3 thoughts on “Ecocriticism and Jurassic Park

  1. Hi Stephen, I really enjoyed your presentation alot. I think your subject is interesting and you’re an excellent speaker. I had a hard time identifying your definition of “nature” in your oral presentation, which is what alot of my comments on your written evaluation sheet revolved around, but you have outlined it very well here on your website. I think you might like looking at Edward Abbey if you continue studying ecocriticism too.

  2. Hi Stephen- Im not sure if my previous comment went through here or not, so if it did, excuse the extra. But I really enjoyed your presentation and website. You’re an excellent and engaging speaker. I had a bit of a hard time following your train of thought/analysis in the oral presentation due to the lack of a strong definition of what you meant by “nature” or “natural” exactly, but you’ve explained that really well here on your website. This is what the majority of my comments were about on the written evaluation that I completed for you. I also think you might like to look at Edward Abbey, particularly the MonkeyWrench Gang or Desert Solitaire, if you continue your work in ecocriticism.

  3. Stephen,

    Interesting project. I think you do well to structure the presentation as a development of the field. The first page is a little roughly structured in terms of individual paragraphs and the organization of paragraphs. It is harder for your reader to understand the development of ecocriticism than it should be. I think you could use this point–the distinction between scholarly pursuits and activism to frame the issue:

    “It created a faction that saw ecocritism as a genre suited towards the mapping of human perception in relation to nature, and yet another faction who wanted to utilize a quickly emerging genreā€™s influence to motivate environmental change.”

    For the second part, I would recommend changing “genre” to “field” or “discipline.” This section raises interesting questions about the relationship between nature and humanity, and about that separation as a philosophical concept. I would like to see more of your own discussion of these two options as approaches to studying literature, especially as a way to transition to discussing “Jurassic Park.”

    This is where your voice comes out more, although you do need to introduce the book as a novel (right now it reads as if it is a true story in the first paragraph). You write:

    “The environmental themes represented in the novel are substantial enough in the work that the novel can be considered a piece of ecocriticism, more specifically phase two ecocriticism.”

    Good, but here I want you to say how it is phase two more specifically. Give me a thesis. As I see it, there are three main aspects: links to a real world scientific question, questions of the nature of reality, and the disconnect between real and false nature. Be more specific about your structure and work on topic sentences that are less wordy.

    Finally, it is unclear to me if “Jurassic Park” is a work of ecocriticism or a work that you are arguing should be viewed through such a scholarly lens. You seem to use both senses, but I don’t think that works. This distinction also confuses your discussion of canon.

    Thank you for introducing us to the field of ecocriticism. I enjoyed thinking about a new perspective. Best,

    Tracy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s