lizferneding

April 24, 2006

2006-04-18T09:45:00.000-07:00

Comparing a human’s mind to a printing press lends several ideas about how the human mind works. As a printing press we are assuming that as humans we replicate ideas and quickly are able to produce work and information. We quickly produce results and create what is expected of us. This definition has both positive and negative connotations. It is assuming a tremendous amount of input and quick production, but it also lends itself to assume that the human mind is capable of creating many complex things.
Comparing the human mind to a computer also creates several ideas about how the human mind works. But, in this definition we assume that the human mind is capable of several different functions. We are able to quickly process both complex and simple data and produce results, yet not in the same fashion as the printing press. Although this definition is similar to the printing press in many ways it gives more credit to the complex human mind. It allows for several different ideas to be processed and understood and defines the brain as an ever changing piece of technology.

April 21, 2006

2006-04-18T09:31:00.000-07:00

system of brain chemistry exchanges is like a washing machine
Serotonin is the ‘water’ that flows in at certain times and is flushed out
depression is akin to low water pressure
blue moods can be compared to the scratchy music coming from a radio that is not properly tuned to the station

These metaphors do not lend themselves to consequences for certain actions. They liken themselves to actions of inanimate objects in which we have little control over. Therefore, these metaphors assume that much of how the human mind works is based on actions that are uncontrollable in our world. There is little we can do, besides minor repairs, to ensure that the mind works as we want and expect it to.

April 19, 2006

2006-04-18T09:11:00.000-07:00

Diagnoses of problems have always been dependant upon the times that we live in. In the past, “back in the old days,” people were seen as being possessed by the devil, but now modern science has allowed us to understand this problem and attribute the issues to a chemical imbalance or a disease. Although the behaviors and problems associated with an individual have been the same we treat them very differently based on our diagnosis of the times. Someone possessed by the devil is seen as a helpless soul, someone who perhaps was not holy enough, or had the chance of being inhabited by a devil. This action is seen as curable if the devil is only convinced to leave the person’s body. The possession is viewed as a temporary situation as opposed to a permanent diagnosis. However, if a person is diagnosed with an illness then they are treated with medicines and therapy, but are never without the disease. We have pity for people in both situations, but those with a disease are clinical patients and maybe controlled by medication for the rest of their life. But a person involved in a possession will struggle with the devil and is helpless until they are rid of the devil. In this case, those with possession, such as Margaret Cooper, are treated as though they are helpless, while Eve, or people with a disease, are seen as people that, if on medication, should be able to control their behavior and attempt to live normal lives. Each woman is held accountable in different ways, but ultimately is at the mercy of their disease or possession.
I believe that both writers are correct in their account of a situation, but it all depends on the time of their interpretation. We cannot expect people to make determinations and diagnosis’ that are beyond their time. It is difficult for us to assume that they have the information that is present today back when they were writing their account of a woman’s possession/disease.

April 10, 2006

2006-04-06T09:12:00.000-07:00

Anger is usually defined as an explosion or equated with fire and dynamite because it is often sudden. When you describe someone as unhappy it is a melancholy complacent feeling, yet anger is sudden and outrageous. People are often set off by anger for random events or things and the emotion comes out of nowhere. Before they were a calm individual, then out of the blue they are enraged and furious, like and explosion.
He compares his anger to a growing apple, something that lived inside of him that he did not express, and because of that it grew until it exploded from within him, into the sad fate of his foe. This metaphor highlights the way anger stays with us. Often, when we release or explain our anger it is gone, but if we keep it bottled up inside of us it grows and we become more enraged. We play it off and pretend it is not there through smiles and tears, but it still exists waiting to be released. But, his metaphor hides the idea of the act of anger and rage. It describes it in subtle detail, and finished with the fateful conclusion, but misses the ultimate explosion of anger, the release of the rage.

I grew some anger today.
Anger is growing inside of me.
He is growing red with anger.

April 5, 2006

2006-04-03T18:48:00.000-07:00

The definition of technology taken from Dictionary.com is as follows:

The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.
The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective.
Electronic or digital products and systems considered as a group: a store specializing in office technology.
Anthropology. The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials.
However, redefining this definition to incorporate writing as a technology using the anthropological definition would be as follows:
The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in conveying a thought or idea, fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials.
I think that the definition of technology should be expanded to include writing because much of what we consider to be technology is based on our use of language and writing. Writing is our most basic source of technology. Before Bluetooth and laptops we simply had writing and thought to aid us in solving problems and conveying ideas. No one today would understand much of our modern technology without relying upon writing to explain the technology, as well as its purpose and use. Defining technology as “new gadgets” omits a plethora of technological innovations. Based on this definition many of the things that we use on a daily basis are no longer considered a technology. When the wheel was invented centuries ago it was considered a new technology (a “new gadget” if you will), but based upon modern definitions, it is now just a wheel. However before the wheel and before cell phones there was language and writing, our most basic yet complex, technologies.
I think on a daily basis one relies upon language and writing to communicate and make decisions. Whether it is conveying a thought or idea concerning a text, or a feeling we depend upon technology, i.e. writing, to walk us through that action. Humans require the need to express themselves and express thought and emotion and writing allows us to do just that. When deciding upon a college to attend, or evaluating a job offer we use writing to make that decision and explain to ourselves as well as others our rationale. Yet, this technology is so versatile it can be used for this, that, and everything in between. Without this not-so-modern convention we would be left in the dark, lacking any modern necessities, all available through the use of writing.

April 3, 2006

2006-03-30T11:31:00.000-08:00

The images I found in various women’s magazines vary from weight loss ads, to maternity ads, to perfume and clothing ads. Yet, they each have something in common. Each of these ads depicts how people, specifically women should appear to the outside world. In each of the various ads the media is communicating to women how they expect them to look and act; pressuring women to lose weight to appear a certain way, advertising to married pregnant women, and expecting young girls and women to be docile, complacent individuals. These advertisements illustrate how appearance-based our society is, and outlines how women should appear and behave in our society.
It is very apparent then that women who do not conform to these limiting roles are left abandoned in our society. They lack role models and representatives of themselves in their reading material and advertisements. It can also be assumed that the discrepancies between real life and advertisements can lead individuals to question their identity. Are they normal, is the person that is on the pages of a magazine representing America, or are they representing what America wants us to be? Then, should these individuals alter their lifestyle in order to become what they are supposed to be?
Sadly, much of the advertisements placed in the magazines do not reflect the diversity of our country and culture. They tend to only reflect women of a certain size and color and severely limit the depth that we hold within our society. Although some women do fit into these molds, there needs to be more diversity in our advertisements that reflect the entire population, not a select few. Yes, women can be docile and cute, but they can also be assertive and aggressive. We need a selection of both personalities that allow women to decide who they want to be rather than being told what they should be.

March 8, 2006

2006-03-08T06:33:00.000-08:00

Frankenstein created a monster. The monster was made through the use of technology and wisdom. But, this was not his only difference as a being. Each individual has their own fingerprint, their own DNA, which makes each of us an individual. Although the monster possessed the DNA and fingerprints of others did not exclude him from being an individual. Each of us, in our own right is original and creatively different. But, these differences are for us to realize, and are not often presented to us. In the case of the monster however, he quickly discovered he was different. He was greeted by the world as a monster, and individual that people ran from in fear. Quickly this sense of not belonging taught the monster he was different. But, not only was he different in his appearance, he also differed in his upbringing. By watching the family and reading their books he was able to fully realize in what capacity he was different. He lacked a family and a “normal” upbringing. He was never taught to read, or laugh, or play, rather he had to learn these fundamental tools and technology on his own, by himself. Through this use of technology he was able to capture the essence of his difference, a sense of where he fit in in the world in which he lived.
Much as the monster felt excluded through the use of technology individuals often have the ability to feel the same way. Viewing a movie or reading a book often places one in an environment to which they are not accustomed. The themes to these stories differ, but often the tale that is told is much different than what the viewer/reader has experienced. Does the scene portrayed in the book/film represent reality? Was I supposed to experience this life? Why is my life and my experiences so different? Often one finds themselves asking these questions, questioning the life they have thus far lived. Am I normal? Or are the events on the screen/page purely fictional? In this case, ones differences can be fully manipulated by the hands of the author/director. They have the power to deem what is “normal” and to eliminate the differences that all of us are likely to experience in our lifetime.
In the story Great Expectations, the main character, Pipp, becomes aware of his identity through helping the old man. Before this instance he was a solemn individual who lacked anything that made him an individual. He maintained the same life, and it was not until he was able to assist someone else that he discovered himself. He became an independent character, separate from his surroundings and the others around him. He was fully Pipp, a boy who held an identity away from his simple life. The monster in Frankenstein found himself in a similar way. By helping the family and watching them from a distance he discovered himself. He was not only a monster that scared people away, he was a person who was capable of love and caring for others.

February 27, 2006

2006-02-27T14:31:00.000-08:00

Technology is constantly changing. The forms that technology takes alter the impact that the technology has on a person or society. In the example that was used in class, technology was presented in several different forms: letter writing, story writing, film-making, and web site production. Each of these forms has a different mode of expression and assumes a different tone to which the author or director must realize.
Such as any author must change his or her story depending on their audience, one must also alter their story depending on their use of technology. One cannot tell the same story in a letter that one would in a movie; the very different forms of technology deserve very different forms of expression. As I began to experiment with different technologies I was able to experience this fact for myself.
Letter writing, one of the most basic forms of writing and technology assumes a very specific audience; the person to which one is writing. One only has to cater to this particular person or persons when communicating using a letter. One does not need to factor different people or situations into their communication; rather they are familiar with the audience and how to approach them. This was illustrated through the various forms of a letter. Writing to ones own friends assumes a very different tone and audience than writing to one’s mother. The audience is different; therefore they must be addressed differently and communicated with through a different tone.
When transforming a letter to a story the tone and audience changes again. This piece of writing is now introduced to an entirely new audience; an audience the author may be unfamiliar with. Much less may be assumed about what the audience knows and understands as well as the tone one may take. Writing to people one is familiar with may dismiss many formalities which may be necessary in story. Just as the author is unfamiliar with the audience, the audience is unfamiliar with the author. The author must be careful how he/she addressed its readers.
Transformation from a story to a film also involves several changes. Film has the capability of using literal illustration of thoughts and feelings of people and characters. The audience does not need to be told as much through narration and dialogue, rather they can view for themselves on a screen how to interpret and translate thoughts and actions of characters. Therefore, a story must be changed to film through illustration. In a story an author must describe in detail actions and ideas, dialogue of characters, and often their most inner thoughts. Much of this can be omitted as it is translated to the screen. But, one must be sure not to omit too much of a story when placing it on film. Generalizations that can be overlooked in a story, pieces that are left to the audience to distinguish, can often be left out and drastically change a story. An author and a director must be very careful to sustain the tenacity of a story, but also to play to the audience through the use of literal illustration.
Finally, placing a story into a web production also involves many changes. As the web environment continues to become more diverse and changing many freedoms are afforded authors of stories. Numerous interpretations exist to convey ones thoughts and feelings to their audience through the World Wide Web. But, many of the same issues involving film are present when dealing with an online environment. Interpretation is left up to the author and the audience, but one must be careful to include the right amount of information to keep the audience interested and involved, but not to leave them lost and confused.
Examining these different forms of technology and writing the audience is constantly of importance. One must always be conscious of their audience regardless of the form of communication. Yet, as a story unfolds, through a letter, story, or film, the person (the “you”) is forever changed. It is up to the audience to decide who the “you” is. In a letter “you” may start out as the author, yet “you” is quickly changed to a person or a character in a story, and then on film. “You” has left the bounds of you personally when one introduces it to an audience. The you changes much as stories are changed for dramatic effect and interpretation in film. “You” is now a character on film, or in writing, that must be interpreted by its audience.
As the “you” changes in the story, so does the person who created “you.” Once a story is released to an audience, whether it is your mother or friend, you are no longer the author. The audience decides who the you is. Is “you” a negative, pessimistic character, or is “you” a caring giving individual? One may have written the “you” as a specific someone, but ultimately the audience decides “you’s” outcome. The audience’s decision about “you” may be based on outside factors such as society and experience, but ultimately it is their choice to determine who that person is, not the author.
Writing has never been a simple task. Although the words may flow freely, an author must constantly maintain supreme awareness. The audience, the environment, and the way in which a piece of writing is presented all must be addressed by an author. Forgetting about one issue can drastically change the outcome of writing. To know and understand ones audience and how a piece will interact with an audience and an environment is a true gift never to be ignored by great writers everywhere.

February 22, 2006

2006-02-21T13:17:00.000-08:00

Dear Mom,
As I look back on my past so much of it has been shaped by my upbringing. Being the oldest child I have always attempted to be the center of attention. However, in public this was not always the case.
When I was much younger in the third grade I was very shy away from home. I was very quiet and rarely spoke up in my classes. I became almost a wallflower seldom yearning to be the focus of attention. I infrequently spoke out of turn and kept to myself and my close friends both in class and on the play ground.
However, it wasn’t until my parent-teacher conferences that you and Dad became aware of this fact. I remember you telling me how shocked you were to hear that I was so quiet in school. You actually questioned the teacher when she made these remarks to you. Yet, at that time I was a very different person at school. I had become so accustomed to ruling the house, or at least my younger sisters, and did not adapt the same when I was around my peers. It was only when I was home that I came out of my shell and became Elizabeth. But at school I became introverted, back into my shell, into that girl with brown hair.
It wasn’t until much later in school that I fully blossomed. I became comfortable with myself and with others my own age and my true self came out. With the encouragement I felt at home and the relationships I made with my friends I became a fully functioning and boisterous child, the child you always knew and loved.

Dear Rachel (a friend from high school),
You know how I am always the loudest one anywhere, at a party, sitting around, at the movies? Well I wasn’t always so loud. The person that you have become best friends with was not always this way.
Much like many kids are shy when they are younger, I was extremely shy. But, I wasn’t always this way. At home I was loud and obnoxious with my sisters and maintained my presence as the oldest, a personality you are very familiar with. Yet, when I went to school I was very different. I became very shy and introverted and didn’t really talk that much. Hard to believe I know, but I really was very shy. I had a few close friends that I spoke to, but the majority of my time was spent quietly playing with them, rarely shouting out ideas in class.
Yet, over time I became more comfortable with myself and began to speak out more and my “home self” became more like my “school self” until they were one in the same. Since I have gone to college I am sure that I have changed a bit, as everyone does, but it is hard for me to become more extroverted than you already know. That is what makes us friends, our balance between who we are together and who we are to the world; loud, sometimes obnoxious girls.

Autobiography:
Born December 22, 1983, a Thursday
Grew up as a child in Kettering, OH
My first sister Samantha was born March 20, 1986
Slowly I became adjusted to life as a sister
We moved to Mansfield, OH
My second sister Caroline was born, December 28, 1988
We moved back to Dayton, to Centerville, OH
I started preschool and kindergarten
I entered Cline Elementary School
(insert autobiographical letters)
I graduated from Cline and went on to Magsig Middle School
I graduated Magsig Middle School and entered Centerville High School
In high school I became interested in business and joined International Businesss Management
I obtained my learner’s permit and then my liscence
I graduated from Centerville High School in June 2002
I went to Miami University in the fall of 2002 to study Marketing

Story telling always adjusts to ones audience. Much as we discussed in class, a play is just a rehearsal without an audience. Stories are much the same way. It is how you shape your words around your audience that makes them a story. In my autobiographical letter my story changed to fit my audience. The people I wrote to not only differed in age and background, but also in relation to the relationship I hold with them. Knowing these individuals as well as their interests and opinions I was able to shape my story to their liking and their audience. Parents and friends differ, therefore their stories must differ to keep them entertained and willing to read more into a story, autobiographical or not. It is also important to shape the story from the audience’s perspective. My parents saw me as their child, so I related to them as their child, while I told the story to my friend as a peer, as if she was there with me. She can relate to this experience much more than my parents because of her experiences and ideas.
Because this was written in a letter I was able to take several liberties that would greatly differ if this were a published piece. For one, I would be less forthcoming with my thoughts, and I would have to tailor my thoughts for a more general audience rather than a specific person. A general audience would be more interested in the basics, if interested at all, while those that I know and cater to would be more receptive to details.
Much like this letter format differs from a published piece, so does the “you.” You in a letter refers to the specific person to which I am writing while a you in a published piece is much more general, although still a reader it is not a specific reader.

"The Wizard of Oz" February 15, 2006

2006-02-14T09:41:00.000-08:00

Outline of Wizard of Oz:
1. Dorothy is living in Kansas
2. There is a tornado where she is swept away from home
3. Dorothy ends up in a distant land with color and the Tin Man, the Scarecrow, and the Lion
4. They make a journey on the yellow brick road
5. They encounter munchkins and the Wicked Witch
6. They make it to Emerald City and discover the Wizard of Oz doesn’t really exist
7. Dorothy makes it home again
Each person is an individual and different in their own way. Much as each person is different their experiences are different. It is very difficult to compare two people’s stories to one another. Each story has a different background and is relatable by different experiences. It is therefore very difficult to compare individual’s stories and problems to a piece of historical fiction. Although a great story with many moral tales, the Wizard of Oz does not describe or outline what a life story should consist of. It is up to the individual to make their own story contingent on their experiences, not the yellow brick road. People learn through their own experiences and grow because of them in their own way, not because they morally resemble Dorothy. Our world is much too complex and modern to compare ourselves to a piece of fiction.
The Land of Oz has the capability of resembling different things to different people. However, picturing Oz as a trip to the movies seems to be a bit of a stretch for me. When analyzing the land of Oz, when Dorothy suddenly is seen in color seems to be an eye opening experience for her. Never before in her life has she witnessed a place such as Oz. In this example, we too as consumers see different worlds when we visit the theatres and view films. We are taken to a different place where we are forced to see a new perspective, a new view of the world. But these encounters, Dorothy in Oz, and us at the movies, teach us to learn and view the world through a new perspective. Learn to experience new things through travel (for Dorothy) or through film for us. However, I do not feel that these films serve to symbolically teach us to be better viewers. By appreciating and imagining a new world we become better viewers, but that is completely individualistic. The films produce the images and we do with them what we please, such as Dorothy did with it what she pleased. Yes, in a perfect world we may all learn from our experiences and become better people and viewers, but it is up to the individual to make that distinction.

Isaac Assimov "the Caves of Steel" February 8, 2006

2006-02-06T17:38:00.000-08:00

What can we tolerate in a robot? What is expected in a robot? These questions, although different are closely related. When the word robot is mentioned common knowledge creates an image of a technological wonder that possesses the skills, accuracy, and efficiency to successfully complete a desired task. That said, the inability to perform said tasks would not be tolerated in a robot. The primary purpose of their existence is not accomplished if they are unable to perform. We expect the machines to complete tasks as well as anticipate problems or errors. They serve as the “all encompassing calculators” to the human mind. The inability to achieve this task would be seen as a weakness, not tolerated by our population.
However, what is tolerated by a robot also influences the threat that we perceive them to have. They have the ability to replace humans in many cases and this posses a severe threat. The power that humans hold over robots is their skills that are irreplaceable by robots. Yet, as technology increases these skills (emotions, fear, pain, etc.) are more likely to come to fruition in robots. The ability to feel, and think on their own are not far off possibilities for these machines that posses much of our worlds intelligence. These robots offer the possibility for our society to excel, but also come with a warning and a danger.
However, I feel that robots would be more accepted if they are viewed as machines. As soon as we begin to give robots more human like qualities (such as Daneel with human facial and physical characteristics) then robots will become more of a threat to our society. Once these machines are able to blend into the population as humans they pose a more serious threat. People cannot compete with machines that have the abilities that are not humanly possible. But, if they resemble machines (iron and steel) then they assume a more inanimate role in society, that of a machine, not a human imposter. Although these “human imposters” would never truly resemble humans personalities or characteristics, they still appear to posses many of these attributes which posses a threat (although sometimes only a physiological threat). What appears to be human is often times assumed to be human, much like our distant relatives the primates. Although they are not human they do display many human like qualities which lend us to see them as our “cousins.” Yet, with a robot of a more similar appearance with compatible mannerisms we more closely associate them as human, yet a human that we do not fully understand.

Isaac Assimov "The Caves of Steel" February 3, 2006

2006-02-02T11:33:00.000-08:00

To be human takes on several different meanings, humanity encompasses every aspect of life and thought and impacts individuals differently. However, in the case of the creation of and reaction to robots specific aspects of humanity are unveiled. With the creation of robots, fashioned in human likeness, generates the notion of self worship. “The human form is the most successful generalized form in all nature. We are not a specialized animal, … except for our nervous system and a few odd items. If you want a design capable of doing a great many widely various things, all fairly well, you could do no better than to imitate the human form.” (Page 172) The human form is celebrated as the most advanced and efficient creature which illustrates human’s celebration of this fact by creating robots in their likeness. However, the reaction is much different to robots. Although most robots are created to ease the life of humans and to complete unwanted tasks, they threaten the society that humans have lived in for centuries. “I tell you what they do, in case you don’t know. They steal jobs from men. That’s why the government always protects them. They work for nothin’ and, on account o’ that, families gotta live out in the barracks and eat raw yeast mush.” (Page 31) Although they are created in human-kind’s image they are still condemned for their purpose. They are capable of making great strides in several areas of society, yet they threaten to replace what is common and realized within society, work for pay.
Human interactions with the robot can also offer a illustration into humans demand for communication and contact. Using the example of Tank allows humans to understand that they require an interface that facilitates optimal communication. We require one to understand us and for us to understand them in order to properly communicate. Without this direct interaction humans cannot fully communicate. In the case of the Tank, this type of communication is not fully possible. However the robot is programmed it will never be able to fully communicate and provide an optimal interaction for either party. This communication includes the use of emotion within the interaction, another facet that is not fully recognized in the Tank. Although the robot may be programmed to convey certain emotions along with specific phrases it does not fully represent the feeling. Much like internet or written communications lack this form of expression we use simple “faces” to convey our meaning (an essential aspect in communication). Yet, these faces require interpretation along with the message which depends on the reader. Therefore, communication may be mimicked in online, written, or robotic communications, but it can never replicate the interaction and communication present between two or more individuals.
R. Daneel Olivaw serves several purposes in the society with the novel The Caves of Steel. He is able to accomplish many tasks that are undesirable or impossible for humans to achieve and also serves as a source of a plethora of information. Due to his extensive amount of information and services I would be able to work with the robot. Although he lacks much of the emotion necessary for proper human interaction he would serve as a reliable source to work with and complete a given task.

Mary Shelley "Frankenstein" January 27, 2006

2006-01-26T11:56:00.000-08:00

I feel that these technologies definitely affected his feelings as well as his personality. Before discovering the Delaceys he was alone in society. He was essentially a blank slate that experienced only the most basic feelings: hunger, heat, and cold. He was unaware of the capabilities of life that were around him and the feelings that he was able to experience. Therefore, when he was introduced to the Delaceys he slowly became educated about these feelings that he had never before experienced. Knowing that love was available for him to feel, as well as compassion and rejection, led him to experiment with these feelings and eventually make him an unhappy creature. “I improved, however, sensibly in this science, but not sufficiently to follow up any kind of conversation, although I applied my whole mind to the endeavor, for I easily perceived that, although I eagerly longed to discover myself to the cottagers, I ought not to make the attempt until I had first become master of their language, which knowledge might enable me to make them overlook the deformity of my figure.” He was able to understand these feelings through watching the Delaceys. Learning the language they spoke as well as understanding the writing that they read led him to even greater anger. However the monster learning these most basic technologies from outsiders through observation rather than being taught them by his creator and teacher, led to the source of his anger. “And what was I? Of my creation and creator I was absolutely ignorant, but I knew that I possessed no money, no friends, no kind of property.” He was abandoned by his creator and was forced to learn and experience on his own, lacking the family and companionship that the Delaceys taught him existed. This rejection from creation led to his anger which transited throughout his life as well as his quest for his creator to understand his situation and sympathize like the monster now knew people were capable of feeling. But this anger so controlled his life that it was the most dangerous and violent of angers. This anger possessed the monster’s whole being and fueled his passion for existence, much more violent than any other type of anger. It consumed him and made him violent, desperate to experience not only the technologies created by man, but capable of experiencing the love and passion they held as their own as well.

Mary Shelley "Frankenstein" January 20, 2006

2006-01-19T21:19:00.000-08:00

Frankenstein “preferred glory to every enticement that wealth placed in [his] path.” He is quoted as stating this as “madness” because it is so different than what was expected at the time. Instead of vesting in the great wealth that was handed to him by his family he “commenced by inuring [his] body to hardship.” He fought through “cold, famine, thirst, and want of sleep” in order to achieve success on his own terms. He remained dedicated to his studies by “devot[ing] nights to the study of mathematics, the theory of medicine, and those branches of physical science…,” but on his own terms. He was able to accomplish his goals in life by placing importance on attributes that are not commonly desired. He sought this passion in Walton as well illustrated by the quote “Unhappy man! Do you share my madness?” He looked for similar qualities in others; the insatiable quest to accomplish great things beyond the bounds of modern convention. Frankenstein exhibits a similar passion later in the novel, but the passion is revealed from a different perspective. Here, he devoted all of his time towards his interest in science and the human body. “Two years passed in this manner, during which I paid no visit to Geneva, but was engaged, heart and soul, in the pursuit of some discoveries which I hoped to make.” His intentions placed less emphasis on his goal for success utilizing his familial wealth, but dove deeper into his quest to accomplish his fantasized ambition. He was now fully enthralled in his new passion of science which held importance in his earlier life, but now became his focus.
Although his motives focused on different aspects of human interest throughout his lifetime, the inherent theme is the pursuance of a goal. This quest for the goal is not without motives for success, but is driven by an innate purpose to achieve a desired and often difficult objective. Much like many of the leaders of our time, such as Bill Gates, they contained the motive, the drive, and the determination to seek beyond their bounds to achieve their success and to thrive in a difficult world. However, without these drives and this motivation we would lack many of the modern world’s conventions and we would live a life absent of technology and innovation.

Nathaniel Hawthorne "The Birthmark" January 13, 2006

2006-01-13T09:17:00.000-08:00

I feel that scientists should only be able to take science and medicine so far. There is a distinct line (although it has been blurred recently) between what is acceptable and what is questionable, unethical, and immoral. In cases such as these (genetic engineering, cloning) the line is definitely blurred and acts that were left up to nature and now in the hands of scientists. It is scary to think how far we may go in the future if we do not put limits on advancements in science. Although many medical and scientific advancements have allowed our society to survive certain obstacles, there are specific boundaries which should remain in the hands of nature.
Hawthorne agrees with this decision based on the final paragraph in “The Birthmark.” Clearly if the main character were able to learn to love and appreciate what was before him instead of expecting perfection then he would have understood not only true love, but true beauty and nature. His text definitely serves as a warning to its readers to learn to embrace the irregularities and imperfections within nature. Once one grows to learn and love this concept they will live a more fulfilling and happy existence. Yet, if one does not accept what nature has handed them they are condemned to a life lacking satisfaction and a quest for the nonexistent ie perfection.