Self Reflection

Throughout my second semester at Washington College I believe my ability to write clearly and critically have dramatically improved. This point became clearly evident to me through the final writing project, in which we revised a previous essay. Using techniques and skills learned throughout the semester I went back and revised the first writing assignment we completed for the class, aiming to improve the overall work and increase the complexity of the thought and argument. In achieving this goal I believe I was incredibly successful.

Firstly, I reread the entire essay and the sections of Sven Birkerts’ book “Gutenberg Elegies” from which I originally drew the information from which my paper was constructed. With that task accomplished I proceeded to slightly modify the thesis of the paper. Instead of taking a definitive stance supporting Birkerts’ argument, I argued that he made very valid points regarding the interaction between technology and literature, but also acknowledged that he may have gone a bit overboard. Through this slight adjustment I was able to refocus the argument, which before lacked clarity or any real focus. One of the most important elements I implemented into the essay was the presence of a counterargument towards the end of the paper, which presented another viewpoint that recognized the possibility of a positive outcome from the changing relationship between technology and literature. I believe this technique helped to make my argument a multifaceted piece that acknowledged the limits of the argument and gained credibility through the recognition of valid points presented by the opposing argument. Furthermore, it allowed me to conclude with a more neutral stance supported by more than one argument. Overall, the improvement in complexity, focus, and style was very noticeable.

Over the course of this semester at Washington College my ability to successfully convey a convincing and well-contrived argument has dramatically improved. More specifically, the focus of my arguments has been more direct and tends much less to wander off topic or provide evidence that does not possess any relevance to the argument. My knowledge and use of writing techniques, such as counterargument, has also improved. Before this semester, I did not realize or utilize revision or any form of serious editing. My essays tended to be very free form or merely a stream of consciousness. This semester has taught me the importance of revision and the role it can play in crafting a more masterful and persuasive argument. As far as my improvement, the proof is in the progression of the essays themselves. Their increasingly effective arguments and writing are a clear self-indication of my improvement as a writer. I still hope to continue improving, especially in the revision process which is where I am weakest.

Final Writing Project

Technology has been a driving force for change throughout the history of mankind. As technology becomes increasingly advanced and innovations allow technological progression to occur at an increasingly rapid rate we must consider the way in which our technology affects the world around us. More specifically, an intriguing book examined the affect of computers as well as the process of digitalization and the effect they have upon the realm of literature. The author, Sven Birkerts, argues that modern technology and digitalization are destroying literature as we know it. My own opinions and experiences with literature have lead me to, an extent, agree with Birkerts’s prognosis of modern literature and the degradation it experiences with the advent of our newfound interconnectivity via electronic devices. Birkerts explains that a primary cause of the degradation of literature in this “Electronic Age” is caused by our shared connectivity with each other and the creation of a truly global community. The constant influx of ideas and the interaction of said ideas create an environment that Birkerts claims is detrimental to the literary world. With this constant connectivity, he suggests that we forget how to be truly alone with our own thoughts and ideas which is where Birkerts believes the true nature of literature resides. Though his arguments are only supported by his own past experiences with literature and a few leaps of logic, I fundamentally agree with the message he is attempting to convey about the probable changes in the literary world. His urgent and rather one-sided approach to the argument, however, does not do justice to the issue of the ongoing change occurring around us as we delve deeper into the age of technology.

Belief in reading as something personal does not necessarily mean that I believe it should be completely so or that any social interaction or expression of literature is bad. In fact, a certain amount of social connectivity is necessary for literature, and ideas and concepts derived from one’s readings, to thrive. This social interaction creates grounds for argument which is an excellent method to explore one’s interpretation of a text and further understanding and bring to light increasingly complex questions. It is personal reflection and interpretation in which the true value in literature is found. However, a problem arises when there is too much interaction and connectivity between readers and literature becomes more of a shared or communal venture. This is the very issue over which Birkerts is so worried and expresses serious concern about. He expresses that the Internet creates a community through which one’s own ability to interpret literature and generate unique ideas becomes increasingly lacking as a more global perspective arising from the connectivity through technology expands. On this point, I could not agree more. The connectivity to one another we possess today through electronic devices which we carry with us and internet pages dedicated to overly stated literary perspectives severely inhibits out ability to truly be alone with literature and form our own conclusions and ideas. The implementation of programs like spell check and an online thesaurus begin to take over actions normally accomplished by our own mental faculties. This is the degradation of literature through the reader. While some might find my own use of technology through the use of Microsoft Word and its many subprograms hypocritical, due to class requirements, I have no other choice. This is where Birkerts and I do not see eye to eye. I have accepted the use of technology for literary purposes while he continues to curse at the winds of change. Progress is not something that can be stopped and that is a concept Birkerts seems to struggle with. Instead analyzing the way in which digital technology influences literature and then providing possible compromises or solutions to the things he views as problems that it creates, he merely complains and then concludes that technology is inherently evil. It becomes very apparent that his passion for literature comes from his own personal experiences with literature. I would have to also say that many of my own ideas about literature also stem from my own reading experiences.

My agreements with some of Birkerts’s concerns about the act of reading as a private venture is also rooted my own opinions about and experiences with literature. At a young age I could often lose myself in a book, utterly blissful in its ability to take me on an adventure. I found my love for books early in the fantastic stories about magic and warriors locked in mortal combat in the well-versed pages of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy. The descriptions of his mythical world, Middle-Earth, captured my imagination and were a source of entertainment. Often I could be found in my room with nothing more than a book, curled up in my bed, intent on finishing the story. Though not necessarily an academic text, it exemplifies that reading itself is a private activity in which we only engage with our own thoughts. I may be able to converse with others about the book and perhaps describe the way in which I interpret it, the true nature of the literature is revealed to my mind through my own reading. As a book is discussed and reviewed, the opinions and interpretations that I may have about it are influenced and changed, taking away something very important to literature. As I grew up I continued to read Tolkien’s books, however, I also became more interested by more academic writings, especially those pertaining to history.

When given the option to choose a language to study at the beginning of middle school, I quickly settled upon Latin, the language of ancient Rome. Throughout high school I continued to pursue Latin to better learn about and understand Roman history and culture. Often we were given historical texts to translate written by Roman historians. Though we often discussed the impacts of these texts in a cultural and historical context in the classroom, I would find myself often rereading the text as if something more was gained when I read it by myself. A feeling of deeper understanding and the interaction of ideas within one’s own mind leads me to reinforce the idea of reading and literature as a private endeavor as expressed by Birkerts.

While the private endeavor of literary analysis and interpretation are indeed subjected to risk by the interconnectivity which is brought about by the digital technology, to go as far to say that technology is completely evil and will ultimately destroy the integrity of literature is taking the concept too far. While we must come to terms and understand the manner in which technology influences and changes the way literature will be read, written, and interpreted, the digitalization of literature may also bring about a different form of literature without erasing the personal analysis and interpretation of literature as we know it today. The introduction of the likes of electronic hypertexts to the world via the innovative use of computers may not be signaling the destruction of the privacy of literature as we know it, but an entirely different form which modifies the written word and presents it in a creative new format. This new format is much more interactive and transforms literature from a passive task to one where the reader is making active decisions which alter how the story is read and understood. Even though hypertexts are still new to the literary world and represent a new and creative form of writing, it may very well possess severe consequences for the future of literature.

In the end, I firmly believe that the reader must form their own opinions about what they read and make interpretations based on their own set of morals and beliefs so that, even in the case of this essay, an academic argument can be made with many different ideas and perspectives. While from one perspective it may seem that the interconnectivity within the global community brought about by technology inhibits one’s ability to read and interpret literature privately, it also brings about new ways to approach literature and new ways to interpret and present it. However, it cannot be denied that the way we read, write, and analyze literature will be forever changed through technological innovation, whether that change is inherently good or evil is yet to be seen and, in the end, may very well just be based on perspective. My own perspective is that we must realize the implications which technology has on our ability to approach literature as a personal and private affair as well as the possible effects on our own intellectual ability. So take what you will from this, formulate your own conclusions, and further your passion for literature.

Writing Assignment 3

            Technology is a branch of human science and knowledge that deals with the creation and use of specialized devices and processes, which accomplish specific tasks more quickly, effectively, and/or easily. With technology, humans are able to shape the environment around them to survive and thrive. Today, technology has progressed beyond the bounds of merely surviving as a species to influencing the way we live and the ease with which we are able to do it. One of the most integral technologies ever developed by human beings was language and the ability to communicate ideas through sounds and symbols. Language has become a complex system in order to convey the increasingly complex ideas we share with each other. One of the most important way in which these ideas are expressed and shared is through literature. Traditionally, literature and the written word are shared through physical books, however, a new form of literature has been introduced, compliments of digitalization and the use of computers, which is vastly different from what is conventionally defined as literature. This new form of literature utilizes images, Internet links, video, and the written word to convey a story or idea. These aptly named “hypertexts” are actually a growing issue of contention in the literary world. There are some, including literary critic Sven Birkerts and American writer Nicholas Carr, who argue that hypertexts are a perversion of literature as well as a corruptive force which erodes language and destroys our private self. Humans have always assumed that technology is a positive process and we can sometimes remain blind to the negative impacts which the use of technology may result in. I believe that the influence of modern technology will change the face of literature which will negatively impact both readers and writers alike.

            In Sven Birkert’s Gutenberg Elegies, he urges us that the literary world is crumbling around us as electronic technology increasingly influences the way we read, write, and communicate. He shares with us that there is dire urgency to save literature as we know it which he passionately argues will be completely destroyed by technology. The nonlinear and non-sequential story path which dictated by the whim of the reader creates a completely new element not found in books which possess an unfixed directional path through the consecutive turning of pages in a given order and direction. For some, this provides an element of freedom and grants the reader control over the story as they may observe the story in any order or direction as well as choosing to disregard information by simply skipping around it. Sven Birkerts argues that this degrades the literary prose and mastery of a writer through his or her ability to make the reader feel a part of the world he has created through a sequential story. Instead, hypertexts allow readers to create their own story which, in his mind, defeats the purpose of reading someone else’s tale. He also indicates that an author may translate a certain message or themes through their text, in the form of subtext, which may be picked up on and interpreted by readers. Hypertexts, however, do not allow for this to occur as everyone does not read the story in the same fashion, and so any theme or message of the author is lost because the reader can only interpret what he or she has read and the order in which it was done.

            To exemplify some of the points which Birkerts makes regarding hypertexts, one excellent example to analyze is titled “The Museum” by Adam Kenney. The Museum, essentially explained, is the story about a group of people who visit a museum and wander about it, speculating about the various pieces of artwork and history, as well as relating their own experiences and memories to them. Some of the things in the museum have an interesting background which is shared with the reader. Through the various links and images the reader is free to wander about the story in any manner or order they wish, much like one would wander about a museum in real life. The Museum increasingly becomes more of an adventure than a story as the reader is compelled to explore various paths and examine specific characters and events an order that often confuses other parts of the story. This sort of perusing requires much more patience than perhaps typical books as certain things begin to become unclear or make no sense due to the order in which the story has been read. Due to this lack of clarity, it is difficult or even impossible to pick up on any theme that may have been originally conveyed by the author. In my opinion, these facets of technological influence are things that hurt the integrity of literature through the degradation of the skill and role of the author’s own prose. Hypertexts complete change the world of literature. An author shows his mastery through his ability to use words to bring alive the story through vivid description and character depth, development, and interaction. The ultimate goal of any author is to draw the reader in and envelop them in the world their book has created. Hypertexts take this notion and turn it upon its head. A hypertext is more like a scavenger hunt consisting of various parts that the reader must piece together and attempt to form a coherent story. It does not allow the reader to be drawn in because the reader is too busy trying to piece together information which does not make sense. In these regards, Birkerts is absolutely correct in supposing that literature is eroded by hypertexts.

            Nicholas Carr is an American writer who also has concerns about the effects that modern technology, especially electronics, has on literature, but more specifically, the reader. In an academic article entitled “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Carr examines the science behind the effects on the Internet and the digitalization of literature upon the mind of people who read. He argues that the brain is abled to be, in a sense, “re-wired” by electronics and it is reducing readers’ capacity to concentrate. Through use of the Internet, we have come to expect quick results and access to information, as well as the ability to quickly change our query. Carr explains that distractions, which manifest in the forms of adds and links, additionally compacting the issue. Furthermore, he hypothesizes, “That the capacity to contemplate may diminish as computer algorithms unburden an Internet user’s brain of much of the painstaking knowledge work — the manipulation of abstract information and knowledge — that was previously done manually”. As we become more reliant on the use of technology to ease the amount of analytical work our brains must do, we diminish the powers it possesses. This is indeed is quite a terrifying theory which threatens the very intellect of mankind which brought us such complex technologies in the first place.

            The arguments presented by both Birkerts and Carr possess terrifying consequences for the future of literature and human intelligence. However, to assume these conjectures as fact without contemplating any other possibilities argued by other sides of the issue would be ignorant. While I believe the influence and impact that technology has on literature does possess many negative factors, it cannot be denied that, in some regards, technology may be viewed to possess a positive influence on literature. The creativity involved with hypertexts, especially the use of images, videos, and links, create an entirely new area of development for literature. This means that those who wish to convey a story but are not very adept at using simply words and rhetoric may tell their tale through this creative means more effectively than being confined to the strict use of the written word. The abstractness of hypertexts and the way in which one must piece together the story to form a coherent and cohesive work also utilizes an analytical and abstract brain function not generally employed when reading traditional books. Instead of being lead along in logical succession and employing logical and rhetorical knowledge, hypertexts engage us in another manner completely, using more brain creativity than logic. These things may be seen as positives for the future of literature and technological innovation.

            In the end, we must consider all these aspects and weigh them together in order to conclude with a logical and reasonable idea. In my opinion, and the opinions of both Carr and Birkerts, the future of literature and even the human obsession with technological advancement may, very counter intuitively, be the decline of human intellect in the realm of language and writing. While this new form of literature we call hypertext is innovative and effective in the realm of creativity, it is not conducive to academic thinking or understanding. The issue of hypertext is only one example of the impact of technology upon literature and the realm of academia, however it is an example from which we must learn and comprehend the relationship between them. In successfully doing so, we may understand other areas of academics and even the human mind that are influenced and altered through technological innovation and advancement and decide for ourselves whether the affects upon the world around us or amicable or not.

Medium Mixer: The Interplay of Two Different Mediums

The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick uses the world of text and the world of art in an intimate combination to weave together a tale of adventure. I believe he is very effective in his execution of this “mixing of mediums” which creates an unusual yet intriguing story. While the traditional novel gives one a plot and leaves the imagery open to the imagination of the reader, Selznick’s book gives us a combination of detailed pictures and bits of text which leaves some of the plot open to the interpretation of the reader based on the impression one may receive from the interplay of images and text. I feel that it is a refreshing break from the standard novel and is able to draw a reader into the story, perhaps more effectively than a standard book is able to.

This “mixing of mediums” also has its drawbacks which one must take int consideration. While the images do leave some of the story open to the reader’s interpretation, it also leaves the plot somewhat shallow. While the images are great for description purposes, they lack the ability to convey a more complex plot which can be done effectively through text. This sometimes leaves what text there for explanatory purposes which further detracts from the ability of the author to effectively convey a more complex plot.

Overall, it is my opinion that The Invention of Hugo Cabret is a great story conveyed in a new and interesting manner. Selznick manages to effectively combine two rather different mediums and create a new and unique means of story telling. I believe the positives and possibilities of this new method of story telling outweigh the conflicts and problems which it creates. As possibly the first of its kind, this combination of mediums as a truly new form of literature, further research and improvement of this type of literature could lead to new opportunities and possibilities unforeseen or unobtainable through either medium by themselves.

Frankenstein and The Rime of the Ancient Mariner

Though popularized by Hollywood through film as a horror story, the tale of Frankenstein, as written by Mary Shelly, is actually one about nature and loneliness. While these themes are not unique to Frankenstein and are in fact found throughout much romantic and gothic literature, Shelly’s work is certainly one of the most exemplary of them. She uses complex intertextuality to communicate an intricate subtext, which provides a deeper understanding of the many themes observed throughout the novel. One of the most prominent of these is The Rime of the Ancient Mariner written by Samuel Coleridge. Under closer analysis, the way in which Shelly borrows from and often eludes to Coleridge’s romantic tale indeed relate to as well as propagate the themes of both nature and loneliness.

While the most obvious theme in Coleridge’s text is nature, the often-overlooked theme of loneliness is picked up on by Shelly. She is able to most expertly thread the piece into her own story of Frankenstein in a way which amplifies and adds complexity to the loneliness felt by both Victor and his creation. The Rime of the Ancient Mariner tells the tale of a wedding guest confronted by an old sailor who recounts his expedition to the South Artic in years long past. It is on this journey that he shoots an albatross, a romantic symbol of nature and purity, and as a result is subjected to the supernatural wrath of nature. When the fury of nature abates, he is the sole survivor of his crew. His final punishment is being doomed to a lonely existence in which he can only wander the land conveying his woeful tale.

Victor’s suffering and loneliness, while differing in physical causality, is rooted in making the same mistake as the mariner, transgressing the laws and boundaries of nature. Just as the mariner loses is crewmates one by one, so Victor loses his family and friends one by one at the hands of his creation. It is interesting to note that the mariner is punished for the taking of life by killing the albatross while Victor is punished for the exact opposite, the creation of life. Perhaps this implies that it is nature’s duty to decide life and death, not man. As Victor finishes his labors and brings his creation to life, he makes the realization of his mistake as he truly created saying, “ A flash of lightning illuminated the object and discovered its shape plainly to me; its gigantic stature, and the deformity of its aspect, more hideous than belongs to humanity, instantly informed me that it was the wretch, the filthy monster to whom I had given life” (Shelly 56). Shelly’s use of the word “monster” in particular may be interpreted as its pathological definition, implying that his creation is a fetus or infant which is grotesquely abnormal and usually not viable.

The stories of Frankenstein and Rime of the Ancient Mariner both show the imperfection of man and our eagerness to always be right. However, it is the very ignorance of these facts and the perception that what they do is righteous and perfect which are their very flaws. The mariner thought that by killing the albatross, he would bring good luck to himself and his crew upon their journey; however, it was the impure act of killing the albatross which condemns them. Similarly, Victor believed his creation would be a perfect life form which would grant him fame and fortune; however, his creation was an ugly perversion of nature which destroys his life and that of those dear to him. Both the Frankenstein and Rime of the Ancient Mariner make us question our humanity and whether it is we who are the real monsters in these stories. With this in mind, we must consider Victor’s creation and its traditional perception of being the monster of the story.

If we decide that Shelly’s plot and her elusions to the Rime of the Ancient Mariner lead us to the complex underlying message which implies that it is human beings who are the monsters in her story, certainly we must consider the role of Victor’s “monster” and the manner in which this implication effects and changes its role. At the end of the novel Victor’s creation gives us his perception of human kind as well as the motives behind his terrifying actions in the final pages stating:

 

“You, who call Frankenstein your friend, seem to have a knowledge of my crimes and his misfortunes. But, in the detail which he gave you of them, he could not sum up the hours and months of misery which I endured, wasting in impotent passions. For while I destroyed his hopes, I did not satisfy my own desires. They were for ever ardent and craving; still I desired love and fellowship, and I was still spurned. Was there no injustice in this? Am I thought to be the only criminal, when all human kind sinned against me? Why do you not hate Felix, who drove his friend from his door with contumely? Why do you not execrate the rustic he sought to destroy the savior of his child? Nay, these are virtuous and immaculate beings! I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion to be spurned at, and kicked, and trampled on. Even now my blood boils at the recollection of this injustice.” (Shelly 188).

 

He obviously finds human nature repulsive. All he wished for was fellowship and acceptance, of which he received none; rather he was treated with disgust and rejection. In the Rime of the Ancient Mariner the mariner is set free from his suffering by acknowledging that even the most ugly and horrid of creatures deserve love and blessing. Shelly uses this notion throughout the novel in Victor’s creation’s longing for acceptance as well as its disgust with human pride and arrogance which he vocally reveals in the extract above. By the end of Frankenstein we may arrive at the conclusion that Victor’s creation is his very own “albatross” and whereas in Rime of the Ancient Mariner the mariner eventually finds reconciliation through recognition of his transgressions against nature, Victor remains blind to that and is only remorseful because of his own losses and suffering. Perhaps it is not only Victor’s offense against nature, but also his refusal to acknowledge his creation’s need for acceptance and love is the cause of his perpetual torment and eventual death.

While on the surface Mary Shelly’s masterpiece Frankenstein is a fantastic horror story about science and nature, a underlying and more complex message may be understood when we take into account her purposeful use of intertextuality, especially concerning Samuel Coleridge’s piece the Rime of the Ancient Mariner. When further examined, we come to find a thought-provoking message which questions our humanity and asks us to further examine and ponder our interaction with nature. We find a theme of loneliness throughout the novel which, under closer analysis, is caused by Victor’s pride and his transgression against nature by creating life through an unnatural process. We may also find that Victor’s “monster” is closely related to the albatross in the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, and in the end, may not even be the real monster at all. The question at hand, then, is who the real monster is in this tale. There may not be a clear answer to that question, but perhaps that is the point.

The Deal

At the end of Chapter XVI, Victor is beset by his creation and entertains the reasonable demands he is given.

“At length, i wandered towards these mountains, and have ranged through their immense recesses, consumed by a burning passion which you alone can gratify. We may not part until you have promised to comply with my requisition. I am alone and miserable; man will not associate with me; but one as deformed and horrible as myself would not deny herself to me. My companion must be of the same species and have the same defects. This being you must create.”

The creature explains that he is alone and it is the source of his anger and malice. Victor, however, says he is unwilling to comply regardless of how much the creature will torture him. The creature then attempts to reason with Victor, explaining that it is his right to have a companion. It explains that the gratitude towards its master will be immeasurable and he will no longer cause harm and live a life of pain. The creature then offers a deal; “If you consent, neither you nor any human being will ever see us again”. After continuing to bargain, Victor finally agrees to comply with the demands of his creation.

This part of the novel is very intriguing to me because it brings back the creation of life to the foreground and many of the moral dilemmas associated with it. I also find it interesting that Victor swears to comply with the creature upon nature, including the sun and the sky, emphasizing the theme of nature (and the unnatural) in the novel. The theme of loneliness and compassion are the real motivation behind this whole scene and the compromise between master and creation. We are asked to sympathize with the creation in his longing for a companion. He claims his anger and malice stem from the torturous feelings of solitude he feels and the rejection by man and his own creator. Further analysis will surely result in the realization of more complex themes and ideas carefully thread into the text.

The Morality of Scientific Pursuit

In Chapter 3 of Shelly’s Frankenstein, Victor arrives at the university where he becomes convinced that his study of alchemy has been wasted. He decides to turn away from natural philosophy and becomes obsessed with learning the secret of life through scientific means. Victor pursue’s his studies with vigor, completely ignoring all else. When he has obtained all the knowledge he could from his professors at the university, he took his studies to his apartment where he continued his frantic research. Secretly, he decides to take what, in his mind, is the ultimate challenge; creating life. Aided by his study of human anatomy and physiology, he begins to construct a creature to bring to life. Victor is described as to become increasing obsessed and ill. Finally, after months of unyielding toil, Victor completes his creation. In excitement he brings his creation to life, however, its appearance horrifies him. He is troubled by vicious nightmares and wakes to find the creature looming over him. Victor immediately flees the house, haunted by that which he created with his own hands.

This section of the novel is an example of the morality of science and what may happen when certain bounds are crossed or subjects pursued. Victor justifies his actions with an almost religious zeal in the pursuit of the true secret of life. What he finds is that life is much more complicated than a mere science. While he is able to bring an inanimate creation to life, whether it is truly “living” is the subliminal question at hand. In a scientific sense, the creature is most certainly alive, however, from a psychological or moral perspective, whether the creature is truly “alive” or not is certainly debatable.