This weekend…
• Paper 1.3
• Read Presentation Essays
– For Monday, be ready to discuss these essays with
your group
• Think about any questions you have about the essays
• Look for “the conversation” between them:
– Agreements/shared assumptions/shared ideas
– Disagreements/different methods/different evidence
• Think about how YOU would want to enter this
conversation
How to Be a Good
Conversationalist
TS English/Fall2014
“Steps” for Paper 1.3
• In this order…
1. A short, and purposeful summary that leads to…
2. The SPECIFIC claim in Jordanova’s essay that you
are RESPONDING to (quote) which leads up to….
3. YOUR OWN CLAIM which requires…
4. One or two pieces of evidence/analysis that
support it
“Steps” for Paper 1.3
In this order…
1. A short, and directed
summary that leads up to…
2. The SPECIFIC aspect of
Jordanova’s essay that you
are RESPONDING to (quote)
which leads up to….
3. YOUR OWN CLAIM which
requires…
4. One or two pieces of
evidence/analysis that
support it
“They Say”…
“I Say”…
Being a Good Conversationalist
• AGREEING
– In a conversation, a person who simply agrees without
contributing his own arguments is like a “yes” man
who evidently has no thoughts of his own.
– If you “agree” be sure to make your own claim by…
• Proposing ramifications of the claim that the original author
has not seen. (“This claim is important because it also helps
us to understand…”)
• Applying their ideas to another object or aspect of the text.
(“This claim also applies in X situation, where it helps us to
see…”)
Being a Good Conversationalist
“In the area of gender and sexuality there was a need
to create a secure masculine identity for practitioners
of science and medicine, which allowed that natural
knowledge was exciting and to be sought in the fashion
of a quest, but which resisted any suggestion that it
was totally seductive” (Jordanova 72). Jordanova’s
research reveals a connection between the legitimacy
of science in the early 19th century and the way that it
was presented as “gendered.” Jordanova’s argument
that masculinity serves as an index of this legitimacy is
important because it also helps us to understand
gender in a broader sense
Being a Good Conversationalist
“In the area of gender and sexuality there was a need to create a
secure masculine identity for practitioners of science and medicine,
which allowed that natural knowledge was exciting and to be sought
in the fashion of a quest, but which resisted any suggestion that it
was totally seductive” (Jordanova 72). Jordanova’s research reveals
a connection between the legitimacy of science in the early 19th
century and the way that it was presented as “gendered.”
Jordanova’s argument that masculinity serves as an index of this
legitimacy is important because it also helps us to understand
gender in a broader sense. If masculinity is defined as ambitious
and yet resisting “seduction,” and is a sign of what is legitimate in
the early 19th century, then we can see how femininity conversely
stands for the illegitimate and the unrestrained. In Shelley’s novel,
these traits are attributed to the female monster, and they reveal a
deep seeded anxiety about women’s ability to determine both social
stability and racial reproduction.
Being a Good Conversationalist
• DISAGREEING
– In a conversation, a person who simply disagrees
without contributing her own ideas or counterarguments is like a grump who doesn’t seem to want
the conversation to go on at all.
– If you “disagree” be sure to make your own claim by…
• Defining exactly what the limitations of the claim are (The
argument is limited in that it fails to…)
• Proposing an alternative solution to the idea that you think
is wrong or problematic (Instead, I see this as…)
Being a Good Conversationalist
• CAUTION! Any disagreement you take up in
your writing must be justified by
evidence/analysis. This means that you
should need to consider your own evidence
and the evidence of the author you are
responding to.
– Ex. I disagree with Jordanova’s idea that science
was conflicted in 19th C British society.
(do you have the historical evidence that would
contradict Jordanova’s historical evidence?)
Being a Good Conversationalist
“Far from being a simple moralistic tale of
masculinist, scientific overreaching… Frankenstein
is a remarkably precise exploration of the internal
conflicts felt by practitioners in a variety of fields”
(Jordanova 60). Part of the reason that
Jordanova can make this claim is because she
understands Frankenstein’s psyche as “the central
monstrosity that the novel explores” (60). While I
agree that Frankenstein is not a “simple’ morality
tale, I disagree with this view, because it seems
clear to me that there are many forms of
monstrousness in this novel.
Being a Good Conversationalist
“Far from being a simple moralistic tale of masculinist,
scientific overreaching… Frankenstein is a remarkably
precise exploration of the internal conflicts felt by
practitioners in a variety of fields” (Jordanova 60). Part of
the reason that Jordanova can make this claim is because
she understands Frankenstein’s psyche as “the central
monstrosity that the novel explores” (60). While I agree
that Frankenstein is not a “simple’ morality tale, I disagree
with this view, because it seems clear to me that there are
many forms of monstrousness in this novel. Focusing on
Frankenstein’s creation, I argue that the novel is actually a
“precise exploration” of the way that these “internal
conflicts” in the culture of science had profoundly social
consequences, particularly in the realm of institutions and
law.
Being a Good Conversationalist
• Tips
– Even though you are responding, that does not mean
that you can’t have the conversation you want to
have.
– Potential response topics coming out of Jordanova:
Science, gender, life/death, social class, community,
morality, nature, history/progress,
professionalization/institutions, heroism, romantic
narrative, sexuality, the supernatural, the body (or any
topic that you can suggest is connected to any of
these)
Being a Good Conversationalist
• Tips:
– The best response claims are the ones that are at least as
specific as the work they are responding to.
“While I agree that Frankenstein represents the importance
of what Jordanova calls the “balancing acts” of scientific
practice, I would add that all life is a balancing act.”
“While I agree that Frankenstein represents the importance
of what Jordanova calls the “balancing acts” of scientific
practice, Shelley also suggests that the contradictions in
gender of the period make these balancing acts
impossible.”
There is absolutely no doubt that in building a
set of self-images for those who unveiled
nature, the vocabulary of romantic heroism
and genius had huge importance. (70)
Mary Shelley has grasped perfectly the fantasies
of (at least some) medical practitioners of the
time, which involved imagining transcendent
powers that were almost their own. (67)