Critical Vision: also known as thesis

Critical Vision: your second essay (like every essay) will develop a vision–something that you see in the novel and want to communicate to your reader: also known as a thesis. Recall that the refined version of that vision/thesis comes with revision. For now, think hypothesis. What is your vision for this novel–what are you interested in illuminating with regard to the intertextual link you will focus on?

• Such a vision is not plot, nor should it be the typical way the text might be read: think of it as complicating the plot reading–showing that there is more to the novel than a quick read (or no read–in the case of film) would suggest
• Think of it as the idea (story sentence) for your version of Frankenstein–with the understanding that a film needs a surprise; a thesis is (it seems to me) much like a good turning point in a film–the surprise that sets things in motion.
• Ultimately, this vision will tie in and be developed and reinforced by the focus you give to the intertextual link [will work on that in revision workshop]
• Think of Victor as a bad thesis writer (not just a bad reader, as I have been saying). His thesis leading up to his wedding night is that the creature is after him; he is being stalked by an inhuman monster. It is a predictable thesis (largely repeated by the first film version)–and reinforces Victor’s misreading of the creature, to say nothing of displaying his egocentrism. Shelley’s thesis is more surprising and complicated: Victor’s real fear has something to do with his own, human power of creation and reproduction–a power also located in Elizabeth, or shared with her. Isn’t Victor afraid of the kind of reproductive power Elizabeth possesses?

• to develop this thesis, one could go to lots of places in the novel. one would certainly be the reference to Adam and Eve and the apple. 

• We will continue with the film analogy for our writing when we get to revision workshop. For now, as we work on our critical vision, on developing a hypothesis and thesis that is strong and engaging and not predictable–think about the differences you notice between a film whose premise or idea seems predictable versus one whose idea is surprising or undpredictable, maybe even complicates the predictability of an idea or plot that is already conventional.

class notes 9/19

We sauntered around things that readers have noticed and wondered in their reading and glogging from the novel this week. Among the issues noticed, various aspects of the style of the novel came up once again. It was suggested that the style is such that is makes the reader think about the reading and writing that she is doing; that the various shifts in narrative and perspective and tone are noticeable.

I emphasized that such shifts may make the reading difficulty for some, but are also (I think) a part of the narrative: to the extent that so much emphasis is placed on the power of story in the narrative, on the desire to be heard and to convey a narrative, to gain the sympathy of the reader. I further suggested, in taking up the question as to who was more sympathetic, Victor or the Creature, that this kind of reader’s sympathy is constructed through the style of the narrative of each.

Some questions we took up and wondered about: What happens to the letters from the beginning–do they return in the end? Why does Victor react the way he does upon the creation–why should he be so surprised, why disgusted? Why does the Creature demand a female? Why doesn’t Victor make the female creature unable to reproduce?

notes: first writing project

Revision workshop:

With help from John Boyd of the Writing Center, we emphasized the importance of all writers, any writer, getting response for their writing, finding audiences for feedback. This is different, I suggested, than needing or wanting to fix something. Not the teacher marking up a paper with a red pen. With our focal point of critical reflection, we used the hear/notice/wonder response sheet to give feedback to a writer in your writing group, focusing in particular on where you noticed the essay providing the kind of depth and understanding in the personal reflection (rather than the resume listing, the nostalgia of quick reference), and where you wanted to see more of it.

Editing workshop:

Focused on ways to think about editing as defamiliarizing our essay–in order to get outside of it and see and hear it from without. One way to do this: read aloud, have someone else read it aloud: listen for areas where the reading stumbles or slows or is unclear. The main point introduced–one we are working on throughout the semester in our attempt to learn about style and how better to grasp it in our writing: need to look AT our style, not just through it. Think more self-consciously about how style is created in the mechanics and machinery of the essay: the words, the sentence structure, the punctuation; all the choices we can make and edit.

As a starting point, we focused on a basic issue (and trap) we find in sentence structure: the difference between active and passive sentences. One of the ways we looked at this: finding places where we see lots of “is” sentences which tend to bury the action; also bury behind lots of prepositions. We began to change this around. The example I gave:

“One thing about reading that I believe is that reading is meant to be fun.”

change to: Reading should be fun.

further change to (recognizing the weakness and vagueness of ‘fun’): Reading cultivates pleasure.

Essay follow-up:

The critical vision–aka, the focus or ‘thesis’ of your essay. Traditionally, this comes in the beginning–you might have been taught at the end of an introductory paragraph. However, things don’t need to be that strict–nor would you want to be terribly blunt: My thesis is…. Sometimes it is effective to have a thesis at the end of an essay; or perhaps an initial statement of your focus/thesis–that you then furhter refine in a conclusion (or in the scientific model, completely change). It is important, however, to engage your reader’s focus directly in your introductory material, let them know, before getting into the “body” of your essay, the various examples and reflection, what you want them to be thinking about with you. You need to give them a thread to take with them. What you need to avoid, then, is a general statement such as: reading has many definitions. You need to go further–suggest what particular definition is on your mind and suggest how you want to explore that. This is something to do during revision: after you have a stronger sense of what you are, in fact, getting into (where your examples and reflection are taking you), then go back and refine and elaborate the thesis–and from this you can then build a more engaging introduction–a stronger way into the story you are trying to tell.

class discussion: 9/5

Among our discussion of the mixed reading from Birkerts, the beginning of Frankenstein, and the beginning of Hayles’ Writing Machines, a very interesting focus on Hayles and thestyle of her writing and the book. Several noticed the way she brings technology into the book–or as I emphasized, back into the back. Reminds us that the book is a technology–and indeed, that digital writing technology, for all the talk of the replacement of the book, is interwoven with print. Somebody suggeted in a glog that Hayles lets the book speak more. I think that is on to something. Several noticed her style–how she seemed more comfortable with herself as a writer, a comfort that shows up in her writing style.

Intertextuality: Mutability

Percy Shelley’s poem from 1816, “Mutability,” which shows up in Victor’s narrative.

We are as clouds that veil the midnight moon;
How restlessly they speed, and gleam, and quiver,
Streaking the darkness radiantly! -yet soon
Night closes round, and they are lost for ever:

Or like forgotten lyres, whose dissonant strings
Give various response to each varying blast,
To whose frail frame no second motion brings
One mood or modulation like the last.

We rest.—A dream has power to poison sleep;
We rise.—One wandering thought pollutes the day;
We feel, conceive or reason, laugh or weep;
Embrace fond woe, or cast our cares away:

It is the same!—For, be it joy or sorrow,
The path of its departure still is free:
Man’s yesterday may ne’er be like his morrow;
Nought may endure but Mutablilty.

 

Intertextuality can be defined as the connection or implication of one (or more than one) text within a text. One version of this: an allusion. In the case of Shelley’s poem, the reference is a direct quotation (though the author is not named). Where it gets interesting, of course, is recognizing that the author of the poem is the novelist’s husband. Perhaps the best way to think about intertextuality and the stunning range of implications (texts referring to texts) is to consider almost any bumber sticker you might have seen. Usually, amazingly, some reference is made or assumed to another text, often another bumber sticker. So intertextuality demands or commands interpretation; it also reminds us that we read and interpret much of what we see in our world. A lesson we will consider as we explore the rich intertextuality in Shelley’s novel, and of her novel, is that we need to slow down and read the texts, illuminate and follow up on the implications of texts, in order to make sense of what we have in front of us. That doesn’t necessarily mean get the ‘right’ answer to the text; more that we need to be willing and able to follow the implications, trace the threads of the text (text originally means “woven thing”) in our creative effort to make something of what we are reading.

Consider: there isn’t only one way to read a bumber sticker–good ones, indeed, will open up to several possible readings. But it is possible to misread one.

Another type of intertextuality around the same scene in chapter X: reference to the imagery of sublime landscape. A Romantic painter from the same period in which Shelley is writing is Caspar David Freidrich. Think of this as a visual intertext that Shelley seems to be using in her writing–both as a matter of relevant philosophy (the sublime is a prominent idea in Romanticism) and perhaps as a method of style.

You are welcome to explore and furhter illuminate these intertexts, or any other you come upon in the novel, for your second writing project.

One final thought, for now. Can even think of intertextuality as inherent in our language–implications in any of the words that Shelley uses–given the history embedded in any word. Certainly a word unfamiliar to you such as “sublime”; but also familiar ones, such as “author” or “creator.” In this case, the intertetuality is part of its etymology. For more on that, consult one of the great tools for writing and critical reading: the OED. You can get to it electronically through the library reference database.

Some ‘machines’ you might find useful in your intertextual reading of Frankenstein:

Electronic Paradise Lost (Milton, 1667).

Electronic Bible (from UVA’s Electronic Text Center)