ENGL 497

Senior Seminar
Prof. G. Steinberg

Paper 1

Choose one of the theorists that we have read so far this semester.  Consider that theorist's conceptualization of what literature is, what its value is, how it is created, and/or how it is experienced.  Then, write a short paper (4-5 pages) that argues how Mary Shelley's Frankenstein fits (or does not fit) your chosen theorist's conceptualization of literature.

To write the paper well, you will need to explore in detail the conceptualization of literature presented by the theorist you have chosen, setting out what seem to be the most important, salient points in the theorist's understanding of literature and of its value and impact.  At the same time, you will need to examine Shelley's novel in detail to show how the novel affirms or contradicts the most important, salient points in your theorist's theories.

You are not supposed to link Frankenstein to a theorist based on the content or themes of the novel.  Even though Frankenstein is about nature vs. technology, for example, don't talk about that. Your paper isn't supposed to be about the content or themes of Frankenstein.  Instead, look at the theorists we've been reading.  Look at how they define literature.  Does Frankenstein fit the theorists' conceptualizations of literature?

Say that you picked Plato, for example. Plato says that literature is merely imitation without true knowledge. You could either argue that Plato is right (and that Frankenstein is just an imitation without true knowledge of what it's imitating), or you could argue that Plato is wrong (that Frankenstein isn't merely imitation or that it does have true knowledge of what it's imitating).  In the course of your argument, you would need to provide evidence (both from Plato and from the novel) to back up your claim.

But you wouldn't be writing about the theme of nature vs. technology in Frankenstein.  You'd be writing about Plato's theory of literature and about how Frankenstein fits (or doesn't fit) Plato's theory.

This paper is meant to be an opportunity for you

1. to look more closely at one of the early theorists from this course,
2. to clarify and deepen your understanding of that theorist's theories (beyond what was possible in the limited timeframe of class),
3. to become more aware generally of the problems inherent in defining and defending literature, and
4. to clarify and develop your own ideas about the nature and value of literature.

My hope is that, by writing this paper, you will learn more about the theorist you have chosen but also, more importantly, that you will reexamine and develop your own answers to the questions of what literature is, what its value is, how it is created, and how it is experienced.