tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5425514987715337437.post7222994802372633833..comments2024-03-26T22:47:45.276-07:00Comments on Intro to Critical Reading: Heightened HumanityAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5425514987715337437.post-37045255402766386812012-02-18T16:04:03.710-08:002012-02-18T16:04:03.710-08:00The premise that the monster's emotions are mo...The premise that the monster's emotions are more than human is interesting, but not obvious: hopefully this is an argument you make, rather than a beginning assumption. Note that defining "superhuman love" is probably much harder than defining "superhuman intellect" or "superhuman strength."<br /><br />I like the connection between Rousseau and Wilson, even if I have no idea what you intend to do with it.<br /><br />Over the following several paragraphs, you point out some ways in which the monster conforms to parts of Wilson's definition, with some emphasis placed on discovery. I don't see why you emphasize certain parts of the definition, nor (through this section, at least) why Wilson's definition is helpful in understanding the novel. Your discussion of family ties, for instance, doesn't make clear whether the monster is inhuman because he lacks them (or whether he's driven into inhumanity because he lacks them). At that moment, and others, you're not engaging with the complexity that applying Wilson's definition to the monster could unveil.<br /><br />As you proceed, you return repeatedly to Rousseau, with no explanation for how Rousseau serves your overall strategy, or how he relates to Wilson. Relating R to Frankenstein is a reasonable step - but why are *you* doing it?<br /><br />At the end, you suddenly return to the monster being in a "heightened state" -an interesting argument which you have paid almost no attention to through the essay.<br /><br />Short version: The "heightened state" idea is solid. Applying Wilson is fine, as is applying Rousseau - but you never do either one. But here's the problem - while you have an interesting argument, you don't actually pursue it. And while you have an interesting set of evidence, you never coherently explain why you're applying Wilson and Rousseau (let alone both of them!) in the first place.<br /><br />If you'd written at greater length (this was quite short), you probably could have explored your own argument, while explaining how/why you're making the connection with Wilson and Rousseau. But in this version, there's simply too much missing for it to work well, or even be terribly clear.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com