Hello class. My name is Favour Nwachukwu and today we will be discussing the ‘So What?’

If I was to guest lecture, I would probably feel most confident talking about how to construct a ‘so what’ statement and convey the ‘bigger picture’ through your writing. I think it is the most vital concept I have learned in this class all semester; it made me realize the importance of connecting what you are saying to the reader so that they can relate and actually care to continue reading. It is an integral aspect that should be present in all writing, no matter what the subject, so it is best to learn it sooner rather than later if you wish to be an effective writer. ***

To go about my guest lecture I would first, of course, explain what the ‘so what’ statement is and the different ways that it can be formatted. I would provide the students with various articles from magazines, newspapers, scholarly sources, etc. and have them see if they can locate the ‘so what’ statement and determine whether or not it was effective. Then to ensure that they are not just following a script (“This is important because…”), I would give them very obscure topics that not many people could ever possibly care about and see if they can devise a unique ‘so what’ structure that would make the reader interested though it seems it is completely unrelated to their life. And then we would end the class with an ice cream party because you’ve gotta end with a bang.

*** I made a so what statement without even realizing it. It really comes in handy everywhere.

In an introduction, I often times follow the basic model that they teach you in elementary school. Obviously I introduce what I will be talking about and then provide my supporting details that I will later expand upon within the body paragraphs. But if the paper is on an important figure, then I use the intro to set the stage for the life, accomplishments, and lasting legacy of the individual. In the conclusion, I do the exact same thing as in the intro, just worded differently.

I evaluated an article from the Emory Wheel entitled “The search to replace Wagner begins” by Emily Sullivan. The article basically announced that the process for replacing President Wagner has begun. The advisory committee will be solidifying their recommendations this month and presenting their proposal to the University Senate at their upcoming meeting. The Board of Trustees is responsible for choosing the president and questions concerning the matter from the SGA will be answered at the Senate meeting. Furthermore, SGA President Raj Tilwa expressed his desire to see more diverse representation such as a female president as apposed to the typical white male. The introduction does nothing more than state what is happening. It is pretty boring, but then again, it’s not a very exciting topic we’re talking about here. It grabs your attention by announcing that “the first stages…are underway” but then falls flat as it just details the method for how this is being done. It is very informative, which I assume was the motive, but quickly loses my interest and makes it a chore to continue reading.

I am undergoing a topic change. My new working topic (as of now) is an evaluation of how lack of privacy stifles individuality along with other harmful effects through the use of Super Sad True Love Story.

Introduction:

I will begin with a brief inclusion of background information as pertains to the book, followed by my thesis. Then my research question will come next along with a ‘they say, I say’ statement.

Body:

I will now include more background information to further establish a foundation for the paper. A lot of my body will focus on the passages where Lenny changes his behavior and likes to assimilate into the new digital culture. Namely, hiding his books when others are around, reading in secret, etc.

I will incorporate studies that have been done that link lack of privacy to conformity, depression, anxiety, etc. I will include examples from the book that demonstrate conformity such as everyone having an apparat and being looked down upon if you don’t have one or have an outdated one. The scene of the FAC will be evaluated to show the negative effects in had on Lenny’s self esteem. The governments privacy invading measures, such as the credit poles, will also be looked at along with the negative consequences it has.

I plan to use quotes from the studies relating to privacy, including the one i discussed in blog post 5. Ultimately I will relate the occurrences in the book to the real life occurrences of similar nature to bring the fictional book into today’s reality and create a ‘so what’ factor.

Conclusion:

Clearly answer my aforementioned research question with the evidence I have gathered.

Primary (revision of blog post #1):

In the “Eye in the Sky” podcast, one of the speakers on the topic deplores the idea of such an invasion of privacy saying, “There [is] no way you could trust government with this volume of information.” In making this comment, the speaker urges us to reevaluate the ramifications of this advanced technology and the amount of faith we have in the intentions of those who intend to use it.

Secondary (revision of blog post #5):

Kate Murphy further argues the more invisible effects of lack of privacy, including conformity and the stifling of individuality causing depression, anxiety, and the like. Murphy compares privacy and sleep saying that “just as being unconscious for a portion of the day is restorative, so is being unselfconscious.” The essence of Murphy’s argument is that people who want privacy aren’t trying to hide anything as might be assumed, but rather just want to hold on to themselves.

http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.emory.edu/stable/27511639?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=technology&searchText=and&searchText=frankenstein&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dtechnology%2Band%2Bfrankenstein%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone&seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents

The article I found raises the question of whether we should engage in new technological pursuits or advances just because we have the means of doing so. It brings in a medical aspect with the current controversy over the implementation of cloning. Though the act has many ethical drawbacks, scientists feel as if it is their duty to explore any possible leads that may present themselves. The scenario of- if the death of one person provides life for two people then the act should be condoned- is a means of justification. The article incorporated the example of the story of Frankenstein to highlight the quest for knowledge at all costs and how this often turns out detrimental. Along with Frankenstein, other examples were given to further illustrate the motives of human character such as: Adam and Eve who ate the forbidden fruit, the biblical story of Lot’s wife who turned back after being instructed not to and was transformed into a pillar of salt, Pandora who opened the box, and a few others. In all of these cases, curiosity and the desire for greater knowledge led to their ultimate downfall.

The author of the article doesn’t seem to reference other works or writers, but only presents several facts and evidence from technology/modern science and incorporates stories such as Frankenstein to, in a way, raise a question to begin the discussion. This article could be very effectively used to discuss the overwhelming power and innovation in technology that can be seen in any of the stories I later choose to base my paper on. It really introduces a valid question of when is enough, enough, and stresses humanity’s time long pursuit of forbidden knowledge, as well as depicting the advancement of technology in a negative light that results in less than desirable outcomes.

In “Constructing Connectedness: Gender, Sexuality, and Race in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein“, the author Jessica Hale made the argument derived from the book that society consisted of two “spheres”, domestic and public, in which women belonged to the former and men to the latter. In order for a man to be an effective husband and father, he had to completely abandon the public sphere of politics, academia, and the like in which women were not allowed or represented, suggesting that they were not capable of higher thought nor held the desire for adventure or public affairs. She also stated that the homosocial relationships between men house a large role in the novel. Men essentially could not find intellectual companionship with women but instead required another man for this kind of stimuli, once again placing women in the box of intellectual ineptitude. This conclusion was derived from the close reading of the line, “I desire the company of a man who could sympathize with me, whose eyes would reply to mine.” By pointing out how the eyes were commonly thought of as “pools of desire” and long gazes equated flirtation, Hale shows that the longing for a male intellectual companion was analogous to that of the erotic desire for a lover. Hale uses the secondary source of Berthold Schoene-Harwood’s writing. She refers to his work a few times but also builds upon it with her own interpretations and findings from the text to further establish her claims of homosocial relationships.

Unfamiliar terms: nuclear family, Oedipal, libidinal, sadomasochistic jouissance.       Google is always handy in tracking down definitions. I suppose contextual clues may be of some assistance as well. Though it is not commonly identified with this phrase, a nuclear family is simply a standard family unit consisting of parents and children. The definition of this term can be inferred from the line, “Implicit in the very structure of the nuclear family is a hierarchy headed by a father who provides for and protects his wife, and who has complete control over both her and their children.” But if that seemingly straightforward definition still leaves you with doubts, as it did I, well, as aforementioned- Google knows all.

The New York Times

“We Want Privacy, but Can’t Stop Sharing” by Kate Murphy

Published October 4, 2014

The article introduced the idea of how there is no such thing as privacy on the internet. What you post online can be used against you in the future; for example, keep you from getting a job. And it is difficult to argue for privacy when people readily share their entire lives via social networks. The article also argues the more invisible effects of lack of privacy stating that the knowledge of being watched promotes conformity and stifles individuality causing depression, anxiety, and the like. They made an analogy between privacy and sleep saying that “just as being unconscious for a portion of the day is restorative, so is being unselfconscious.” The people who want privacy aren’t trying to hide anything as might be assumed but rather just want to hold on to themselves.

This particular article relates to SSTLS in that there is also no such thing as privacy in their world. Though in the book, they’re not necessarily posting their personal information themselves, but it is still available for anyone to see and it is ultimately used against them such as in the bar seen with the FAC (pgs. 89-90) and in the mention of the poles around town that scan and show your credit score as you pass by (pg. 80). The section of the article explaining how surveillance suppresses individuality can be directly compared and proven by how Lenny tries to avoid broadcasting his love for books and keeps them hidden in an effort to assimilate to the expectations of society (pgs. 37, 78,144).

Pg. 156

In an attempt to show off his new, youthful girlfriend, Lenny eagerly escorts Eunice to Family Night with his friends and their partners. The six of them are all getting acquainted in the Cervix when Vishnu suddenly calls out. There is a break out riot taking place in Central Park. The inhabitants of the bar scramble for their äppäräti as recent photographs from the scene come streaming in. A family is sprawled across the ground, lifeless. Aziz, the unemployed bus driver, lies with a bullet hole in his forehead and eyes rolled to the inside of his head. Eighteen people shot and killed.

I chose this image because the scene within it depicts privilege (and also coincidentally takes place in a bar). It stood out to me that in the midst of all this darkness and death occurring, Lenny has this to say: “Finally, the fear and the empathy were replaced by a different knowledge. The knowledge that it wouldn’t happen to us…That we were of good stock.” Though he started out empathetic and fearful, Lenny’s emotions quickly transformed to ones of reassurance once his privilege kicked in and ensured him that nothing like that could ever happen to people like them. A similar form of privilege surfaced in Eunice earlier (pg. 146) when she was messaging her friend and telling of the “Low Net Worth Individuals” she witnessed in Tompkins Square. After one man by the name of David tried to make a connection with her by claiming “we’re all in this together”, Eunice thinks to herself, “I wish things were better for you, but we’re not all in this together.” (She must not have been an HSM fan.)