Been an amazing week so far: great discussions, solid journals, impressive insights. Very excited for this year.

Tuesday and Wednesday were devoted primarily to journal checks. While you are all used to annotations and journaling, the scope of this paper is greater than you’ve likely encountered. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is for you to continue asking questions, seeking answers, trying out connections, and writing down those quotations. The grades are in the grade book. Remember, your current scores are based on a 5-point scale and we’re going for perfection; if you have a 3 in vocab, make sure you’re writing down (and defining!) unfamiliar words. If you were writing down quotations without making connections, make them and your grade will go up.

We’ve continued our discussion of the Romantic Era and its reflection in this novel. Look back for other links about this period, but I’ll recommend this site again. Worth a look—really.

We discussed the romantics’ infatuation with two unlikely heroes: Milton’s Satan and Prometheus. Both challenged the gods and were punished for it, much like our poor cocky hubristic protagonist. We spent most of the hour making connections between Enlightenment/Romantic ideas about the sublime and beautiful and Victor’s reaction to his creation:

I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room, and continued a long time traversing my bedchamber, unable to compose my mind to sleep.

I also told the relevant stories of Prometheus ((Though I left out the Pandora bit—gotta have a cliffhanger, don’t I?)), but here is a great resource for further research.

Our discussions resulted in the following, which may only be clear for those who were present for the discussion. ((And my ham-fisted Paint skills coupled with awkward camera angles aren’t helping)) If you weren’t, ask a peer to walk you through it.

We read Goethe’s “Prometheus” (1772–4) and Byron’s… “Prometheus” (1816) in class today, as well. We’ll discuss these tomorrow with Percy Shelley’s Prometheus Unbound (1820), just to drive the point about their obsession home.

During the past two days we’ve continued our discussion of your chosen arguments. In previous years we set aside a day or two to run through the weekly analyses, but I’m enjoying the lecture/discussion rhythm we’ve created. Any votes for either way?

I came across the above images on my favorite advertisement website Monday evening after our kairos discussion. Seemed like something I should share.

Your first formal article analyses will be due next Tuesday. Check your syllabus for a breakdown of what I expect, and please ask questions if you have them.

Looking for arguments online? Here’s an ancient post wherein I list some sources.

Two of the arguments discussed today:

Leitch, Will. “Is Football Wrong?” New York Magazine. New York Media LLC. 10 Aug. 2012. Web. 22 Aug. 2012.

Edmonds, Dan. “Does Every Kid Need a ‘Passion’?” Time IDEAS. Time. 2 Jul. 2012. Web. 22 Aug. 2012.

Solid discussions today.

We looked at what makes these characters (Mersault and Okonkwo) such unlikable people, hoping to contrast their inevitable ((Heh. Fingers crossed.)) change. I won’t go into detail here, so if you were absent ask a peer for notes.

We will continue this pattern for a while, so make sure you’re noting those questions/confusion as arise.

For those reading The Stranger (or those interested), a copy of the essay I passed out today, “The Myth of Sisyphus,” is available here.

We began our discussion of Frankenstein today with questions from you:

• Why does the story begin with letters?
• Why does the story seem to begin at the end?
• What’s up with Victor’s relationship with his sister?
• Where is Walton going?

These questions and your insights will be the lifeblood of our conversations, so keep them coming.

If you were absent, be sure to get copies of the notes from a peer, but here are a few highlights: ((Here is an ugly comparison between the two eras we’re focused on. Yours will be more detailed when we get done, but it might be helpful now.))

Shelley’s introduction of the story with letters from the mariner provides a bit of verisimilitude to the opening, while offering an excellently sublime backdrop to a story that would otherwise begin with a description of the titular character’s childhood. In addition, it gives the audience a glimpse into the author’s thesis—beware of unbridled scientific inquiry?—through the conversation between the sailor (here embodying the Enlightenment’s values of a self-assured explorer) and Victor (a man whose vanity and hubris brought him low). Shelley clearly wants her audience to understand which side she’s on.

Victor’s relationship with his sister/cousin prompted a discussion of gender politics at the time. We read selections from Edmund Burke’s 1757 A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, specifically his sections on the beauty of small objects and the sublime. To make the Frankenstein connection, we read excerpts of Mary Wollstonecraft’s rebuttal, A Vindication of the Rights of Men. ((Copies will be made available shortly.))

Finally, we began reading from the large “Frankensources” packet I gave you. ((If you’d like a digital copy, send me an email. Copyright restrictions preclude my posting it here.))

You should read and journal tonight through chapter five of the novel. If you’ve journaled all you can, begin reading and annotating the packet. Once you’ve read through a work within, go back to your Frankenstein journal and note any connections; these will soon be the basis of our discussions—they will later be the basis of your paper.

Oh! Interesting explanation of the etymology of “inspiration” here.

Today we broke into groups to discuss the arguments you pulled over the weekend in order to give you an opportunity to work out the appeals with your peers.

As you presented your arguments to the class, we discussed several things that you should remember:

1. The genres of rhetoric (or branches of oratory). These are another tool you may use to analyze arguments. Essentially, they ask “What does the speaker want his or her audience to do with the information?”
2. The importance of external and internal credibility. To keep them straight, know that they are “ex-” or “in-” vis-à-vis the argument. So, external credibility comes from the audience’s trust in the author, any authorities speaking on behalf of the argument, the celebrity of the publication, etc. Internal credibility ((the one you’ll be relying upon, mostly)) comes from the apparent reasonableness of the argument, data or statistics that support your argument, and how well-written/delivered the piece is.
3. The argument’s situation and timeliness, known as kairos. We discussed this when looking at a piece about the Olympics, noting that a connection between the games and jazz makes an interesting hook now, but interest is likely to wane in the coming months.

We will continue our discussions of your arguments tomorrow, so make sure you remember a copy.

Arguments presented today:

Dadisman, Alec. “My Opinion.” Technology in the Classroom. 24 Mar. 2010. Web. 20 Aug. 2010.

Murphy, Sean. “Thoughts on the Olympics, Improvisation, and Jay Adams.” PopMatters. 8 Aug. 2012. Web. 20 Aug. 2012.

(If yours isn’t listed, just send me a link in an email.)