Editing 1589: Frankenstein

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 20: Line 20:
 
However, xkcd's ''Frankenstein'' would be unlikely to be accepted by anyone as canonical, except for its stated purpose of settling the naming argument. The original version of any story is usually assumed to be the canonical one, and any derivative work would have to have widespread influence and recognition to supplant it in the popular imagination. This is not likely to happen with xkcd's ''Frankenstein,'' as it makes almost no effort to stand on its own; it exists only to be a version of ''Frankenstein'' where the monster is named "Frankenstein." It emphasizes this point several times, and ends within a single panel, having accomplished its only goal. Almost no readers would find this version entertaining or substantive enough to displace Mary Shelley's original as the definitive version of the story.
 
However, xkcd's ''Frankenstein'' would be unlikely to be accepted by anyone as canonical, except for its stated purpose of settling the naming argument. The original version of any story is usually assumed to be the canonical one, and any derivative work would have to have widespread influence and recognition to supplant it in the popular imagination. This is not likely to happen with xkcd's ''Frankenstein,'' as it makes almost no effort to stand on its own; it exists only to be a version of ''Frankenstein'' where the monster is named "Frankenstein." It emphasizes this point several times, and ends within a single panel, having accomplished its only goal. Almost no readers would find this version entertaining or substantive enough to displace Mary Shelley's original as the definitive version of the story.
  
βˆ’
The {{w|Public_domain|copyright}} on Mary Shelley's novel has expired long ago, before the moon landings (which began in 1969), so it is perfectly legal to create works derived from the original story. It should be noted, however, that Universal holds the copyright on the common [https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2011/10/24/how-universal-re-copyrighted-frankensteins-monster/ image of the monster] (green skin, flat-top head, scar, bolts on the neck and protruding forehead). To qualify as a {{w|derivative work}} the story needs to be substantially different from the original. The monster believing in {{w|moon landing conspiracy theories}} would probably qualify, but may reference retellings of the tale where a damaged or deranged brain was used (as an alternate 'explanation' why the supposedly perfect creation inevitably runs amok). Additionally, the original Frankenstein's monster was seen by its creator as hideous and repulsive due to its physical appearance despite the project being a success. Randall makes the same correlation in his version by having Frankenstein claim the moon landings were faked, which produces the same feelings in The Doctor.
+
The {{w|Public_domain|copyright}} on Mary Shelley's novel has expired long ago, so it is perfectly legal to create works derived from the original story. It should be noted, however, that Universal holds the copyright on the common [https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2011/10/24/how-universal-re-copyrighted-frankensteins-monster/ image of the monster] (green skin, flat-top head, scar, bolts on the neck and protruding forehead). To qualify as a {{w|derivative work}} the story needs to be substantially different from the original. The monster believing in {{w|moon landing conspiracy theories}} would probably qualify, but may reference retellings of the tale where a damaged or deranged brain was used (as an alternate 'explanation' why the supposedly perfect creation inevitably runs amok). Additionally, the original Frankenstein's monster was seen by its creator as hideous and repulsive due to its physical appearance despite the project being a success. Randall makes the same correlation in his version by having Frankenstein claim the moon landings were faked, which produces the same feelings in The Doctor.
  
 
Alternatively, the monster being a moon landing denier is meant as a throwaway absurdist non sequitur. As the only point of this story is to make a canonical version of ''Frankenstein'' where "Frankenstein" is the monster's name, it should logically end once it has finished making that point clear. However, Randall throws a curveball by having the monster blurt out an uncomfortable and controversial point of view before the ending, then ending the story abruptly before the monster's statements can be addressed.
 
Alternatively, the monster being a moon landing denier is meant as a throwaway absurdist non sequitur. As the only point of this story is to make a canonical version of ''Frankenstein'' where "Frankenstein" is the monster's name, it should logically end once it has finished making that point clear. However, Randall throws a curveball by having the monster blurt out an uncomfortable and controversial point of view before the ending, then ending the story abruptly before the monster's statements can be addressed.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)