Frankenstein Letters and Chap 1

I firmly believe that Shelley uses Walton as a lead in because the end of the story is going to be Dr. Frankenstein dog sledding in the Artic, being saved by a ship. This is a forshadowing of what is going to happen. From this beginning, I got the impression that the book was going to be hard and boring to read, but the further you get into the story, the more intense and exciting it gets. Even though the language is a little old school, I can make out what Mary Shelley is saying because of the way she uses it in a sentence. For example, countenance is used alot and it means facial expression. What gave it away was "his countenance was of grief". I have read ahead and it makes you question the making of the monster. As you read, the story answers why Victor wants to kill the monster. I find grieving, and sadness is a huge plot of the story. Not much happiness is portrayed so far. I really enjoy the figurative language used in this book because it paints an image in my mind. I can't wait to read the rest! Not even joking.

Frankenstein

I have started to read the book, Frankenstein, and have succedded to reach half way through chapter 2. So far all I know is how Victor's parents met and a bit of their lives. This is when Victor, the main character, introduces himself and tells how he came upon his step sister, whom be loves and wants to protect. Now knowing a bit about the family, I am yearning to learn about how Victor and his family have anything to do with Frankenstein. My possible ideas are Frankenstein falls in love with Victor's stepsister and he wants to protect her from him because he is a "monster". Or Victor is the creator of Frankenstein because Victor always says how he divines over how things work. Both ideas could be possible for this book but I guess I will have to wait and read the book to see if my hypothesis is correct.

Spellbound

Out of both documentaries, I liked this one the best even though it dragged on and got a little boring. Spellbound didn't narrarate the subject like Roger and Me, which I really liked. He also showed the views of the contestants and contestant's parents before and after they had won or lost at the National Spelling Bee. I liked this because you saw the truth of what was behind the work of a spelling bee. This let me take in what I was being shown so that I could decide my opinion on the thesis Blitz was trying to state. Spellbound also left me at a cliffhanger because he gave me different perspectives to think about. Are spelling bees a form of child abuse, a way to a better education or a hard way to learn the truth of hard work? But the one major question I want to know is...how did Blitz know which contestants to pick, especially because he chose a student who won? Out of 250 kids all over the US, there is a pretty low chance of picking a winner.

Documentaries

After our disscussion, I am second guessing the truth in documentaries. Some relevant points were cut out. I feel this is unfair to the audience because they only see one side of the objective and not the other. I think documentaries would be more liked if both sides of the situation were told, this way the viewer could decide for themselves what they believe. This also leads to my distrust in other media forms because in order for the producer to keep the audiences attention, they lie and can be biased. Now I feel I can't trust everything I see without first hand proof to back up the statement. I don't want to feel so negative about documentaries because I like to watch them and find out facts but if I know they leave out important info, that could swing the opinion another way, then I would rather do my own research. Documentaries are supposed to document the truth about major events, but if they leave out info that happened during the event, I don't consider it a documentary anymore. I see documentaries as a way to learn about the past, not a way to create a bias.