tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post7740720912654089825..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: A Frankenstein HumanAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-44451311254400625472014-01-19T14:45:08.541-05:002014-01-19T14:45:08.541-05:00There are various difficulties here.
First, you b...There are various difficulties here.<br /><br />First, you begin with a mistake - the belief that Frankenstein assembles the monster from body parts. This is a creation of Hollywood, and although you could infer it from the text of the book, it's a bit of a stretch. <br /><br />No part of this essay (except maybe the Burke section, where you summarize a little) reveals any knowledge of the text of the novel. You cite no passages, refer to no accurate information, and make absurd comparisons (between an umbilical cord and the "alchemical" means of creation? Really?)<br /><br />Now to Burke. Why you use this definition is a complete mystery. It's an interesting definition, and I have had at least one student capably use it in the past, but your use of it borders on the incoherent. If you are interested in it, you should be unpacking it over the course of a whole essay, not rushing through it in a paragraph.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-46358469756956360592014-01-18T01:08:18.733-05:002014-01-18T01:08:18.733-05:00I very much enjoyed reading your take on the Frank...I very much enjoyed reading your take on the Frankenstein’s monster as a human prompt, and I appreciate how you addressed the prompt from both the biological and cognitive perspectives, as they both are significant to look at. Specifically, I really liked the idea of the creation process of the monster being compared to human gestation, and if you were to expand upon this entry, this is an intriguing point that would be worth adding to! However, I wasn’t totally clear on your argument in the previous paragraph regarding the “conception” and what you were trying to say there, maybe try to make your point a little more obvious there. Later on I thought your deconstruction of the definition of a human in the context of the mind exceptionally well supported each part of the definition (which was detailed and complex to begin with) very clearly. A few notes you may want to consider: add in-text citations referencing the specific pages in your sources, briefly summarize the main ideas of your two definitions in your introduction paragraph, and try to limit the number of questions used in your arguments, as statements will likely be more effectively assertive. Overall, I think you’re spot-on as far as addressing the prompt, the paper is well organized, and your comparisons are well-supported!<br />-CourtneyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02274352584233527500noreply@blogger.com