English literature review paper

What is a literature review? A literature review is NOT a book review; it is a review of the literature. THE literature, in this case, means all of the research you have collected. Your secondary sources only. The scholarship. So, why am I doing this? Because good researchers—good writers—do it. You may be tempted to just jump directly from gathering materials to writing an essay (or you may have been tempted to skip the research part altogether); however, before you can write an essay, you need to identify a purpose for your writing and develop a plan for using your sources. You need to synthesize; the lit review is that synthesis. This is also an important step in proving your expertise before I allow you to edit and annotate a fairy tale. So, what am I looking for? Basically, you are looking for patterns of association; you want to look at the body of scholarship (the literature) you have collected and decide how it all works together. You need to see the literature as a body of research rather than separate pieces. The scholarship is written by real scholars who are familiar with one another’s work and sometimes know each other personally; it is a kind of elaborate conversation. You are listening to that conversation, waiting for a good opportunity to jump in. So, I have six pieces of literature to review, right? Well, you have AT LEAST six pieces. It will actually be easier to write a lit review of more sources; eight or ten sources would be a good number. This does require more research and more time for reading, but the payoff is greater expertise and more to discuss in the review. Okay, so what do I do first? First, make sure you have gathered the literature. For this assignment, I am only permitting you to use the CSCC Library databases to gather your sources. Specifically, you will look at the Academic Search Complete, MLA International Bibliography, and Literary Reference Center databases; if these don’t turn up 6-10 good sources for you, then you can search other databases (and I have posted a video showing you how to do this research, so make sure you watch it). You are NOT permitted to locate web based sources, even via Google scholar. And I am asking you not to use books, simply to save time. And then? Once you have all of the literature, you should read it and understand it. It isn’t absolutely necessary to pore over each page of each source—this would likely be hundreds of pages of difficult reading. Use your reading skills—the first two or three pages usually contain the thesis and main arguments—the last couple of pages will often contain some kind of summary or conclusion. Look for important headings in between. I strongly suggest highlighting the thesis (probably more than a single sentence) and the main points (topic sentences) and any interesting passages you may want to reference later.

But how do I write the lit review? You should begin by grouping the literature in way that makes sense to you—perhaps by field (psychology, biology, folklore studies) or theoretical approach (feminist, post-colonial, psychoanalytic) or thematically (encounters, environment, cultural response)—whatever makes sense to you. For fairy tales, this may mean cultural groupings—German versions, French versions, Russian versions—or medium groupings—Cinderella in film, advertisements, and music. If you have printouts, make physical stacks until you have relatively even piles (at least three, maybe four), or drop PDF files into electronic folders. It IS possible to include a source in multiple stacks, but you should do your best to keep things simple—look for natural, common sense divisions and groupings. Okay, but seriously, the writing? Once everything is sorted out, you need to create an outline. This outline should be formally formatted with all the heading information, then a brief (paragraph length) introduction to your topic, your research methodology, and the organization you have chosen to represent. Then list each of your categories as major headings/subheadings (depending on the level of organization), and a very short (sentence or two) explanation of the level or organization—why this category/heading? Then slot in each of the sources you plan to use under each of the particular headings. In the outline, you do not need to include any commentary or quotes, you simply need to drop in the complete and accurate MLA bibliographic entry (which you should be able to copy from the database—again, watch my video). Then you type a short (paragraph length) conclusion summarizing the divisions or categorizations—the ways of viewing or considering your topic. And then I type an actual lit review? Yes, you can type the full lit review once you have completed the outline. It should be pretty straight forward at this point. You already have your introduction and conclusion (which you can, of course, revise as necessary), and you have your paragraphs (your headings/subheadings), and you have the sources identified. Now you need to briefly summarize the position/argument of each source in each section, paragraph by paragraph, making sure to remain objective. A good strategy is to summarize each source in one or two sentences. When organizing your review, make sure that you use topic sentences and transitions—each paragraph should stand alone AND be connected and contiguous to the whole. You are replacing the bibliographic entry from your bibliography with the summary and a good quote— something you think you might be able to use in your next project, or the thesis or main idea from the source. Make sure that you reference the full title of each source as well as the full names of each author. Basically, you are using the outline as a framework for the lit review, typing summary information in place of the bibliographic information, and moving the bibliographic information to a works cited. Uhhhh, can I see one? Sure. I have included two sample outlines, and a sample lit review from a student. I encourage you to read each and use them as examples. The outlines are not the outlines for the review, but you should be able to get some ideas from these and see how the outline translates into the review.

Is that all? No—you need a works cited page. And remember, you are required to complete the outline prior to writing the lit review (plus, doing it the other way around would just be silly and unnecessarily hard). The grade is for both, so the length here is purely academic—you will be way over 1500 words—like, seriously, way over. But if you don’t complete and submit the outline, literature review, and works cited, your project is incomplete and you will receive a zero. Also note-- I did not edit the student samples in any way. There may be mistakes, and the formatting is NOT MLA 8 because the samples are several semesters old.

Student 1

Student

Zachary Dilbeck

ENGL 2367

33 July 2116

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein Literature Review

For more than two centuries Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein has been a leading example in

demonstrations to highlight and plea the need of consilience of science and humanities. Though

the perspective from which it is revealed varies throughout the articles of this review, each

scholar incorporates and addresses the matter of consilience through the works of Frankenstein.

This review will discuss how modern day scholars view the impact of Frankenstein on science,

as well as on society’s fear and reluctance to trust the practice and advancement of each article’s

respective discipline.

The lack of fundamental morals and ethics of the nineteenth century heavily influenced

Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein. Emma Liggins quotes a 19th century doctor, Dr. Southwood

Smith, in her article, “The Medical Gaze and the Female Corpse: Looking at Bodies in Mary

Shelley’s Frankenstein,”: “Ignorant physicians and surgeons are the most deadly enemies of the

community;…[their ravages] are constant, silent, secret; and it is while they are looked up to as

saviors, with the confidence of hope, that they give speed to the progress of disease and certainty

to the stroke of death”(133). That was a very common perception of medical science in the 19th

century, as society witnessed the devastating effects caused by careless scientists who were

driven by their thirst for knowledge, power, and fame. Anatomy was heavily explored at this

Student 2

time and doctors, anatomists, and scientists were competing for cadavers, and for the social

status that came with surpassing the discoveries of the next medical professional. Exploration of

anatomy is not the only reason for corpse dissection. Scientists of the era believed that electricity

held the power to reanimating the dead, and many set out to prove it. Grave robbers were hired to

retrieve bodies from shallow graves and compete for the newly deceased corpses hanging in the

gallows. No consideration was given to the families of the deceased. Dissections of stolen

corpses became typical practice for the examination of human anatomy. Such practices were held

in hospitals and public theaters as entertainment for the curious. Adding to the fearful perception

of medical science imposed by public display of moral disregard, disease and infection were

transmitted from doctor to patient, often resulting in death.

Due to the lack of fundamental morals and ethics of medical science surgery became

socially connected to murder. Steven Doherty brings attention to a doctor who attempted to make

a change. Ignatz Semmelweiss decreased medical related mortality rates by implementing ethical

practices, but was shunned when discussing them among medical scientists. Doherty points out

in his article, “The ‘Medicine’ of Shelley and Frankenstein,” “These policies, including hand

washing, were vigorously opposed by the medical establishment of the day and Semmelweiss

himself was demoted and had restrictions placed on his practice”(389). Ethical practices were

dismissed as nonsense. However, farfetched and demoralizing practices were widely accepted

with little regard given to the dying public. In fact, the death of Mary Shelley’s mother, just

eleven days after Mary’s birth, was contributed to the unethical practices of her male

obstetrician. The combination of disregard for human life, transmission of deadly diseases from

doctor to patient, and rejection of morality caused anxiety and fear throughout society,

subsequently leading to the reluctance of the public to accept medical science.

Student 3

Conflicting theories explore various influences on Mary Shelley’s writing. In D.S. Neff’s

article, “Invisible Hands”: Paltock, Milton, and the Critique of Providence in Frankenstein,”

Neff states, “Although possible connections between Peter Wilkins and Frankenstein have

escaped critical scrutiny, a careful examination of Paltock’s novel, in conjunction with key

passages from Milton’s Paradise Lost, can deepen an understanding of the ironic role played by

the “invisible hand” of Providence in Frankenstein”(103). Neff believes that Mary Shelley

extracted ideas from Paltock and Milton’s publications for her writing of Frankenstein. Mary

Shelley was an avid reader, engaging herself in historic and modern literature of her time. Neff

compares the similarities that he notices between Shelley’s novel and the writings of two authors

known to be read and liked by Mary Shelley. He believes Frankenstein only holds mythical

significance. In “The Devaluing of Life and Shelley’s Frankenstein”, Lars Lunsford concludes,

“And herein lies one of the novel’s major lessons, that the devaluing of life for personal gain

leads inevitably to great personal suffering” (176). Lunsford’s closing statement connects the

lack of ethics in the 19th century to the narcissistic ambition of Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein.

Scientists from both the novel and the 19th century suffered and instigated suffering. For

example, doctors suffered due to their rejection of ethical practices. Their immoral decision

caused anguish on others by transmitting contagious diseases that not only killed their patients,

but eventually the practitioner as well. Likewise, Frankenstein suffered due to his rejection of

morality. His inconsiderate and careless decision resulted in the death of his loved ones. In both

instances, innocent lives were lost due to the lack of morals and ethics, further supporting that

the influence of the century was evident in the novel. Also challenging Neff’s idea, Richard

Brockman, author of the article “Freud, Frankenstein, and the Art of Loss,” uses psychology to

support the foundation of which the novel was written. Brockman analyzes the relationship

Student 4

between Shelley’s real life encounters and the lives she creates in her novel. Brockman

determines that “[c]reative action can thus lead to mastery (or near mastery), even if one is

forced to internalize the trauma, and then repeat in its new form. That the teenage Mary Shelley

was able to do that, to return to such a terrifying, lonely place, and draw from that experience in

iconic work of imagination is a testament to her strength, to her talent, and to the art of

loss”(832). The psychological effect of science, the lack of ethics, and the devastating

consequences that it imposed on Mary Shelley’s life successively manifested in Frankenstein.

Frankenstein’s legacy of abused science and complete disregard of morality continues to

be the leading example of consilience in modern day disciplines. In his article “Playing God in

Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Synthetic Biology and the Meaning of Life,” Henk van den Belt

exhibits how society relates Frankenstein to their rejection of synthetic biology advancements.

He explains, “The emergent new science of synthetic biology is challenging entrenched

distinctions between, amongst others, life and non-life, the natural and the artificial, and the

evolved and the designed, and even the material and the informational. Whenever such culturally

sanctioned boundaries are breached, researchers are inevitably accused of playing God or

treading in Frankenstein’s footsteps”(257). In the same way society viewed reanimation in the

19th century, synthetic creation is observed as a threat to cultural values. The horrific results of

past medical science experiments due to lack of consilience continue to have an impact on

acceptance of scientific developments. More than two hundred years after publication,

Frankenstein remains the portrait of unethical, intimidating practices.

Student 5

In the sociological views of modern feminists, Frankenstein is a representation of moral

disaster in regards to biological science. Galia Benziman illuminates this view in her article,

“Challenging the Biological: The Fantasy of Male Birth as a Nineteenth-Century Narrative of

Ethical Failure,” as she reviews four works of literature, including Frankenstein, that she finds

relevant to the subject. According to Benziman, “In each of the four works, despite the

differences, the very success of the scientist’s misogynist ambitious project paradoxically

exposes his limitations and weakness in dealing with the consequences, and his desire to surpass

nature is represented as an indication of moral irresponsibility and male aggression”(375).

Consideration of the possible consequences as a result of experimenting and concern for the

collective hazard that those consequences pose must be implemented as essentials in scientific

studies. While the scientific motive behind Benziman’s analysis of Frankenstein is debatable, the

discourse of moral irresponsibility and inconsideration of experimental consequences in relation

to the novel are significant arguments for the requirement of consilience. Another instance of

Frankenstein’s relevance to consilience is addressed by Howard P. Segal as he demonstrates the

relativity to modern genetic engineering in his article “Victor and Victim.” Segal states, “Recent

debates about cloning animals and eventually people, about stem-cell research creating and

destroying life in the laboratory, and, of course, about “Franken-food” all clearly pose challenges

to even the most fervent advocates of genetic engineering. Yet it is precisely such scientific and

ethical dilemmas that engaged Mary Shelley and that make her original, undistorted

Frankenstein more timely than ever”(861). Segal maintains that Shelley’s novel conveys a

message of morality rather than botched science, and that it encourages scientists to be more

considerate and responsible in their experiments. Words used in modern society, such as

Student 6

“Franken-food”, stand as a clear example of Frankenstein’s effect on the perception of science.

The novel expresses the insight of actual scientific practices that took place in an era two

hundred years ago and that are still feared today. Through the development of modern science,

the reanimation that took place in the 19th century and in Mary Shelley’s novel is becoming an

approaching reality rather than a horrific report of history. The history of medical science and the

lack of consilience learned through the research and reading of Frankenstein places higher

expectations on modern scientists. The same expectations exist when science and art meet.

Jonathon Padley’s article, “Frankenstein and (sublime) Creation,” addresses the topic of

consilience of science and ethics and connects the public’s view on Professor Gunther von

Hagens scientific art of palatinate corpses to the influence of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. On

the matter of consilience, Padley emphasizes, “Whether or not it is representative of the truth,

Shelley’s appalling image of the ‘mad’ scientist, locked away in his laboratory and accountable

to no-one, is one which refuses to die [causing reader] to ask whether twenty-first century

Frankensteins will turn away like their namesake, or take full responsibility-like the generous

Mary of the Gospel stories-for whatever the consequences may be of their unnatural, sublime,

and as-yet unborn creation”(210). Padley makes a vivid comparison between Victor Frankenstein

and the scientists of the 21st century. The scientists of the 21st century are capable, with the

advancements of technology, of creating a more improved creature than the monster that Victor

Frankenstein created in Shelley’s novel. Consilience of science and ethics, whether they consider

the final outcome and assume responsibility is what will determine the level of success or

catastrophe modern scientists achieve. Courtney S. Campbell has an opposing opinion of

Shelley’s novel and argues that “[a] story like Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, by contrast, is in the

genre of little real relevance to twenty-first-century biotechnological research”(343) in her article

Student 7

“Biotechnology and the Fear of Frankenstein.” Campbell believes that the novel is mythological

rather than logical; arguing that Shelley’s writing is a myth rather than a reflection of science.

Explaining the difference between science-fiction and myth, this article insists that the novel

does not convey any facts or realities regarding science or society’s issues during the era.

Campbell claims that the public has a distorted and mislead perception of science due to the

confusion between fact and fiction because of Frankenstein and the conflicts of cultures

throughout the world. However, better efforts could and should be made on behalf of the

scientific community to educate the public and restore their trust in the profession by proving

that their practices and experiments are not careless and immoral; convincing the public that

what they have been lead to believe about the advancements, possibilities, and discoveries in

science is nothing more than irrational fear imposed by a mythological story conveyed by a very

good nineteenth century story-teller.

The capability of extending and creating life is becoming a reality of the 21st century.

Major advancements in medical technology can result in equivalent catastrophes if the

consilience of science and humanities does not become a central point in scientific studies. The

medical practices and moral disregard of the 19th century must not be repeated in modern

science. Mary Shelley’s novel is a first-hand narrative of immoral science. While many scholars

acknowledge the direct conveyance between medical sciences of Shelley’s era in her novel and

consider the consequences of neglecting consilience, some modern scientists do not. These

scientists who are either blind to or deny the relevance pose the greatest threat on society.

Student 8

Works Cited

Benziman, Galia. "Challenging the Biological: The Fantasy of Male Birth as a Nineteenth-

Century Narrative of Ethical Failure." Women's Studies 35.4 (2006): 375-395. America:

History & Life. Web. 24 July 2014.

van den Belt, Henk. "Playing God in Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Synthetic Biology and the

Meaning of Life." Nanoethics 3.3 (2009): 257-268. Academic Search Complete. Web. 24

July 2014.

Brockman, Richard. "Freud, Frankenstein, and the Art of Loss." Psychoanalytic Review 97.5

(2010): 819-833. Psycinfo. Web. 3 July 2014.

Courtney S., Campbell. "Biotechnology and the Fear of Frankenstein." Cambridge Quarterly of

Healthcare Ethics 12.4 (n.d.): 342-352. SocIndex with Full Text. Web. 24 July 2014.

Doherty, Steven. "The 'Medicine' of Shelley and Frankenstein." Emergency Medicine

(Fremantle, W.A.) 15.4 (2003): 389-391. Medline. Web. 24 July 2014.

Liggins, Emma. "The Medical Gaze and the Female Corpse: Looking at Bodies in Mary

Shelley's Frankenstein." Studies in the Novel 32.2 (2000): 129-146. MLA International

Bibliography. Web. 24 July 2014.

Lunsford, Lars. "The Devaluing of Life in Shelley's Frankenstein." Explicator 68.3 (2010): 174-

176. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 24 July 2014.

Student 9

Neff, D. S. "'Invisible Hands': Paltock, Milton, and the Critique of Providence in Frankenstein."

ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes, and Reviews 25.2 (2012): 103-108.

MLA International Bibliography. Web. 24 July 2014.

Padley, Jonathan. "Frankenstein and (Sublime) Creation." Romanticism 9.2 (2003): 196-212.

Literary Reference Center Plus. Web. 24 July 2014.

Segal, Howard P. "Victor and Victim." Nature 412.6850 (2001): 861. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 24 July 2014.