Yes, I don’t understand what kunilou is getting at either, Frankenstein is a genuinely good story with an interesting premise that has withstood the test of time, and its unusual origins just makes it more interesting. Didn’t Mary Shelley say she had an awful dream that night and that’s part of what inspired her to write Frankenstein?
The post was not a woosh. The book did start as an overgrown campfire story.
Considering that the thread started off with the nominations of Goethe, Joyce, and the Bible, I think Frankenstein is entirely defensible.
I still don’t see how that’s a whoosh on Mary Shelley’s part, a ‘whoosh’ suggests the author is trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes or writing tongue-in-cheek for their own amusement. The campfire story origins doesn’t sound like it was meant to be a secret and almost everyone is in agreement that its a good story and worthy of classic status.
I nominated Ulysses earlier because while reading it I (a) couldn’t believe that the author was being serious and (b) at least several other people feel the same way about it.
I always found Kafka amusing. Bone dry, but funny.
Not sure if this counts, but… Rene Descartes’ proof of the existence of God is so weak that even I can see through it easily.
Descartes was a genius. I am not. So, if his proof is so flimsy that I can tear it to shreds, you have to wonder: was that his intent all along? To fool religious authorities of his day into thinking he was a faithful Christian )saving him from possible persecution), but signaling to his brighter readers what he REALLY thought.
I never was able to conclude if Norman Spinrad was serious. He’d write about these conservative-created dystopias and heroic liberals who rebelled against the system, but I don’t know if he was parodying Ayn Rand or if he seriously believed himself. He’d get comically over-the-top at times, then make it look like a political statement designed to stir up the bovine masses.