tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post6268453970802844180..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Implications of "Neuromancer" Through HeideggerAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-40576540989340924842014-02-01T02:24:34.814-05:002014-02-01T02:24:34.814-05:00Jess,
To improve your argument, consider the quot...Jess,<br /><br />To improve your argument, consider the quote you use from “The Question Concerning Technology” The quote you use doesn’t quite introduce you thesis or support it strongly. To remedy the problem, you would either need to use a different quote, or make the rest of the paper more relevant to this quote. Another way to improve your argument would be to focus on how it is significant that our cybernetic world could become like the Neuromancer universe, as oppose to centralizing that it could.<br /><br />What I would want to see more of in your paper is developing the examples you introduce. For example, you would want to expand on the topic of the public having a permanent connection to technology and the web. I appreciate that you help introduce your interpretation of Heidegger’s quotes. I would want to see more relation between what you interpret from Heidegger, and what you associate it with in Neuromancer and the real world.<br /><br />Something you should cut back on is the points you are making in the first paragraph. Perhaps you could use your examples, but you will need to refine the associated argument to fit what you to argue.<br /><br />Some final notes I have are…<br /> <br />Your conclusion really helped me to figure out what you wanted to argue. I could see how you were close to arguing it, but you will need to work on making the whole paper towards one argument<br /> <br />Your conclusion is fairly strong. I’m not saying to ignore revising it, especially if you refocus your argument on something else.<br /><br />Good luck with your revisionAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08148543095193137770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-87727225529983556652014-01-31T20:31:34.712-05:002014-01-31T20:31:34.712-05:00I think that fate (whether in a Heideggarian sense...I think that fate (whether in a Heideggarian sense or not) is a good thing to think about in *Neuromancer*, so I do like the topic. I do think there's some odd slippage in your introduction, though - just because a work is about the future doesn't necessarily mean that it's concerned with fate, does it? If you want to argue that Neuromancer is focused upon fate, you should do so more explicitly, I think.<br /><br />I don't understand what you are doing with H. in the 2nd paragraph. Heidegger here is interested in the fact that physics has certain assumptions which are *fundamental* to it, and that it therefore cannot abandon or get outside of - in particular, the idea that objects, forces, and their interactions are always calculable. I don't understand what this has to do with the ubiquity of technology in *Neuromancer*. Maybe you are implicitly assuming that Heidegger is interesting in the ubiquity of physics/calculation - but he's interested in something beyond that: its totalizing worldview.<br /><br />The third paragraph seems to move in the direction of arguing that Wintermute has something to do with the fate of technology (or of the essence of technology?). I'm fine with this approach - I like it, even - but it needs to be handled more rigorously, through details. This essay, then, could/should be about the idea that Wintermute = technological destiny. That would be a rather difficult and ambitious argument, but also focused and very interesting.<br /><br />Overall: Sometimes you move toward making a specific argument about Neuromancer. To me, you seem to be edging toward an argument about fate & technology. But sometimes you retreat into something much vaguer and less interesting - the simple and familiar observation that technology has a lot of control over our ideas. If you revise, you want to strip out all the generalizations and really draw out the more interesting & precise ideas which are beginning to emerge here.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com