I’m not terrified of them, I’m not alarmed by them, I’m not worried about them. I do not see them through the lens of sci-fi / horror B-movies. I do not panic at the thought of people deliberately manipulating my food, because we’ve been doing that ever since the dawn of civilization. And I certainly think that ‘Frankenfood’ is a silly neologism that demonstrates that the user has neither a good understanding of genetics, or any real sense for the plot and/or message of Frankenstein*.
That is all.
Moe Lane
*The movies – many of which I love; don’t get me wrong – are probably to blame for that. The book was trying to make a different kind of point. Not to English literature geek out too much, but in my opinion the primary difference here is that the movies generally took the position that Victor Frankenstein’s mistake was in thinking that he could create a new man from dead parts, while the book’s position is that his mistake lay in thinking that he should do it. Because, please note: Frankenstein in the book did create a thinking, reasoning entity with the capacity to learn; he just also created one that did not have, for lack of another term, a soul. Which suggests, amusingly, that Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein does an excellent job at bridging the cap between the conventional movies, and the book.