The Lounge - CodeProject

F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Wouldn't it have been funnier if they had Frankenstein with them?

Ah, but you're referring to a common misconception, which has been propagated by snooty idiots who have not read the book, but who like to belittle people, despite not knowing what they're talking about.

The monster's name is Adam Frankenstein. It always was.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

Mark_Wallace wrote:
The monster's name is Adam Frankenstein

Wrong. The monster had no name. In the book there is a passage where he is likened to Adam from The Bible in as much as he was the first created man, but there is no suggestion that is his name. Bizarrely enough the fact that Adam was his name was even accepted as an answer given by John Sessions (I think) on an episode of QI.

Edit: if you'd actually read the book, you would know this Thumbs Up | :thumbsup:

In the book, you would have noticed (had you read it) that he refers to Victor as his father, and several times refers to himself as an Adam -- and Mary Shelly herself spoke of him as either "Adam" or "an Adam" (I don't recall which; perhaps both), in papers.

So doubts (due to my memory) may be cast on his forename (but why bother?), but his familial name is, without any doubt, Frankenstein.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

I guess it's easy to prove if you're right. Simply post the parts of the book where it is shown the monster's name is Adam.

As for his surname. Gee. Does everyone program you make take your surname? No. The creature was not Frankenstein's child, or family, so it does not bear his name.

Having read the book and studied all the ancillary papers by both the author and her husband on the subject, I have no doubt of two things:

1: That the monster's name is Adam Frankenstein.

2: That I would not recommend the book to anyone, because it is deathly boring to anyone in our day and age (and I read it in the 80s, so it would be even worse, now).

But it's up to you, what you want to believe -- i.e. if you want to take the word of snooty people who want to belittle others with their second-hand unresearched comments, fine; but I've spent a lifetime studying English Lit. & Lang, so I'll stick with my educated opinion.

BTW, googling such information is way too much trouble, for either of us. I just tried, and, rather than find literary texts and commentary from educated contemporaries of the period (which were easy to find, in the early days of the Internet), I got several million people trying to make themselves look clever by claiming that others are idiots for calling the monster by his name.

That's one of the joys of the Interwebs, for you. Idiots make a lot of noise, while those with real knowledge just go quietly about their business, and the Internet provides a phenomenally accurate (and depressing) reflection of this.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

So prove it, show me the passage that identifies his name as Adam. I'm not asking you to do anything particularly difficult or unreasonable.

Don't act trollish, dear boy.

I already said "he refers to Victor as his father, and several times refers to himself as an Adam -- and Mary Shelly herself spoke of him as either "Adam" or "an Adam"", and I already went to the trouble of looking for documents by the author and her husband.

It's just a work of fiction (and not a particularly good one, at that), so isn't worth the hassle of going any further than that.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

Mark_Wallace wrote:
Don't act trollish, dear boy.

It's trolling to ask someone to prove what they're saying? Even when it is something easily provable?

Why are you spending so much effort and energy smearing me with ad hominem arguments? You've implied I'm snooty, I'm an idiot, I don't know what I'm talking about, that I haven't even read the book.

Snooty? LOL you say we should just listen to you because you claim to have spent a lifetime studying English lit and I have no real knowledge...and you're calling other people snooty?

So much effort trying to smear me, shame you didn't spend that effort just proving what you say is true.

Mark_Wallace wrote:
he refers to Victor as his father, and several times refers to himself as an Adam

Yes, "an Adam", as I already said he is likened so someone who has been created, that text doesn't say and doesn't suggest his name is literally Adam.

Some of the major themes of the book are what is life? What is the monster, is he a man? A son? A creation? Just a bunch of body parts sewn together? And what is Victor? Is he a scientist? Is he god...and the creature his Adam? Is he just a monster as well?

These are the things the book is making you think about and when the monster says "I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam" he is implying that Victor is god and he his creation. The creature struggles with many identities through the book, "the creation" being just one.

Yet you didn't get any of that? The scholar of literature that you are thinks "I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam" is actually a simple declaration that Adam is his name? That's all? Why didn't he just say that then?

Actually, how about a little more context?

Quote:
I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel, whom they drivest from joy for no misdeed

Still claiming the above means his name is literally Adam?

Sorry this thread didn't work out for you, sorry you couldn't bully me off it, but most of all I'm sorry you just couldn't admit you're wrong.

https://ibb.co/6DpDX54[^]

Yes, trollish indeed.

This is a chatroom, where people express opinions, not a public inquiry, where you are the judge who may demand that petitioners go to vast effort to prove* what they chat about. I made more than enough effort to find the author's papers. The discussion is not worth further effort on my part.

tldr rants that contain no proof of anything, but that demand proof, is another sign of trolling.

Another indicator is the immediately dropping most of a discussion, to pounce on a single, small element that can be "proven" by opinions given on wikipedia and in blogs (which, of course, take a huge amount of effort to access).

Accusations of insulting behaviour where there is none is a clear sign of trolling.

Use of the term "ad hominem" is an absolute dead giveaway that the person talking is a troll.

Were I your employee, you could ask (note that word: "ask", not "demand") that I go to the effort of looking up documents that counter the opinion that you have gone to all the effort of garnering from wikipedia.

Unfortunately, I am not your employee, this discussion is not worth anything like that amount of effort, and I do not jump through hoops set by trolls.

* A favourite word of trolls, that.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

Mark_Wallace wrote:
tldr rants that contain no proof of anything, but that demand proof, is another sign of trolling.

You can't prove a negative. There is nothing I can do to prove that his name isn't Adam. If you can suggest something I could do to prove that then I'm all ears. Do I also need to prove his name isn't Dave? Isn't Peter? Isn't John? On the other hand you *can* prove his name *is* Adam by simply showing me where in the book it is indicated his name is Adam, ergo the burden of proof lies with you. Something, all these posts later, you have still failed to prove.

Because you can't.

Because you're wrong.

What you have to consider is:

+ Are you continuing this worthless discussion because of your deep love of a B-grade book (and even worse movies)? If so, I'm sure that just about everyone could suggest something better to read/watch.

+ Are you continuing this worthless discussion because of some deep-seated need to "win" a discussion on a message board? If so, you're a troll.

Pack it in, eh? I'm not going to waste hours of my time playing "I have to WIN a discussion about a B-grade book!"

Unless a thing somehow, miraculously, extends your life, there ain't no winning.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

You said I was wrong, you said I was an idiot, you said I was snooty, you said I didn't know what I was talking about, and now it's been shown that I was actually right and *you* were wrong you're accusing me of being a troll just because I want you to admit what you've done.

You're obviously never going to admit you were wrong, but at least you've learned a few things.

I would like to ask for some advice for a Christmas book for Anna a very dear dear girl of 13 - daughter of my German cousin Eva. The mother is an English teacher and Anna loves reading, in that language. Anna comes across as happy, serious and filled with curiosity.

The first book to come to my mind is Catcher in the Rye. Bit of a stretch at 13, and German. But then I wish to provide some stretch! The young-reader-ideas discussed here are not too discouraging: Is 10 Too Young to Read The Catcher in the Rye? - Barnes & Noble Reads — Barnes & Noble Reads[^]

Another thought is the non-kid short stories of Roald Dahl. Another stretch too they are. Might be outside the interests of a 13-year-old...

But I do like the idea of short stories, in English original, and the idea of encouraging existential contemplation. Thanks.

"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"

megaadam wrote:
Anna comes across as happy, serious and filled with curiosity.

While "The Catcher in the rye" is no light reading Poke tongue | ;-P

, may I also suggest "The book thief"? Or is it too dark for a 13 year old?

There is but one book she should ever need to read: The Bible[^]

Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!

Have some mercy, she's just 13. Laugh | :laugh:

You're absolutely right. Something lighter[^] is required... Roll eyes | :rolleyes:

Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain

That's just cruel and unusual punishment! Laugh | :laugh:

Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!

A modern Codex Gigas[^]... Laugh | :laugh:

Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain

Start as you mean to go on, that's what I say.

Didn't you learn to read from "Janet and John"[^] like the rest of us?

Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!

It seems you are totally starved for posts that allow room for jokes here in the Lounge Suspicious | :suss:

"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"

Nah, you can find humour in anything if you look hard enough! Big Grin | :-D

Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!

Can you please take a look at my boss then and let me know how hard you have to look... Laugh | :laugh:

Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain

Sometimes you do have to look pretty deep.

Sharp instruments can help here.

Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!

OriginalGriff wrote:
Sharp instruments can help here.

A blunt one might be more fun, though... Wink | ;)

Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain

Welcome to the Lounge