>I think you misunderstand me.

Respectfully, I don't think I do at all but I don't think you're getting what i'm laying down. I hate to quote you this much, but it's pretty apparent:

>On the surface, this may seem all well and good, but when read in light of Frankenstein, it all becomes rather disturbing.What gives anyone the right to create a new life-form? Shai is effectively playing God... She decides to make the titular emperor a better person, but who is she to say what’s better? She is accountable to no-one and nothing but herself. Even if she’s justified in trying to make him better than the original, the question remains whether she’s justified in creating a new mind at all. How would this new person, inhabiting the body of a similar but not mentally-identical person, react if he knew...What if there’s some unintended consequence, and he turns out to be a worse person... In light of all this, isn’t it incredibly prideful to view this project as a form of artistic expression, with little concern for the deeper metaphysical implications? Isn’t it, in fact, strikingly reminiscent of Dr. Frankenstein’s attitude at the beginning of his tale?These are all important questions that are not nitpicks or minor incidental details. They are implicit in the very premise of the story, and to gloss over them is to share in the blind hubris of Dr. Frankenstein-—the hubris that’s lead our species to seriously endanger itself countless times, especially in the past couple of centuries, by valuing technical achievement over morality. “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should,” as another similarly-themed story can tell you. If you’re going to play God, you’d damned well better think long and carefully about it first.Sanderson’s chosen theme of exploring the nature of artistry is a fine one, but he should have chosen a less-fraught premise to explore it with unless he was prepared to simultaneously explore at least some of the questions Mary Shelley raised two hundred years ago

You have a worldview about technology and it's advancement rooted in fear, and the premise spawned all these questions you wanted answers to. Frankenstein was a cautionary tale (amongst other things) and due to the premise, you were primed and had questions that weren't answered.

The question is do those questions need answers to tell the story Sanderson wanted to tell? I could write volumes about how the printing press changed the world for both good and ill (mostly good) and all the inherent challenges within it, or I can write a story about a person writing a novel. If the scope is large it enough it might include those things if they affect the story, but perhaps that they aren't in the story is telling you something about how she and others are approaching things.

You are bringing your own morality and worldview to the story being told (I don't think you realize how much of your post comes across as moralizing), and want to be told X is wrong or Y is dangerous. You seem fine reading about the weirdly ethical things but want someone sitting down saying X is bad, you want her wrestling with it, you want the structure of the black and white. And when you aren't getting it, you're slamming the book for it.

Again, I have no issue if you said you didn't find the protagonists story compelling compared to the world built and questions raised, it's simply in how your'e approaching these things. I don't get it.

>Imagine if Moby Dick ended with Ahab killing the whale and going home in triumph--it would be kind of like that.

I can imagine it, and I could see how that could be an awesome if disturbing story on obsession having an end result that makes you think and question, like the film Whiplash which I'd highly recommend.

I have a different translation with similar amounts of foot notes. The first time, I read them all because it was school (just the Inferno). However, if your translation is like mine, the purpose is to explain what you might not understand or give a bit of background to characters there.

I'd say they are optional. When you find something confusing, then read them.

You're definitely right that the two stories can't be compared one-to-one. Shai has very little agency because of her circumstances, and she never would have attempted to do something so insane on her own initiative. But what bothers me is that the narrative focuses much more on how she's creating a great work of art than examining moral questions it implicitly raises. She questions how much she should change him (which is constrained by the practical limitation that the fake soul won't work if she changes it too much), but the question of whether or not it's moral to create a fake soul at all is barely addressed--only the self-righteous members of the oppressive regime really feel that way, and they hypocritically ignore their moral compunctions in favor of political convenience.

[removed]

Please bear in mind that she has no choice about creating this construct. She is literally in prison and forced to do it. This is not at all the same as Frankenstein. She isn't making this construct for giggles. She is being oppressed by an immoral regime, and she has a chance to make that immoral regime better.

She makes extremely subtle tweaks to hopefully make the construct a better person, and wrestles continually with the issue.

Personally, if someone was making a construct of me to recreate me, I would personally prefer if they would make me a better person. Sounds awesome. Please include a better sense of humour!

She does do some thinking about it, which is good and kept me from passing even harsher judgement. But as you say, she wrestles with the ethics of how much she should tweak the personality--not so much the fact that she is playing God by getting involved in fabricating a soul in the first place. And in the end, she feels justified in doing so.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not bothered that it raised ethical issues--I'm bothered that it doesn't really engage with them. Imagine if Moby Dick ended with Ahab killing the whale and going home in triumph--it would be kind of like that.

So, I see you really like Metal Gear Solid eh? Lol

I am cackling that OP is mad about spoilers to…a literal thousands year old work. Like this is a joke right? 😂

A terrible mistake? A terrible mistake is when something you do leads to suffering or death. You just bought a book you didn’t like. Settle down.

He's definitely one of my favorites as well. The audiobooks narrated by Scott Sowers are excellent.

Fenton Michigan had a cute one called open book, it’s small but since you’re already in michigan it wouldn’t be much of a trip!

One of the major points of the story is that she wrestles with the ethics of tweaking the personality. If she had no hesitations about changing the personality, she would have "programmed" him to do whatever she wanted.

That's pretty much the main point of the entire short story.

I hope it works! Forgive me if I missed a step - it's been a month or two since I set it up myself 😅

I'm going to set aside your valid complaints and only focus on the idea that the book disturbed you after reading Frankenstein -- you had issues with the ethical issues it's raising. I don't get it, it's like someone reading Moby Dick and giving it a negative review because obsession is unhealthy and it bothered them to read about. I don't know how this mindset has gotten formed or why it's become more common in some, but I'd argue books are stories not a product to consume to have your feelings and worldview validated.

I love Elizabeth Gaskell!

Wait until you get to Ulysses, he goes way further, and plays around with a lot of different styles while doing so. It starts off as a direct sequel to Portrait and then focuses on a different character after a few chapters.

and if you want a glimpse of his mind "unfiltered" check out his letters to Nora.

I had to read it twice, then read it to a coworker to solidify my thought on what the line was saying.

Brandon Sanderson did an AMA here you might want to take a look :) Here's a link to all of our upcoming AMAs

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

The quoted passage, at the time it was written, was still considered fairly vulgar and while the book was popular in its day, there was definitely a fair amount of consternation about Joyce portraying bodily functions and sexual thoughts and acts at all even in this language that seems, to modern eyes, much less direct. At the time the book was written the Victorian era had only just ended ten years ago and a lot of the social mores of that period remained in place.

I tend to not research literary classics before reading them, thus I was unsure how this book fit within the literary world. I felt the rejection of religion within the book would have stood out at the time it was written as well while reading it (only half way though currently). I also like how it shows the juxtaposition of the churches teachings versus how people tend to (or want to) live. It shows the struggle of Stephen's actions and thoughts versus religions beliefs of how one should act quite well.

Its interesting how you say the Indian filmmaker would have the actor's kiss an apple in leu of kissing each other to get around laws about showing such stuff. Goes to show people will find a way to circumvent dumb, thoughtless laws, creating art in the process.

I've enjoyed most of it, but there are some that are definitely better than others.

Seconded. I have the oversized version with the full page Steadman drawings. Beautiful art, and wonderful writing.

The standards for vulgarity were quite a lot more restrictive 100 years ago than they are nowadays. Being blunt worked against writers. It's worth noting that readers were actually warned about the presence of bodily fluids/functions in this novel. Vague memory that the rejection of religion was a groundbreaking subject, but don't quote me.

​

The concept that comes to mind is a touch removed from your Joyce one. It's actually from Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie. The narrator describes censorship laws banning anything as explicit from kissing in Indian cinema at the time of the story. But then a filmmaker circumvented this by having two lovers kiss an apple and pass it back and forward between each other. Just a beautiful image. It's been popping up every so often for twenty years.

For keeping books, maybe check Brodart:

http://brodart.com/