinna5555]

we had to read Frankenstein for literature class.........i didnt like it. AT ALL. thats a first.........

i just finished Shelters of Stone by Jean Auel. she is a fantastic author.

[She_Is_My_Sin]

Ooh I'm reading 'Tom Browns School Days' in my Literature class.

Lord it's dull. There's even a sequel...I can't imagine what compelled Thomas Hughes to write another....

[korinna5555]

even the title sounds boring....

now im rereading Speak by.......crap i forgot.....good book though

[humanpettingzoo]

i actually thought Frankenstein was pretty good until i had to write about 5 bajillion essays about it cuz i took honors english last year. this year our first novel has been A Separate Peace by John Knowles and WOW if there isnt some immensely repressed homosexual tendencies in there! but other than that its the worst book ive ever read except some christian book my family got as a gift and promptly lost. i dont remember Dracula so i must not have liked it much...

[Alaizabel Cray]

Originally Posted by Crying_Crimson_Tears

My step mother is reading that. She loves Stephen King. She says it's pretty good. Is it???

Just the fact that it's Stephen King makes it pretty good, haha. But seriously, I think it's really good. I don't think he'll ever be able to top his Dark Tower series though, those are the best.

[Alaizabel Cray]

Originally Posted by korinna5555

even the title sounds boring....

now im rereading Speak by.......crap i forgot.....good book though

Oh, I think I knew what book you're talking about.... the author is... um... Crap, I know this. Oh! Anderson. Laurie Halse Anderson, something like that maybe? I read that book a few times myself, loved it.

[Alaizabel Cray]

Originally Posted by Don't Look Behind You

In Frankenstein, Marry Shelly seems to have an idea that she doesn't manage to develop since she is too preoccupied with shocking the reader.

I agree that she tried a lot to shock the reader, perhaps too much in spots, but I think the novel itself did have an idea behind it, if you look at the time it was written, which was around the Scientific Revolution. Darwin didn't come out with his theories that clashed with God for a few daceds after Frankenstein was published, but scientists were still making discveries and trying to explain things with science that up until then the common people had just accepted as granted. So I think that what Shelley was saying was that when science tries to get in the way of nature, you end up with something monstrous. Maybe I'm reading too far into it though. Or maybe I've been studying history too much lately.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Don't Look Behind You

...I still think that Dracula is a very boring book that is not about Dracula at all

I found Dracula to be very boring indeed.
But in retrospective, the essence of the book is beautiful; the character of Abraham Van Helsing is simply funny (I bet you he was the first goth, with that humour of his); and even though the setting was never developed, the imagery was beautiful.
Anyway, what I want to point out is that one cannot say this book isn't about Dracula at all so much as you can't exclaim "Hey! This book isn't about killing a mockingbird at all!"

[Alaizabel Cray]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Anyway, what I want to point out is that one cannot say this book isn't about Dracula at all so much as you can't exclaim "Hey! This book isn't about killing a mockingbird at all!"

Good point, Jillian.

[Delkaetre]

Re-reading the Author's Preferred Edition of American Gods. 12,000 extra words, haha!
Anyone that can find an 'Author's Preferred Text' when looking for a book, should really purchase or borrow the preferred edition rather than the earlier releases. The preferred edition is the best way of seeing what the author really wanted to write, really wanted to get across to us.

[Don't Look Behind You]

In the historical perspective i did say, I believe, that both Dracula and Frankenstein are books worth respect and attention, but as pieces of art in themselves, I found both to be mediocre.
The idea in Frankentein, I believe, was put there rather unconciously by Shelley. All further development of the idea had possibly been invented by the readers, since one expects an idea in that sort of book.
And also, a classical book should not be considered good only if one looks at the historical background but should have something "time-less" about it.
Jillian, your point about saying say "this book isn't about Dracula at all so much as you can't exclaim "Hey! This book isn't about killing a mockingbird at all!" " is, I believe not appropriate in the case of Dracula, becuase, although I have not read "to kill a mocking bird" I always had the impression that it was meant in a metaphorical sense. Dracula, on the other had, is a character in the book and the title makes one expect that it will also be about HIS life and not about the life of noble gentlemen that set out to kill him. Of course, one can always speculate and say that Dracula was supposed to represent evil and so the book was about him in a rather distanced way as Stoker described the evil that is to be found in each human being.....or whatever. But I do not think Stoker was thinking of anything of the sort.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I do agree that Dracula should have had more of a role in the book, but the book is named because even if he has no great role, all the events happen aroudn the Count. Rather more blunt than the name To Kill a Mockingbird, though. But I understand thotoughly your point, for I had wished the same when I was reading it.
The point I do like to point more is that Dracula had not much to desire for when it comes to elegance; maybe only that he was rich, so the things he had were to drool for, but in his self, there was not much I'd like about his child-brain.

[Don't Look Behind You]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

The point I do like to point more is that Dracula had not much to desire for when it comes to elegance; maybe only that he was rich, so the things he had were to drool for, but in his self, there was not much I'd like about his child-brain.

Yes, I suppose you're right. But no development in history happens in huge leaps. As far as my researching has shown, the image of the vampire before Stoker's Dracula was that of a peasant monster that had nothing elegant about it and, as opposed to Dracula's "child-brain" had little or no reasoning and thinking capasaties at all. I thank the modern authors such as Rice, although I do not much like her books themselves, for developing the character of the vampire to the really gothic, as in THINKING, individual it reperesents today.

[Draconysius]

I started reading Ann Radcliffe's "the Mysteries of Udolpho" recently. I've started reading it before, but couldn't stay interested. It uses some very old vocabulary. I took it as a challenge, though, and have begun to really fall in love with it. The poetic landscapes, the gothic view of the world, and the strange occurences are enough to keep me reading forever.

[PersephoneX]

i'm reading an AIT 2-Turbo, tape drive's instruction manual...

what fun...NOT!

[OsoCrazy]

I just finished NIGHT for my English 10 class, I rather enjoyed it

[AzrealZ]

Very Cliched given where we are, but hey, it's a great graphic novel! The Crow

[She_Is_My_Sin]

I'm still on 'Memoirs Of A Geisha' but I must say, it's got rather kinky. All the talk of sex. There is even a comparison of a hairstyle to...uh...lady bits.... :S