for 4/23/15 -- Final Project Workshop
Folks, in lieu of a guided workshop, I think it will work best to devote our final class session to an optional workshop, as I offered for SCD 1 earlier in the semester. I will open up the classroom and ensure we have access to the SmartBoards and whiteboards, and I'll have all our course readings, so this will serve as a good review time/space for anyone who wants to talk through their final projects and/or listen to others as they talk through theirs. As before, this can serve as an opportunity for us to revisit particular theorists, texts, or even passages, as well as mapping out the intricacies of your critical discussions, or talking through the practicalities of your multimodal performances. I've often seen that good ideas get witnessed and exchanged! And sometimes, lingering problems get solved and puzzlements enlightened! See you on Thursday,
-Prof. G
---------------------------------------------------------
Please note: Blog #9 is postponed until Thursday 4/23/15! No blog due on Tuesday 4/21/15, but post is due on Thursday 4/23/15. I honestly don't know what I was thinking originally, but since you have a quiz on 4/21, I'd rather NOT have you blogging as well. Hopefully this is good news for you.
-Prof. G
---------------------------------------------------------
for 4/21/15 -- Quiz #4, Discussion of Up the Yangtze, Concept Review
Folks, there are three things going on today! First, in preparation for our film discussion, feel free to look at a PBS interview with Yung Chang, browse his website, read information about the 2010 humanitarian aid project that grew from the film, and view Chang's blog documentary talking more about Cindy's family. I will distribute discussion questions in class. Enjoy!
Second, our final quiz of the semester should help you feel more grounded in the terms and concepts we have studied in this unit. Many of the following terms are defined in the Bedford Glossary, but if they are not defined there, they are accessible through our online resources on the "Discussion Leading" page. As well, we have discussed each one in class at some point. So, please study your notes ahead of time, and as usual, please bring your Bedford Glossary to class:
In addition to these terms, there will likely be a question about the film (Up the Yangtze), primarily to help us synthesize the terms with what we watched or discussed from the film.
Third, we'll start to wrap up loose ends of concepts and terms, and I'll answer your lingering questions about the final project!
-Prof. G
---------------------------------------------------------
Monday 4/20/15 -- Film Screening of Up the Yangtze
WMS 013 (English "Common Room," Basement Level)
6:30-8:30 p.m.
Please remember that I'm holding a film screening for our final film of the semester! For those with work schedule or class commitments, please notify me (if you haven't already), so that I can ensure you find the film via Amazon, Netflix, public library, or EyeSteel Films!
---------------------------------------------------------
for 4/16/15 -- George "Mr. Burke, Meet Helen Keller" (340-47) and Butler Gender Trouble (1-17).
For our final reading day of the semester(!), we'll consider Ann George's unique argument: According to Kenneth Burke's own terms of engagement, Helen Keller would fit with Burke's notion of an authentic rhetorical theorist. But why?, and which of Burke's concepts or arguments from earlier in the semester could be potentially complicated by arguing that someone so differently abled is a rhetorical theorist? (Bonus footage: Helen Keller "speaking out".)
We'll start with Butler's key claims about gender and determine how many of them apply to George's argument about Keller. Here are some questions that may help you to read Butler if you're new to her book:
You can find helpful context for our class discussion in Rivkin/Ryan background on "Feminist Paradigms" (pp. 765-69) and Smith background on "Feminist Critique" (pp. 346-49)!
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
for 4/21/15 -- Quiz #4, Discussion of Up the Yangtze, Concept Review
Folks, there are three things going on today! First, in preparation for our film discussion, feel free to look at a PBS interview with Yung Chang, browse his website, read information about the 2010 humanitarian aid project that grew from the film, and view Chang's blog documentary talking more about Cindy's family. I will distribute discussion questions in class. Enjoy!
Second, our final quiz of the semester should help you feel more grounded in the terms and concepts we have studied in this unit. Many of the following terms are defined in the Bedford Glossary, but if they are not defined there, they are accessible through our online resources on the "Discussion Leading" page. As well, we have discussed each one in class at some point. So, please study your notes ahead of time, and as usual, please bring your Bedford Glossary to class:
- Alterity (in the OED Online; see also the entry on "Cultural Criticism" in the Glossary)
- Dialectical Materialism, or Cultural Materialism (in the Glossary, but see also the "Backgrounder" distributed in class on 4/14)
- Diaspora
- écriture féminine
- Gynocriticism
- Hegemony
- Identification (see also our background readings for "Terministic Screens")
- Postcolonialism
In addition to these terms, there will likely be a question about the film (Up the Yangtze), primarily to help us synthesize the terms with what we watched or discussed from the film.
Third, we'll start to wrap up loose ends of concepts and terms, and I'll answer your lingering questions about the final project!
-Prof. G
---------------------------------------------------------
Monday 4/20/15 -- Film Screening of Up the Yangtze
WMS 013 (English "Common Room," Basement Level)
6:30-8:30 p.m.
Please remember that I'm holding a film screening for our final film of the semester! For those with work schedule or class commitments, please notify me (if you haven't already), so that I can ensure you find the film via Amazon, Netflix, public library, or EyeSteel Films!
---------------------------------------------------------
for 4/16/15 -- George "Mr. Burke, Meet Helen Keller" (340-47) and Butler Gender Trouble (1-17).
For our final reading day of the semester(!), we'll consider Ann George's unique argument: According to Kenneth Burke's own terms of engagement, Helen Keller would fit with Burke's notion of an authentic rhetorical theorist. But why?, and which of Burke's concepts or arguments from earlier in the semester could be potentially complicated by arguing that someone so differently abled is a rhetorical theorist? (Bonus footage: Helen Keller "speaking out".)
We'll start with Butler's key claims about gender and determine how many of them apply to George's argument about Keller. Here are some questions that may help you to read Butler if you're new to her book:
- What is at stake in Butler's argument? In other words, what aspects of identity or identification do you see her trying to disrupt (aside from "gender," which is the obvious one)?
- In each of our prior units, we generated a list of questions we thought were raised (or could be raised) by the critical dilemmas of Agent/cy, (Anti)Signification, and Text(uality). What questions does Butler cause you to ask about Re/Presentation? If it helps, you might think about the various ways you will encounter representational challenges in your own life, either beyond this class, or beyond FSU.
- Do you think Butler would argue that writing/telling one's own experiences is the ultimate discursive power? Or, that it is necessary for representation?
You can find helpful context for our class discussion in Rivkin/Ryan background on "Feminist Paradigms" (pp. 765-69) and Smith background on "Feminist Critique" (pp. 346-49)!
---------------------------------------------------------
Please remember that Final Project Proposals are due via e-mail on Wednesday 4/15/15. In the body of an e-mail message is fine!
Diane Favro writes a brief historical account of the Roman triumphal parade and, interestingly enough, uses it as a way to build theory about ancient urbanity. Together with De Certeau and Benjamin, Favro's history raises three questions for us to consider at this point in the semester:
- What difference could Rome's urbanity (i.e., its ambient context and its materiality) have possibly made in the development of Western rhetorical theory? Could something like construction traffic really affect what you now take to be "standard" theoretical practice?
- If you are in the 11:00 section: For De Certeau, the "concept-city" is the optimal space for theorizing representation. How can this be, given that we started the unit talking about culture and race? What do you think he means by "concept-city," and what does it allow you to see (or not see) that matters for representation?
- If you are in the 2:00 section: For Benjamin, the reproduction of a work of art is not only a complicated process, it is also historically fragile because it relies on an ambient context for authenticity. What do you think this means, and how could such a claim about artistic reproduction matter for our dilemma of representation?
In-class cases: We'll consider Rome Reborn to help us think through these questions. If there's time, we may also consider this excerpt from "Beautiful Minds" about savant syndrome.
You can find helpful context for our class discussion in Richter background on "New Historicism" (pp. 1320-26)!
Looking forward to it,
-Prof. G
---------------------------------------------------------
for 4/9/15 -- Gates, Jr. "Writing 'Race'" (pp. 1-20) and Cooper "Voice from the South" (for the 11:00 section) or Johnson "Strong Race Opinion" (for the 2:00 section).
Folks, I think you will enjoy this set of readings: Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s argument for re/inscribing race in American literature; and excerpts by either E. Pauline Johnson or Anna Julia Cooper, depending on your section. All three theorists raise questions at the intersection of identity, identification, and representation that you may find useful for your final projects. Here are some questions to guide us:
Enjoy!
---------------------------------------------------------
Folks, I think you will enjoy this set of readings: Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s argument for re/inscribing race in American literature; and excerpts by either E. Pauline Johnson or Anna Julia Cooper, depending on your section. All three theorists raise questions at the intersection of identity, identification, and representation that you may find useful for your final projects. Here are some questions to guide us:
- In Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s essay, how seamlessly do you think we could substitute "feminism" for "race," "women" for "blacks," "feminist" for "racial," "sex/gender" for "color," or "gendered" for "colored"? Would Gates's argument be the same? Is it the same argument?
- Gates, Jr. argues that tropes like "race" must be in constant discourse with current events if they are to have any explanatory power -- real, or imagined -- and his conception of "race" is something that someone actively writes. How does this act (or not act) like one of Burke's terministic screens?
- In discussing Gates, Jr., it seems to me the following terms not only relate to each other, but quite possibly need each other: alterity, hegemony, identification, diaspora. I'll ask our discussion leaders to help us consider why this might be.
- Heads up: I'll divide the class into four discussion groups, each one considering a central problem in Gates, Jr.'s essay: (1) gender and class; (2) postcolonialism and Empire; (3) agent/cy and (anti)signification; (4) identification and dis/identification.
- Finally, knowing what you know about feminist rhetorical theory, feminist critical perspective, and race (as a theory or as a terministic screen), do you think it is possible for us to argue for Cooper or Johnson as "protofeminists"? As "race theorists"?
-Prof. G
---------------------------------------------------------
for 4/7/15 -- Burke "Terministic Screens" (pp. 44-57)
Folks, please bring your "Terms of Anti/Signification" handout to Tuesday's class! You may remember it contains a helpful gloss of Burke-isms. (You can find it on Bb if you have lost track of your hard copy.) This week, we are reading our last essay by Kenneth Burke -- a chapter from his book entitled Language as Symbolic Action. Here are some tentative discussion questions to help you approach his text:
- This Indian legend (which has its roots in a similar Chinese legend) provides a useful enactment of Burke's terministic screens. If you can fully explain how the legend enacts "terministic screens," then you are an expert in Burke's concept!
- Burke first devised his concept of "terministic screens" as a way of understanding the relationship between language and ideology; since then, the concept has been applied in a variety of other contexts, including visual rhetoric, race theory, cultural studies, and picture theory. How would you (or how should we) apply a language theory to these other contexts?
- One assumption underlying Burke's chapter is the idea that language does not simply "reflect" reality, it "deflects" reality. Another assumption underlying Burke's chapter is the idea that identification involves both association and disassociation. What does this mean, and how would this hold up against Burke's earlier work, or Aristotle's, or Derrida's, or Bakhtin's, or Miller's, or Landow's?
- In figuring out "terministic screens," the best question to ask is not "What are they?" but rather, "How do they work?" Here are some notable claims made by Burke:
- they act as verbal filters through which we perceive reality
- they act as a means to categorize and identify experiences -- for example, terminologies such as "gender" must work within a screen (a categorization) that either associates or disassociates them
- others? ...
- BONUS: If you can understand this Burkean card trick, then you understand Burke's process of identification!
You can find helpful context for our class discussion in Smith background on "Strategies of Identification" and "Redefinition" (pp. 284-89, 292-95)!
Really can't wait,
-Prof. G
---------------------------------------------------------
Please remember that the due-date for SCD #3 is Sunday 4/5/15 -- due to Bb "Assignments" by 5:00 p.m. -- same time due, no matter your section, please!
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Folks, we'll wrap up any loose ends today (especially regarding the readings or concepts from this unit) and take some time to do a concept review. Please bring to class specific essays or passages you'd like to review, so that you can pose follow-up questions. This will be your time. I will also take some time to talk through the final project for you, so that you can begin to plan your critical essay and multimodal component.
Before our review and discussion, I will administer a brief quiz (about 15-20 minutes in length), to help concretize our knowledge of some of the concepts we've learned in this unit. Ahead of class, please familiarize yourselves with the following critical terms, considering how they have been demonstrated or discussed throughout our course texts, case studies, and film (Good Copy, Bad Copy):
- class
- hybridity
- hypertext
- Marxism and/or Marxist Criticism
- metapicture
- metatext
- phenomenology
- race
- structuralism
- stylistics
---------------------------------------------------------
for 3/31/15 -- Hum "Racialized Gaze as Design" (pp. 191-215)
Please note that we will also look at Art Spiegelman's Metamaus as a case study in class, and I think you'll find it engaging! Metamaus is a hybrid project -- a book with interactive DVD. While I wasn't able to upload the entire DVD to Blackboard, you can browse some of the book's spreads online. You can also watch a trailer. Yes -- a trailer for a book! Give yourself at least 15 minutes to watch the trailer and browse the online spreads. I'll show segments of the DVD during Tuesday's class. At that time, we will consider its impact as a “metapicture,” a hypertext, a provocation, a recomposition, a genre, the sublime -- all of the above!
Yup, I blogged! As promised …
-Prof. G
---------------------------------------------------------
for 3/26/15 -- Mitchell "Metapictures" (pp. 35-64, 82)
You can find helpful context for our class discussion in Richter background on "Marxism" (1198-1201) and/or the Bedford Glossary entry on "Marxist Criticism."
As you read W.J.T. Mitchell's landmark chapter on the “metapicture,” notice his logic. In other words, he presents and organizes metapictures by type, but what do you think is the underlying need? What cultural phenomena or cultural collisions (Henry Jenkins might call them "media convergences") could Mitchell be responding to by defining this term in the first place? This may not be explicit, so don't be afraid to make some educated guesses. Chances are that, as you read, one of the types of metapictures will resonate with you more strongly than the others; that is perfectly okay. Focus on understanding that one.
We will continue with our discussion of "Big" questions to help us understand the following:
And we'll add the following:
We will continue with our discussion of "Big" questions to help us understand the following:
- What is hypertext (or what is it NOT)?
- What does hypertext do (according to Landow)?
- According to Landow, why does hypertext require (or invite) its own critical theory?
- What kinds of processes are involved in its interpretation (in the interpretation of hypertexts)?
- What comes of the role of the reader? of the book? of linear writing?
- In what ways does hypertext enact Miller's conception of "genre as social action"? In what ways does it resist or disrupt Miller's "genre"?
And we'll add the following:
- For Mitchell, rather than thinking of images as texts, it is more advantageous to think about textuality as an approach to reading images. What does this mean, and what is the difference?
- How do some of Mitchell's key terms differ from one another (image, textuality, metapicture, pictorial turn, dialectical image, hyper icon)?
- Take a look at Scott Garner's “still life” and Penny Gorin’s “Poetry as Practice” and Susan Delagrange's “Wunderkammer.” You decide: Hypertext? Rhizome? Metapicture? Dialectical images? Something altogether unspecified until now ... ?
- Is it possible to consider Mitchell’s “Metapictures” as a Marxist argument, or as Marxist criticism? (Yes, that is a rhetorical question. Of course it is possible! But how would we justify it?)
- What on earth can hypertext and metapictures have to do with class?
-Prof. G
---------------------------------------------------------
for 3/24/15 -- Landow "Hypertext and Critical Theory" (pp. 33-48) and Deleuze and Guattari "Introduction: Rhizome" (select any 7 pages between pp. 3-23!)
You can find helpful context for our class discussion in Richter background on "Reader Response Theory" (962-965).
PREPARATORY EXERCISE #7 (Schema of Hypertext Theory) (25 points)For Tuesday, please bring to class a schema of hypertext theory from the point of view of George Landow and Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (the 7 pages that you selected to read). As you read, keep in mind that Landow makes "hypertext" the main focus of his chapter, since he argues for developing a theory that will specifically accommodate this "new" form of text. Deleuze and Guattari, on the other hand, do not argue for hypertext explicitly; however, they do argue for books as "rhizomes." When we meet for class on Tuesday, we'll consider the impact of each of these arguments. For this assignment, you are free to visually represent the theory you see emerging from both their texts to the best of your knowledge right now.
Remember--you have done this before! A "schema" is more commonly known as a formal structure, which shows how things are organized in relation to one another or are arranged in relation to the world. In other words, try showing on paper (or digitally, on screen) what you understand to be the hierarchy of concepts presented in what you read. What is each writer's logic? How do the writers present and organize "hypertext theory" (i.e., by critical problem, by need, by metaphor, by function, by reader response, by something else, etc.) and what led them to do so? Most schemas innovatively combine the visual and the textual, employing images/shapes alongside words. Sometimes they look like trees, database structures, venn diagrams, charts, or architectural drawings. Sometimes they use color to help organize different parts. You have creative license in terms of how you will compose your schema, but please be thorough and detailed!
Somewhere in that
schema, I need you to provide a concise but informative explanation of their hierarchy or organization in your own words, for an unfamiliar reader. I
encourage you to think of your schema not as an outline, but as an
intellectual map. Very complicated schemas often need a symbol key or a
guide.
Also, please include the MLA citation for both chapters (see our Course Reading List), and use in-text (parenthetical) citations throughout your schema so that I can find the places in each chapter where you are citing or referencing. I will collect your schemas during class discussion on Tuesday.
Also, please include the MLA citation for both chapters (see our Course Reading List), and use in-text (parenthetical) citations throughout your schema so that I can find the places in each chapter where you are citing or referencing. I will collect your schemas during class discussion on Tuesday.
Yes, it's work, but it's your last PE of the semester! Try to have fun with it, and remember that you can do this even as you are still figuring out what you read.
-Prof. G
Also, please remember I'll be asking us to revisit Sharon Daniel's "Public Secrets," which is a classic example of a hypertext essay according to Landow's definition. You do not have to view her project again before Tuesday's class, but do not be surprised if I ask you to remember it and/or to look back briefly at Carolyn Miller's "Genre as Social Action." There are interesting, telling connections to be made between Miller and Landow!
---------------------------------------------------------
Schedule change: reminder that class on 3/19/15 will be held on blog, not in WMS 319!
for 3/19/15 -- Ridolfo and Rife "Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright" and Good Copy Bad Copy
Folks, we have to make a schedule change for this week because I'll be away at a conference. (Originally, I had hoped to return for Thursday's class, but won't be able to come back to Tallahassee in between my commitments on Wednesday and Friday.) This will work in your favor, so please read on and read carefully because we will be conducting class "on the blog." Yes, the blogging activity will count both as your attendance/participation for Thursday and as your Blog #5. (You're welcome.) And yes, this gives you more time to complete the blogging! And you can participate from anywhere in the world--including your pajamas!
Preparation ...
Before Thursday’s class time, read Ridolfo and Rife’s article and give yourself some time to view Good Copy Bad Copy (the film runs just under 60 minutes). GCBC has a long history of public access since it was made in 2007, but its original project site is now dead. However, you can find the documentary at The Internet Archive, on YouTube, and embedded in numerous other project sites such as blip.tv and cultureunplugged. I recommend watching it via Internet Archive or—even better—downloading it and then powering it from your own machine so that you don’t have to worry about a slow web connection. Treat yourself to high resolution and a full screen so that you can take in all the detail.
Logistics …
You'll compose two (2) posts and one (1) in-depth response to another person’s post by the end of the day on Thursday (3/19/15). This allows you to use class time to work on your blog posts, and gives you several more hours to read each other's posts if needed. Obviously, you are always welcome and encouraged to do as much of this as you can in advance of Thursday's class.
What's different about blogging this week …
For your two posts, I'm offering questions/tasks to use as “prompts.” Of course, your posts should still be interesting texts in their own right, adhering to our guidelines and showing your usual level of excellence. As always, you want to do more than just answer the “prompt.”
Question/Task/Prompt #1 (Everyone completes this one!)
Interestingly enough, Good Copy Bad Copy does not just promote open access. Its creators, Andreas Johnsen and Ralf Christensen, do have strong opinions about filesharing as a practice, a culture, and even a political ideology. They do argue that creativity is “on the line.” However, they also manage to complicate the issue beyond a pro/con argument by covering as many perspectives as they can on copyright, creativity, industry, and invention. Their documentary also presents filesharing as a global phenomenon—defined or understood differently among different cultures—rather than a universal phenomenon. For these reasons, even though there are more recent films that take up the moral and ethical repercussions of copyright law (for example, The Internet’s Own Boy), and even though there are perspectives that Johnsen and Christensen leave out, I think this film makes a good discussion tool for us.
Please select three moments from the film that—when taken together—help you to understand something about copyright, creativity, industry, or invention that you might not have understood before. How does that understanding, in turn, help you to explain text(uality) as a dilemma or a paradox? Feel free to draw on Miller, Daniel, Ridolfo and Rife, or something we read earlier in the semester in your response.
Please select your moments from across the film, rather than crowding them all into the same 10-minute span, and be sure to identify their time stamp somewhere in your post (e.g., 5:31, 20:02, 43:16, etc.) so that we can find them, too.
Question/Task/Prompt #2 (You choose one of these to complete!)
Question/Task/Prompt #1 (Everyone completes this one!)
Interestingly enough, Good Copy Bad Copy does not just promote open access. Its creators, Andreas Johnsen and Ralf Christensen, do have strong opinions about filesharing as a practice, a culture, and even a political ideology. They do argue that creativity is “on the line.” However, they also manage to complicate the issue beyond a pro/con argument by covering as many perspectives as they can on copyright, creativity, industry, and invention. Their documentary also presents filesharing as a global phenomenon—defined or understood differently among different cultures—rather than a universal phenomenon. For these reasons, even though there are more recent films that take up the moral and ethical repercussions of copyright law (for example, The Internet’s Own Boy), and even though there are perspectives that Johnsen and Christensen leave out, I think this film makes a good discussion tool for us.
Please select three moments from the film that—when taken together—help you to understand something about copyright, creativity, industry, or invention that you might not have understood before. How does that understanding, in turn, help you to explain text(uality) as a dilemma or a paradox? Feel free to draw on Miller, Daniel, Ridolfo and Rife, or something we read earlier in the semester in your response.
Please select your moments from across the film, rather than crowding them all into the same 10-minute span, and be sure to identify their time stamp somewhere in your post (e.g., 5:31, 20:02, 43:16, etc.) so that we can find them, too.
Question/Task/Prompt #2 (You choose one of these to complete!)
- In their case study of “Maggie,” Jim Ridolfo and Martine Courant Rife begin to argue for a “commons” culture on the basis of several concerns—legal, ethical, personal, and etc. If you had to explain their case study to someone else, what would you say are their “primary” concerns and what concerns are “secondary”? In other words, what do you think is really at stake for them in suggesting a commons culture (i.e., what problems would it solve and whom could it help?), and what principles most influence their understanding of a “commons”? As part of your explanation, put their article into conversation with another text from this unit or from earlier in the semester.
- Ridolfo and Rife introduce a group of key terms: “rhetorical velocity,” “delivery,” “appropriation,” and “recomposition.” These aren’t the same thing, but how are they intricately connected? Which term do you think functions the most importantly in their article, and why? Take some time to unpack these terms, discussing how R&R employ them in their case study. Which of the terms do you think best applies to Carolyn Miller’s definition of “genre”? Or, which term do you think is implicated in how Miller wants us to think differently about genre? Which of the terms surprised you the most?
-Prof. G
---------------------------------------------------------
for 3/17/15 -- Miller "Genre as Social Action" (pp. 151-69) and Daniel "Public Secrets" (via weblink)
PREPARATORY EXERCISE #6 (Multimodal Genealogy) (25 points)
Bring to class a genealogy of genre theory based on Carolyn Miller's article. The goal with this PE is to somehow map the larger intertext from which Miller's notion of genre emerges. Here is how we'll split up the reading:
Bring to class a genealogy of genre theory based on Carolyn Miller's article. The goal with this PE is to somehow map the larger intertext from which Miller's notion of genre emerges. Here is how we'll split up the reading:
- if your last name begins with letters A through L, please make a genealogy of pages 151-58, and 163-65.
- if your last name begins with letters M through Z, please make a genealogy of pages 155-65.
As you read, try to consider how Miller's theory of "genre as situated action" challenges other theorists we have read so far. Just as you did with your schema for PE #1, you
want to use this genealogy to depict on paper (or on screen, if you do
this digitally) what you understand to be the hierarchy of concepts,
people, theories, texts, or concerns that contribute to Miller's notion
of "genre as social action." Try to pay attention to whose ideas she builds on, and whose ideas those ideas build on. What concepts, theories, theorists, or texts have influenced her understanding of genre? What relationships do those people or things (or texts) have to each other as well as to Miller, and how would you spatially organize those relationships? What patterns emerge from noticing them?
Most genealogies innovatively combine the visual and the textual, employing images/shapes alongside words. Sometimes they look like family trees, data plans, charts, or architectural drawings. Sometimes they use color to help organize different parts. You have creative freedom in terms of how you will construct your genealogy, so long as it is thorough and detailed! Your genealogy might contain some prose, since it will likely be impossible to communicate Miller's "genre as social action" without using any words at all. I encourage you to think of your genealogy as an intellectual map.
Somewhere in the genealogy, please include the MLA citation for Miller's essay (which you can find in the Course Reading List), and use in-text (parenthetical) citations where needed so that I can find the places in the text you are citing or referencing. I will collect them after class discussion.
Also, in advance of Tuesday's class, please read Sharon Daniel's “Public Secrets.” Allow yourself about 30 minutes to skim the Editor's Introduction and the author's statement, and then to "VIEW PROJECT." Give yourself time to view the various nodes and explore the different pathways. Because there are audio files, you will need to use earbuds or speakers so that you can hear them. This essay has a number of different components, and you'll want to discover as many of them as you can as you consider the genre it reflects.
Enjoy!
Most genealogies innovatively combine the visual and the textual, employing images/shapes alongside words. Sometimes they look like family trees, data plans, charts, or architectural drawings. Sometimes they use color to help organize different parts. You have creative freedom in terms of how you will construct your genealogy, so long as it is thorough and detailed! Your genealogy might contain some prose, since it will likely be impossible to communicate Miller's "genre as social action" without using any words at all. I encourage you to think of your genealogy as an intellectual map.
Somewhere in the genealogy, please include the MLA citation for Miller's essay (which you can find in the Course Reading List), and use in-text (parenthetical) citations where needed so that I can find the places in the text you are citing or referencing. I will collect them after class discussion.
Also, in advance of Tuesday's class, please read Sharon Daniel's “Public Secrets.” Allow yourself about 30 minutes to skim the Editor's Introduction and the author's statement, and then to "VIEW PROJECT." Give yourself time to view the various nodes and explore the different pathways. Because there are audio files, you will need to use earbuds or speakers so that you can hear them. This essay has a number of different components, and you'll want to discover as many of them as you can as you consider the genre it reflects.
Enjoy!
I have extended the due-date for SCD #2 to Friday 3/6/15 -- due to Bb "Assignments" by 12:00 p.m. (noon) -- same time due, no matter your section, please!
---------------------------------------------------------
Folks, even as you are finishing up your SCD #2, we need to forge ahead before the spring break, and I do not want to deprive us of considering Longinus's notion of sublime. So, I have modified the plan for today, as we begin our unit on Text/uality.
To all William Burroughs fans, I apologize. I've decided to omit his excerpt from today's reading, although I might find a way to work him in later.
For reading Longinus, here is what I will ask you to do to prepare:
We will actually "trace" Longinus's text together in class, since it dates to Antiquity (although it isn't clear whether the author resided in the first or the third century). So, as you read your assigned pages, please keep an eye out for any one of these concepts:
---------------------------------------------------------
for 3/3/15 -- Satrapi's Persepolis* (11:00 section) or El-Rassi's Arab in America (2:00 section) AND Raymond Briggs' When the Wind Blows
---------------------------------------------------------
for 3/5/15 -- Longinus "From On the Sublime" and Burroughs "The Future of the Novel"
Folks, even as you are finishing up your SCD #2, we need to forge ahead before the spring break, and I do not want to deprive us of considering Longinus's notion of sublime. So, I have modified the plan for today, as we begin our unit on Text/uality.
To all William Burroughs fans, I apologize. I've decided to omit his excerpt from today's reading, although I might find a way to work him in later.
For reading Longinus, here is what I will ask you to do to prepare:
- If your last name begins A-G, please read pp. 346-350 in depth (stop just before 8.1)
- If your last name begins H-M, please read pp. 350-354 in depth (stop just before 11.1)
- If your last name begins N-Z, please read pp. 354-358 in depth (to the end of our excerpt)
We will actually "trace" Longinus's text together in class, since it dates to Antiquity (although it isn't clear whether the author resided in the first or the third century). So, as you read your assigned pages, please keep an eye out for any one of these concepts:
- qualities of writing/writers (What unique features of writing does he describe, i.e., large, small, structural, linguistic, etc.? What properties should writing have or not have?)
- the role(s) of the reader, writer, critic (What are their respective responsibilities in terms of either creating or noting the sublime? Where do their roles seem to diverge or converge? Does Longinus address them as if they were or could be the same?)
- the uses of language (What does Longinus have to say about the importance of words or verbal expression to the text? What can/do words achieve? What variations on language does he seem to consider, i.e., figurative language, metaphors, particular expressions, etc.?)
- genres and style (What types of genres does he discuss, and/or what styles of writing does he want his readers to consider?)
---------------------------------------------------------
for 3/3/15 -- Satrapi's Persepolis* (11:00 section) or El-Rassi's Arab in America (2:00 section) AND Raymond Briggs' When the Wind Blows
* -- please note that today we're reading pages 135-153.
Folks, today, we will finish discussing Satrapi's Persepolis (11:00 section) or El Rassi's Arab in America (2:00 section), while also putting it into conversation with a comic-memoir of a very different tenor, tone, and style: Raymond Briggs' When the Wind Blows. In addition to continuing our questions from last week, I'll ask us to think more specifically about alienness, foreignness, othering, traditionalization, and modernization as we consider whether/how these comic memoirs enable readers to "transcend cultural boundaries" or "show self-reflexivity." I hope you enjoy our cases this week!
---------------------------------------------------------
* -- please note that today we're only reading pages 1-134.
We'll be reading Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis (in the 11:00 section) and Toufic El-Rassi's Arab in America (in the 2:00 section) as extended case studies for (anti)signification. Since it may be your first time reading them, I want you to be free to experience these comic-memoirs in any number of ways. So, I do not have a formal set of questions to prepare, though I offer you some things to ponder (if you wish):
- the challenges of theorizing agency in either of these memoirs
- their most provocative use of drawn symbols
- the role(s) of narration in their memoirs
- how they draw perplexity, coming-of-age, gender-bending, alienation, liberation, etc.
- some benefits or risks of identifying with either the character or the author.
Before our discussion of today's graphic novel, I will administer a brief quiz (about 10-15 minutes in length), to help concretize your knowledge of some of the concepts we've learned in the (Anti)Signification unit so far. Ahead of class, please familiarize yourselves with the following critical terms, considering how they have been demonstrated or discussed throughout our course texts, case studies, and the graphic novel you have read for today (you can look most of these up in the Bedford Glossary and almost all of them in the OED Online:
- Deconstruction
- Dialogism and/or Dialogic Criticism
- Differance and Differend
- Heteroglossia
- Langue vs. Parole
- Logocentrism
- Sign and Signification
- Symbol and Symbolic Action
- Speech Act Theory
Bring your Glossary to class. You'll be able to use it during quiz.
---------------------------------------------------------
PREPARATORY EXERCISE #5 (Critical Dialogue) (25 points)
During Tuesday's class, we will try to understand why Paul Lewis calls for an "ethics" of humor by discussing some of what he calls "humor fiascos" -- digital reproductions and recirculations of political cartoons about global (terrorist) events. I invite you to put both theorists into a dialogue on one of the following problems:
My goal for this PE is that you would try to understand their critical dilemmas, not simply whether they are alike or different. So, whether you choose to write your PE like a screenplay, a script, a stage play, a scene from a novel, or etc., please do everything you can to demonstrate the nuances between them.
For those who would like more guidance in what we're reading, you might find these questions to be helpful:
During Tuesday's class, we will try to understand why Paul Lewis calls for an "ethics" of humor by discussing some of what he calls "humor fiascos" -- digital reproductions and recirculations of political cartoons about global (terrorist) events. I invite you to put both theorists into a dialogue on one of the following problems:
- the limitations of comic identification
- the role of icons in humor-sharing
- the role of interpreters, mediators, and agents (i.e., what role they can reasonably play) in McCloud's "symbolic involvement"
- the challenge(s) of representing identity through symbols.
My goal for this PE is that you would try to understand their critical dilemmas, not simply whether they are alike or different. So, whether you choose to write your PE like a screenplay, a script, a stage play, a scene from a novel, or etc., please do everything you can to demonstrate the nuances between them.
Bring to class (~2-3 pages, word-processed and single-spaced)
your dialogue. You may end up writing more if you're enjoying the task!
Please refer to specific passages from each essay as part of your
conversation. In other words, in the dialogue, writers may quote
themselves and each other. Please include the MLA citation and use in-text (parenthetical) citations throughout your dialogue where needed.
For those who would like more guidance in what we're reading, you might find these questions to be helpful:
- What do you think is McCloud's most provocative (or troubling) claim about how symbols function, or just his most troubling claim in general?
- Why does McCloud choose to theorize "icons" rather than "symbols" or "pictures"?
- Would any of our theorists so far (including Kenneth Burke, Jacques Derrida, Mikhail Bakhtin and George Lakoff and Mark Johnson) take issue with McCloud's claim that "simplification is amplification"?
To prepare for our discussion of Burke's essay, I offer several reading questions to help you navigate your way through it:
- This is the second essay we will have read from Burke's Philosophy of Literary Form, but it functions differently from the first ("Equipment for Living"). It is a bit complex, but what are the kinds of things that Burke analyzes for? How does he organize his analysis?
- Burke will argue for Mein Kampf as a symbolic act. What definition(s) of "symbol" will this argument support -- or rely on? What do you think Burke means by "symbolic act" or "symbolic action"?
- In class, I plan to demonstrate a "case" drawing from well-circulated (iconic) representations of flag-raising at Iwo Jima. If you're curious, before class, check out this linked image. How do you think Burke would analyze this image, based on his discussion of strategies in "Equipment for Living," and based on his argument in "The Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle'"?
for 2/17/15 -- Bakhtin "Discourse in the Novel" and Schuster "Mikhail Bakhtin as Rhetorical Theorist"
Each section of Bakhtin's excerpted chapter deals with (a.k.a., defines, unpacks, and exemplifies) one aspect of "discourse" that he says is unique to the genre of novel. Another way to say this is, Bakhtin is arguing for the novel as discourse.
Each section of Bakhtin's excerpted chapter deals with (a.k.a., defines, unpacks, and exemplifies) one aspect of "discourse" that he says is unique to the genre of novel. Another way to say this is, Bakhtin is arguing for the novel as discourse.
Our main goal is to understand how and why he does this, and to begin to understand his concept of heteroglossia. To help us follow his argument, in class we may end up creating a kind of map that will help us understand both Bakhtin's terms and how Schuster positions Bakhtin as a rhetorical theorist because of those terms. Here are my suggestions for reading:
- As you read Bakhtin's excerpted chapter, try keeping track of his definitions of heteroglossia.
- Bakhtin lays out different aspects of "discourse" -- do they apply to or describe your own experiences of reading a novel?
- As you read Schuster's discussion of Bakhtin, take note of all of the reasons why Schuster argues for Bakhtin as a rhetorical theorist. Many of these arguments center on Bakhtin's development of a "dialogic" discourse. What does this mean?
- Take about 10 minutes to review our Locke discussion notes (in Bb) and also our Locke-Derrida-Lakoff/Johnson grid (linked from Bb). Last week, we identified a range of perspectives on language -- from basic signification to metaphoric speech acts -- and in many ways, Bakhtin's heteroglossia fits squarely in the middle of our other theorizing.
- Finally, for those who asked me to provide them, I'm including the links to some of the mini-cases we used last week as we started unpacking critical concepts (we didn't get to all of these cases in the 2:00 class):
- Carrie Rudzinski's award-winning performance of "Elbows" (which causes visceral reactions in her audience, also causing us to ask What can language do?)
- Nikki Finney's poem "Left" (written about the Hurricane Katrina aftermath, and performed to audio and video images that sometimes juxtapose her verbal imagery)
- Sound of Music "do-re-mi" clip (reminding us of the significance of sound/image to how we construct meaning through language)
- Ben Quayle's 2008 campaign video (the audio and print transcripts make no sense on their own, so many bi- and non-partisan viewers think that the only things making this video make sense are the visuals, which give it a sense of cohesion that isn't there logically).
---------------------------------------------------------
for 2/12/15 -- Derrida "Differance"
You'll find helpful context in Herrick background on "Derrida" (253-256) and Rivkin/Ryan background on "Structuralism" and "Deconstruction" (53-55, 257-261).
After reading Locke, I think you will find Derrida's arguments to be especially relevant; however, Derrida plays with language, even as he writes, and this will make it challenging to follow his argument. As well, we are reading an English translation of an essay that was originally written in French (based on an oral presentation). Because it is a good translation, we can still grasp the tenor and tone of his message, but it will seem as if his sentences are formed using very complex clauses, and sometimes the subjects and predicates are separated by a long string of metaphors. Do the best you can with it, and don't give up!
Some advice on how to read this text:
- Herrick's background essay (above) should give you a good jump start on comprehending what Derrida writes, but you should not expect the background essays to necessarily do the interpretation for you, i.e., they can help you understand Derrida's episteme, but not his argument.
- Try writing in the margins as you follow all of the ways that Derrida defines "differance."
- Annotate or highlight some of the most interesting phrases throughout his essay. We'll take some time to discuss them in class.
- Also, as you struggle to think about examples of this concept, remember that the word itself -- differance -- is the best example of what Derrida tries to argue! It is an enactment of the concept he is describing!
---------------------------------------------------------
for 2/10/15 -- Locke "From Essay Concerning Human Understanding" and
Lakoff and Johnson "From Metaphors We Live By"
Lakoff and Johnson "From Metaphors We Live By"
You'll find helpful context in Bizzell/Herzberg background on "Enlightenment" (798-799) and Smith background on "Locke" (215-218).
PREPARATORY EXERCISE #4 (Concept Trace of Locke) (25 points)
As you have done before for Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, complete a trace through our excerpts from John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Editors Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg tell us that, although Locke was not widely thought of as a rhetorical theorist at the time he wrote this, his discussions of how language related to knowledge were pervasive in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century thought (at least in England and Scotland, and--by way of trans-Atlantic travel--in America) (815). In this text, we see him strive to describe what he sees as the principal "problem" of language. We are trying to figure out what makes the relationship between language and knowledge so complex for Locke.
For your trace, please pay attention to how Locke discusses, makes assumptions about, or illustrates one of the following concepts:
- the origins of language (Does the mind precede language, or does it emerge with language? Do there seem to be other causes or predecessors of language? Does language have a mysterious origin?)
- the imperfections of language (In what ways does language or communication "fail"? What does Locke mean by "failure"? How is language limited or inadequate for doing certain things? What things?)
- the uses of language (What can language or communication achieve? Are there particular uses that are more moral/ethical, or less moral/ethical? What determines that?)
- the nature of ideas (What are "ideas" and how are they reached? What are their origins? Can they emerge without language? What other ways do they emerge?)
Please do not limit yourself only to looking for explicit uses of the terms you are tracing. Instead, look all throughout his Essay for places where he seems to deal with your concept. Unlike PE #2, I will not ask you to trace the equivalent concept in Lakoff and Johnson; you may focus your trace solely on Locke.
The format is honestly quite open; I just need you to be as thorough as possible in showing how your selected term is treated throughout the text. You might provide an outline to show us how to read his text for that one particular concept; you might create a chart that shows the evolution of the concept within his text; you might construct a giant grid that helps us see how the concept is illustrated or applied in each section of the text; you might write several paragraphs where you comment on how he deals with the concept in his text; or you might invent another way to do this. Whatever you do, please ensure that it is no longer than ~2-3 pages, and that it is word-processed (rather than hand-written).
You will most likely refer to specific passages from Locke's excerpts as part of your trace, so please include the MLA citation and use in-text (parenthetical) citations throughout your trace where needed.
---------------------------------------------------------
I have extended the due-date for SCD #1 to Friday 2/6/15 -- due to Bb "Assignments" by what would normally be the beginning of your class time (so, 11:00 for section -01, or 2:00 for section -02).
---------------------------------------------------------
communicationfailureideasignsymbolword
for 2/3/15 -- Quiz #1, Discussion of Stranger than Fiction, and Concept Review
We'll discuss Stranger than Fiction and take some time to do a concept review, especially addressing any lingering questions you have at the end of this unit. Please bring to class specific essays or passages you'd like to review, so that you can pose follow-up questions. This will be your time.
---------------------------------------------------------
Before our discussion of the film, I will administer a brief quiz (about 10 minutes in length), to help concretize our knowledge of some of the concepts we've learned in this unit. Ahead of class, please familiarize yourselves with the following critical terms, considering how they have been demonstrated or discussed throughout our course texts, case studies, and film:
- Audience Construction
- Author Function
- Dialectic/Dialectical Criticism
- Discourse
- Ecocriticism (if you're in the 2:00 section)
- Erasure (if you're in the 11:00 section)
- Episteme/Epistemology
- Feminist Criticism
- Implied Audience and Reader
- Intertextuality
- Power
Bring your Bedford Glossary to class, as well as the handout called “Terms of Agent/cy” that I distributed on 1/22. You'll be able to use these during quiz.
Monday 2/2/15 -- Film Screening of Stranger than Fiction
WMS 013 (English "Common Room," Basement Level)
6:30-8:30 p.m.
Please remember that I'm holding a film screening for the convenience of anyone who could not locate Stranger than Fiction on their own! All are welcome!
---------------------------------------------------------
for 1/29/15 -- Barton "Textual Practices of Erasure" (for the 11:00 section) or Welling "Ecoporn" (for the 2:00 section).
11:00 section:
Ellen Barton defines what she calls a “discourse of disability,” and discusses the causes, effects, and critical impact of this discourse in United Way campaign posters. Her use of the term “erasure” also provides a metaphor we'll want to consider more closely, because it resonates with Foucault and Barthes. For our discussion of her article, please be prepared to share 2 or 3 passages you found while reading that you think are most significant or important for discussing disability and erasure.
We'll conduct our second in-class case study on the United Way 1950s Poster Campaign, and I'll provide you with links when we get to class on Thursday.
2:00 section:
Bart Welling defines what he calls “ecopornography” based on actual and abstract challenges of visualizing nonhuman subjects. In doing so, he makes an argument about participatory agency and gaze that will be worthwhile for us to consider, and he achieves this by borrowing from feminist criticism. For our discussion of his article, please be prepared to share 2 or 3 passages that best show his critical method, i.e., passages where he lays out the theoretical foundations of his whole argument.
Ellen Barton defines what she calls a “discourse of disability,” and discusses the causes, effects, and critical impact of this discourse in United Way campaign posters. Her use of the term “erasure” also provides a metaphor we'll want to consider more closely, because it resonates with Foucault and Barthes. For our discussion of her article, please be prepared to share 2 or 3 passages you found while reading that you think are most significant or important for discussing disability and erasure.
We'll conduct our second in-class case study on the United Way 1950s Poster Campaign, and I'll provide you with links when we get to class on Thursday.
2:00 section:
Bart Welling defines what he calls “ecopornography” based on actual and abstract challenges of visualizing nonhuman subjects. In doing so, he makes an argument about participatory agency and gaze that will be worthwhile for us to consider, and he achieves this by borrowing from feminist criticism. For our discussion of his article, please be prepared to share 2 or 3 passages that best show his critical method, i.e., passages where he lays out the theoretical foundations of his whole argument.
We'll conduct our second in-class case study on a couple of different exhibits that may include Subhankar Banerjee's photography, and campaigns by the Sierra Club and PETA; I'll provide you with links when we get to class on Thursday.
Enjoy the reading!
for 1/27/15 -- Campbell "Agency: Promiscuous and Protean" and
Heilbrun Writing a Woman's Life (pp. 11-24) if you are in the 11:00 section, or
Benhabib "Identity Politics" if you are in the 2:00 section
You can find helpful context in Smith background on "Feminism in the Postmodern World" (337-346).
I'm dedicating PE #3 to those of you who are inspired to write in more creative formats, because I fully expect that you can write creatively and with critical distance at the same time! For our discussion of Karlyn Campbell and Carolyn Heilbrun (11:00 section) or Karlyn Campbell and Seyla Benhabib (2:00 section), I invite you to put both theorists into a dialogue on one of the following problems:
- how writing/telling their own experiences gives women writers discursive power, or removes it
- how writing/telling their own experiences complicates the division between public and private
- the limitations of history on understanding women's rhetorical practices
- the limitations of memory on valuing women's rhetorical practices
- the challenges of representing identity when constructing a feminist paradigm
- the challenges of representing race when constructing a feminist paradigm
- the role of historical interpreters, mediators, and agents (i.e., what role they can reasonably play).
My goal for this PE is that you would try to understand their critical dilemmas. Campbell and Heilbrun situate their arguments in specific kinds of rhetorical performances: Suffrage discourse and autobiography, yet their challenges are not identical. Campbell and Benhabib situate their arguments in specific attempts to build a better "feminist" theory: historical and cultural, yet they both struggle to represent women's identification, and they each have different reasons for that struggle. So, whether you choose to write your PE like a screenplay, a script, a stage play, a scene from a novel, or etc., please do everything you can to demonstrate the nuances between them.
Bring to class (~2-3 pages, word-processed and single-spaced) your dialogue. You may end up writing more if you're enjoying the task! Please refer to specific passages from each essay as part of your conversation. In other words, in the dialogue, writers may quote themselves and each other.
Please include the MLA citation and use in-text (parenthetical) citations throughout your dialogue where needed.
---------------------------------------------------------
for 1/22/15 -- Ong "The Writer's Audience Is Always a Fiction"
Folks, please bring back the essays by Foucault and Barthes for Thursday's discussion, since we'll need to finish working through some of the difficult spots. Please also start bringing your Bedford Glossary to class, since there will be times when we need to be able to look up a term fairly quickly!
For anyone who would like guidance in reading Ong, here are some questions to help you read:
for 1/22/15 -- Ong "The Writer's Audience Is Always a Fiction"
Folks, please bring back the essays by Foucault and Barthes for Thursday's discussion, since we'll need to finish working through some of the difficult spots. Please also start bringing your Bedford Glossary to class, since there will be times when we need to be able to look up a term fairly quickly!
On Thursday we'll have our first in-class case study--the September 11 Digital Archive--which has already undergone several revisions since its first construction in 2002. (If anyone can locate the first two versions online, I'll be indebted to you for a very long time!) Before Thursday's class, please spend some time browsing the archive and consider some of its features, especially in terms of how Foucault and Barthes define "authorship/writing," and how Walter Ong understands "audience." Here are some questions to help guide you:
- Study the structure and arrangement of the September 11 Digital Archive. What is the archive's organizational logic? How would you use it? What are all the possibilities for using it? What strikes you as particularly useful, surprising, welcoming, or disturbing?
- Consider the September 11 Digital Archive as an example of both agency and power. In what ways does it make you think that agency and power could function as the same thing? In what ways does it make you think that agency and power are meant to function differently?
- For those of you who like key terms, after reading Ong, try testing some of his ideas about audience construction, audience participation, and circumambient realities on the September 11 Digital Archive. By "testing his ideas," I mean see if you can come up with a comprehensive sense of how the archive works according to those three principles.
For anyone who would like guidance in reading Ong, here are some questions to help you read:
- Ong states his motives for writing in his first paragraph--the concept of “audience” is problematic for writers! He then devotes Section 1 to explaining why this was the case for him in 1975. If he were to rewrite this article in 2015, how many of these reasons or problems do you think would still hold? In other words, what reasons do you think he might provide for why the concept of “audience” is complicated today?
- Ong builds his argument through history--that is, Sections 2, 3, and 4 describe what Ong sees as major periods of “audience adjustment” according to how literary genres were constructed, disseminated and used. How have some of these historical periods contributed to the audience “problems” that he experiences in 1975?
- Ultimately, Ong takes his own position on audience in Section 5. What is his final assessment? Do we give up trying to construct that ultimate audience? Do we give up writing altogether?
---------------------------------------------------------
Please remember that we begin blogging this week! (See the class schedule for required blogging dates.)
Please remember that we begin blogging this week! (See the class schedule for required blogging dates.)
---------------------------------------------------------
for 1/20/15 -- Foucault "What Is An Author?" and Barthes "The Death of the Author"
PREPARATORY EXERCISE #2 (Concept Trace of Aristotle) (25 points)
Folks, now that you have gotten your feet wet (figuratively speaking) with "tracing," I'll ask you to actually complete a trace as your second preparatory exercise of the term, and bring it to class next Tuesday. Please note, however, that you'll be tracing a concept across two texts: Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and either Michel Foucault's "What Is An Author?" or Roland Barthes' "The Death of the Author." I am expecting that you'll read both Foucault and Barthes, but for the purposes of PE #2, you only need to trace one of them. Please select one of the following terms:
Obviously, I'll ask you to trace this term through the Ethics by paying attention to how Aristotle discusses, defines, makes assumptions about, or illustrates the concept. But in addition, I'll ask you to trace what you think is the equivalent term or concept in either Foucault or Barthes. Your overarching goal is to show evidence of your trace in as much detail as possible, highlighting both the similarities and differences, striking a balance between representing the authors in their words and in your own words, and noting surprises or contradictions in what you read. Ultimately, when you bring your trace to class, you'll want to be able to tell us how some aspect of Aristotle's eudaimonia intersects with either Foucault's or Barthes' arguments. In other words, you'll be finding a single point of critical connection between two theorists that you feel like you can support based on your trace evidence.
The format for your "trace" is honestly quite open; I just need you to be as thorough as possible in showing how your selected term is treated throughout both texts. You might provide an outline to show us how to read two texts for that one particular concept; you might create a chart that shows the evolution of the concept between two texts; you might construct a giant grid that helps us see how the concept is illustrated or applied in each text; you might write several paragraphs where you comment on how both authors deal with each term throughout their texts; or you might invent another way to do this.Whatever you do, please ensure that it is no longer than ~2-3 pages, and that it is word-processed (rather than hand-written).
You will most likely refer to specific passages from both texts as part of your trace, so please include the MLA citation and use in-text (parenthetical) citations throughout your trace where needed.
For anyone who would like a little more guidance in reading Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault, here are some questions in advance of Tuesday's discussion just to help you read:
Please enjoy the challenge!
-Prof. G
---------------------------------------------------------
for 1/15/15 -- Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics (pp. 3-25, 117-141)
In preparation for our discussion of Aristotle, I offer you some insight into how to "trace" his text for certain themes -- something we will do together in class on Thursday. Translator H. Rackham tells us that Aristotle's writings generally fell into two groups: (1) philosophical (theoretical) dialogues, which have all been lost; and (2) scientific (practical) treatises, which have been recovered and constitute what we now understand to be Aristotle's "systems of rhetoric."
Nicomachean Ethics is encompassed by the second group: practical treatises (a.k.a., lecture notes). As a result, when I read Aristotle's treatises, I find that tracing the path of a specific concept throughout the treatise helps me to understand more about the whole of his argument, and it helps me to appreciate the various ways I can apply it.
In the Ethics, our challenge is to try to understand Aristotle's "Idea of the Good" and to begin thinking about what bearing that goodness has on acts of writing and reading. Is "goodness" inherent? Learned? Acquired through social or political activity? Does it represent a way of living or a way of being? Does it lead to opportunities for citizens, or does it serve to close them off from opportunities, or something else? As you read the Ethics, please pay attention to how Aristotle discusses, defines, makes assumptions about, or illustrates one of the following concepts:
-Prof. G.
---------------------------------------------------------
for 1/13/15 -- Burke "Equipment for Living" and Introductory Essay
PREPARATORY EXERCISE #1 (Schema of Rhetorical Theory) (25 points)
First, read Kenneth Burke's essay entitled "Equipment for Living" (which I think you will enjoy), then select only 1 of 3 options for introductory essays, all of which are located in our Bb Course Library:
for 1/20/15 -- Foucault "What Is An Author?" and Barthes "The Death of the Author"
PREPARATORY EXERCISE #2 (Concept Trace of Aristotle) (25 points)
Folks, now that you have gotten your feet wet (figuratively speaking) with "tracing," I'll ask you to actually complete a trace as your second preparatory exercise of the term, and bring it to class next Tuesday. Please note, however, that you'll be tracing a concept across two texts: Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and either Michel Foucault's "What Is An Author?" or Roland Barthes' "The Death of the Author." I am expecting that you'll read both Foucault and Barthes, but for the purposes of PE #2, you only need to trace one of them. Please select one of the following terms:
- agent
- character
- choice
- "ends"
Obviously, I'll ask you to trace this term through the Ethics by paying attention to how Aristotle discusses, defines, makes assumptions about, or illustrates the concept. But in addition, I'll ask you to trace what you think is the equivalent term or concept in either Foucault or Barthes. Your overarching goal is to show evidence of your trace in as much detail as possible, highlighting both the similarities and differences, striking a balance between representing the authors in their words and in your own words, and noting surprises or contradictions in what you read. Ultimately, when you bring your trace to class, you'll want to be able to tell us how some aspect of Aristotle's eudaimonia intersects with either Foucault's or Barthes' arguments. In other words, you'll be finding a single point of critical connection between two theorists that you feel like you can support based on your trace evidence.
The format for your "trace" is honestly quite open; I just need you to be as thorough as possible in showing how your selected term is treated throughout both texts. You might provide an outline to show us how to read two texts for that one particular concept; you might create a chart that shows the evolution of the concept between two texts; you might construct a giant grid that helps us see how the concept is illustrated or applied in each text; you might write several paragraphs where you comment on how both authors deal with each term throughout their texts; or you might invent another way to do this.Whatever you do, please ensure that it is no longer than ~2-3 pages, and that it is word-processed (rather than hand-written).
You will most likely refer to specific passages from both texts as part of your trace, so please include the MLA citation and use in-text (parenthetical) citations throughout your trace where needed.
For anyone who would like a little more guidance in reading Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault, here are some questions in advance of Tuesday's discussion just to help you read:
- How do Barthes and Foucault define “Author,” “author,” “writer,” “reader,” “text,” “discourse”?
- For Foucault, texts are discursive practices (910-912). Why is this important for him? In fact, what can you get from the background readings (Richter 1326-1329 and Herrick 246-252) that potentially explain this concept?
- For Foucault, writing is “absence” (906) and the writer is best replaced by an “author-function.” What does this mean?
- For Barthes, “dead” also means to be “born simultaneously with the text.” How can one mean the other?
Please enjoy the challenge!
-Prof. G
---------------------------------------------------------
for 1/15/15 -- Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics (pp. 3-25, 117-141)
In preparation for our discussion of Aristotle, I offer you some insight into how to "trace" his text for certain themes -- something we will do together in class on Thursday. Translator H. Rackham tells us that Aristotle's writings generally fell into two groups: (1) philosophical (theoretical) dialogues, which have all been lost; and (2) scientific (practical) treatises, which have been recovered and constitute what we now understand to be Aristotle's "systems of rhetoric."
Nicomachean Ethics is encompassed by the second group: practical treatises (a.k.a., lecture notes). As a result, when I read Aristotle's treatises, I find that tracing the path of a specific concept throughout the treatise helps me to understand more about the whole of his argument, and it helps me to appreciate the various ways I can apply it.
In the Ethics, our challenge is to try to understand Aristotle's "Idea of the Good" and to begin thinking about what bearing that goodness has on acts of writing and reading. Is "goodness" inherent? Learned? Acquired through social or political activity? Does it represent a way of living or a way of being? Does it lead to opportunities for citizens, or does it serve to close them off from opportunities, or something else? As you read the Ethics, please pay attention to how Aristotle discusses, defines, makes assumptions about, or illustrates one of the following concepts:
- happiness
- character
- choice
- virtue
- "ends"
-Prof. G.
---------------------------------------------------------
for 1/13/15 -- Burke "Equipment for Living" and Introductory Essay
PREPARATORY EXERCISE #1 (Schema of Rhetorical Theory) (25 points)
First, read Kenneth Burke's essay entitled "Equipment for Living" (which I think you will enjoy), then select only 1 of 3 options for introductory essays, all of which are located in our Bb Course Library:
- 11:00 section - choose between Brummett, Herrick, or Richards
- 2:00 section - choose between Herrick, Kennedy, or Richards
Please note that these are the "red" readings in our Bb Course Library (a.k.a., "skimmers"). Choose the one that interests you -- not what you think others are reading.
Bring to class a schema of rhetorical theory from the point of view of the introductory essay you have selected. A "schema" is more commonly known as a formal structure, which shows how things are organized in relation to one another or are arranged in relation to the world. In other words, try showing on paper what you understand to be the hierarchy of concepts presented in the introductory essay you chose to read. What is the writer's logic? How does the writer of your essay present and organize "rhetorical theory" (i.e., by historical moments, by schools of thought, by disciplinary problems, by rhetorical questions, by theoretical approaches, by something else) and what led him/her to do so?
Most schemas innovatively combine the visual and the textual, employing images/shapes alongside words. Sometimes they look like trees, database structures, venn diagrams, charts, or architectural drawings. Sometimes they use color to help organize different parts. You have creative license in terms of how you will compose your schema, and I am expecting you to put some effort into this assignment, but please also be thorough and detailed!
Your schema should contain some prose, since it will likely be impossible to communicate how you think Brummett, Herrick, Kennedy, or Richards would schematize rhetoric without using any words at all. Somewhere in that schema, I need you to provide a concise but informative explanation of their hierarchy or organization in your own words, for an unfamiliar reader. I encourage you to think of your schema not as an outline, but as an intellectual map. Very complicated schemas often need a symbol key or a guide.
Somewhere in the schema, please include the MLA citation for your selected essay (which you can find in the Course Reading List I distributed in class on the first day), and use in-text (parenthetical) citations throughout your schema so that I can find the places in the text you are citing or referencing.
Somewhere in the schema, please include the MLA citation for your selected essay (which you can find in the Course Reading List I distributed in class on the first day), and use in-text (parenthetical) citations throughout your schema so that I can find the places in the text you are citing or referencing.
Please be prepared to explain your schema during Tuesday's class, and to discuss how it does or does not intersect with Kenneth Burke's essay, "Equipment for Living." I will collect your schemas after class discussion.
Try to have fun with this,
-Prof. G
