Kaitlyn Sisk
I plan to extend on a topic of an essay I wrote about Jimmy Corrigan on the page of postcards. My thesis raises the question- are all of humanity’s accomplishments worthwhile? My opinion is the progress we are so proud of is the result of meaningless progression and has not amounted to anything necessary or good. A possible counter-argument would be that our lives have become easier, more efficient, and better because of the advancements we have made. But I will argue that these advancements have brought about much more negative effects than positive.
I plan to research on the effects of this progression, which I will possibly demonstrate with some research on topics such as the increase in franchises and the decline in privately owned businesses, obesity, the history of Indians and how we slaughtered them and how unnecessary this was, change in family structures, drug use, teenage deaths from alcohol, and more. All of these issues are addressed in the postcards on page 168 and I plan to show that I feel we need to evaluate what we’ve accomplished through showing Ware’s opinion that our accomplishments are not worthwhile.
2 comments:
It's a good start, nicely located in Jimmy Corrigan and with the potential to be pretty focused. Of course, you don't actually *give* it a clear focus. I think the initial question is formulated in a problematic way. "My thesis raises the question - are all of humanity's accomplishments worthwhile? My opinion is the progress we are so proud of is the result of meaningless progression and has not amounted to anything necessary or good." You need to define what "progress" "accomplishments" and "good" mean to you.
Medical technologies can be a good test case. Are antibiotics "good"? Almost everyone would say "Yes! They save lots of lives!" On the other hand, they are creating resistant bacteria, and we're getting involved in a biotechnological arms race which may not end well for us. How about chemotherapy? It extends and saves lives - but also ruins lives. How do we judge?
You don't need to answer *these* questions, but this *kind* of question could help you find your focus. What aspects of progress interest you? By what yardstick do you call them good or bad? Etc.
I don't, truthfully, find your approach to be hopelessly broad - Jimmy Corrigan has the potential to help you focus it nicely. But you still need to *do* the focusing.
Alright you have alot of arguments that you want to make, because they were all on the postcards. And it might work because this is a long paper, the only problem is how many resources you are going to have to use to prove your point. Maybe narrow down your argument to 3 of why progress has been bad. Unless you think the more you do the stronger your paper will be.
Post a Comment