On Jun 13, 2022, davfreeman wrote:
I love this too. I wish I had The Alchemist to go along with Frankenstein. Are there any other books titles coming out?

On Jun 13, 2022, 252life wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 13, 2022, davfreeman wrote:
I love this too. I wish I had The Alchemist to go along with Frankenstein. Are there any other books titles coming out?

Good question! And ditto

On Jun 16, 2022, 252life wrote:
Eye didant notace n uzually eye reeds gud

On Jun 16, 2022, AutarchicFlux wrote:
I generally quite like this booktest and plan to use it with my live audiences, however, in order to add to the information in the thread a bit, and provide some feedback to Kaleb, here are a few nitpicks:

1.) Some of the words in the long word list (I will not divulge them here in order not to engage in an undue amount of exposure) are technically words, and might not be spotted by 99% of spectators as a bit out of place for Shelley's writing style, but as someone who is literally a professor of English literature and philosophy (and has taught Frankenstein,) there were a few that seemed a bit out of place to me.

2.) The text of the book looks largely unsuspicious to most, but to anyone at all familiar with Shelley's novel, several major structural aspects are immediately off, such as the fact that the book does not contain the frame narrative about Sir Robert Walton.

3.) One of the words in the long word list, which I will divulge here just for the sake of clarity - "vegetations" - borders on not even being a word. You will find that it's not listed in some dictionaries, and certainly isn't a word any trained writer of English would ever use. "Vegetation" is already a collective noun. A lot of vegetation is just that - a lot of vegetation. Varied vegetation is varied vegetation. The only context in which one would *ever* say "vegetations" would be perhaps in talking about whole different ecosystems, but in that case, the word "ecosystems" would generally be used. While some of the other "out of place" words are a small quibble, this one does bother me a little. I feel like if I performed this for my academic colleagues, for instance, any of them would arch their brows at the appearance of this pretty-much-not-a-word in my reveal.

There you have it, my three small nitpicks. Am I overthinking it?

On Jun 16, 2022, JamJar wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 16, 2022, AutarchicFlux wrote:
I generally quite like this booktest and plan to use it with my live audiences, however, in order to add to the information in the thread a bit, and provide some feedback to Kaleb, here are a few nitpicks:

1.) Some of the words in the long word list (I will not divulge them here in order not to engage in an undue amount of exposure) are technically words, and might not be spotted by 99% of spectators as a bit out of place for Shelley's writing style, but as someone who is literally a professor of English literature and philosophy (and has taught Frankenstein,) there were a few that seemed a bit out of place to me.

2.) The text of the book looks largely unsuspicious to most, but to anyone at all familiar with Shelley's novel, several major structural aspects are immediately off, such as the fact that the book does not contain the frame narrative about Sir Robert Walton.

3.) One of the words in the long word list, which I will divulge here just for the sake of clarity - "vegetations" - borders on not even being a word. You will find that it's not listed in some dictionaries, and certainly isn't a word any trained writer of English would ever use. "Vegetation" is already a collective noun. A lot of vegetation is just that - a lot of vegetation. Varied vegetation is varied vegetation. The only context in which one would *ever* say "vegetations" would be perhaps in talking about whole different ecosystems, but in that case, the word "ecosystems" would generally be used. While some of the other "out of place" words are a small quibble, this one does bother me a little. I feel like if I performed this for my academic colleagues, for instance, any of them would arch their brows at the appearance of this pretty-much-not-a-word in my reveal.

There you have it, my three small nitpicks. Am I overthinking it?

You do know this is a gimmicked book right? rolleyes: With any "trick" there’s always going to be a compromise and Frankie is no exception, I’m pretty sure Kaleb does mention that the literature won’t pass the scrutiny of a professor of literature but it will most definitely fly by the average person.

If you’re apprehensive about performing this for your academic colleagues, then surely the same could be said for any book test? In which case maybe you shouldn’t perform book tests?
I wonder if card magicians don’t perform for gamblers or casino workers?

I personally think your concerns are unnecessary and with I shall bid you a good day

Regards

Ryan

On Jun 15, 2022, AutarchicFlux wrote:
I generally quite like this booktest and plan to use it with my live audiences, however, in order to add to the information in the thread a bit, and provide some feedback to Kaleb, here are a few nitpicks:

1.) Some of the words in the long word list (I will not divulge them here in order not to engage in an undue amount of exposure) are technically words, and might not be spotted by 99% of spectators as a bit out of place for Shelley's writing style, but as someone who is literally a professor of English literature and philosophy (and has taught Frankenstein,) there were a few that seemed a bit out of place to me.

2.) The text of the book looks largely unsuspicious to most, but to anyone at all familiar with Shelley's novel, several major structural aspects are immediately off, such as the fact that the book does not contain the frame narrative about Sir Robert Walton.

3.) One of the words in the long word list, which I will divulge here just for the sake of clarity - "vegetations" - borders on not even being a word. You will find that it's not listed in some dictionaries, and certainly isn't a word any trained writer of English would ever use. "Vegetation" is already a collective noun. A lot of vegetation is just that - a lot of vegetation. Varied vegetation is varied vegetation. The only context in which one would *ever* say "vegetations" would be perhaps in talking about whole different ecosystems, but in that case, the word "ecosystems" would generally be used. While some of the other "out of place" words are a small quibble, this one does bother me a little. I feel like if I performed this for my academic colleagues, for instance, any of them would arch their brows at the appearance of this pretty-much-not-a-word in my reveal.

There you have it, my three small nitpicks. Am I overthinking it?

On Jun 16, 2022, NeilS wrote:
My worst performing experience ever was when performing a book test using a known title and the assisting spectator said, ‘This isn’t (such and such a book)’ I hasten to add this was not Frankenstein but it has made me very careful about which books I do use and forcing words contained in the text. (I seem to remember one book test using a Victorian title that had ‘sunglasses’ as a key word.)

I am sure Kaleb has done a great job with Frankenstein but, when using a known published title, there is always a risk as I found out to my cost.

Neil