tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post152178381177833802..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Prompt #4: Dick and MarcuseAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-72803053573922127832012-01-28T17:15:56.405-05:002012-01-28T17:15:56.405-05:00I think you did a good job at looking at two diffe...I think you did a good job at looking at two different aspects, but I think if you choose to revise this essay, you might consider focusing on just one. That way, you can either go in depth with the false consciousness or in depth with the irrational rationality. Because right now they're a little broad for both.<br /><br />So overall, nice job at discussing two different topics, but I would suggest choosing the one that you find most enticing to expand upon for a revision.Amy Friedenbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09660818041533751952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-79814066663268697022012-01-28T12:26:56.907-05:002012-01-28T12:26:56.907-05:00What's good here? This is an able and relativ...What's good here? This is an able and relatively compact unpacking of some of the ways in which we might productively relate Marcuse and PKD. You do a fine job with both irrational rationalism and with false consciousness, more so with the former than the latter - your discussion of false consciousness, while able, perhaps should ideally include some discussion of what Deckard's "true" consciousness is, or ought to be (one might argue that Iran or Isidore are much closer to articulating a true consciousness - although there's also a lot of relevant material at the end).<br /><br />The thing I most question here is the decision to tackle both true/false consciousness and rational irrationalism. You do rather well with both, but think of what you could have done if you'd focused on one - dug into true as well as false consciousness, or done more, perhaps to relate rational irrationalism to our own world (in other words - yes, we can see Marcuse as articulating PKD's idea, or vice versa, and that's good - but what, in turn, should that mean to us?).<br /><br />In other words, I think if you'd focused on one topic rather than two, you could have done much more to begin drawing conclusions, which ideally should be your goal.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com