Option #1: The same as Option #1 last week.
Option #2: The same as Option #2 last week.
Option #3: Is Victor Frankenstein ultimately good or ultimately evil? If you decide that he's evil, explain when he crosses the line - when creating the monster? When abandoning the monster? When making a deal with the monster? If he's good, why do things end up so badly? The question may seem general, but you should make your paper very specific by focusing on - and quoting - precise moments in the text, and by being clear with your definitions (e.g. - what do good and evil mean for you, anyway?).
Option #4: Find a difficult passage in Haraway's essay and explain it. By difficult, I mean that it should be one of the more difficult passages in the essay, such that you really don't understand it at all at first. By explain, I mean you should analyze it it in detail to explain the sentence (or phrase, or paragraph) both by itself and in context. You may need to look some things up, maybe in an unabridged dictionary or a dictionary of philosophy; you may need to figure out who some philosopher or literary critic is as a starting point. Finally, once you understand it you should explain (or justify) why it's so hard. Why does she need to make a sentence (or paragraph, or phrase) so difficult?
Note: Since you've had the benefit of reading papers from last week, as well as commenting on them, expectations will certainly be higher this week, especially for options 1 & 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment