If I were given the chance to teach Freshmen about writing in Sci-Fi field, I would like to teach them how to make a “They Say I Say” structure. I personally feel that being able to respond to  another idea is extremely important and essential for writing, especially in Sci-Fi field. Sci-Fi works are naturally bonded with real life sciences and imagination. However, neither of these two elements can work without the other. As authors, we have to learn to balance between realistic values and our own perspectives. By using a “They Say I Say” structure, authors can effectively show readers their thesises and the reason they write. In addition, referring to others’ works can also increase the credibility of our own papers much as Sci-Fi authors implement real-life technologies to make audiences feel that their stories are based on real life.

I have designed several activities so that students will get engaged in class. First of all, I will let students make a Pecha Kucha presentation since I really love the one we did this year. I did not do perfectly on my presentation since I failed to apply close reading skills. Based on my mistake, I will ask my students to focus on close reading. I would not necessarily ask them to pick a physical object, but I will ask them to pick a critic who they are interested in. I will ask them to pick 20 quotes from the critics’ works and comment on those quotes. They can either support or refute those quotes but within 20 seconds. In this way, students need to figure out what is the most important part of their quotes and thus respond to it. Furthermore, I will let them write a formal research paper based on this presentation. They can have different topics, but they have to include at least two quotes they used in their presentation. In this way, students need to think how they can build their essay around evidences and thus learn to use “They Say I Say” structure.

I’ve learnt a lot from this course. One of the most significant outcomes is my critical thinking ability and also the ability to either validate or contradict others’ ideas. I would like to refer to one of my previous blog works: a reflection on “Eye in the Sky”.  In that blog post, I briefly summarized the content of the podcast “Eye in the Sky”. Based on the summary, I then took two perspectives and wrote two comments which intentionally contradicts each other. It is the first time I’ve tried to contradict myself. Through this learning process, I was thoroughly inspired. By contradicting myself, I found it especially easy to see the frauds in my own statements. In addition, I learnt that summarizing and understanding others’ ideas before making a comment or analyzation. Otherwise, it is likely to misinterpreting others’ ideas and thus confusing readers. In this specific blog post, I implemented several templates I learnt from our text book “They Say I Say”. For instance, I contradicted my previous opinion by saying “he argues that people should not implement this surveillance system because of the potential risk it creates regardless of its efficiency on solving crimes and keeping the city in order.” In this sentence, I summarized my previous opinion not only to demonstrate that I understand the previous passage, but also prepared myself to refute the previous opinions. Instead of using pale statements, I refuted the previous examples used in the previous passage by pointing out the frauds in those examples. It is doubtlessly easier for readers to follow my article this way since I created an interacting structure. Readers can easily go back to the previous passage and compare the differences between these two perspectives. Furthermore, after providing examples, I had my own explanation and analyzation afterwards. Writers, especially beginners like me, tend to assume that readers will understand their ideas; however, this is usually not true. It is significantly important for writers to include a concise explanation and framing about every example they pick from other sources. By summarizing, analyzing and also framing, writers can vividly portray their ideas to readers.

The passage I chose was from PACE weekly 11/9/15. It is an email sent by the PACE program and briefly introduces what first-year students are expected to do for the whole week.

The introduction paragraph is:

“Advising weeks are well underway for Spring 2016 pre-registration. You should have already reached out to your PACE Faculty Advisor (and hopefully already met, or are scheduled to meet) to discuss your fall semester and plans for spring. If you are having difficulty contacting your PACE faculty advisor, please email Ms. McDowell (tmcdowe [at] emory [dot] edu) to let her know. You may also schedule a meeting with an OUE Academic Advisor by logging in to ASST (http://www.emory.edu/asst). Use the checklist below to guide your Spring 2016 registration process.”

The first sentence serves as a brief opening of the paragraph. It indicates what this email is for, in this case, “Spring 2016 pre-registration”. The second sentence uses the word “should” and “already” to create an atmosphere of anxiety. This sentence will make students who have already finished their task feel rewarding since they do not have to feel nervous for the rest of the week. On the other hand, for those who have not accomplished their tasks, this sentences will make them feel uneasy and thus urging them to read the rest of the article to find out what they need to do. The third sentence generally introduce a “concede” statement. It offers a solution to students who have difficulty contacting their advisors and provides an authority who they can turn to. The author does not assume that everyone has finished their task; however, the author does not say anything like “it is okay for you to not complete your task”, which will crucially weaken the thesis statement. As a result, the author chooses to concede by providing an alternating solution in sentence three and four. By this, the author not only provides students a second chance but also maintain the thesis statement convincing. The last sentence is a “so what” statement which explains the main purpose of this email.

In this introduction, the author does not include a thesis statement since it’s not a formal writing. Nevertheless, the author’s conceding technique is significantly outstanding, and I feel I can adapt the same strategy in my research paper. In a good introduction, a conceding statement always exists. It is hard to write a conceding statement without weakening the thesis; nonetheless, a well-written conceding statement will make readers feel the author is methodically organized.

In my research paper, I would like to demonstrate how Mary Shelly teaches people to master technology through humanity via the novel Frankenstein. My main theme is humanity, and my thesis statement is also built around that theme. I would like to give a brief introduction about how people generally view this book as an “anti-technology” novel. After that, I will bring in the scholars’ ideas and indicate the difference. I will then implement my thesis statement in order to show my perspective.

After the introduction, I will first talk about how the monster is driven by Victor’s personalities and characteristics in order to show how humanity can lead artificial intelligence. I will choose a passage from the novel which I haven’t decided which and analyze it. Furthermore, I will quote from Vargish’s article to introduce the idea of seeing the monster as the extension of Victor’s core values. By fusing Vargish’s article and the novel, I will conclude that technologies are only aids to extend humanities instead of eliminating. However, I will mention that the public usually see technologies as potential dangers which contradicts most of the scholars’ ideas.

I will explain why public and scholars think differently by quoting from Nerlich’s article about how fictional works foster the fear among public. In order to support this idea, I will quote the passage about the appearance of the monster from the novel. I will mention how people judge the monster by its appearance instead of its characteristics to create a parallelism between people in the novel and in our society. In order to further emphasize how fictional works cause people panic about technology, I will quote from Orlin’s essay and criticize some points he made by referring to Nerlich’s article.

Last but not least, I will quote from Julian’s article and point out that the lack of humanity is the major issue that causes artificial creatures to become rampage. I will also use Victor’s story and show how his lack of responsibility and humanity causes the monster’s rage and thus leading to destruction.

Primary Source:

“The page I chose was page 88. On that page, Lenny and his friends FAC (From A Community) with a group of ladies in a bar and compare their information such as “Fuckability”, “Personality” and “Sustainability”. This scene makes me feel dystopian not only because of the lack of privacy but also the void of humanity. Human beings are supposed to contact with each other through words and gestures.”

I integrate this quotation from primary source directly since I want to introduce the scene to readers. However, this way of introduction might seem too abrupt and fails to provide enough content. I quote this part of the story in order to draw a relationship between the picture I chose for that assignment and the novel.

Secondary Source

“In Jessica Hale’s article “Constructing Connectedness: Gender, Sexuality and Race in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein”, she reveals four “relational trajectories” known as familial, homosocial, sexual, and racial in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein by including and referencing to contemporary criticisms. The author then suggests that “these four levels of human interconnectedness” oppose the stability which the society “sought to establish” among families and races in the nineteenth century and thus exposing the fragility behind.”

I refer to this author’s article in order to demonstrate the relationship between the author’s article and my essay proposal. The quotation is essentially the author’s thesis statement, which explicitly expresses the author’s major idea. The way I quote this quotation is fusing the author’s original content with my own words. This way is rather effective and vivid instead of quoting the author’s words verbatim.

Rework

Primary

In Gary Shteyngart’s novel Super Sad True Love Story, the author attributes “Fuckability”, “Personality” and “Sustainability” as quantitative data to human beings. Basically, Shteyngart admonish that the seemingly easy way to socialize corrupts our society and eliminates humanity.

Secondary

Writing in the journal “Constructing Connectedness: Gender, Sexuality and Race in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein”, Jessica Hale complains about “the stability which the society sought to establish among families and races in the nineteenth century”. In making this comment, Jessica demonstrates the essence of her argument is to expose the fragility behind those superficial harmony.

https://web-a-ebscohost-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=57b0955c-8d79-41a7-8780-083cd43dbb56%40sessionmgr4002&vid=13&hid=4214

The article I chose was Technology and Impotence in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein written by Thomas Vargish. I picked this article because it was relevant to my topic about how humanity overcomes the abused technology. In this article, Vargish refers to plenty of science fiction works from different fields in order to demonstrate audiences how people nowadays excessively emphasize the importance of keep the development of technology under control. Vargish points out that a majority of science fiction works nowadays tends to create a monstrous creature for horrifying elements. However, this approach also fosters the fear from audiences towards technology. In Vargish’s article, he suggests that people should not view technology as a value that is equivalent to love, passion and intelligence. Instead, people should apply technology as an aid to extend those values and further develop humanity. The author proposes to analyze the text with a well-known neurologist, Sigmund Freud’s idea of the “self as composed of ego, superego, and id”. By using the theory Freud discovered, the author is able to identify the relationship between Frankenstein, Elizabeth and the monster as “ego, superego, and id” respectively. Freud’s idea fused with Vargish’s argument perfectly and thus strengthen his thesis of using technology, in this case, the monster as a tool to express one’s own feelings and extend those feelings to an extreme level. Vargish does not clearly state whether he agrees with Freud’s idea or not, but he introduces Freud’s idea in order to support his major arguments.

This article drags my attention because it is significantly unique and innovative. The approach that the author manages to take is totally different from any other critic’s. He does not focus on how human beings should be careful with technology. On the other hand, he analyzes the issues aroused by technology through a different path. Not only his methodic structure, but also his idea inspires me thoroughly. I feel my idea is also not a traditional one, and Vargish’s article enables me to expand my idea without worrying about any traditional expectation. Furthermore, Vargish’s main argument states that people should not blame the overdeveloped technology for destructions and thus fearing science. This argument supports my idea of humanity overcomes excessive technology since we both suggest that people can eventually manipulate and control technology through humanity.

In Jessica Hale’s article “Constructing Connectedness: Gender, Sexuality and Race in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein”, she reveals four “relational trajectories” known as familial, homosocial, sexual, and racial in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein by including and referencing to contemporary criticisms. The author then suggests that “these four levels of human interconnectedness” oppose the stability which the society “sought to establish” among families and races in the nineteenth century and thus exposing the fragility behind. For instance, the author conveys the idea of gendered dichotomy through the domesticity of Victor’s family. She declares that the excessive care from Alphonse, Viktor’s father upon his mother is a representative example of gender discrimination. Although the scene creates a harmonic impression of Viktor’s family, the undue submission of Caroline, Viktor’s mother demonstrates the stereotyped image of a female character in the nineteenth century. With a submissive attitude, Caroline surrenders to social expectations and thus isolating herself from the “outside world”. The author illustrates her point of gendered dichotomy with this passage and emphasizes the sexism behind the seemingly stable domesticity. In addition, the author proves her idea of racial discriminations lurking in the novel with Anne Mellor’s criticism in order to highlight how politicians from the nineteenth century identified the monster with racial terms. People from the past not only viewed the monster with speciesism but also racism. In the novel, people clearly recognize that the monster has “the shape of a man”, but they refuse to consider the monster as human being due to his “physical differences” which is a typical example of racism. In order to enhance her argument from different perspectives, the author indicates that Mellor has associated the monster with a “racial threat” as well, noting the way in which the politicians identified the slaves with Frankenstein’s monster.

There are many words that sound unfamiliar to me in this article such as “psychoanalytic” and “interconnectedness”. I have different approaches to identify these words based on how unfamiliar the word is to me. For example, a word like “psychoanalytic” sounds really unfamiliar to me, so I go to Merriam-Webster, which is an online dictionary and look this word up. This word basically means a psychological or mental analyzation. However, for a word like “interconnectedness”, which sounds less unfamiliar to me, I look for roots in that word. In this case, “inter” means connected and exchanging, “ness” is just a suffix for nouns. After identifying the roots, I am able to guess the meaning of the words, which in this case means a synergistic connection.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/09/business/fear-of-the-year-2000-bug-is-a-problem-too.html?pagewanted=all

The article I chose was from New York Times in Feb.9 1999.  The article briefly described the “Y2K” problem, and expressed people’s fear towards that problem.  “Y2K” problem is an abbreviation of “Year 2000 Problem”. Computers designed in 20^th century usually marked dates in two digits since the designers assumed the year would start with “19”; however, several programmers noticed that the whole system would shut down at the first day of 2000 because computers would recognize the year as “1900” and cause critical errors. Rumors had been spreading all over the society, and people started to go on strike since they felt the whole society would collapse. The article aimed to persuade people to stop fearing the breakdown of technology and argued that human beings could live their lives perfectly without the existence of computer systems. This article reminds me of chapter “Five-Jiao Men” in Super Sad True Love Story. In this chapter, the protagonist Lenny demonstrates how depressed the society becomes after losing the technologies. People “couldn’t see a future without their apparati” (270) since they feel they have lost connection with the society. We, as readers, felt this was exaggerating and pathetic; nevertheless, if “Y2K” problem actually occurred, our society might become as depressed as the novel describes. Fortunately, advanced programmers around the world solved the “Y2K” problem before hitting 21^st century and saved the society from falling apart. Nevertheless, I feel it is extremely lamentable for people to fear the loss of technology. I concede that technologies help people in many ways and facilitate the development of society; nonetheless, human beings should never lose hope for the future no matter whether the technologies will crash or not. Gray Shteyngart demonstrates readers how important it is to maintain humanity and to avoid abusing technologies through the destruction of the society in the novel. The social influence caused by “Y2K” problem also supported his idea of avoid abusing technologies. People should never lose hope even if “Y2K” happened. We are humans, and we are supposed to handle and operate technologies. The society will not collapse unless the technologies completely dominate us just like the way Gray Shteyngart portrays in his novel.

The page I chose was page 88. On that page, Lenny and his friends FAC (From A Community) with a group of ladies in a bar and compare their information such as “Fuckability”, “Personality” and “Sustainability”. This scene makes me feel dystopian not only because of the lack of privacy but also the void of humanity. Human beings are supposed to contact with each other through words and gestures. Although I admit that sometimes appearance is a relatively important part during conversations, people should be able to value these characteristics by themselves and by their own standards instead of a programmed software. The way people socialize in the novel is dystopian since no human-like communication is involved. All they have to do is to scan each other’s face, and the software will automatically pair them up.  I chose this picture to represent the concept of that scene. In this picture, a young lady is attached with several price tags. The combination of technical data and human body symbolizes the techno-orientalism in the novel. Even though the main characters in this scene are non-Asians, it still demonstrates the idea of attributing perfection with technical species. A similar idea is conveyed through this photo. This young lady is considered as a product instead of a human being due to her beauty. The title of this photo is “How Much am I Worth to You”. Sadly, no one should ever need a price tag or any statistics to judge another person. This concept of judging people through a standardized valuing system is pathetic and thoroughly dystopian. Furthermore, the facial expression of this young lady in the photo expresses her sadness. With the lightning effect, I assume that the author wants to demonstrate a depressed feeling since valuing others with price tags is woeful. In this case, the depressed emotion is vivid even though we as audience clearly know that this lady in the picture is just acting. It is cruel to imagine living in a real society where people judge others by a sets of data.