ENGH 202, Spring 2017, Paper #1.
Paper #1 is a 3+ page (typed and double spaced) interpretive/opinion paper on the ethics of Frankenstein's (Victor's/Henry's) creation and treatment of his creature/monster and the Tyrell Corporation's creation and "retirement" of replicants (if you write on Blade Runner). The paper is due at the beginning of class on March 9th OR in my office in Robinson A 253 by 4pm Friday March 10th. You are required to see an LLC tutor while you are working on the paper--either individually or in a group--do a three-part preliminary blog post, provide feedback on your group members' posts, and revise your paper based on the feedback you have received. See the Tutor's schedule and make appointment on Acuity; see the paper posting/peer review prompt on the blog.
As I said in class, the assignment below is long because I wanted to lay out some possible directions the paper could go in--and head off some potential problems--but the basic set of questions are simple and you should cover all three (Mary Shelley, one of th films, your own view):
In each case you need to provide detailed examples from the novel and the film(s) and overall at least two quotes. Use in-text page cites for the novel, detailed summaries/short quotes from the film(s), and fully explain the reasoning behind your own position. The default citation format for the course is MLA or APA but you can also use Chicago if you know that format.
One way of setting up and organizing the paper is to ask whether Frankenstein (and Tyrell and his Corporation, if you write on Blade Runner) should have made the monster/replicants and what their responsibilities were to their creations once made. After an introduction (which may come in later drafts), begin with a detailed description and analysis of how the issue is presented in the novel and then go on to the film(s). You should discuss Mary Shelley's novel and at least one of the following films in detail: James Whale's Frankenstein (1931) and/or Bride of Frankenstein (1935), and Ridley Scott's Blade Runner (1982). After setting out what you see as the novel's and at least one film's position on the dangers and ethics of creating "human" life, take a position of your own on the ethics of what Frankenstein, Tyrell and/or Deckard did.
Since the 1931/1935 films frame the issue more in terms of divine prohibitions--or risk management ala Waldman--and Mary Shelley more in terms of family responsibility and connections to nature, if you include the Whale/Karloff film(s), make sure to address this shift (and possibly the sly comic tone we saw in Bride). You could begin with an account of how the issue(s) are set out in Mary Shelley’s novel and the 1931 film (dir. James Whale perf. Boris Karloff). Then take a position on the ethics of what Frankenstein did that addresses both approaches. Whether you discuss the 1931 and/or 1935 film(s) or not, you could then move on to Blade Runner, the Tyrell Corp, and the replicants and address the related issues. Make sure it is clear which of the Whale films you are writing about at all times, using titles and dates. If you write on Blade Runner, you should talk about what happens when the "machines" scientists and engineers create appear to have consciousness, including an awareness of their own mortality. Given Roy Batty's apparently human qualities--his awareness of his own mortality and attachment to Pris, for example--is a four year life span or "retirement" appropriate?
You should initially stick close to the issue as defined in the novel, the Frankenstein film(s), and/or Blade Runner. You may branch out after that to more recent issues like bio-technology (recombinant DNA, cloning, machines that appear to have consciousness, AI, etc.). One option we will discuss in class is to argue that it was acceptable for Frankenstein/Tyrell to create the monster/replicants but each should have taken more personal responsibility for their creation, been a proper parent, etc. (here you could cite my lectures--see Hacker 162 or 214). The larger implication of this reading of the novel and films that you might want to explore is the importance of professional responsibility for those working in science and technology but note that this more modern approach focuses on scientific groups, not just individuals.
If you do want
to bring in more recent developments, review
Susan Lederer on the
Frankenstein myth and modern science,
Ridley Scott's Prophets of Science Fiction segment on Mary Shelley,
OR some of the articles
BLOG POSTS: before class on Tues Feb 21st (the novel) and Thurs Feb 23rd (the Whale film or films), and Sun Feb 26th by midnight (Blade Runner) post to the blog your preliminary ideas/drafts of the parts of paper #1 on the ethics of Frankenstein's and Tyrell's creation of the creature/monster/replicant. Begin the paper/post with a detailed description and analysis of how the issue is presented in Shelley's novel, then at least one of the Whale films and then Blade Runner. Along the way, take a position of your own on the ethics of what Victor did and what Tyrell, Deckard or Henry did. Provide examples (and quotes in the final paper)--to back up your claims. You will then use the blog to do peer reviews before class on Feb 28th of each other's paper/posts on the class blog. In your peer reviews, follow page/prompt 06.
Note that
you are required to have at least 3 tutoring
appointments this semester and each of these sessions has to be documented or
your grades will be lowered one full letter grade. I will also average in a zero to your
class participation grade if you miss a tutoring appointment. If you do miss an
appointment, to avoid having a zero averaged into your class participation grade
you will need to have an extra tutoring session over the course of the semester.