tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post8336722264832389981..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Revision 1 - Frankenstein Through the Walton's LensAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-80671621314372222832013-10-04T22:13:12.718-04:002013-10-04T22:13:12.718-04:00The 1st paragraph is very interesting but not enti...The 1st paragraph is very interesting but not entirely clear. This sentence is a particular problem: "The reader must shift his or her perspective away from a direct understanding of the narrative and instead approach the basic events and motives presented by Victor as story-telling devices directed towards Walton." Are you saying that we *should* do that? That we are *intended* to do that? What requires that we "must" do this? I basically like what you're doing, but there's a strange fuzziness here.<br /><br />I'm not totally decided, but I think that the 2nd paragraph is almost just a superior version of the 1st one. It's a good statement of your argument, but the two together (given their general, abstract level) are a little long. Make some narrative progress of your own!<br /><br />Here's a question which might develop your already interesting argument: "After hearing Victor's story Walton writes to Margaret, "It is terrible to reflect that the lives of all these men are endangered through me. If we are lost my mad schemes are the cause." (Shelley 246)." Are you arguing that Victor's rhetoric has succeeded? I think that's what you're saying, and at some level you're obviously right - I'd sure like your take on the passage where Victor seems to reject all his own prior advice, though. I'd also like your take on Walton's interaction with the monster...<br /><br />I very much like your turn to romanticism, but given Walton's own passion for Victor (twisting your argument, I might say his passion for Victor's rhetoric as such), I don't think the transition away from the conventions of romanticism has been made as neatly as you seem to think. Or are you arguing that the object of Victor's rhetoric is Walton's intellect, quite apart from the emotional connection Walton feels to him?<br /><br />The essay as a whole is a effective, and you make strong, effective use of research within it. The introduction was a little long-winded, but more importantly you duck under the parts of the text which might challenge you most - Victor's late rebellion against his own rhetoric, and Walton's experiences after Victor dies. Your approach is sound; if you revised again, I'd want to see you focus mainly on addressing the end of the novel in all its complexity - including the critical fact that we really are in Walton's POV then.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com