Literary Critique cont.

How are the actions of the protagonist rewarded and the actions of the antagonist punished? 

    This is a question typically asked in a moral critique of a literary work, but in this situation it is not easily answered. In a typical story the protagonist, or hero, has good morals and good intentions, while the antagonist, anti-hero, has bad intentions with morals that most would agree are detestable. In the end the hero is rewarded and the bad guy is punished, effectively teaching the reader, of any age, the simple lesson that being good is the way to go in life because there are less consequences.
    In Frankenstein, it is much more complicated and requires more thinking and critical analyzation than say: a Disney princess movie. I think that most would agree that fairy tales are not the most realistic representation of human nature, and that is the major difference in terms of the effectiveness of Frankenstein. Victor is neither good, nor bad; he is simply human: a being, like most animals, who displays both qualities at different times depending on multiple different things. This source of morality is one of the major truths behind the novel and it can be argued from multiple points of view. 
    Some would view Victor as the protagonist throughout the story, for he is the main character; but others would view his helpless creation as the "good guy" - even though the creature performs acts which most would agree are repugnant. Picking sides on this issue is a waste of time and it shrouds our judgement from seeing the true picture. Neither of the characters can be classified as the protagonist or the antagonist because it is possible to justify both of their actions in logical and emotional and reasonable ways. Because they are both examples of human nature taken to the extreme, or simply what could happen to any of us, both of their lives and the story ends. It is unclear whether the characters see this death as a reward or punishment, but to the readers it is clear. With death being the ultimate fear of human beings, it is no wonder that Shelley chose to end her story in this way, to use this fear as a warning to fight against human nature and to keep morals alive by learning from others' mistakes.

Literary Critique cont.

What enduring truth is revealed in the theme of this work?

    There are multiple truths revealed through this novel. I am sure that Mary Shelley's intentions did include creating a novel that posed multiple moral questions; it is foolish to think that she simply set off to write a horror novel without any underlying meaning. There are multiple enduring truths or morals that seem to appear in every chapter. One of the most obvious of these truths is quite relevant especially in today's society. Science continues to advance and it is not completely clear where it is headed in the future, and this story and Frankenstein's experience forces the reader and hopefully society to question and make careful consideration about certain aspects of the advancement of technology and science. 
    Another important truth has to do with questioning the morality of humans and where this morality comes from. Clearly, both Frankenstein and his "monster" have moral dilemmas throughout the course of the story and it serves primarily as an example of how we, the readers, should not act. However, it is a realistic portrayal of human nature showing that there is no definite line between right and wrong, good and bad. Both characters have moments of both good and horrible intentions, unfortunately for the character's they are ultimately overcome by their own "bad angel" on the shoulder, or the immoral side of human nature. This is why Frankenstein warns Walton at the beginning and then end of the story to put his ego aside and make rational decisions about his future. In the same way that Victor warns Walton, so is Mary Shelley warning her readers.

Darwin's Middle Road

Darwin was influenced by a social scientist, statistician, and an economist. Identify each one and explain what each contributed to Darwin's theory of natural selection?

    This essay was arguing that the way in which Charles Darwin made scientific discoveries, most famously his theory of natural selection (and evolution), were not simply a collection of facts nor blind theorization. The author claims that there are two types of scientists : inductivists, the fact collectors; and eurekaist, those who pull conclusions "out of thin air." Darwin took, what the author calls, "The Middle Road," a hybrid between the two scientific methods that seems to be conclusively the most effective.
    A main argument is that Darwin was influenced by people outside of the realm of science including a social scientist, a statistician, and an economist, thus making his conclusion more effective reaching different fields and gaining credibility across fields.
    He used the economical theories of Dugald Stewart, a Scottish economist, who claimed that "overall social structure must begin by analyzing the unconstrained actions of individuals" (65-66). Adolphe Quetlet contributed, unintentionally, that "population[s] would grow geometrically and food supplies only arithmetically" (66). Thus gave undeniable evidence to Darwin's claim that animals must compete to stay alive and pass on their genes. Schweber, the social scientist, basically claims that individual action determines the structure of society, and this directly supports Darwin's claims.

When Doctors Make Mistakes

Part One

- Teenage stabbing victim in operating room, author has to leave t tend to another patient
- He has only ever done this procedure (tracheotomy) on a goat for practice
- Calls in Dr. Ball, the attending physician and more experienced surgeon
- Defines the difference between a mistake and negligence
- "All doctors make mistakes" (44).

Part Two

- Mistakes are not always the doctors fault, there are other factors
- All doctors have horror stories
- Author uses statistics for a logical argument
- "The important question isn't how to keep a bad physician from harming patients, it's how to keep good physicians from harming patients."

Part Three (My Part)

- Doctors are required to go to weekly or monthly meetings to discuss errors in the hospital
- The author presents a partial list of cases form a typical week
- The author's failed tracheotomy case is presented at one of the meetings
- The attending physician takes the blame for the failed case no matter whose fault it is
- Ball, his attending, took the blame for his case and later explained what he should have done differently
- Arrogant doctors do not ever learn form their mistakes
- Humans always make errors, that's why M&M meetings exist
- thing will always go wrong because of multiple errors not one single error
- "And yet I knew that a surgeon can take feelings to far. It is one thing to be aware of one's limitations. It is another to be plagued by self-doubt."

Part Four

-Doctors have checklist before surgeries like pilots
- Advocating for simulations with doctors
- experts need to follow by formalities

Part Five

-Routine Gal Bladder surgery case is recalled
- 10-25% of patients die from complications

(The New Yorker, February 1,1999)

Nature of Scientific Reasoning

    Mark the generalizations Bronowski makes in the course of "The Nature of Scientific Reasoning." What is the effect of using these generalizations?

"Men who have read Balzac and Zola are not deceived by the claims of these writers that they do no more than record the facts" (Paragraph 2).

- this implies that the author has known all people who have read these authors... It is more powerful than saying "some men who..."

"Yet the same readers solemnly carry with the from their schooldays this foolish picture of the scientist fixing by some mechanical process the facts of nature" (Paragraph 2).

"No scientific theory is a collection of facts..." (Paragraph 7)

-this generalization implies that there has never been a theory in science in which the scientist simply recorded the natural world and formed a theory without drawing any sort of conclusions...

"All science is the search for unity in hidden likeness" (Paragraph 8).

-implies that the author is familiar with all sciences... it is better to stay away from such statements, ut in this case it is effective in conveying his point...

This essay by Jacob Bronowski is full of logical fallacies, something that would ordinarily make an essay less credible and powerful. However, in "The Nature of Scientific Reasoning" these fallacies are effective in asserting strong claims to the reader showing that the author is quite passionate about his work in science/literature.


(The Nature of Scientific Reasoning by Jacob Bronowski)

The Moral Instinct

   Stephen Pinker is a Harvard University psychologist who, in his New York Times article "The Moral Instinct" argued to some extent that morals exist as an instinct to and human survival. His argument is confusing because it almost seems as if he changes opinions multiple times and does not actually focus the essay to a single claim until the middle of the article. A possible explanation is that his purpose might have been to qualify multiple opinions rather than choosing a side which always comes down to personal beliefs, a particularly difficult subject to argue. The claim that morality exists to aid survival, a purely biological explanation, is supported by the simple fact that "people ted to align their moralization with their life styles." In Frankenstein, this is a possible explanation for the creatures display of morals and then shift in morals by the end of the story. His instinct fueled his impulse to kill everyone including himself.

    Many argue that a possible explanation for the source of morality, rather than just human instinct, is God- or some higher power. Pinker's counter argument is both logical and interesting:

    "Putting God in charge of morality is one way to solve the problem, of course, but Plato made short work of it 2,400 years ago. Does God have a good reason for designating certain acts as moral and others as immoral? If not-if his dictates are divine whims-why should we take them seriously? Suppose that God commanded us to torture a child. Would that make it all right, or would some other standard give us reasons to resist? And if, on the other hand, God was forced by moral reasons to issue some dictate and not others-if a command to torture a child was never an option- then why not appeal to those reasons directly?"

    The bottom line is that while morality can be discussed, debate is unnecessary because it seems to always boil down to personal beliefs. Pinker's purpose was not to persuade readers to conform to a new set of values but rather present multiple options for interpretation allowing the reader to decide for themselves.

("The Moral Instinct".Steven Pinker.New York Times. January 13,2008.)

Against Wicked Characters

    In paragraph three, Johnson refers to men as "splendidly wicked," whose, "endowments throw a brightness on their crimes." What does this mean? Can you think of modern films, novels, or television to illustrate this point?

    I interpret Johnson's claim to mean that there are certain people who can get away with horrific acts because of who they are or who they are related to/ know. By endowments, Johnson means inherited something, be it money or power. "Men whose endowments..." refers to those who have "worth" or people who have inherited fortunes that allow them to get away with wicked crimes - "threw a brightness on their crimes." This could also mean that these people have the resources to make their crimes seem less harsh by justifying their actions to the public who listen to every word they say because of who they are. Johnson relates this to characters in fiction and art who are so admired bu the reader that the reader ignores the characters faults, thus mixing the qualities of good and evil in a way allows "the great corruptions  of the world" to get away with their wickedness. This reminds me of Kevin Spacey's character in the Netflix original, House of Cards. His character is admired by all of the viewers even though he does horrible things to get his way in Washington. Writers for movies and television are doing this more and more in modern times because we seem to be drawn more to the characters with faults, possibly because we find them more similar to ourselves.


(Samuel Johnson: Against Wicked Characters)