SHORT CRITICAL DISCUSSION #3 - TEXT/UALITY
due 11/9/12 11/12/12 by beginning of your class time to Blackboard
Please upload to Blackboard via "Assignments" and attach as .docx or .doc
PURPOSE AND TASK
For this third short critical discussion, I will ask you to put two or more theoretical texts into conversation with each other and with other texts in order to build an argument that is inspired by our Text/uality paradox. Putting them into conversation with each other generally requires that you do more than simply comment on them, compare them, dis/agree with them, or formulate an opinion about them. It generally requires that you use both texts together in order to arrive at some discovery that advances your thinking. As before, your aim is three-fold:
- to demonstrate a nuanced (even sophisticated) understanding of a couple of our theorists and their texts;
- to craft an interesting and coherent argument based on some curiosity, question, or problem that arises from reading these texts or theorists together; and
- to hone your critical writing skills in the essay format.
I offer some prompts below to help you define some parameters for the task (so that it doesn't seem so huge), but please remember that the prompts are just that—points of inquiry intended to urge you toward a more specific discovery. Your discovery (a.k.a., your thesis statement) should do more than simply answer the prompt.
PROMPTS
- Discuss how at least two of the theorists below are concerned (explicitly or implicitly) with this question: “What is genre?” Although the question seems easy, I'd like you to complicate it. (Note: you are not limited to texts that only have the word “genre” in their title.) Do the writers treat genre as form over function? Do they imply that genres can only be constructions of certain kinds of texts, or agents? What differentiates genre from “discourse” or “text” more generally? Who determines which genres circulate and how they evolve? Once you have decided on how to put both texts into conversation, feel free to demonstrate your discovery on a case, especially to help explain to your reader why it matters.
- If there is one thing that all of these authors address, to one extent or another, it might be the limitations or possibilities of form. What (new) meaning does “form” take on in this unit? What values--contingent or stable--get assigned to various textual forms? How do they revise or expand their notions of traditional forms of writing? When does the form become the function, or vice-versa? Does creation precede form, or do forms help creations be realized? Using at least two of the critical texts below—and drawing on reference texts or cases as needed—discuss how your authors might answer (or fail to fully answer) this question of form.
- Discuss how two of our theorists from this unit can invite the growth or extension of another theorist’s concept from our earlier units: agency, author-function, audience construction, language, signification, symbol, iconicity, discourse, differance, heteroglossia. It is highly unlikely that all of these concepts will be explicitly mentioned in the texts we read in this unit. So, you will need to make it clear whose definition of the concept you are putting into conversation with the theorists from this unit. It might make sense for you to select theorists in this unit who are grappling with the same (or similar) issues of textuality, and then determine how their grappling can help the other concept to grow, but you have many options for approaching this task. Draw on reference texts and cases as needed.
Options for critical texts:
- Bolter and Grusin “Ubiquitous Computing” (212-219)
- Killingsworth “Appeal Through Tropes” (121-135)
- Kinneavy “Basic Aims of Discourse” (297-304)
- Landow “Hypertext and Critical Theory” (33-48)
- Longinus “From On the Sublime” (344-358)
- Miller “Genre as Social Action” (151-169)
- Mitchell “Metapictures” (35-64, 82)
for reference texts:
- Relevant pages from Bedford Glossary
- Herrick introductory essay (222-240)
- Richter background on “Marxist Criticism” (1198-1201)
- Richter background on “Reader Response Theory” (962-965)
- Rivkin/Ryan background on “Structuralism” and “Deconstruction” (53-55, 257-261)
and for cases:
- Daniel “Public Secrets”
- Metamaus
- Persepolis (10:10 section) or Arab in America (11:15 section)
- Pinepoint Documentary
Stranger Than FictionGood Copy Bad Copy
CHARACTERISTICS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
This assignment is worth 100 points. Here are some specific criteria I will use to evaluate:
Argument and Thesis
For these assignments, "argument" does not necessarily mean "position" (as in, the traditional pro/con, agree/disagree, good/bad, right/wrong sense of argumentation). It does mean a discovery that can only be arrived at through careful synthesis. Your argument should be interesting and worthwhile, but it should also be nuanced and specific. Your argument should be guided by an original and clear thesis statement that represents the discovery, is not simply a summary of the texts’ main purpose or theme, and does not simply state the obvious about the texts you are reading. In other words, your thesis statement should provide us the answer to or outcome of your discussion, rather than just telling us broadly what you hope to find, and it should not simply answer the prompt. If your thesis is complex, it may take a few sentences to articulate all of its points. This is perfectly natural.
For these assignments, "argument" does not necessarily mean "position" (as in, the traditional pro/con, agree/disagree, good/bad, right/wrong sense of argumentation). It does mean a discovery that can only be arrived at through careful synthesis. Your argument should be interesting and worthwhile, but it should also be nuanced and specific. Your argument should be guided by an original and clear thesis statement that represents the discovery, is not simply a summary of the texts’ main purpose or theme, and does not simply state the obvious about the texts you are reading. In other words, your thesis statement should provide us the answer to or outcome of your discussion, rather than just telling us broadly what you hope to find, and it should not simply answer the prompt. If your thesis is complex, it may take a few sentences to articulate all of its points. This is perfectly natural.
Textual and Contextual Evidence
You’ll want to develop your argument by drawing heavily on the critical text(s) you have chosen, and you’ll want to use examples accurately and well. Feel free to use examples drawn from class, but please do not just echo the examples back to me without demonstrating that you can extend them. Rather than just relying on what you think is "common knowledge," use the reference texts to provide essential background. Please cite specific incidents, images, and other textual details, using parenthetical citations when you paraphrase or quote from any source. In a discussion of this length, please try to avoid extensive block quoting.
Reader Awareness
You are writing for a reader (or group of readers) who needs to see that you can carefully handle textual evidence, so be sure to educate them wherever possible by taking the time to define key terms. While I fully expect and fully encourage you to make use of the OED, it is not enough to simply justify a claim by saying “According to the OED …” You are also writing for a reader (or group of readers) who needs to know by the end of your introduction what their investment is in reading. Try hooking your reader(s) with a critical and imaginative beginning, i.e., a sense that you know what you want to say, and not a vague or wandering or philandering opening. Your introduction should help us understand the specific dilemma that prompted you to write.
Organization and Coherence
How you organize your critical discussion should ultimately reflect the argument you want to make. This includes a clear introduction and conclusion, useful transitions, and adequate development of each point. Your thesis may act like a “thread” for your main and supporting points, and each paragraph should be well focused and guided by something like a topic sentence that helps your thesis to unfold.
Language and Style
Your discussion can be confident and still carry a balanced tone, with neutral language and strong sentences. Your use of terms should be thoughtful, even elegant. You should not need to rely on excessive metadiscourse, “I think/feel/believe,” or “In my opinion” statements to carry your argument forward. It should always be clear who is saying what. Try putting dense or complicated language into your own words, and be sure to report names and titles accurately. No patterns of sentence- or paragraph-level error should get in the way of meaning. Spelling and punctuation should be precise.
Discourse Conventions and Formatting
Your title should reflect what you are trying to argue and may even contain layers of meaning. Citation conventions should be accurate. Aim for ~3 pages single-spaced with your “Works Cited” in MLA format. This means that the final draft should be: Word-processed or typed in a legible 11- or 12-point serif font, and formatted to include 1-inch margins. No cover sheet is necessary, but your name, due date, and course information should appear at the top left of the first page. Please create a header or footer with your last name and page number on all remaining pages.
Please feel free to ask questions if any part of the assignment is unclear or if you become stuck while working through an idea.
---------------------------------------
SHORT CRITICAL DISCUSSION #2 - ANTI/SIGNIFICATION
due 10/15/12 by beginning of class time to Blackboard
due 10/15/12 by beginning of class time to Blackboard
Please upload to Blackboard via "Assignments" and attach as .docx or .doc
PURPOSE AND TASK
For this second short critical discussion, I will ask you to put two or more theoretical texts into conversation with each other and with other texts in order to build an argument that is inspired by our Anti/Signification paradox. Putting them into conversation with each other generally requires that you do more than simply comment on them, compare them, dis/agree with them, or formulate an opinion about them. It generally requires that you use both texts together in order to arrive at some discovery that advances your thinking. Due to the nature of our readings in this unit of the course, this assignment will seem challenging because you will have to grapple with philosophical understandings of "language." At the same time, due to your various experiences within and without of the EWM major, this assignment may seem simplistic because you are accustomed to thinking about how language functions in a very general sense (as stereotypes or discourse). As before, your aim is three-fold:
- to demonstrate a nuanced (even sophisticated) understanding of a couple of our theorists and their texts;
- to craft an interesting and coherent argument based on some curiosity, question, or problem that arises from reading these texts or theorists together; and
- to hone your critical writing skills in the essay format.
PROMPTS
- Discuss how at least two of the critical texts below are concerned (explicitly or implicitly) with this question: “What is language?” Although the question seems easy, I'd like you to complicate it. Is language always the compilation of words? Are words always language, or not always (or never) language? Can language “do” anything and, if so, what? Does the presence of the thing that signifies always guarantee or negate the signification? Once you have decided on how to put both texts into conversation, feel free to demonstrate your discovery on a case, especially to help explain to your reader why it matters.
- If there is one thing that all of these authors address, to one extent or another, it is signification. What new meaning does “signification” take on in this unit? What does it involve? What determines it, or what does it help to determine? What new possibilities or limitations for signification do you see in this unit? Using at least two of the critical texts below—and drawing on reference texts or cases as needed—discuss how your authors might answer (or fail to fully answer) this question of what it means to signify.
- Choose one of the key terms in the title of a critical text below, then discuss its development, meaning, or significance in another text where it does not explicitly appear in the title. For example, you might consider the use of the term discourse in a text other than Bakhtin's, and then consider how each text treats discourse differently. Draw on reference texts to help you, and feel free to demonstrate the difference on a case to help persuade your reader why it matters.
Options for critical texts:
- Bakhtin “Discourse in the Novel” (259-331, heavily excerpted)
- Burke “Equipment for Living” (293-304)
- Burke “The Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle'” (191-220)
- Derrida “Differance” (278-288)
- Lakoff and Johnson “From Metaphors We Live By” (webtext)
- Locke “From Essay Concerning Human Understanding” (814-827)
- McCloud “The Vocabulary of Comics” (24-45)
Richards and Ogden “From The Meaning of Meaning” (1271-1277)
for reference texts:
- Relevant pages from Bedford Glossary
- Bizzell/Herzberg background on “Enlightenment” (793-799)
- Herrick background on “Derrida” (253-256)
- Herrick introductory essay (222-240)
- Rivkin/Ryan background on “Structuralism” and “Deconstruction” (53-55, 257-261)
and for cases:
- Persepolis (10:10 section) or Arab in America (11:15 section)
- Barton “Textual Practices of Erasure” (169-199)
- Welling “Ecoporn: On the Limits of Visualizing the Nonhuman” (53-77)
- a case of your own choosing (as long as you make it available to me)
CHARACTERISTICS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
This assignment is worth 100 points. Here are some specific criteria I will use to evaluate:
Argument and Thesis
For these assignments, "argument" does not necessarily mean "position" (as in, the traditional pro/con, agree/disagree, good/bad, right/wrong sense of argumentation). It does mean a discovery that can only be arrived at through careful synthesis. Your argument should be interesting and worthwhile, but it should also be nuanced and specific. Your argument should be guided by an original and clear thesis statement that represents the discovery, is not simply a summary of the texts’ main purpose or theme, and does not simply state the obvious about the texts you are reading. In other words, your thesis statement should provide us the answer to or outcome of your discussion, rather than just telling us broadly what you hope to find, and it should not simply answer the prompt. If your thesis is complex, it may take a few sentences to articulate all of its points. This is perfectly natural.
For these assignments, "argument" does not necessarily mean "position" (as in, the traditional pro/con, agree/disagree, good/bad, right/wrong sense of argumentation). It does mean a discovery that can only be arrived at through careful synthesis. Your argument should be interesting and worthwhile, but it should also be nuanced and specific. Your argument should be guided by an original and clear thesis statement that represents the discovery, is not simply a summary of the texts’ main purpose or theme, and does not simply state the obvious about the texts you are reading. In other words, your thesis statement should provide us the answer to or outcome of your discussion, rather than just telling us broadly what you hope to find, and it should not simply answer the prompt. If your thesis is complex, it may take a few sentences to articulate all of its points. This is perfectly natural.
Textual and Contextual Evidence
You’ll want to develop your argument by drawing heavily on the critical text(s) you have chosen, and you’ll want to use examples accurately and well. Feel free to use examples drawn from class, but please do not just echo the examples back to me without demonstrating that you can extend them. Rather than just relying on what you think is "common knowledge," use the reference texts to provide essential background. Please cite specific incidents, images, and other textual details, using parenthetical citations when you paraphrase or quote from any source. In a discussion of this length, please try to avoid extensive block quoting.
You’ll want to develop your argument by drawing heavily on the critical text(s) you have chosen, and you’ll want to use examples accurately and well. Feel free to use examples drawn from class, but please do not just echo the examples back to me without demonstrating that you can extend them. Rather than just relying on what you think is "common knowledge," use the reference texts to provide essential background. Please cite specific incidents, images, and other textual details, using parenthetical citations when you paraphrase or quote from any source. In a discussion of this length, please try to avoid extensive block quoting.
Reader Awareness
You are writing for a reader (or group of readers) who needs to see that you can carefully handle textual evidence, so be sure to educate them wherever possible by taking the time to define key terms. While I fully expect and fully encourage you to make use of the OED, it is not enough to simply justify a claim by saying “According to the OED …” You are also writing for a reader (or group of readers) who needs to know by the end of your introduction what their investment is in reading. Try hooking your reader(s) with a critical and imaginative beginning, i.e., a sense that you know what you want to say, and not a vague or wandering or philandering opening. Your introduction should help us understand the specific dilemma that prompted you to write.
You are writing for a reader (or group of readers) who needs to see that you can carefully handle textual evidence, so be sure to educate them wherever possible by taking the time to define key terms. While I fully expect and fully encourage you to make use of the OED, it is not enough to simply justify a claim by saying “According to the OED …” You are also writing for a reader (or group of readers) who needs to know by the end of your introduction what their investment is in reading. Try hooking your reader(s) with a critical and imaginative beginning, i.e., a sense that you know what you want to say, and not a vague or wandering or philandering opening. Your introduction should help us understand the specific dilemma that prompted you to write.
Organization and Coherence
How you organize your critical discussion should ultimately reflect the
argument you want to make. This includes a clear introduction and
conclusion, useful transitions, and adequate development of each point.
Your thesis may act like a “thread” for your main and supporting
points, and each paragraph should be well focused and guided by
something like a topic sentence that helps your thesis to unfold.
Language and Style
Your discussion can be confident and still carry a balanced tone, with neutral language and strong sentences. Your use of terms should be thoughtful, even elegant. You should not need to rely on excessive metadiscourse, “I think/feel/believe,” or “In my opinion” statements to carry your argument forward. It should always be clear who is saying what. Try putting dense or complicated language into your own words, and be sure to report names and titles accurately. No patterns of sentence- or paragraph-level error should get in the way of meaning. Spelling and punctuation should be precise.
Your discussion can be confident and still carry a balanced tone, with neutral language and strong sentences. Your use of terms should be thoughtful, even elegant. You should not need to rely on excessive metadiscourse, “I think/feel/believe,” or “In my opinion” statements to carry your argument forward. It should always be clear who is saying what. Try putting dense or complicated language into your own words, and be sure to report names and titles accurately. No patterns of sentence- or paragraph-level error should get in the way of meaning. Spelling and punctuation should be precise.
Discourse Conventions and Formatting
Your
title should reflect what you are trying to argue and may even contain
layers of meaning. Citation conventions should be accurate. Aim for ~3 pages single-spaced with your
“Works Cited” in MLA format. This means that the final draft should
be: Word-processed or typed in a legible 11- or 12-point serif font,
and formatted to include 1-inch margins. No cover sheet is necessary,
but your name, due date, and course information should appear at the
top left of the first page. Please create a header or footer with your
last name and page number on all remaining pages.
Please feel free to ask questions if any part of the assignment is unclear or if you become stuck while working through an idea.
---------------------------------------
SHORT CRITICAL DISCUSSION #1 - AGENT/CY
due9/21/12 by class time 9/22/12 by 12:00 noon to Blackboard
due
Please upload to Blackboard via "Assignments" and attach as .docx or .doc
PURPOSE AND TASK
For this first short critical discussion, I will ask you to put two or more theoretical texts into conversation with each other and with other texts in order to build an argument that is inspired by our Agent/cy paradox. Putting them into conversation with each other generally requires that you do more than simply comment on them, compare them, dis/agree with them, or formulate an opinion about them. It generally requires that you use both texts together in order to arrive at some discovery that advances your thinking. Due to the nature of our readings in the first unit of the course, this assignment will seem challenging because you will have to make choices and narrow your focus. At the same time, due to your various experiences within and without of the EWM major, this assignment may seem simplistic because you are accustomed to analyzing media for problems of agency. It may help you to remember that your aim is three-fold:
- to demonstrate a nuanced (even sophisticated) understanding of a couple of our theorists and their texts;
- to craft an interesting and coherent argument based on some curiosity, question, or problem that arises from reading these texts or theorists together; and
- to hone your critical writing skills in the essay format.
PROMPTS
Options for critical texts:
for reference texts:
and for cases:
- Discuss what you see as one of the fundamental challenges of "Agent/cy" according to at least two of our theoretical essays, then apply that to a case from our readings or from outside the class. In other words, try to discover a more specific dimension of the agent/cy paradox, based on how two of our theorists wrestle with it. I am not asking you simply to discuss the problem of agent/cy in one of our cases. I am asking you to consider how your theoretical essays help us to differentiate between agent and agency, between author and agent, or between agency and power, then show us the difference on a case.
- If there is one thing that all of these critical authors address, to one extent or another, it is the authorizing of authorship or readership. But what does this involve? Where does authority lie when it comes to critical texts: In Authors? In writers? In the circulation of discourse? In the acts of writing? Or reading? Or interpretation? Using at least two of the critical authors below—and drawing on reference texts or cases as needed—discuss how they might answer (or fail to fully answer) this question of what it means to authorize.
- Imagine that you were booking guests for a trans-historical talk show (anything is possible!) and you wanted two of our critical theorists to appear on your show in order to discuss the various ways that the Agent/cy paradox has influenced rhetoric in their own epistémé. How would each theorist help you do that? Discuss how their respective projects (e.g., Aristotle’s classification of virtues, Ong's historical study of audience, Campbell's historical agency, etc.) would enhance or illuminate each other so that a 21st-century reader can better understand what they have to deal with.
Options for critical texts:
- Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics (3-25, 117-141)
- Barthes “Death of the Author” (874-877)
- Burke “Literature as Equipment for Living” (293-304)
- Campbell “Agency: Promiscuous and Protean” (1-3, 7-14)
- Campbell Man Cannot Speak For Her (9-16)
- Foucault “What Is An Author?” (904-914)
- Heilbrun Writing A Woman's Life (11-20)
- Ong “The Writer’s Audience Is Always a Fiction” (9-21)
for reference texts:
- Relevant pages from Bedford Glossary
- Richter background on “Foucault” (1326-1329)
- Herrick background on “Foucault” (246-252)
- Herrick introductory essay (222-240)
- Smith background on “Feminism in the Postmodern World” (337-342)
and for cases:
- Barton “Textual Practices of Erasure” (169-199)
- Welling “Ecoporn: On the Limits of Visualizing the Nonhuman” (53-77)
- CHNM's <September 11 Archive>
- a case of your own choosing (as long as you make it available to me)
CHARACTERISTICS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
This assignment is worth 100 points. Here are some specific criteria I will use to evaluate:
Argument and Thesis
For these assignments, "argument" does not necessarily mean "position" (as in, the traditional pro/con, agree/disagree, good/bad, right/wrong sense of argumentation). It does mean a discovery that can only be arrived at through careful synthesis. Your argument should be interesting and worthwhile, but it should also be nuanced and specific. Your argument should be guided by an original and clear thesis statement that represents the discovery, is not simply a summary of the texts’ main purpose or theme, and does not simply state the obvious about the texts you are reading. In other words, your thesis statement should provide us the answer to or outcome of your discussion, rather than just telling us broadly what you hope to find, and it should not simply answer the prompt. If your thesis is complex, it may take a few sentences to articulate all of its points. This is perfectly natural.
Textual and Contextual Evidence
You’ll want to develop your argument by drawing heavily on the critical text(s) you have chosen, and you’ll want to use examples accurately and well. Feel free to use examples drawn from class, but please do not just echo the examples back to me without demonstrating that you can extend them. Rather than just relying on what you think is "common knowledge," use the reference texts to provide essential background. Please cite specific incidents, images, and other textual details, using parenthetical citations when you paraphrase or quote from any source. In a discussion of this length, please try to avoid extensive block quoting.
Reader Awareness
You are writing for a reader (or group of readers) who needs to see that you can carefully handle textual evidence, so be sure to educate them wherever possible by taking the time to define key terms. While I fully expect and fully encourage you to make use of the OED, it is not enough to simply justify a claim by saying “According to the OED …” You are also writing for a reader (or group of readers) who needs to know by the end of your introduction what their investment is in reading. Try hooking your reader(s) with a critical and imaginative beginning, i.e., a sense that you know what you want to say, and not a vague or wandering or philandering opening. Your introduction should help us understand the specific dilemma that prompted you to write.
Organization and Coherence
How you organize your critical discussion should ultimately reflect the argument you want to make. This includes a clear introduction and conclusion, useful transitions, and adequate development of each point. Your thesis may act like a “thread” for your main and supporting points, and each paragraph should be well focused and guided by something like a topic sentence that helps your thesis to unfold.
Language and Style
Your discussion can be confident and still carry a balanced tone, with neutral language and strong sentences. Your use of terms should be thoughtful, even elegant. You should not need to rely on excessive metadiscourse, “I think/feel/believe,” or “In my opinion” statements to carry your argument forward. It should always be clear who is saying what. Try putting dense or complicated language into your own words, and be sure to report names and titles accurately. No patterns of sentence- or paragraph-level error should get in the way of meaning. Spelling and punctuation should be precise.
Discourse Conventions and Formatting
You’ll want to develop your argument by drawing heavily on the critical text(s) you have chosen, and you’ll want to use examples accurately and well. Feel free to use examples drawn from class, but please do not just echo the examples back to me without demonstrating that you can extend them. Rather than just relying on what you think is "common knowledge," use the reference texts to provide essential background. Please cite specific incidents, images, and other textual details, using parenthetical citations when you paraphrase or quote from any source. In a discussion of this length, please try to avoid extensive block quoting.
Reader Awareness
You are writing for a reader (or group of readers) who needs to see that you can carefully handle textual evidence, so be sure to educate them wherever possible by taking the time to define key terms. While I fully expect and fully encourage you to make use of the OED, it is not enough to simply justify a claim by saying “According to the OED …” You are also writing for a reader (or group of readers) who needs to know by the end of your introduction what their investment is in reading. Try hooking your reader(s) with a critical and imaginative beginning, i.e., a sense that you know what you want to say, and not a vague or wandering or philandering opening. Your introduction should help us understand the specific dilemma that prompted you to write.
Organization and Coherence
How you organize your critical discussion should ultimately reflect the argument you want to make. This includes a clear introduction and conclusion, useful transitions, and adequate development of each point. Your thesis may act like a “thread” for your main and supporting points, and each paragraph should be well focused and guided by something like a topic sentence that helps your thesis to unfold.
Language and Style
Your discussion can be confident and still carry a balanced tone, with neutral language and strong sentences. Your use of terms should be thoughtful, even elegant. You should not need to rely on excessive metadiscourse, “I think/feel/believe,” or “In my opinion” statements to carry your argument forward. It should always be clear who is saying what. Try putting dense or complicated language into your own words, and be sure to report names and titles accurately. No patterns of sentence- or paragraph-level error should get in the way of meaning. Spelling and punctuation should be precise.
Discourse Conventions and Formatting
Your title should reflect what you are trying to argue and may even contain layers of meaning. Citation conventions should be accurate. Aim for ~3 pages single-spaced with your “Works Cited” in MLA format. This means that the final draft should be: Word-processed or typed in a legible 11- or 12-point serif font, and formatted to include 1-inch margins. No cover sheet is necessary, but your name, due date, and course information should appear at the top left of the first page. Please create a header or footer with your last name and page number on all remaining pages.
Please feel free to ask questions if any part of the assignment is unclear or if you become stuck while working through an idea.
