tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post6484679153979802958..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Final Project Draft: Narrative Creates Technology.Adamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-20014155706166930872008-11-25T15:43:00.000-05:002008-11-25T15:43:00.000-05:00You make generalization after generalization here,...You make generalization after generalization here, claim after undefended claim. Individually, these claims aren't the end of the world. For, claiming that science fiction was originally known as "scientific romance" makes the implicit - but not universally held! - assumption that Wells is the creator of the genre. The problem is that you make many such claims and assumptions, and I'm not sure *why*. It would be better to focus on something narrower and more easily defended. Note the absence of a clear thesis statement in the first paragraph, for instance.<BR/><BR/>A perfect example of the vagueness which plagues this paper is in the beginning of the third paragraph. "The reason for it lay in the evolution of human culture itself. " What is "it" here? I honestly have no idea - which means that I have no idea what you're doing, period.<BR/><BR/>I don't understand what you're saying about modernism and post-modernism, although I suspect that it's important.<BR/><BR/>Four paragraphs in, and you're still only introducing your topic - it's far from clear what you'll be saying on any particular topic.<BR/><BR/>Your paragraphs on Asimov aren't really saying anything. What do you want to do with Asimov? What are you trying to argue, or prove? What elements of his books interests you? <BR/><BR/>Overall: You skip from topic to topic without any real strategy that I can see. You are interested in Wells, Asimov, and Dick, among others; you are interested in the idea that the media is the driving force behind innovation, in a (post)modernist way. You are interested in the primacy of fictional ideas over their real-world articulation. All of this sketches out an interesting field within which you are working - but as an essay, it borders on being incoherent. There is nothing proved and defended here; in fact, there is hardly anything asserted. You don't use any research, nor any *details* from the many texts you cite in passing. This needs a much narrower focus and a clearer argument. If you want to demonstrate that the media (say, Asimov) is a driving force behind innovation, your first job is to *prove* it -- show how and why Asimov was the driving force. Clearly establish your argument, then convince us that it's correct!Adam Johnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11588769281227456640noreply@blogger.com