Jonny O’Brien Blog Post #12

If I were to guest lecture a concept for this class, it would be about integrating quotes. This topic of writing is something that I feel comfortable doing, from introducing the quote to explaining it. I feel like I can easily summarize the relative plot points leading up to the quote, use the quote, and then explain the quote’s significance to my argument. Therefore, I feel like I can explain this topic to others and help guide them through any troubles with the process.

The first thing I would need to explain is how the setup and analysis works. To do this, I would show a sample of a correct way to integrate a quote and three incorrect ways to integrate it, taking out proper setup, proper analysis, and both in each so there is a clear understanding of what each part needs. This lesson wouldn’t be focused on which quotes are better to use than other quotes, but that could be a lesson on its own.

To reinforce all of these ideas, I would have the class break up into groups, just like we have done, and search their texts for quotes. Each group would be assigned a different prevailing theme from the book to support, and each person in those groups would be responsible for finding their own quote and framing it. After everyone in the group finishes writing, they would go around and read how they integrated the quote they chose. After a person goes, the other members of the group will determine if the quote was properly integrated and suggest revisions where needed. Finally, the groups would choose the best integration that one of the members had and read it to the class to reaffirm how to integrate quotes and hear the different styles of how one person introduced or analyzed the quote compared to another.

 

Jonny O’Brien Blog Post #11

One project that underwent several changes was my proposal and annotated bibliography. It was born out of Blog Post #7, a post in which I researched an article relating to Frankenstein titled “The Monster in a Dark Room: Frankenstein, Feminism, and Philosophy” and the potential arguments I would make with it. However, I still had ideas that I jotted down on my computer, from class discussion points that stuck with me to ideas swirling in my head, that I wanted to explore. In order to contemplate these ideas, I met with my professor outside of class and bounced ideas off of her until we finally came to a solid idea with which I could manage. When I began my proposal, I still had to contemplate which ideas I had accumulated with my professor were cohesive and formed a proper argument. To aid with this, I began researching sources before completing my proposal. As I researched sources, I developed arguments and counterarguments that I could potentially use, then cited them and annotated them as I incorporated them into my proposal. The proposal itself slowly focused in on what I wanted to write about, but even when I finished some things still weren’t clear. I had been sure to focus on writing techniques that we had discussed in class, such as a “They say, I say” statement for my objective, but peer-reviews allowed me to see what I needed to clear up for my rough draft. My professor also gave me feedback independent of my peers, which highlighted other aspects of my proposal that were good and that were needing revision. This one project was a long process, but was necessary in the scheme of my final paper.

 

Jonny O’Brien Blog Post #10

For this blog post I will refer back to an article I previously wrote about: “Stop Googling. Let’s Talk” by Sherry Turkle. I will be analyzing her introduction to her opinion piece printed in the New York Times and seeing which strategies I can then integrate into my own writing.

First, Turkle begins with setting a scene to familiarize the reader with the argument she is presenting. The first words are “COLLEGE students”, followed by an accurate description of how college students act with technology and split attention: focusing on a friend in person while texting at the same time. Whether or not the reader participates in conversation this way, this is a common sight to see in twenty-first century America. The next sentence is an explanation of background information, with a hinted mocking tone of ignorant youth as she talks about how they explain they get away with partial attention due to hiding texting in middle school classes. Finally, Turkle ends the paragraph with how college students are able to be with their friends and “elsewhere”. The follow-up paragraph includes data on how often adults use phones at social events and also how most feel it takes away from the event.

Overall, this introduction is engaging yet bland. There is enough detail to grab the reader’s attention through a small anecdote and mocking tone. Oh, those silly kids and their phones. It has enough weight to make a reader pay attention to the next, more important paragraph about studies on phones and attention. The anecdote is also focused in topic, not being randomly assigned to grab attention and instead focusing as a transition from the real world to the argument in the article. However, the anecdote itself is too general to hold for more than the three sentences that compose it. I want to use the focus that Turkle uses, but at the same time be engaging enough, since my introduction will be considerably longer.

 

Jonny O’Brien Blog Post #9

My essay will surround Frankenstein’s story as a way to leave a legacy, especially showing him as an unreliable narrator. In the introduction, I will open with how Frankenstein hides facts and weaves a story around them, as well as contradictions between the monster’s appearance and Frankenstein’s descriptions of it. I will declare him an unreliable narrator and define what that means. Then, with swift observations of him acting unreliable, I will switch from how he is unreliable to questioning why he acts that way, saying others have only done the former but I intend to discuss the latter. To finish this off will be my thesis, that his purpose is to tell the story itself, thus leaving behind his mark on the world in the way he wants as opposed to, in his eyes, his previous failure.

In the body paragraphs I will discuss three major subtopics: the perceived “failure” of reanimating life, the true meaning of Victor’s subtext, and how meeting Walton allows him the perfect opportunity for this story to be told. In the first subtopic, Victor’s lack of success in his life’s goal is seen to affect him negatively: he is visibly ill and mentally focused only on the creature/wretch. Also in this section is a discussion on why this failure is so tremendous (his mother, god complex), utilizing Eleanor Salotto’s paper. This all makes him want to leave his legacy in some way and finds it when he tells his story to Walton. The next subtopic, focusing on Victor’s subtext, will start by revisiting the aspects of Victor’s story that makes him unreliable. With affirmation that these are false or surreptitious details, I will explain their meaning. For example, Victor did not want to marry Elizabeth but did anyway, but his eloquent language and storytelling make it seem selfless instead of selfish. By presenting himself in such a way, Frankenstein believes he is leaving his best possible image in his story, despite the truth in the subtext. Lastly I will discuss why he could not have had this legacy before meeting Walton. I will analyze the foils of Walton and Victor, leading to Victor’s own description of seeing himself in Walton. The particular absurdity attributed by others to Victor’s story had not allowed him to confide in a person to trust in his character. But with Walton acting as his nurse and showing similar characteristics, Victor understands Walton as the perfect individual to understand his story and take it to heart.

As a rebuttal to potential arguments, I would suggest that Frankenstein’s storytelling is separate from gender arguments. While using Paul Sherwin’s article, I would argue that Frankenstein’s story is not told because of existing gender roles because Walton, the recipient of the story, also holds the same feminine characteristics found in Frankenstein, allowing him to be the most suitable confidant for Victor. Instead, a non-gendered argument provides a more suitable reason that Victor keeps certain details hidden: he wants the best version of himself the way he thinks of himself to be kept in Walton’s mind forever.

In conclusion, I will quickly summarize the arguments I have made. I will link these back to the overall question and show how it is important to analyze the character of Frankenstein on his underlying intentions and not just his hidden attitudes in order to have a more complete understanding of the book.

Jonny O’Brien Blog Post #8

In contrast to this, while following Turkle’s arguments, Eunice, cut off from technology after the Rupture, sends messages that cannot be received by anyone. In one message to Jenny, she says, “White people don’t really care about old people, except for David who tried to help everyone. And then they shot him like a dog” (265). Eunice changes her earlier seemingly apathetic comments about David to empathetic ones. After spending time thinking about the atrocities and having no connection to technology to distract her, Eunice is finally able to connect to David’s strive to help people and be angry with his death.”

In this primary quotation, I have integrated Shteyngart’s writing into my own. I frame the quote with a full background sentence and then directly introduce it in its own sentence. I then explain what I extrapolate from the quote. Here is one revision to introduce the quote:

In contrast to this, while following Turkle’s arguments, Eunice, cut off from technology after the Rupture, sends messages that cannot be received by anyone. Eunice has newfound agreement with the rebel cause when she writes, “White people don’t really care about old people, except for David who tried to help everyone. And then they shot him like a dog” (265).

“One secondary source Hale uses is an essay by Malchow about Frankenstein depicting race in the nineteenth century. Hale uses this analysis to expand her own by signifying that the monster is not just an explicit “Negro monster” by that of an “other” race (18). This enhances Hale’s argument and clarifies to the reader that Shelley did not choose a race for the monster, yet it can be implied that a completely new race can produce the same messages.”

In this secondary quotation, I have not properly integrated the quote, though I do explain what I took from it and how it related to the text. Here is a (hopefully) better version of introducing the quote:

One secondary source Hale uses is an essay by Malchow about Frankenstein depicting race in the nineteenth century. Hale affirms Malchow’s work as she states, “That the otherness of the monster has strong racial overtones seems like a plausible hypothesis, especially in light of Walton’s misidentification of him as “a savage” at the beginning of the narrative (9).”

Jonny O’Brien Blog Post #7

In “The Monster in a Dark Room: Frankenstein, Feminism, and Philosophy”, author Nancy Yousef argues that prior philosophies on individuality are addressed and revised in the novel, as the monster’s growth and early experiences that influence his character reveals the restraints of such philosophies. Using classic examples of Locke and Rousseau, Yousef shows how the monster adopts some of their ideas and rebuts others. The monster is driven from nature to society by natural means (hunger) and gains his education by observing an Italian family. The creature, observing he has no history due to his lonely upbringing, adopts human sympathy, language, and identity. Overall, however, because he is not human in appearance, he is distinctly separate and does not carry the burden of human history.

Yousef addressed the critics Marshall and Lipking and their claims of the monster’s connection to Rousseau. Both critics argue that the monster inherently acts and personifies Rousseau’s philosophy: that a creature brought into nature is alone and unique. Yousef refutes this claim, saying that the creature develops this thoughts at the peak of his education, developing the self-aware quality that is unlike Rousseau’s philosophy.

This article would be useful in clarifying a basis for identity in Frankenstein and how the natural world pushes the creature of no species towards humanity, allowing it to develop human qualities and differ from humans only in history, juxtaposing it with its creator. Whereas Frankenstein grows up fascinated by necromancy and electricity, the creature grows up in hiding and observation. Pursuing science devolves Frankenstein, while nature and watching humanizes the monster.

The Monster in a Dark Room: Frankenstein, Feminism, and Philosophy

http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy.library.emory.edu/journals/modern_language_quarterly/v063/63.2yousef.html

Jonny O’Brien Blog Post #6

One of Hale’s main arguments is that the monster created by Frankenstein is a symbol of racial minority and the fears associated with those groups. First, Hale presents significant historical context to her claim, analyzing slave rebellions at the time Shelley writing the book, as well as historical claims of abolitionists to connect Frankenstein to Britain: a parent who failed to nurture their child into adulthood. Hale then addresses common stereotypes in the world to Frankenstein’s fears of the monster, from calling it a “savage” to worrying about the monster and its assumed wife procreating in the new world and having a new race of “devils”. This was a key argument in Hale’s paper.

One example of close reading of the text is when, as mentioned before, Hale talks addresses Frankenstein’s fear of the monster giving birth to an entire race in the new world. Hale first addresses the scientist’s strict fear of creating more monsters, but goes on to examine the racial subtext. Hale concludes the monster to be an allegory for the slave trade bringing Africans to America and leaving them to procreate in the new land, making an entirely new, large population.

One secondary source Hale uses is an essay by Malchow about Frankenstein depicting race in the nineteenth century. Hale uses this analysis to expand her own by signifying that the monster is not just an explicit “Negro monster” by that of an “other” race (18). This enhances Hale’s argument and clarifies to the reader that Shelley did not choose a race for the monster, yet it can be implied that a completely new race can produce the same messages.

In reading a quote from the book, I came upon the word “sophisms” (18). After using context clues and researching on the internet, I found the word means: deceiving arguments.

Jonny O’Brien Blog Post #5

In Super Sad True Love Story, social media interactions are the top priority of everyone in the world. The problem is so huge, people actually are willing to commit suicide when the networks shut down and apparati can no longer be used. It is an age where the world is completely dependent on social interaction through technology, and one that appears quite similar to our own. One effect of this social media practice seen in both our society and the novel’s is a waning in empathy. In an opinion article titled “Stop Googling. Let’s talk.” printed in the New York Times, author Sherry Turkle explains how empathy between college students has decreased 40% since the technological age, the majority of the decrease occurring since 2000, and how even five days without using technology, such as at summer camp, can show an increase in human connection and meaningful conversation.

Turkle’s ideas are an intriguing commentary on our world and can be added to Shteyngart’s arguments in his novel. First, characters don’t have much empathy for one another. Jenny doesn’t acknowledge Eunice’s heartfelt comments about friendship (176) and Eunice’s first encounter with David leaves her saying they aren’t all in together for David’s cause (146). In contrast to this, while following Turkle’s arguments, Eunice, cut off from technology after the Rupture, sends messages that cannot be received by anyone. In one message to Jenny, she says, “White people don’t really care about old people, except for David who tried to help everyone. And then they shot him like a dog” (265). Eunice changes her earlier seemingly apathetic comments about David to empathetic ones. After spending time thinking about the atrocities and having no connection to technology to distract her, Eunice is finally able to connect to David’s strive to help people and be angry with his death.

Jonny O’Brien Blog Post #4

A dystopic scene from Super Sad True Love Story is one presented by Eunice’s friend “Grillbitch”. On July 10, Eunice writes a long, passionate message to Grillbitch about Lenny and, at the end, her sympathy for David and the rebels. Two days later, Grillbitch sends an emotional reply, saying how her father’s factory was taken over by LNWIs because the LAPD no longer exists and the National Guard is too useless to do anything, ruining her life (200). I see this as particularly dystopic due to a variety of factors, the largest being anarchy. Due to the weakness of the Bipartisan leadership, there is no one in clear control as rebel groups pop up around the country. This is a disturbing scene: chaos as a regular business is overthrown due to the anger of impoverished people retaliating against those who are better off without seeing the damage they cause in others’ lives.

Rebel Takeover

I agree with the notion that dystopia is a prediction of the future based on humanity’s flaws, but I also believe that dystopias reflect themes from today’s society. The picture here is from the Houthi takeover of Yemen’s capital. In an extremely violent conflict, Houthi Shiites stormed the capital of Yemen, run by Sunnis, because they felt marginalized by an unorganized government. This scene is in line with the one Grillbitch describes, with those who feel damaged and undermined rise up with lack of foresight of what their actions may cause. Only in this case, it is 2015, and other countries around the world are willing to pitch in to stop the conflict, trying to restore government.