tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post4752219462072724324..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Prompt 3: Frankenstein and the HumanAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-90220673069157932042013-09-07T11:47:20.925-04:002013-09-07T11:47:20.925-04:00Focusing on DNA only raises problems. For instanc...Focusing on DNA only raises problems. For instance, life then has no relationship with consciousness; a vat of fertilized eggs becomes as human as a city of people; a sample of someone's tissue may be as human as they themselves are. That doesn't mean you need to back down, of course - but you need to think things through a little and try to wrestle with some of the problems immediately raised by a definition like this one.<br /><br />More than halfway through your essay, you shift your ground: Shelley was really concerned with what constitutes a human "soul." You acknowledge the obvious problems of using DNA as your sole definition when they had no idea what DNA was in Shelley's time.<br /><br />In other words, you fully abandon your approach more than halfway through the essay. What follows is a host of generalizations, loosely connected to the novel, of what the human soul is and whether the monster has a human soul. None of this requires, or uses, any very particular knowledge of the text, nor at any point do you attempt to engage in any complications or complexities related to the human "soul" (for instance, can a being which can raise itself to adulthood in less than a year, among its many other talents, really be said to be unambiguously human in its soul - especially given its isolation?).<br /><br />In short: there is nothing resembling a sustained argument about the text here.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com