tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post2138788033854107847..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Revision 1: Dennis MaddenAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-52892221483089693552014-02-15T12:07:28.755-05:002014-02-15T12:07:28.755-05:00Its vs. it's in the very first sentence! Othe...Its vs. it's in the very first sentence! Other than that, I like your approach in the 1st paragraph, but you could have been a little more clear about what you're actually doing: you are arguing that humanity is not a useful category, and should be replaced with platform-neutral personhood. You just could have been a little more direct, is all.<br /><br />"As you can see, continual self-awareness can exist on multiple platforms."<br /><br />I'd correct this: we can imagine personhood existing on multiple platforms, but we haven't actually seen it yet except in flesh-and-blood people (or maybe supernatural entities, depending on your point of view).<br /><br />Your long paragraph about awareness vs. self-awareness, and how we see both in the Monster, is generally quite good, but it's not clear where you're going with it. Are we simply pointing out that the Monster is a person, or do you want to *do* something with his personhood, making it into the foundation for a bigger argument?<br /><br />Your move into Buddhism is both compelling and underdeveloped. Understanding the monster through Buddhism (as you present it) seems productive: he is distinguished by his ambivalent desire either to enter into another mode of being, or to not be at all. So I strongly endorse this paragraph, and yet wanted you to work a lot harder to connect your ideas together, or to stick to one idea. If this is an essay about a Buddhist concept of personhood applied to frankenstein, good! But make it into that consistently (incidentally, that essay could be fundamentally an argument for Buddhism as much as an argument for a particular reading of Frankenstein). Your own definition of Personhood is excellent and provocative - but it demands some rethinking/restructuring of the rest of the essay in accordance with it.<br /><br />"This characteristic ignorance supports the Creature’s possession of personhood through human condition." -- this material is fantastic. As predicted, this is almost becoming more of an argument for Buddhism than *about* Frankenstein, although it is both.<br /><br />The ending, in which awareness in Frankenstein is presented as a *problem*, is a great short bridge between the novel and Buddhism.<br /><br />Overall: This essay developed into something really distinctive and interesting, with a compelling reading of the novel through a very distinctive lens. Two problems stand out to me.<br /><br />1. How could you rewrite the first few paragraphs in a way that prepares us well for your actual argument? In other words, there was room for another round of revision within this revision.<br />2. You have shown us that a more or less Buddhist concept of personhood is extremely applicable to frankenstein. But what is your purpose? To get us to read Frankenstein through kind of spiritual lens? To advocate for that spiritual lens? Or to understand Shelley as being perhaps under the influence of Eastern thought (not necessary an absurd idea - that's why I bring it up).<br /><br />Another revision, ideally, would address both of these issues, beginning the essay much more clearly and doing better at articulating the *value* of this viewpoint.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com