I have yet to decide which blog posts I shall choose to use for my Final Portfolio. However I feel like it would be important to show how my blog posts have progressed and improved over time. With this in mind, I will definitely be choosing my first blog post “eye in the sky”. From there I will choose four other posts that I feel truly reflect how I have improved over the course of the term. From there I feel I will display everything but my literary analysis letter as I feel this work best shows my skills in writing. Of course, as I haven’t handed in my final paper or received commentary on my first draft this isn’t certain. However, I feel that even if my first draft doesn’t receive great feedback I may include it to contrast against the final paper, which will hopefully be much improved.

The section I would respond to is section 3: writing as a process. In the preparation of my rough draft I went through a long series of steps. I already had the outline of the essay and the broad idea, however, I decided it would be important to reread Frankenstein in its entirety with my chosen topic in mind. After that I reread all the suggested sources I had planned on including on my essay. During all this I kept a series of small notes on my phone with page references and ideas that I felt would be helpful for my rough draft. Before I started actually writing I spent an hour or so fully planning the essay and deciding upon its final structure. I then left it for a day before I began writing. The reason I left is I feel that I write better essays when I have had plenty of time to consider them and think through any potential ideas I need to include. When I started writing I wrote the entire paper in one go, before almost totally rewriting it as I went back over every section to ensure they made sense. I then edited it twice more before handing it in for submission.

what do you try to do in an introduction?

Usually i use the introduction to frame the discussion and introduce the argument. I feel a good introduction also needs to define key terms and at some point introduce the thesis.

What do you try to do in a conclusion?

In a conclusion you need to summarise the arguments you have made in the essay. After you should restate your thesis and draw anything left open to a close.

The article I have chosen to write about is from the magazine Wired. The article discusses whether or not scientists should resurrect extinct species. In the introduction the author sets the background for the article itself. They have a paragraph describing a specific example before switching to discussion of the main point. I feel this is a very effective introduction, partly because of the structure the author has used. Instead of trying to keep the introduction in one paragraph they have split it into three sections. The first gives background, the second is a one line attempt to draw the reader further in, and the third actually explains the science that is behind the article. However, while this may work for a wired article i feel like in academic writing it would be far too lax and so i shall stick with more traditional introduction structures.

article:http://www.wired.com/2015/11/biologists-could-soon-resurrect-extinct-species-but-should-they/

The myth of Prometheus, as discussed by Aeschylus, and the novel Frankenstein share many similarities. In my essay I will be exploring how both consider the hubristic nature of discovering information about the world around us. When writing this essay I will first have to give some basic background information around both sources. In ancient Athens when Aeschylus wrote Prometheus unbound, the Hellenistic world was in a time of great discovery. From a major shift in views on cosmologies to rapid discoveries in the sciences, it was a time of great academic change. Likewise when Shelley wrote Frankenstein English society was facing similar advances in knowledge. In both chosen texts we see a reflection of the same anxiety. That this newfound information shall prove dangerous to humanity at large. This is something I will need to explain as soon as possible, potentially even in my introduction. From there I will consider Hubris as I have defined it, before finally approaching the essay proper.

While from Frankenstein I shall primarily pull from the chapter surrounding the monsters creation, I plan on using quotes from throughout the remaining texts of Prometheus unbound. This is because I want the essay to focus on Frankenstein and for Prometheus to augment my argument.

My secondary sources serve a variety of purposes. The first by Jennifer Forrest will be used to give additional information around the industrial revolution and how it is portrayed in Frankenstein. Goldberg will be a foil, offering an alternative perspective for me to consider then dismiss. Raggio is included primarily for information on Prometheus. In her discussion of it she brings up similarities with Frankenstein that I would like to draw attention to. Finally, Helen Haste will be used in my conclusion to support my argument about the cautionary purpose both these stories serve

The author of this piece goes into great detail discussing the multi-faceted identity that Lenny Abramov exhibits. The author discusses to what extent Lenny identifies with his American-Jewish heritage and they examine the roles that jewish characters have within the novel. After this they look into Lenny’s Russian heritage and his inner confusion surrounding his own cultural background. The author concludes that at the end of the novel, Lenny has returned to his Jewish roots, in doing so made a pact with god, and left his Russian heritage behind.

The author uses an argument made by Michiko Kakutani to bolster their own essay. The argument is a brief description of Super Sad True Love Story, that describes it as a novel with a dark future yet deeply sweet love story. The author then shows this throughout their writing. They display how the book relays this dismal future. Where America is “on the brink of fiscal collapse” and the government is falling apart around the main characters. Yet they also discuss the sweetness of Lenny and Eunice’s relationship, and even if the two characters are undeniably flawed the love story portrayed is seen to be all the more real for it.

I think that I am going to look into the nature of modern dating as portrayed by Super Sad True Love Story. To do that i’m going to have to discuss the mixed backgrounds and identities of all the books characters. So i might use this essay to help discuss both Lenny and Eunice’s conflicted personalities.

link

Jessica Hale makes the argument that the nuclear family portrayed in Shelley’s Frankenstein is a comment on both the strict gender binary of 18th century English society and of the dangers in separating the public sphere and private sphere. She discusses how the nuclear family is based on a power inequality between the elder Frankenstein’s that leaves Caroline (and eventually Elizabeth) trapped in a domestic role. Then by showing how the domestic life and public life are displayed as incompatible Jessica comes to the conclusion that Shelley was commenting on the set roles women were forced into.

In Her section discussing Freud and Frankenstein Jessica does a close reading of pg 122 of Frankenstein. In this passage The Monster is examining a small portrait of Caroline Beaufort around William’s neck

In the same section she uses a secondary source to support her argument. The source is a book written by Leo Bersani called The Freudian Beauty. In this book Bersani discusses a specific idea, that Hale then brings into her argument to strengthen her claims.

There were a few terms that, though I could understand within context, I had trouble pinning a direct definition. One term was “chattel”. It is defined as “a moveable possession: any possession or piece of property other than real estate or a freehold.” To go about finding this definition I first went to the Oxford English Dictionary’s online website and searched it. There were a variety of definitions available and even the etymology, however, after reading through them this seemed to be the definition that made the most sense in context.

The article I chose is about how the NSA and MI5 used leaky apps to steal data. In the article the author explains how the apps passively collect information about the users. The UK and US spy agencies then used a “backdoor” into the apps to collect this information. Apparently the agencies could collect address books, geographic data embedded in photos, and even phone logs. The information was supposedly used so that advertising agencies could tailor their adverts to each individual user and so increase their chance of sales. The article finishes however, with the note that the NSA at least had yet to find a way of dealing with the surplus of information they were receiving. So for the moment our information is safe in its anonymity. I felt that this led directly to the books themes on privacy, technology, and the almost Orwellian American government represented.

For me this urge to collect as much information about ones citizens as physically possible reminded me of the scene were Lenny visits the Embassy in the 1st chapter from page 7. In this scene he submitted to a string of very personal questions from an animated otter.

Likewise, the amount of information that the government can collect from our phones reminded me of the scene in the 3^rd chapter from page 35 where Lenny is researching Eunice’s life. He is capable of finding out so much information from her online footprint. Spy organizations like MI5 and NSA have so much more access into our online life than the average person, that to them the act of learning about any one person must seem almost exactly the same as it was for Lenny learning about Eunice.

Link: http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-using-leaky-apps-like-angry-birds-google-maps-to-siphon-user-data/

My artefact is a poster from a Greenpeace campaign. It was created in an attempt to draw attention to the effects of littering and non-recyclables on the environment. Plastic bottles and other non-biodegradable containers are mass-produced, used, and often just left in landfills to rot. However, the plastics in bottles can take up to 450 years to decompose. In that time they wreak havoc on local eco-systems.

The poster very effectively draws attention to this. It shows a partially dissected bird, with plastic chunks in its digestive system, lying next to the Coca-Cola logo. Part of the reason I believe it is so forceful, is the author has very successfully utilized color. The bright unnatural colors of the plastic stand out against the grey of the bird, more than that, the red of the logo seems to mimic the color of blood. This combines to give a very clear message about who is responsible for the bird’s death. The graphic nature of this image also serves to grab the audience’s attention. If posted in a public place, the grisly photo would publicize the intended message.

The argument is based on Pathos. It relies on the audience’s emotional reaction to the explicit image. Our reaction to something so brutal is one of shock and horror; the poster uses this to garner sympathy for the bird and anger towards Coca-Cola.

During my reading of Super Sad True Love Story one thing that consistently stood out for me was the character’s total lack of privacy. When Lenny is passing time on his flight from Italy to the United States he spends some time researching Eunice Park’s life. Through a short time’s scrolling he manages to discover a huge amount of information that would generally be considered private. He finds details of her recent purchases, photos from when she was still in school, and even the worth of her old house. While most of this information is accessible today, it would take hours of research, and even then certain things could not be found.

Though this may seem like a relatively innocent scene, I find it incredibly disturbing if only because of its feasibility. Almost everyone has a Facebook, a linked-in, or some other form of social media account. These accounts reveal the minutiae of our lives to anyone committed enough to find them. Already employers and universities research our online footprint during application processes. In the book, the fat man with no apparat is considered strange and alarming. Likewise, when I meet someone without a Facebook I instantly assume they have something to hide. Social media denies the average person from their right to anonymity, and the scene in the book feels like a worrying glimpse into a not-too-distant future.