The attack of the Zombies!

I am excited to do option #2, I think it would be a lot of fun researching monsters and to look for a deeper meaning behind them. My favorite monster are zombies, they really don't seem any amazing talents like werewolves or vampires, but what they do have is deep hunger for flesh and they multiple fast. I have already started researching and been looking into George Romero's Night of the Living Dead series. What I thought was funny is when he made Night of the Living Dead back in 1968, he did as way to mock the hippie movement. How the hippie movement was consuming conservative America at the time. Most the time when I see a zombie flick, I usually think it is about the character's development in the hopeless struggle for survive. This time I hope to accomplish a deeper message behind the masses of zombies. To look past the surface and be able to analyze connection between zombies and society. My text seem limited to short stories, but I am gong to read The Undead and see if I convey any useful information.

Midterm check in

Dear Mrs. Cline,

I would like to say that I really enjoy your class. Doing an English class online definitely has its strengths. It's very convenient, I do most of my work late at night when my kids are asleep. Also I can rewind any of the videos and lectures, if there was something I misunderstood. The material we are reading is great. I never had an English class were I analyzed poetry; most of my previous classes in high school would summarize a poem. I never did analysis on a poem beforehand, but I really enjoyed it and I had fun reading other people's analysis over the same poem. It is amazing how we can look at a piece of literature and observe something deeper then the surface of the text. I believe that why Frankenstein pulled me in. The story was very amazing and imaginative. The descriptiveness of the scenery was amazing, but what drew me in the most was the emotions of the characters. The constant guilt of Victor, how he feel blamed for letting such a creation loose upon the world, how it haunted his every thought. The best character was the fiend, the story he tells of his birth, survival, and how he learn to communicate. I felt pity for him, how he craved friendship, but he's constantly cursed by his appearance, driven into loneliness and hate. What affected me the most about the story was the concept of be careful what you create. Even if you created a living being, you still have to care and nurture it. Kind of like a child, you don't bring a baby into this world and just carelessly abandon it. Believing that your actions would have no repercussions, also that your conscious would be clear.

My biggest challenge I have in this class is time management. I'm constantly struggling to keep up with the work. Just recently I had a lot of personal issues that occurred and it has put me behind in all my school work. Now I'm fighting to stay above water and score high in the class. “C'est la vie” It is life, I know I'll survive it and over come it.

The goals I have set for the class is that I want to strive to get an A. English has always been a hard subject for me and I won't settle for less then an A for the class. I definitely want to improve my grammar and continue to expand my vocabulary. What I would like improve the most, is how I conclude my essays. I feel that a conclusion can make or break an essay. bringing everything in at last paragraph to prove your thesis. To persuade your audience and to have them validate your opinion. That would be my ultimate goal for this class.

Summary of a Critical Response

The article I chose was from Knight's Quarterly (Aug - Nov 1824) by an Anonymous author. The author actually was comparing Frankenstein to another book written by Mary Shelley, but was severely disappointed with the book. The author questions if  Frankenstein was even written by Mrs. Shelley, because the writing style were very different. The restrain shown in Valperga is paradoxical to the hyperbole used in Frankenstein. The author goes as far as to claim he reread Frankenstein and analyzed it as if it was supposed to be realistic. The author states that Frankenstein is poorly written and overzealous, whereas Valperga is cautious and a slow read.
The author or critic, read Frankenstein from a harsh unforgiving frame of mind. I felt sorrow for both the Monster and for Victor Frankenstein's childish machinations. Although it is wholly Frankenstein's fault that the Monster is even in existence, I disagree with the author's brash and unforgiving attitude towards Frankenstein. In the name of science all kinds of unnatural occurrences have been brought to fruition.
 "It is utterly inconceivable also that he should have let the monster (as he is somewhat unfairly called) escape" (anonymous, Knight's Quarterly) the author does not allow for any error on the part of Frankenstein to go unnoticed. The Monster commits murder and the author speaks nothing of that, and although I agree that Frankenstein bares the brunt of blame I felt the a Monster or quasi human who could articulate as well as Shelley supposes the Monster could have would know a certain level of right from wrong regardless of how he was treated previously. I agree completely with the author where as the lack of insight in to what Frankenstein was doing make Victor seem more like an impetuous child than an educated man.

After reading this literary analysis of Frankenstein I feel that given the almost two hundred year difference in the time the Author wrote the analysis and the time I read Frankenstein shows a lot in the way we interpret the work. I felt that Victor was doing his work in the name of science and in the hope of a better world for all, and the author felt that Victors ego-centrism was a gateway to a morally repugnant abandonment of his creation.

Another not so well thought out idea   .... Like Frankenstein even modern scientists have created extreme destruction and left a wake of disaster. Myself I think that WAR is a sometimes necessary evil but hand to hand combat is always favorable to me than what was created in 1939 by men who had not realized the full extent of their work.

Double Vision on Revision....

       When revising a piece of my own writing I find myself often not seeing the grammar mistakes but narrowing in on the content. The questions I am hoping to answer are did I stay on topic? Did I support my thesis? Did I get the reader sidetracked? Does it flow? Then most importantly if I hadn't written this would I like it. Most often I ask another to read and critique my papers, to give an unbiased opinion of my work. If all the questions are answered with a Yes from both myself and the critic then I know I have done a good job and it is worthy of being published. If not, then I know I need to head back to the drawing board and start deconstructing my paper to sort out flaws and amend my thesis. 

      When all else fails, have an English major read it.A great guide to rewriting prose