Taking this class has opened my eyes about the meticulous process that is writing. Especially, I have been introduced to the art of deconstructing someone else’s argument in order to incorporate it in my own writing. This reflects the underlying theme of the course, which is “They Say, I say”. This is the theme that I would feel the most comfortable to teach because throughout my writing, I have always been able to effectively use someone’s else argument or statement to support my own. In my Research Paper Draft, for example, I write: “In the New York times, John Mcworther argues that languages provide “variations on a worldwide, cross-cultural perception of this thing called life.”, allowing us to each have different opinions and different ways to express them. (Mcworther, 2014). It can be seen that here I incorporate his own words into my writing in order to validate my point that languages offer different perspectives.

If I were to teach this concept to others, I would first come up with a thesis statement of my own that backs up a particular argument. I would write it on the board giving an idea of what I am to write about. Then, I would ask everyone to find one other classmate to work with and distribute different articles/research papers to each pair of students. I would give them 15 minutes to read the article and find anything that the author says that could support or refute the original thesis statement written on the board. Finally, I would ask them to write a They Say, I Say statement in a paragraph that incorporates how the thoughts of the author they read about are able to either support or contradict the thesis. As a class, we would discuss how effective the article mention is and how it contributes to the development of a well structured argument.
This exercise would be able to make others understand how to incorporate someone else’s argument into one’s writing so to craft an argument or idea that is coherent and original.

Super Sad True Love Story by Gary Shteyngart was one of my favorite reads this semester. The novel expressed the story of “post-humans” in an ultra-developed world, where technology dominates environments and corrupts the idea of being human. Through the different diary entries and correspondences such as instant letters and e-chat conversations I was able to learn about different styles of writing and expression. Through these mediums, I was also able to have a deeper understanding about the underlying feelings which people may convey through their writings. In Super Sad True Love Story there isn’t necessarily crafted a unique argument, but different characters write to present different stories, opinions, and feelings.

For this semester’s first assignment, the Literary Response Letter, I had to be creative in trying to convey one character’s point of view through a different medium. The purpose of the assignment was to practice my critical thinking skills and my ability to synthesize and evaluate the idea of others with a focus. In the story, Chung Won Park (Eunice’s mother) writes to her daughter through a series of e-letters. In these messages, Chung Won Park shows a side of hers that is particularly insipid- one that reflects her traditional self. In trying to always encourage her daughter to succeed while trying to update her about happenings at home, Chung Won Park conveys her persona as one who is trapped, unhappy, and lonely. As a result of my curiosity to let a different side of Mrs. Park’s personality free, I decided to write her thoughts in the form of a diary.

In the diary entry that I created for Chung Won Park, I tried to incorporate elements that she had mentioned in her original message but also statements in which she would try to release her tension or anger about her complicated family situation. In her letters to Eunice, she does not mention the subtle disappointment for Eunice which she is trying to express. For this reason, I try to voice this disappointment in my diary entry. In my letter assignment, I write “She is burden in chest” or “How will she do alone, my girl with no ambition?”. Further, I try to voice a more rebellious side of hers. Statements such as “I no listen when he speaks, I no want to be with him” or “Oh Diary, I confess, I jealous of Eunhee” reflect that Eunice Park’s mother is truly willing to fly away without being capable to. These mentions show my ability to understand the underlying purpose of written communications and embedding it more clearly into my own writing.

Ultimately, assignments like these have helped me to be more attentive about what authors such as Shteyngart intend to convey. This has made me realize that the process of coming up with novel ideas based on available texts is more challenging than it seems and also remarkably satisfying. In my personal work, I showed a side of Chung Won Park that is not necessarily evident in her original writings. I also showed a clearer purpose to what she sends to her daughter. This has allowed for the crafting of creative writing and an interesting twist to a beautiful story.

 Title: Review: In ‘Spectre,’ Daniel Craig Is Back as James Bond, No Surprise

When writing an introduction, I write as clearly and concisely as possible to ensure that my reader understands what I am talking about. In an introduction, I approach my style using the reversed pyramid method. First, in an attempt to introduce the topic that I will talk about, I give a general or “bird-eye” view or thought about the topic at hand. Then, as I introduce my thesis while mentioning my backing evidence, I also give a very brief description of each paragraph I will write. In trying to write an understandable introduction, I also try to highlight on the importance of my argument in an attempt to make my writing not only enjoyable to read but also genuinely interesting. I do this by giving arguments through a different, usually unique perspective.

My writing completely differs from New York Times James Bond enthusiast, Manohla Dargis. In the New York Times movie review of James Bond: Spectre, “Review: In ‘Spectre,’ Daniel Craig Is Back as James Bond, No Surprise” by Manohla Dargis, the introduction is brief and through its very personal and colloquial tone, it conveys a sense that the movie won’t be any more special than the previous ones. She leaves her thesis until the end, and truly does not give many additional details to it. However, she does add some suspense to it, by including elements such as “the unexpected happens”. In the beginning of the article, she asks a question, and though she does not give an answer to it, she allures at what it might mean. Further in the introduction, she gives personal opinions, expectations, and mentions actors in the movie. Overall, she doesn’t hit many points about how good of a movie Spectre will be, but ultimately, she is able to establish some suspense that may lead the reader to read forward. In reading this passage, I notice that she does not mention the film director nor the release date of the movie- these are elements that I wouldn’t discard.

Dargis’ introduction paragraph in his movie review is interesting. It lacks a well defined thesis and supporting evidence. However, her way of incorporating suspense makes the reader want to read more. This is something I may decide to include in my writing to make my argument stand out.

Outline

1. Introduction
   1. General statement about Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein,
   2. Monster is more human than monster as portrayed in the novel.
   3. Monster is human not because of his appearance but because of his language and level of education.
      1. Language and education humanize monster
         1. Define humanize.
      2. Language allows to put people on the same level. Hence, the monster is able to evoke sympathy.
      3. Language allows to break the “cultural” barrier that separates Victor from the monster.
         1. Victor connects with the monster only when they talk withb each other.
      4. Monster’s curiosity and will to educate himself gives him a sense of what being human means.
         1. Paradise Lost
            1. Parallelism- God’s creation turns against him- Yet the monster has a peaceful nature up until he is rejcted by everyone because of his looks.
         2. Frankenstein’s effect on literature
            1. Reading science fiction works such as Frankenstein may allow humans to better connect with other humans. Frankenstein evokes empathy in the reader.
2. 1^st Body Paragraph- Language makes the monster human.
   1. Give examples of how the monster communicates using language.
   2. Introduce Peter Brooks’ argument that the monstrous nature of the monster is complemented by his use of language.
   3. Introduce John Mcwhorter’s argument that language makes humans humans.
   4. Introduce a biological perspective- Language makes us human because it is in our DNA.
3. 2^nd Body Paragraph– Language and eloquence allow the monster and his creator to interact as humans.
   1. Episode on the mountain- Monster closes Victor’s eyes and he makes his creator feel empathy.
   2. Refute John Bugg’s argument that the monster realizes he is monstrous through his understanding of language.
   3. Comment on Victor’s response to Monster’s eloquence.
   4. Insert analysis of how monster’s words establishes a connection with his creator.
4. 3^rd Body Paragraph– Monster’s will to educate himself allows him to feel human, and hence, act as a human.
   1. As the monster observes and educates himself, he is able to become more human.
   2. Monster’s ability to read (specifically Paradise lost) allow him to understand the struggles of being someone else’s creation- this allows him to see that though he is theoretically not human, he is human in the end.
5. 4^th Body Paragraph– The monster ability to speak and be human evokes empathy on the reader and therefore enhances how contemporary writers write their novels..
   1. Frankenstein evokes empathy.
   2. Introduce Professor Starr’s suggestion about how sci-fi works evoke emphaty in readers.
   3. Walton himself is moved by story.
6.  Conclusion
   1. Therefore… it is evident that language and education allow for the monster to become human.
   2. Include why sources mentioned served to validate point.
   3. Clincher

I quote from a primary source in my first blog post, where I write about the issues that “Eye in the Sky” by Radiolab. On the other side, I quote from a secondary source in blog post six where I analyze Jessica Hale’s paper and mention her use of someone else’s argument. Though her primary source is Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, her secondary source represents other writers’ critiques. In both cases, I utilized quotations to either create my thesis statement or understand the “they say” component of an argument. After giving a short summary of what “Eye in the Sky” presented, I used that upon building my main-point in my argument. In analyzing Hale’s argument, I mentioned writer Shoene-Harwood’s literary writings to explain how the author of the paper employs others’ opinions to build upon her own.

Here are the revised versions of the quotations I used in my blogs:

1. In “Eye in the Sky”, a podcast by Radiolab, the issue of surveillance is discussed. The post talks about an “eye in the sky”, or a modern camera, that allows investigators to “scroll back in time”. The authors of this podcast emphasize there being an eye in the sky that allows for time to become more fluid in order to suggest that the government is invading people’s privacies.
2. In her paper “Constructing Connectedness: Gender, Sexuality and Race in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein”, Jessica Hale argues that males show signs of femininity by being nurturing towards their female lovers. In her paper, she supports writer Shoene-Harwood’s point that “men who feel secure enough in their masculinity to display feelings of domestic affection…who seem perfectly balanced in their manliness which incorporates rather than categorically excludes the feminine”. Because Hale emphasizes the importance of homosocial relationships between men in the novel, Shoene-Harwood’s points emphasize her main-point.

Through our readings, we analyzed the effects that technology has upon individuals. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, one can notice a great schism in the relationships between Victor and his Monster. As Victor utilizes his own knowledge to create something outside of human imagination, he is scared off by what his technology allowed him to do. However, as the two meet for the first time, the only way in which they come to be on the same level, on the human level, is when the monster utilizes his verbal eloquence as a way to make Victor feel compassionate about him. In Godlike Science/Unhallowed Arts: Language and Monstrosity in Frankenstein by Peter Brooks, the author argues that the language spoken by the monstrous (Frankenstein’s monster) will never be able to “arrive at meaning”. Because the monster is “monstrous”, he can only employ language as a medium to “pass on the desire and the curse of meaning”, rather than meaning itself. In saying this, Brooks thinks that though the Monster can speak and request for his desires to come true, his words will never allow him to obtain what he wants (just because he is a monster). In his argument, he references psychoanalysts such as Freud and Lacant to expand upon his notion that language through monsterism does not provide direct meaning to one’s wants. Ultimately, I believe that his research topic can allow me to view at past readings with a new set of eyes. The importance of language in literature is reflected through its power to establish meaningful connections that could relate to the identity of characters. For instance, in saying that language does not allow the Monster to convey his wishes, one can argue that the monster is emotionally repressed and unable to show love to its surroundings because they are realistically cruel.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/468457?seq=14#page_scan_tab_contents

In her article, Jessica Hale introduces unorthodox views that interpret subtle connections within the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. In her analysis of how issues related to gender, sexuality, and race play a role not only in the novel but also on a larger societal facet, I found her argument about the existence of homosocial relationships in Shelley’s novel to be the most interesting. To summarize, Hale believes that male characters in the novel are connected by “intimate and intense relationships” amongst each other. Whether in talking about Robert Walton’s platonic connection with Victor or Alphonse Frankenstein’s ties with his friend Beaufort through his nurturing of Caroline, Hale argues that the presence of homosocial relationships reveals the “inherent instability of the institutions of family….that society sougth…to establish as stable and immutable in the 19^th century”. Hale provides evidence by quoting passages from the novel such as “I desire the company of a man who could sympathize with me…” by Robert Walton. By giving a thorough analysis she shows that because men would seek for the companionship of other men, without necessarily needing interactions with females, there exist homosocial interactions in the novel that alter conventional views about “domesticity”. Hale also employs the “They Say” technique to draw statements from other authors, such as Schoene-Harwood, in an attempt to give a more concrete opinion about certain homosocial relationships. For example, while Schone-Harwood claims that men such as Alphonse and Henry do not show signs of femininity, Hale notes that they indeed do, through their “nurturing qualities”.

In the eyes of writers, certain words may have deeper meanings than their proper definition. In reading this article, I struggled in immediately understanding the meaning of domesticity. Hale goes on about explaining how the novel portrays this concept. In reading further, I understood that domesticity symbolizes the different roles that men and women play in family, whether at home or in public. Though Hale gives a straightforward definition at the beginning of the section Domestic and Public Spheres, I continued to use context clues in understanding the word’s domesticity relation to characters or certain plots.

SSTLS Pages 154-156

In his article “Will China Surpass U.S. as a World’s Superpower?” in the Chicago Tribune, Varjavand argues that the United States will continue to holds its position as a world’s superpower due to its influential capitalistic economy and positive attitudes toward foreign policy, human rights, multiculturalism, equality, and education. Varjavand claims that China will take years to bridge the gap necessary to reach the world-status currently held by the United States because of its unstable political system. Further, the presence of many poor citizens also prevents China from growing as a superpower and despite any economic crises that the U.S. might experience ahead “there is light at the end of the tunnel” (Varjavand, 2015).  Varjavand’s position contradicts the futuristic happenings in SSTLS, where China is a global superpower with a very wealthy population. In the United States portrayed by Shteyngart China is seen as the driving force behind the American economy, but China’s citizens are parsimonious and won’t spend their money in America. In the story, in a meeting with the Governor of the People’s Bank of China-Worldwide, Wangsheng Li, U.S. president Cortez states: “The American people need China-Worldwide to become a savior of our last manufacturers, large and small. China is no longer a poor country. It is time for the Chinse people to spend”. In this dystopic world, the odds that China would become a Superpower came true, refuting Varjavand’s argument. Ultimately, SSTLS presents the worst possible scenario of what could happen if the United States wouldn’t recover from the Great recession of 2008.

Varjavand, Reza. “Will China Surpass U.S. as World’s Superpower?” Chicago Tribune. Chicago Tribune, 2 Oct. 2015. Web. 5 Oct. 2015.

Pages 56-57

I interpret a dystopian society as one that is not only imperfect but as also one that strives for a perfection that will never be achieved. It is clear that in Lenny’s world, the concept of perfection is closely tied with the concept of immortality. However, realistically, even everyone in this world is mortal. As Lenny returns to the United States of America following a yearlong stay in Rome, Italy, he decides to pay a visit to his boss Joshie at The Post Human Services division of the Staatling- Wapachung Corporation. As Lenny returns, he smells and describes fetid “post-mortal odors” thought to be the “scents of immortality” and reflects on the anxiety of younger co-workers that cry about their “blood-glucose levels” and “adrenaline stress index”. Further, his reappearance is not warmly greeted and he is chastised for his skewed “insulin levels”. Despite him being a skinny thirty-nine years old, Lenny is still not accepted because of his off scale body values. In this society, one no longer cares about living happily and healthily in the moment. Rather, one attempts to push untouchable buttons to achieve something that cannot be achieved, immortality. A waste of energy and a waste of life.

According to nature and their genetic make-up, penguins cannot fly. Penguins would be able to fly only if they defeated the basic laws of nature that clearly define how one’s anatomy can or cannot facilitate flight. In Lenny’s society, it seems a common goal to want to defeat nature. But nature cannot be neither defeated nor tricked. If penguins had minds and suddenly decided they wanted to have an anatomy capable of supporting flight, they wouldn’t be able to do so. Perfection cannot be achieved.

Image Source: http://pravda-team.ru/eng/image/photo/2/3/2/69232.jpeg