tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post60305392993597247..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: "An Heir of Power" - Taylor Hochuli: Blog Revision #1, Revision of Essay #1Adamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-78424926686907426302013-02-17T16:45:11.955-05:002013-02-17T16:45:11.955-05:00The intro is a little long, but I certainly like t...The intro is a little long, but I certainly like the idea about Clerval. Good.<br /><br />In the second paragraph you cover lots of good material, but your argument about the relationship between their social classes and their respective approaches to power could be clarified. My understand is that it's something like this: Clerval's basically middle-class upbringinging teaches him to restrain his ambitions; Frankenstein's aristocratic upbringing teaches him to melodramatically expand them. I think I'm pretty close, but in any case I'd like to see a clearer statement of your argument *from you*.<br /><br />Inheritor vs. Acquirer. Good use of research. I'm not sure if it really supports your argument - I'm interested to see how this develops.<br /><br />Your introduction of the idea of fatherly acceptance is fine, but it's a topic worth pursuing (or perhaps not bringing up in the first place). I'd like to see their interaction in Ireland, for instance, and on the journey back, along with the fuller discussion of Victor's bethrothal to Elizabeth. It's too big of a topic to do briefly, I think.<br /><br />Let me play Devil's advocate re: Clerval. Isn't the flip side of his greater self-control that he achieves far less? That is, Victor achieves things nobody has accomplished before, whereas Clerval is simply gradually preparing to be an imperial functionary. Is this an argument for bureacratic, middle-class normalcy? Very likely it is - I actually think the argument is quite interesting - but I'd like to see some acknowledgement for the Romantic, charismatic force of Victor's goals and achievements.<br /><br />The turn to real-world children of power at the end works (well, the celebrity examples are pretty trivial - you're getting into Buster Friendly and his Friendly Friends territory - but the later ones work).<br /><br />Your discussion of Clerval's good death vs. Victor's bad one is good; your later discussion of Victor's persistent egocentricity is perhaps better. "In a world where he can have whatever he wants, Victor pursues to break the only barrier that’s existed to him, that of the natural world." I liked that a lot. One thing bugged me at the end, perhaps too much. It seemed that evaluating and discussing Clerval's role as Victor's nurse here should have been tremendously important - not doing more with it seems like a huge omission, especially because it would help turn your argument for Clerval away from being a defense of mediocrity (which might itself ben an ok approach) toward being a defence of decency. In other words, I think your argument is basically well made, but that this could have greatly strengthened it.<br /><br />Other than that, my main desire here would be for somewhat more compressed prose: it wouldn't be hard to make this just as effective with, say, 20% less words. Good work. Note that throughout my comments I'm mostly pushing back a little against your argument. That's because you have a sufficiently interesting and nuanced approach to be worth arguing *with*.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com