Glenn, thanks and you never know, someone might pick it up...

Logan, thanks for taking a read and the kind words, appreciated.

Richard, I know what you mean re tears, but on the flip side, not showing them sometimes can feel a little unnatural too... I toyed with stitches on the wrists but thought it might be too obvious - I'll have a think. Frankenstein being literate, hmmm it's a fair shout, one to ponder. Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions.

Cheers

Anthony

Regarding Frankenstein's monster's literacy: a while ago I read the following on the movie's IMDb page's FAQ:

"Probably the biggest change is that, in the book, the monster (asides from looking radically different) is intelligent and articulate, arguably more so than his creator in the end, and is also rather well read, often philosophically musing the nature of his own existence."

Wild Flowers takes place days/week(?) after the events of the original movie, so it's quite possible that even the dumber movie version of the monster became literate. In any case, he just wrote the girl's name (which he might've simply copied off her tombstone) not a Shakespearean sonnet.

Love the title on this...and I like the irony in the logline...good job there.

I love the lack of dialogue in this. I wasn't sure ...not completely of the Frankenstein until the end and I guess that is how you wanted it to be....

I super loved the use of B&W/Color ...very good job...very creative way to show something....

Great job on this.

I had to read through the comments to figure out what was going on with this story. I've never seen the black and white Frankenstein film and I read the book over 25 years ago. I remember Frankenstein's monster saving a little girl from drowning in a river, not killing her. Frankenstein's monster is more of a misunderstood good guy in the book... as I remember it anyway.

I think that if you're going to nod toward anything then that should be the original material and not a film that gets the story deliberately wrong because they believe it will sell more copies.

So this is for fans of that particular black and white film, not fans of Frankenstein. I didn't have any idea what was going on. Frankenstein's monster appearing at the end meant nothing to me. If I'd seen that black and white film then it might have.. but even then, I would need to have watched the film recently... but, I'd rather read the book again, I think.

In fact, my son is reading it at the moment. He's 11. It's free on Kindle.

So, putting the film aside, assuming that I had seen it. Frankenstein's monster kills a little girl, and putting a few flowers outside the house, spelling out her name, is enough for the grieving parents that have lost a child through murder to come to terms with it. And the person that's helped them do this is the murderer.

He's very, very sorry for murdering their child. Here are a few flowers spelling out her name, job done. Everyone is happy.

It doesn't work for me, mate. It's just too neat and easy and, as such, doesn't make complete sense.

Thanks Sandro, Dena, Dustin for the reads and comments

Sandro - this is intended to come immeadiately after the 30s movie, where the monster is portrayed as illiterate,,, but as you say could have just copied the gravestone... think in my first draft he just laid the flowers in the woodpile.

Dena - Thank you very much, glad you like the bleed into colour.

Dustin - As above, this follows the 30s film, and in particular the once banned sequence of the monster throwing her into the lake... it's a very effective scene in the film and really showed the confused humanity of the 'monster'. As for the other comments, ces't la vie, can't please everyone all the time thanks for taking a read though.

Cheers

Anthpny    

Quoted from AnthonyCawood Dustin - As above, this follows the 30s film, and in particular the once banned sequence of the monster throwing her into the lake... it's a very effective scene in the film and really showed the confused humanity of the 'monster'. As for the other comments, ces't la vie, can't please everyone all the time thanks for taking a read though.

I get that, but he's not the protag.

I read somebody else mention drama... but I'm not seeing enough drama here to qualify that. There needs to be dialogue between the couple... and perhaps even interaction with the monster. What happened to the parents afterwards? It's an interesting question.

The filmmaker will need permission to film this with the monster because the make-up is under copyright till 2026. But Shelley's original is public domain and far more horrifying, imo, anyway. Not sure about the Universal story itself. They changed certain things, like killing the girl in the lake, that they may have copyright over. You might be fine though, but it's best to be safe than sorry. I also feel that this will be seen as fan fiction rather than a standalone story.

Hopefully I'm wrong. This one just isn't to my taste. Good luck with it though, all the same.

Thanks for the additional thoughts Dustin,

Lack of dialogue is intentional and in my opinion I think more starkly shows the distance between them, but alternate opinions are always welcome, there's always other ways to represent things.

Thanks for the info re copyright, probably a muddy area but some creativity with how the monster is revealed may be enough to allude to the original but differentiate it.

Cheers

Anthony