Subject: Re: Hype and Gore
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 07:38:53 -0400 (EDT)


Karen A Hennig:
> > > I think that Dr. Frankenstein failed to see it as anything other than 
> > science too though I think the story is just as much about 
> > responsibility and creation- and 
> > the drive to create. Though your story, you said was a satire which I 
> > don't think I would attribute to Shelly's work, so your story would 
> > appear to be, 
> > original. > > 
>          Or is a satire, not really "satire" unless/until it is a direct 
> attack upon some values (detatched, scientific ones for example), by 
> indirect means? 

I think Dr. Frankenstein and his monster could be seen as a
satire of certain kinds of scientists, as well as an updated
reprise of the myth of the golem.  Certainly it spawned a
host of mad-scientist movies which are a staple of our
times.  It is hard to know where the archetype ends and the
satire begins.

The main distinction I would draw between Dr. Frankenstein
and the fellow I wrote about is that Dr. Frankenstein
wanted to create or re-create life, to do something serious
and substantial.  Whereas my guy was only constructing
inanimate objects for exhibition in museums or galleries.
The second is not even an advertisement for the first, just
a way of getting mentioned in glossy magazines and possibly
pulling down a grant or two.


     --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------