tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post2031856645132070453..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Option 3: Shelley's Definition of Post-HumanismAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-2208852599222426452009-02-05T08:44:00.000-05:002009-02-05T08:44:00.000-05:00"Polyvocal" - clever.What does it mean to say he i..."Polyvocal" - clever.<BR/><BR/>What does it mean to say he is having a conversation with "the abstract?" What is "the abstract?" I could see understanding it as a conversation between *two abstractions* (he and she), but I'm struggling with the other one.<BR/><BR/>Your definitions of "human" and posthuman are sensible and compact. I did wonder if, taken together, the first two paragraphs might have been compressed somewhat: they seem to be a prologue to your main argument.<BR/><BR/>"Being analogous to knowledge, the light that struck the composition of dead body parts is Shelley’s example of what Lyotard is talking about in the ‘He.’" -- This is an interesting thought, but not one that you make fully comprehensible. It is also rooted in a problematic reading of Shelley - e.g., Frankenstein is using human bodies as one of several sources of materials: "The dissecting room and the slaughter-house furnished many of my materials" (Chapter 5). Your exploration of the role of light here is underdeveloped - I'm really not sure what you're talking about.<BR/><BR/>The last several paragraphs - where you both argue that the creature is a demonstration of the possibility of the Lyotardian posthuman and its refutation - is simply underdeveloped. In what sense is the monster human, or posthuman? How (to push an obvious point) is that humanity or posthumanity related to gender? Was the monster's destruction necessary or contingent (which, to me, would ultimately help us understand whether this is a proclamation of or refutation of the posthuman).<BR/><BR/>This is an interesting piece, but its underdeveloped at the end, where it most matters, and perhaps overworked at the beginning - you spend too much time summarizing Lyotard for an essay which is ultimately about Shelley.Adam Johnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11588769281227456640noreply@blogger.com