In the article Women as the Submissive Sex in Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' by Stephanie S. Haddad I noticed that Haddad's mind was clouded with feminist ideals instead of analytical ones. Haddad targets this response to anyone who is willing to read her one sided analysis. The author partakes in this opportunity to try and beseech the mind of the any gullible soul willing to read her article. Haddad's analysis discusses the submissive role of women in the novel Frankenstein. Unfortunately not every single person who reads Haddad's illogical feminist ideals is going to withhold the same opinion as her. With this article Haddad hopes to open the eyes of the people to show how submissive the role of females are in the novel. Haddad's thesis expresses the idea that every single woman in Frankenstein is used for a very submissive/specific purpose. The thesis aids in the role of discussing the overall topic about how submissive all the women are in Frankenstein. The thesis is contradicting to many different groups. Many people might not share the same ideals as Haddad, whereas some people might. Haddad uses direct quotes from the book in order to help aid her overall thesis. She uses these direct quotes to help backup her feminist thoughts, and to draw upon the out of context lines in order to manipulate them for her own selfish ideals. The quotes are her most persuasive type of argument, considering it is the only argument she has.
Haddad pieces her argument together using the classic “Shaffer Writing” model. She starts with a topic sentence which leads into a quote, leading into commentary developing her ideas of how the quote helps her overall thesis. Like any typical essay Haddad begins her essay with a “hook” something to get the readers attention and get them to read the article. The structure of her articles helps her goal of effectively attempting to prove her point. Her transitions went from character to character. It helped her overall concept, but unfortunately she could try to pull the characters in to a more overall evaluation, instead of analyzing each one individually. Sadly, I don't believe that her transitions strengthened her argument.
Haddad doesn't exactly use formal language. Her diction is quite common throughout her article. Her use of common language helps her relate to the readers of the article, thus possibly helping her to get her point across. Haddad constantly compares women to being a submissive character throughout the article. She compares each female character to the fact of them portraying a passive role just accepting whatever happens to them in the text without argument or discussion. Haddad uses these comparisons basically every paragraph. She does this in order to help prove her thesis. She attempts to use these comparisons to help develop her thesis, as well as her overall article. Haddad never claims whether or not she is an acceptable authority on the subject. Moreover she just discusses her radical feminist ideals. Her ethos is relatively weak due to the fact that she is a women discussing feminism, leading to a rather one sided argument.
Overall this essay didn't exactly “contradict the rules of my writing. Mainly because Haddad followed the Shaffer format that I have grown accustom to over the years. Unfortunately my expectations were not confounded. This type of writing sadly did not give me any insight into types of other writing mainly because we follow the exact same format.
No comments:
Post a Comment