SHORT CRITICAL DISCUSSION #3 - TEXT/UALITY
Due
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 critical texts into conversation with each other and with other
texts in order to build an argument that is inspired by our discussions of Text/uality. As before, 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 critical texts together in order to arrive at some discovery that advances your thinking!
The
readings in the third unit of the course are challenging in some respects, but in other respects they may echo other topics, themes, or questions that you have become accustomed to in the EWM major. They all deal with some tension or dissonance between form and function, or medium and message -- and in some cases, they may disrupt any clear distinction between form/function or medium/message. As before, it may help you to remember that your aim with SCD #3 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 get started, 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 through your discovery. (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, or some aspect of function? Do they imply that genres can only be constructions of certain kinds of texts, signs, 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 theorists 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--i.e., the constraints--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 our theorists revise or expand their own 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: for example, agency, author-function, audience construction, language, signification, symbol, icon, 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.
Here are your options for critical texts (and theorists):
- Bolter and Grusin “Remediation” (311-358)
- Killingsworth “Appeal Through Tropes” (121-135)
- Landow “Hypertext and Critical Theory” (33-48)
- Longinus “From On the Sublime” (344-358)
- Manovitch excerpts from The Language of New Media (weblink -- 162-67, 180-84)
- Miller “Genre as Social Action” (151-169)
- Mitchell “Metapictures” (35-64, 82)
- Ridolfo and DeVoss “Composing for Recomposition” (weblink)
- relevant critical/theoretical text from our previous units if you decide to tackle Prompt 3.
Here are some reference texts you will most likely want to use:
- Relevant pages from Bedford Glossary
- Herrick introductory essay (222-240)
- Richter background on “Marxism” (1198-1201)
- Richter background on “Reader Response Theory” (962-965)
- Rivkin/Ryan background on “Structuralism” and “Deconstruction” (53-55, 257-261)
Here are your options for cases:
- Satrapi's Persepolis
- El Rassi's Arab in America
- Daniel's "Public Secrets"
- Shoebridge and Simons' Welcome to Pinepoint
- Spiegelman's Metamaus (see me about checking out the DVD if you'd like to use this case)
- 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. But please don't make us wait until the end of your SCD in order to find that discovery!
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, using in-text (parenthetical) citations throughout your discussion where needed, especially where you paraphrase concepts. 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. In a discussion this brief, 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 encourage you to make use of the Oxford English Dictionary, it is not enough to simply justify a claim by saying “According to the Oxford English Dictionary …”
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 ~2-3 pages single-spaced with your “Works Cited” in MLA format. This means that the final draft should be: Word-processed 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.
