Recent comments in /f/books

DeedTheInky t1_j936qio wrote

A few of things that might be worth a punt maybe?

  • The Monster is (AFAIK) made completely from parts of adult humans, so maybe you could argue that it's a human adult? Some sort of "ship of Theseus" type of thing? How many parts can you transplant on a person before they become a monster instead of a human?

  • By a similar note it presumably has a brain from a specific person? If I die and get revived and lose my memory and commit a crime, am I still culpable? Maybe you could argue that it's like a Doctor reviving an injured person who then has brain damage which leads to them being violent?

  • The Monster presumably shares no DNA with Frankenstein and I doubt he did any formal paperwork to adopt it, so is he legally responsible for it? Morally he probably is, but would that hold up in court?

1

hummingbird_mywill t1_j932vty wrote

It’s heavily implied that they weren’t actually related to Ike by blood, but their parents would have made it appear so to Poe.

It is an interesting question if an aunt by marriage would get priority in custody if you’ve never even met. I’m actually a lawyer lol but not a family lawyer. Just going off what I remember from the bar, custody would be determined based off the best interests of the child. If goes to a non-blood aunt meant that they remain in a similar cultural setting to what they grew up in, then that might be in favor of her.

However, I forget, is Justice Strauss from the same city they grew up in? The stability of staying in the same city would heavily be in favor of her in that regard. And Violet and Klaus’s opinions would be taken into account.

3

MasqueOfNight t1_j932jmv wrote

Because we're all fragments of a singular universal consciousness. The sleeping mind remembers what the waking mind forgets.

We are all. All are one.

Or, something like that. You'll know it when you see it.

1

Adocron t1_j931fwh wrote

I know I’m in the minority here and you all will rip me apart. BUT, I still don’t believe they are the same author. It just doesn’t make sense. Stephen King was already well-known. So why would he write under a pseudonym?! He’d just make less money and get less exposure by doing so. Does that make any sense?!

−1

ViniVidiVelcro t1_j92yfbr wrote

I never read the full series but as a child I enjoyed the ones I did read as a child. To me, the books are meant to be darkly humorous and absurdist rather than realistic so criticizing them on the grounds of not being realistic seems to miss the point of the books. It is like thinking that Monty Python and the Holy Grail is meant to be realistic. Not everything is meant to be realistic.

It is common for children’s books to feature cartoonishly evil or incompetent adults (think of books like those by Roald Dahl for example) and series often feature repeated plots and recurring villains. That is part of the appeal for many readers.

10