how to write the literature review section for your paper? (同上篇)
They are at least two ways to write a literature review: synchronic and diachronic. Synchronic means the scholarship you choose are produced during a certain time period, for example papers published on Frankenstein from 2009 to 2011. Synchronic reviews, more often than not, are purely reviews (maybe I am wrong, please ask Prof. Zeiger), which does not create new readings on certain literary works. Another type of literature review is diachronic, which means the review grasp a certain idea from the literary work and trace it back to a certain time period to give it an overview of how that idea has developed and what will be the other possibilities to develop this idea. And these “other possibilities” will be probably the theme of that author’s paper. This is also a tip for catching the key points of academic papers: read this paper’s review and its criticism on the scholarship that has done on similar topics, you will know argument of this author. These two models are idealistic and many literature reviews will mix them together. Just remember one thing: pay attention to how the author selects and organizes the scholarship on that topic, you will know this author’s arguments in this paper.
The literature review I am going to do is a mixed one: both synchronic and diachronic. It is easy to do a mixed literature review when the scholarship is rich. And it will be difficult if only one article has been published on a certain topic in ten years. (still, there are other ways to do review if this occurs).
My topic is Creature as a Woman: Language, Education and Gender Construction in Frankenstein. From the topic, you can see the keywords: language, education and gender construction. What I am going to argue is that the Creature is constructed as a woman through the language he has learned and the domestic environment he grows up. If the creature is a woman, then what would be the relationship between the creature and victor Frankenstein, between the creature and other women? And what how would the creature being female interacts with feminist criticism that has focused on the femininity of Frankenstein? All these questions have been asked by other scholars. But from the perspective of the monster as a female, the answers to these questions will be in some degree different from the answers that have been given by others. And these new responses, if not answers, will be the contribution to the Frankenstein scholarship, or even to feminism as a critical theory.
O.K. Here is the review part.
In recent years, literary criticism on Frankenstein has turned its focus on language and education. John Bagg argues that the education the Creature receives is an education in exile, the consequence of which is that when the Creatures revenges on Frankenstein, he is sending Frankenstein to exile to experience what the creature has experienced, which is to let the imperialists experience the life of the oppressed. Different from Bagg’s critique on imperialism, Jonathan Jones relates language with socialization and claims that language as collective experience will be used to exclude those who are not been regarded as part of this dominant collective, or even threatening to the dominant collective. In other words, the Creature is suffering because the language he learns makes him identity with the knowledge that discriminates him. Framed with Derrida’s concept of Pharmkon, Shun-liang Chao declares that the knowledge the Creature acquires through language enables the Creature to think while at the same time to see the tragic human condition which leads to his self-destruction. Drawing on the history of novel, Sarah Winter raises the argument that while constructing forming bourgeois public sphere and modern nation state, the sentimental novels teach reader to emphasize and identify with characters who embody the value of individuals and discriminate who are not and Frankenstein is a victim of this discrimination. All these four texts pay attention to the creature’s education and his language acquisition, but none of them explores the gender of the language he is learning and the gender of the environment he grows up and their influences over the paradigm through which the creature sees the world and think about the world. This paper argues through language and domesticity of his living environment, the creature is educated into a woman. Due to the discrimination of aesthetics, this ugly woman cannot be recognized by anyone in the society, including the women who live in the margins of the society.
The literature review I am going to do is a mixed one: both synchronic and diachronic. It is easy to do a mixed literature review when the scholarship is rich. And it will be difficult if only one article has been published on a certain topic in ten years. (still, there are other ways to do review if this occurs).
My topic is Creature as a Woman: Language, Education and Gender Construction in Frankenstein. From the topic, you can see the keywords: language, education and gender construction. What I am going to argue is that the Creature is constructed as a woman through the language he has learned and the domestic environment he grows up. If the creature is a woman, then what would be the relationship between the creature and victor Frankenstein, between the creature and other women? And what how would the creature being female interacts with feminist criticism that has focused on the femininity of Frankenstein? All these questions have been asked by other scholars. But from the perspective of the monster as a female, the answers to these questions will be in some degree different from the answers that have been given by others. And these new responses, if not answers, will be the contribution to the Frankenstein scholarship, or even to feminism as a critical theory.
O.K. Here is the review part.
In recent years, literary criticism on Frankenstein has turned its focus on language and education. John Bagg argues that the education the Creature receives is an education in exile, the consequence of which is that when the Creatures revenges on Frankenstein, he is sending Frankenstein to exile to experience what the creature has experienced, which is to let the imperialists experience the life of the oppressed. Different from Bagg’s critique on imperialism, Jonathan Jones relates language with socialization and claims that language as collective experience will be used to exclude those who are not been regarded as part of this dominant collective, or even threatening to the dominant collective. In other words, the Creature is suffering because the language he learns makes him identity with the knowledge that discriminates him. Framed with Derrida’s concept of Pharmkon, Shun-liang Chao declares that the knowledge the Creature acquires through language enables the Creature to think while at the same time to see the tragic human condition which leads to his self-destruction. Drawing on the history of novel, Sarah Winter raises the argument that while constructing forming bourgeois public sphere and modern nation state, the sentimental novels teach reader to emphasize and identify with characters who embody the value of individuals and discriminate who are not and Frankenstein is a victim of this discrimination. All these four texts pay attention to the creature’s education and his language acquisition, but none of them explores the gender of the language he is learning and the gender of the environment he grows up and their influences over the paradigm through which the creature sees the world and think about the world. This paper argues through language and domesticity of his living environment, the creature is educated into a woman. Due to the discrimination of aesthetics, this ugly woman cannot be recognized by anyone in the society, including the women who live in the margins of the society.
