erespall
Pirate Lord.. Arrr
Heres my speech, any feedback or input would be much appreciated.
“Texts are viewed as a reflection of the social values and perspectives of their context. However, through the treatment of similar content, seemingly different texts, from different eras, can connect through time and offer a deeper level of insight and meaning for audiences.”
Through a comparative analysis, demonstrate how this statement applies to the two texts set for study.
========================
You sit here before me today and you wonder, how two seemingly different texts are able to connect as texts in time. You hope to gain knowledge, an experience; a deeper understanding of this question throughout this presentation but here is a question for you.
What does it truly mean to be human? Is it our appearance? Is it our thoughts and emotions? This age old question has plagued mankind from the emergence of primitive cultures to modern day society and most likely, into the distant future where the distinction between technology and humanity become less apparent.
Good morning representatives of the board.
Mary Shelley’s timeless gothic horror novel Frankenstein and Ridley Scott’s dystopic film noir, Blade-Runner appear to be abundantly dissimilar upon first inspection, both in contextual divergence and in their textual form. Frankenstein and Blade-Runner have been separated through the vastness of time and yet share a myriad of similarities that despite their different context allow them to connect through time and delve into thematic concerns that illuminate for the responder, a deeper level of insight and meaning. One of the most prominent overarching themes that span across both texts is science and its consequences. More aptly, its influence on humanity. The consequences of science lead both texts to be cautionary tales in nature, turning them both into didactic texts.
Scientific advancement encompasses both Frankenstein and Blade-Runner. Both texts thematic concerns all stem from this key factor. Frankenstein was written in 1818, during the enlightenment era, a time in which the advent of industrialisation and advances in chemistry challenged the way society thought of humanity. Europe’s movement away from a world dominated by superstition and religious faith to one of empirical scientific research began the debate between romantics and rationalists. Romantics, concerned with the threat of moral disaster within society and the consequences of science, raised the central question of “How far should man push the boundaries of his knowledge”?
In this way, Frankenstein becomes a didactic tale of the consequences of scientific advancement and the pursuit of knowledge. Walton’s characterisation, in particular his ideology that he will gain humanities gratitude in his search of everlasting fame and bestow “An in estimable benefit…. Upon all mankind.” The tone of certainty and intensifying descriptive language provoke the responder to question the moral wisdom of both Walton and Victor.
It is implied that humanity is inherently ambitious though influenced by their circumstance, a “Tabula Rasa” so to speak. This notion is imbued in both creations; Roy and the creature both have self-determinist arguments. The monster explains how misery has made him the way he is conveyed via use of alliteration, “I was benevolent and good, misery made me a fiend, make me happy and I shall again be virtuous”. Similarly to Roy, who in his endeavour for freedom and life states that “I’ve done questionable things” to which Tyrell replies “But also extraordinary things, revelled in your time” Mirroring Roy’s deeds to that of the creature.
Victor uses himself as a symbol of modern man and misappropriation of human ambition, a consequence of an insatiable pursuit of knowledge. “Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge” conveying that his ambition was morally wrong and a perversion of nature, cautioning Walton to be wary of his own ambitious goals. In effect highlighting the cautionary aspect and form of the text as a whole and is thus suggested again by Victor, stating “How much happier is the man who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow” the use of 2nd person rhetorical question implies that man should not push the boundaries of knowledge lest suffering the consequences of diminishing our humanity and that knowledge only brings more uncertainty.
However, is societal and scientific advancement, truly something to be wary of? One only has to look at our own society today to find the answer, modern day society has become subsistent, heavily reliant on technology and what many would argue as slaves to consumerism. Scott poses the notion that post-apocalyptic world portrayed in Blade-Runner our ultimate destination. We see Los Angeles in 2019 as a post-apocalyptic, heavily industrialised society where technology reign’s supreme, permeating all aspects of life.
This in effect is nod back towards its 1980’s context where mass computerisation, consumerism and globalisation posed a significant threat to society, especially the environment. The society depicted shows no signs of empathy, evidenced within the scene where Deckard encounters Leon; no one comes to Deckard’s aid except for Rachel. This highlights the moral decline within society and furthermore accentuates the humanity of the replicants who seem to show further emotional development and what one could call “human traits” than their creators, ironically holding true to Tyrell’s motto “More human, than human”.
It would appear that despite the disconnection that Shelley and Scott experience through time they both express the same sentiments regarding humanity and the threat of decline within society caused by mans growing fascination with science and knowledge. These shared concerns allow these two iconic texts to connect through time and offer a deeper level of insight and meaning to audiences.
Thank you.
“Texts are viewed as a reflection of the social values and perspectives of their context. However, through the treatment of similar content, seemingly different texts, from different eras, can connect through time and offer a deeper level of insight and meaning for audiences.”
Through a comparative analysis, demonstrate how this statement applies to the two texts set for study.
========================
You sit here before me today and you wonder, how two seemingly different texts are able to connect as texts in time. You hope to gain knowledge, an experience; a deeper understanding of this question throughout this presentation but here is a question for you.
What does it truly mean to be human? Is it our appearance? Is it our thoughts and emotions? This age old question has plagued mankind from the emergence of primitive cultures to modern day society and most likely, into the distant future where the distinction between technology and humanity become less apparent.
Good morning representatives of the board.
Mary Shelley’s timeless gothic horror novel Frankenstein and Ridley Scott’s dystopic film noir, Blade-Runner appear to be abundantly dissimilar upon first inspection, both in contextual divergence and in their textual form. Frankenstein and Blade-Runner have been separated through the vastness of time and yet share a myriad of similarities that despite their different context allow them to connect through time and delve into thematic concerns that illuminate for the responder, a deeper level of insight and meaning. One of the most prominent overarching themes that span across both texts is science and its consequences. More aptly, its influence on humanity. The consequences of science lead both texts to be cautionary tales in nature, turning them both into didactic texts.
Scientific advancement encompasses both Frankenstein and Blade-Runner. Both texts thematic concerns all stem from this key factor. Frankenstein was written in 1818, during the enlightenment era, a time in which the advent of industrialisation and advances in chemistry challenged the way society thought of humanity. Europe’s movement away from a world dominated by superstition and religious faith to one of empirical scientific research began the debate between romantics and rationalists. Romantics, concerned with the threat of moral disaster within society and the consequences of science, raised the central question of “How far should man push the boundaries of his knowledge”?
In this way, Frankenstein becomes a didactic tale of the consequences of scientific advancement and the pursuit of knowledge. Walton’s characterisation, in particular his ideology that he will gain humanities gratitude in his search of everlasting fame and bestow “An in estimable benefit…. Upon all mankind.” The tone of certainty and intensifying descriptive language provoke the responder to question the moral wisdom of both Walton and Victor.
It is implied that humanity is inherently ambitious though influenced by their circumstance, a “Tabula Rasa” so to speak. This notion is imbued in both creations; Roy and the creature both have self-determinist arguments. The monster explains how misery has made him the way he is conveyed via use of alliteration, “I was benevolent and good, misery made me a fiend, make me happy and I shall again be virtuous”. Similarly to Roy, who in his endeavour for freedom and life states that “I’ve done questionable things” to which Tyrell replies “But also extraordinary things, revelled in your time” Mirroring Roy’s deeds to that of the creature.
Victor uses himself as a symbol of modern man and misappropriation of human ambition, a consequence of an insatiable pursuit of knowledge. “Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge” conveying that his ambition was morally wrong and a perversion of nature, cautioning Walton to be wary of his own ambitious goals. In effect highlighting the cautionary aspect and form of the text as a whole and is thus suggested again by Victor, stating “How much happier is the man who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow” the use of 2nd person rhetorical question implies that man should not push the boundaries of knowledge lest suffering the consequences of diminishing our humanity and that knowledge only brings more uncertainty.
However, is societal and scientific advancement, truly something to be wary of? One only has to look at our own society today to find the answer, modern day society has become subsistent, heavily reliant on technology and what many would argue as slaves to consumerism. Scott poses the notion that post-apocalyptic world portrayed in Blade-Runner our ultimate destination. We see Los Angeles in 2019 as a post-apocalyptic, heavily industrialised society where technology reign’s supreme, permeating all aspects of life.
This in effect is nod back towards its 1980’s context where mass computerisation, consumerism and globalisation posed a significant threat to society, especially the environment. The society depicted shows no signs of empathy, evidenced within the scene where Deckard encounters Leon; no one comes to Deckard’s aid except for Rachel. This highlights the moral decline within society and furthermore accentuates the humanity of the replicants who seem to show further emotional development and what one could call “human traits” than their creators, ironically holding true to Tyrell’s motto “More human, than human”.
It would appear that despite the disconnection that Shelley and Scott experience through time they both express the same sentiments regarding humanity and the threat of decline within society caused by mans growing fascination with science and knowledge. These shared concerns allow these two iconic texts to connect through time and offer a deeper level of insight and meaning to audiences.
Thank you.