Frankenstein and bladerunner - disagreeing with the syllabus (1 Viewer)

[nail]

the syllabus says "...compare how the treatment of similar content in a pair of texts composed in different times and contexts may reflect changing values and perspectives."
I would argue that scott and shelley had the same context ( shelley was the beginning of the industrial revolution and scott the beginning of the it revolution so very similar concerns) and the same values and perspectives (warnings about the dangers of 'worshipping' science and technology, warnings about dehumanising society).
So my question is: can i argue/disagree with the syllabus or do i have to support it? If i have to support it, how do i go about distinguishing between these two texts in terms of their values and perspectives?
any suggestions/comments gratefully received!!

 

[naisAtoN]

Where it says "different times and contexts may reflect changing values and perspectives", the syllabus is essentially giving you the right to make up your own mind about whether or not the values have changed.

I would strongly disagree that both composers had the "same" contexts though. While there are similarities in the worlds and concerns of both texts, historically the texts still originate from very different contexts. They are essentially still very different worlds - for example, the environmental decay evident in Blade Runner is a strong contrast to the natural beauty frequently presented in Mary Shelley's novel. In her context, they hadn't reached the point where the environment was a concern. I usually argue that Ridley Scott holds similar values to Mary Shelley as both composers present cautionary tales, however due to the knowledge Scott has gained from his post-modern context, he is able to go a step further to present a possible future to Shelley's world.

I hope this made sense or at least was moderately useful.

 

[nail]

Thanks for your reply - i guess i was overstating my position to get a response. you're right of course, they did have different perspectives of the world - how could they not given the huge changes in the world over that time period? However i would still argue that their perspectives on where the human race was going (or could go if their cautionary tales were not heeded) were remarkably similar. with regard to your statement that 'the environment was not a concern' i would say that it hadn't occurred to Shelley that we could destroy the world around us so effectively but she still was warning against closing our eyes to the natural world and turning too completely towards technology and the industrial revolution.
but still my question remains: if we get a question something like "Similar issues, explored in different contexts, may reflect changes in values and perspectives. How is this demonstrated in the comparison of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Ridley Scott's Blade Runner?" which was posted here back in march this year, how do you write 1000+ words fundamentally disagreeing with the question as i don't think that changes in values and perspectives have really changed that much between shelley and scott?

 

[ekoolish]

Thanks for your reply - i guess i was overstating my position to get a response. you're right of course, they did have different perspectives of the world - how could they not given the huge changes in the world over that time period? However i would still argue that their perspectives on where the human race was going (or could go if their cautionary tales were not heeded) were remarkably similar. with regard to your statement that 'the environment was not a concern' i would say that it hadn't occurred to Shelley that we could destroy the world around us so effectively but she still was warning against closing our eyes to the natural world and turning too completely towards technology and the industrial revolution.
but still my question remains: if we get a question something like "Similar issues, explored in different contexts, may reflect changes in values and perspectives. How is this demonstrated in the comparison of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Ridley Scott's Blade Runner?" which was posted here back in march this year, how do you write 1000+ words fundamentally disagreeing with the question as i don't think that changes in values and perspectives have really changed that much between shelley and scott?

Culturally they have, ethically and morally not so much. There's no reason why you can't disagree with the syllabus, the Bored of Studies has left it open for students to disagree with it and if you pull it off you may be marked a lot better than the rest of NSW mentioning the same facts over and over again. That said, it is a bit of a gamble if the question doesn't match your thesis.

 

[naisAtoN]

I agree with ekoolish.

Thanks for your reply - i guess i was overstating my position to get a response. you're right of course, they did have different perspectives of the world - how could they not given the huge changes in the world over that time period? However i would still argue that their perspectives on where the human race was going (or could go if their cautionary tales were not heeded) were remarkably similar. with regard to your statement that 'the environment was not a concern' i would say that it hadn't occurred to Shelley that we could destroy the world around us so effectively but she still was warning against closing our eyes to the natural world and turning too completely towards technology and the industrial revolution.
but still my question remains: if we get a question something like "Similar issues, explored in different contexts, mayreflect changes in values and perspectives. How is this demonstrated in the comparison of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Ridley Scott's Blade Runner?" which was posted here back in march this year, how do you write 1000+ words fundamentally disagreeing with the question as i don't think that changes in values and perspectives have really changed that much between shelley and scott?

As I said before, the syllabus / rubric leaves it open for interpretation. There is absolutely no reason why you can't disagree, as long as your essay successfully argues WHY values have not changed, or to what extent they remain the same. I agree with what you say about Shelley's perspective on the environment - but it doesn't change the fact that the context she's from were not concerned about the environment. Keep in mind that the writer's context is not necessarily the same as the world of the text...

 

[nail]

thanks for all your feedback guys - i'll keep thinking about it. btw, i don't plan to have a set essay for any of my english papers - i write to the question rather than memorising stuff so i can always decide to agree at the last minute! lol

fyi:
Subjects: adv english, extn 1 english, anc history, extn history, chemistry, physics, 3-unit maths
ATAR aim (please please please >93!!)

 

[=)=D]

omg you do 13units!! genius lol

 

[nail]

not a genius - just stupid! i only do three unit maths cos of the awesome teacher (and to avoid the terrible teacher that does 2-unit) and the extn history was just to keep a friend happy. so ony 11 that i'm actually trying with.

 

[rubyjazz37]

Thanks for this, guys. I've been struggling with this module in the same regard. I understand that the world and the culture that are presented in each text reflect changing values and perspectives, but nothing much else. The morals and ethics in my opinion are very similar. However, question: if we're asked in the exam to basically agree that that studying the two texts shows changing values and perspectives how would you discuss the ethics and such seeing as though they're quite similar rather than different? It's got me quite puzzled. Or would they simply not ask something like that?

Sorry if that makes no sense, I'm trying to get a grasp of it all and yeah, it's not exactly working.

 

[kwabon]

in my essay i agree that the fact they are made in different contexts but disagree that they have different concerns and perspectives.

 

[ashllis92]

Yeah, I wouldn't disagree with the syllabus, I was talking to my big sister who was set to get 95, she disagreed with the syllabus in two of her essays, she got 70. don't do it, just don't. If you've already prepared your essay to disagree, get off here and get working!

 

[rubyjazz37]

Yeah, I wouldn't disagree with the syllabus, I was talking to my big sister who was set to get 95, she disagreed with the syllabus in two of her essays, she got 70. don't do it, just don't. If you've already prepared your essay to disagree, get off here and get working!

But I'm confused as to how you CAN agree with the syllabus, well, fully anyways, since the two main differences are that Frankenstein shows a world that values nature, while Blade Runner doesn't. Personally, I can't see many more differences except that perhaps Blade Runner is perhaps.. more exaggerated, I suppose. :S

 

[tku336]

... Obviously they were composed at different times with different contexts.

Just compare and contrast why the stories are different, techniques ect, and how this is contributed to from context.

E.g. --> creation of life: F context was galvinism, medical fascination, corpse stealing; B was IVF, Reaganism ect.

 

[dekimasu]

In the essay, should we call Victor Frankenstein "Victor" (informal maybe) or "Frankenstein" (confusing with title of book)?

 

[Thecorey0]

In the essay, should we call Victor Frankenstein "Victor" (informal maybe) or "Frankenstein" (confusing with title of book)?

In mine, I refer to him as 'Victor' and I call the monster, 'daemon'. Make sure you underline the word 'frankenstein' when you are talking about the novel.

 

[Benskies]

DECLAN! DECLAN DECLAN DECLAN!


hey declan why is your avatar a girl?

well in the trial i referred to him as Frankenstein, but id refer to the book as 'Frankenstein' so they were differentiated a bit. but then again, YOU BEAT ME IN ENGLISH so i wouldn't take my advice

another reason not to take my advice, in the trials i said that the book was written in the seventeenth century! so i would not follow my advice if i were you! (paradox btw)

 

[IgnoranceIsBlis]

I had a speech when we did this Module and we had to discuss the themes/concerns in relevance to the context, but in the trial it was a heavier focus on the context and those of us who discussed themes got crap marks.

So do we have to base our essays on the context and how the themes/concerns are similar? or just the themes/concerns?

and is it more likely that we have to discuss context or concerns?

 

[sml]

I totally agree with the person who started this post! I have struggled with this soooo bad, and had a massive conversation over facebook on a status with heaps of people in my year trying to get my head around it. All we learnt in class was the simalarities between the two, not the differences so i'm so confused, i think im going to have to disagree with it because i feel as though they have very similar contexts and morals despite the time in which they were written.

 

[rubyjazz37]

I had a speech when we did this Module and we had to discuss the themes/concerns in relevance to the context, but in the trial it was a heavier focus on the context and those of us who discussed themes got crap marks.

So do we have to base our essays on the context and how the themes/concerns are similar? or just the themes/concerns?

and is it more likely that we have to discuss context or concerns?

Well, the Module is 'Comparative Study of Texts and Context' so obviously we'd have to refer to context. Also, the rubric states, "By considering the texts in their contexts and comparing values, ideas and language forms and features, students come to a heightened understanding of the meaning and significance of each text." So, we've gotta discuss the values and ideas and how that is represented through the texts' techniques and then relate it all back to context.

Thankfully I'm beginning to get a grasp of this elective now. My teacher is useless, in class he always would go off on tangents, and now when I go searching for him to get assistance I discover he's in freakin' Italy, and then the other teacher who knows this Elective too is in America. Haha, good timing, huh?

 

[ashleighjade]

Let's not forget keywords such as similar (aka, not the same, but not different) and may (aka, not absolute) - basically giving us the opportunity to say whatever the hell we like about BR+F, as long as we can back it up with evidence and such...

As is the point of English. =P

And, yeah, it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the syllabus because only one word really matters... MAY!!!! (I would endlessly underline and emphasise this if I could as EVERYTHING revolves around this one word.)

May is like the sun of the "Texts in Time" universe, lol. =D

Good luck in the exam tomorrow everyone!! =O =S