Here is the topic:
"It's easy to identify with the hero-the literary or historical figure who saves the day. Have you ever identified with a figure who wasn't a hero-a villain or a scapegoat, a bench-warmer or a bit player? If so, tell us why this figure appealed to you-and if your opinion changed over time, tell us about that, too."
Below is my response. Please suggest any improvements!
searching for a "greater truth"
I have always been an idealistic and philosophical individual. There were times when I felt that all of my endeavors towards the pursuit of knowledge were worthless, because once I die, none of that really matters. At such times, I felt that a search for a "greater truth" would be a more lasting achievement in life. But I did not know exactly what that "greater truth" represented, or what its significance would be.
In 6th grade, I read "Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley. I was able to connect to the main character, Victor Frankenstein because he also seemed to be searching for a "greater truth", which he defined as "the nature behind all things" (p. 7). However, Frankenstein did not simply entertain the thought of a higher body of knowledge; He pursued it. Although he had created (in his view) a monstrosity, I felt that he was completely justified in conducting his experiments. He had a principle in mind, and he followed it. Sometimes experiments go awry, and sometimes they yield the desired result. The end result is not what matters. The perseverance to conduct the experiment matters.
When venturing into unexplored bodies of knowledge, there are bound to be unexpected results. If people are prohibited from exploring for that very reason, human society would not advance! A famous example which is introduced in every biology textbook is Alexander Fleming's accidental discovery of penicillin. He discovered that mold (of the penicillium family) had stopped the growth of the staphylococcus culture.
The world exists to be explored. Frankenstein embodied these ideals and I admire him for his tenacity in his search for the truth.I think your first comparison is great, but you, yourself, needs to connect more. I say that since this is a personal response. The prompt explicitly says to identify your self with the figure who is not hero, not to write whether you believe their actions were justifiable or not. You make great points but you talk about your self, then you justify Frankenstein, and end with an universal thought(?)[ the last point failed to connect to the prompt; it did not explain how Alexander Fleming was a "non-heroic" figure and a figure that you identify your self with, not just admire ]. You never fully connected your self to any of the figures that you have used. You are also quite verbose when trying to get a point across. A good fix would be to draw parallels from the figure you have chosen to your self. Then you would have examples to justify how you connect to the figure, answering the prompt correctly.
Can ----> will
or
Could ---> would but not can---> would
If people are prohibited from exploring for that very reason, human society would will not advance!
And I think it would be great to cut out this sentence and start with the one that follows it:
I have always been an idealistic and philosophical individual.
:-)
