tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post3303148442920998301..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Did Philip K. Dick Dream of Herbert Marcuse? - Revision 1 by RJ SepichAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-8103456428211099972013-02-17T11:41:27.102-05:002013-02-17T11:41:27.102-05:00RJ
Your introduction is a little vague. Does it ...RJ<br /><br />Your introduction is a little vague. Does it really serve a clear purpose?<br /><br />In the 2nd paragraph you zero in nicely on a very important and applicable moment in Marcuse. This is a promising reading of that text. This is followed by an able use of a philosophical text (no retreating from Marcuse's difficulties for you- you engage with those difficulties, by turning to the inroduction to the Marcuse reader).<br /><br />Your discussion of Marcuse extends over several paragraphs. Both your research and your understanding of Marcuse are good; I have no complaints, and much praise, for the details of your reading here. The only issue - but possibly a major one - is that this is beginning to seem like an explication of Marcuse. There are worse things to be doing - to show that you understand and can engage with Marcuse in some complexity is *good* - but your goals and ideas re: PKD have disappeared for a large part of the essay, and in fact this barely seems like an essay at all. What are you *doing* with Marcuse?<br /><br />I liked this phrase a lot, and I sure wouldn't have minded a whole essay written around it: "it shouldn’t take too much thought to realize that by making his characters act with reverence and respect towards living things, his rhetorical point is actually the exact opposite;" Without exaggerating too much, that's an interesting and fertile beginning point to a discussion about PKD in relationship with Marcuse.<br /><br />Your use of Warrick is good, but incomplete. What do I mean? I mean that you have an argument about one-dimensional, incorrect use of technology in both Marcuse and PKD; you also have an argument (maybe borrowed, but whatever) about the incompleteness of Deckard and Isidore as characters. What would take this essay from a collection of promising and well-begun pieces to an excellent whole would be a clear argument (which would impact the introduction most of all) bringing these parts together. <br /><br />You end on a rather vague note about unheaded warnings. You could have made it more precise by focusing on ways in which Deckard/Isidore's one-dimensional lives have continued or worsened today.<br /><br />Here's how I see it: you want to argue that Isidore and Deckard are fractured/incomplete because they lead one-dimensional lives (in Marcuse's sense), which accurately reflects how *we* actually lead our lives. But you don't actually make all of those pieces fit neatly together yet, in this draft, despite good research and strong passages along the way.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com