A Film Analysis Of Annihilation On The Human Condition & Aesthetic Response

The Human Condition & Aesthetic Response Outline conceptions of human natureof human motives, feelings, values, and ways of thinking and perceivingaffected by fantastic or unknown technology/biology in one novel (or one short story) and one film used in class. How are the motives, goals, obstacles, and values of the characters lost or achieved through technology? How are the boundaries of human experience and an understanding of the universe advanced by the fantastic element of these works? Do they evoke admiration, respect, warm affection, unease, disgust, dislike, anger, sorrow? Does the critic think them noble, grand, generous, mean, shabby, cynical, sentimental, or what? How does that correspond (or not) with your own understanding of human experience? Of human motives and values? Second, are the fantastic element(s) enhancing or detrimental to quality of life? Is it a burden or a panacea? General Guidelines for essays: 1. 5-8 pages, MLA. Double-spaced, 12-point, unjustified, 1 margins, serif-font (Times New Roman is fine), with PAGE NUMBERS PLEASE! And will you please staple it? 2. You do not need to draw similarities or comparison contrast between the works, however, a transitions sentence would be nice, e.g. Another work that finds corporations the source of a future despotism, is. 3. You must pick a different topic for your second essay but obviously cannot talk about any of the same works. Alternatively, see the Creative Story Option for Essay 2. 4. Discuss at length only one film and novel/story. You may mention other works in passing (things outside of class), but not for longer than one sentence per mention. 5. Bring in backing from other critics or writers found in the Masri text. That is, you need not do research outside of what we have read in class. The essay will not need parenthetical citation. 6. Write a thesis statement at the end of your first paragraph that helps orient me to your overall impression of the two works in terms of the above topics. This may seem obligatory. 7. Reinforce your criticism with only BRIEF (!!) summaries/quotes of the scene in question. Assume your reader has read/seen the work. Time spent referencing the scene in question is time that could otherwise be spent on elucidating your genius! This is the most important part and the one part that causes student grades to fall the fastestdo not provide too much summary. 8. Do not presume your goal is to show me that you understood the events of the work. Further, it helps to recall a scene in a manner unique and biased to your perspective and/or larger criticism, e.g. When the lead scientist erupts from his chair and announces with an absurd ham-fisted bravado, to the space gun!, the society has at last surrendered itself to a technocratic utopia, one dismissive of any human compassion as the luddites storm their magic castle in the sky. 9. Please do not use the first person I. Also refrain from empty modifiers and the use of seems like or may be when you really mean is (See #2 above for an example.) Its perfectly fine to put words in the authors mouth in assertive, academic discourse. 10. Feel free to discuss how language-level style, tone, humor, diction, etc., contribute thematically to the work, though this is not required.