ENG L371 Critical Practices: "Equipments for Living" (in uncertain times): Short Critical Discussions

SHORT CRITICAL DISCUSSION #4 - RE/PRESENTATION

due ~~4/20/12~~ 4/21/12 by ~~10:10 a.m.~~ 5:00 p.m. to Oncourse dropbox

PURPOSE AND TASK

For your final 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 Re/Presentation paradox. Putting them into conversation with each other generally requires that you do more than simply comment on them, compare 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 always, your aim is two-fold:

to demonstrate a solid (even sophisticated) understanding of a couple of our theorists and their texts; and
to craft an interesting, non-obvious, and coherent argument based on some curiosity, question, or problem that arises from reading these texts or theorists together.

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, instigate, or impel you toward a discovery that is more specific to the texts you choose to read. In other words, the prompts will help you set useful parameters for your response, but you should expect your discovery (a.k.a., your thesis statement) to do more than simply answer the prompt. For SCD #4, please select from

the following critical texts:

Cooper “Excerpts from A Voice From the South (1892)” (379-384)
Johnson “A Strong Race Opinion (1895)” (385-389)
de Certeau “Walking in the City” (1342-1346)

Benjamin “Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” (810-818)

Burke “Terministic Screens” (44-62)

Butler Gender Trouble (1-17)

Spivak “Can the Subaltern Speak?” (798-809)

Gates, Jr. “Writing 'Race' and the Difference It Makes” (1-20)

the following reference texts:

Richter background on “New Historicism and Cultural Studies” (1320-1326)

Rivkin/Ryan background on “Starting with Zero” (645-646)

Rivkin/Ryan background on “Feminist Paradigms” (765-769)

Rivkin/Ryan background on “English without Shadows” (1071-1074)

Relevant pages from Bedford Glossary

and the following cases:

Barton “Textual Practices of Erasure” (169-199)

Satrapi Persepolis

Stranger than Fiction

Up the Yangtze

PROMPTS

Discuss what you see as one of the fundamental challenges of “Re/Presentation” according to two of our critics and in one of our cases. What do these literary critics have in mind, even if they do not explicitly use that word? Rather than just summarizing what they say about this broad concept of “representation,” I’d like you to consider where two of our critical theorists converge on some aspect of the paradox (e.g., identification, materiality, aura, terministic screen, alterity, self-positioning, diaspora, etc.). Only then will you be ready to apply that synthesized understanding to one of our cases in this unit. For example, you might need to consider where Burke’s terministic screen converges with another theorist in order to posit the challenges of attaining historical or cultural identification in something like Persepolis or Up the Yangtze. I am not asking you simply to discuss the problem of representation in one of our cases; rather, I am asking you to articulate a more specific dimension of the re/presentation paradox, based on how two of our critical theorists wrestle with it, in order to illustrate it at work in one of our cases.
Using two of our critical theorists in this unit, I invite you to challenge the idea of “representation” or “identification” in another case of your choosing. For example, you might select an infomercial, an ad campaign, a short television program, an alternative text, or another cultural artifact of your choice (e.g., cereal box, billboard, jingle, slogan, etc.). Whatever you choose, please make sure it is small in scope and therefore manageable, but that it is substantive enough for a critical discussion. Please also make sure I have access to it. How does it illumine, complicate, or disrupt two of our theorists’ conceptions of representation or identification? Rather than merely argue for your case as a demonstration of what the theorists argue, I will ask you to consider where the theorists converge on a specific problem of identification or representation, before considering how your case further illuminates that convergence!
Discuss how two of our critical theorists from this unit can invite the growth of another theorist’s concept from our earlier units: agency, author-function, audience construction, language, signification, symbol, iconicity, discourse, sublime, or genre. 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 two of the theorists from this unit. It might make sense for you to select theorists who are grappling with the same (or similar) issues of re/presentation, and then determine how their grappling can help this other concept to grow. For example, you might consider how Cooper, Gates, and/or Spivak’s problem of alterity actually calls into question Foucault’s author-function. Or, you might consider how Benjamin and/or de Certeau’s discussions of materialism or aura can contribute to Miller’s theory of reciprocal genres. Draw on reference texts and cases as needed.

CHARACTERISTICS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

This assignment is worth 10% of your grade. 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, good/bad, right/wrong sense of argumentation). It does mean a discovery that can only be arrived at through careful synthesis. I’m inviting you to build on theory in this critical discussion, so 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. Please do not simply rely on what you perceive to be "common knowledge"; instead, use the reference texts to provide essential background. Every sentence is an important part of your developing argument, so you should avoid making generalizations or making claims without showing their origins. 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 …” In terms of engaging your reader, try hooking them 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 opening 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 exact.

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 pages single-spaced with a separate “Works Cited” page in MLA format (you may have to spill over that limit slightly). 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.

As always, please feel free to seek me out if any part of the assignment is unclear or if you become stuck while working through an idea.

-------------------------

SHORT CRITICAL DISCUSSION #3 - TEXT/UALITY
due ~~3/30/12~~ 3/31/12 by ~~10:10 a.m.~~ 5:00 p.m. to Oncourse dropbox

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 Text/uality paradox. Putting them into conversation with each other generally requires that you do more than simply comment on them, compare 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 in previous SCDs, your aim is two-fold:

to demonstrate a solid (even sophisticated) understanding of a couple of our theorists and their texts; and
to craft an interesting, non-obvious, and coherent argument based on some curiosity, question, or problem that arises from reading these texts or theorists together.

the following critical texts:

Longinus “From On the Sublime” (344-358)

Bakhtin “The Problem of Speech Genres” (60-75, 100-101)

~~Wimsatt and Beardsley “From The Intentional Fallacy” (810-818)~~

Killingsworth “Appeal Through Tropes” (123-135)

Booth “Types of Narration” and “Morality of Narration” (149-165, 385-398)

Miller “Genre as Social Action” (151-167)

Landow “Hypertext and Critical Theory” (33-48)

Mitchell “Metapictures” (35-64, 82)

the following reference texts:

Richter background on “Structuralism and Deconstruction” (819-823)

Richter background on “Reader Response Theory” (962-965)

Richter background on “Marxism” (1198-1201)

Relevant pages from Bedford Glossary

and the following cases:

Satrapi Persepolis

Daniel “Public Secrets”

Stranger than Fiction

PROMPTS

Discuss how at least two of the critical theorists above are concerned (explicitly or implicitly) with this question: “What is genre?” Though the question seems easy, I'd like you to complicate it. (Note: you do not have to limit yourselves to texts that have "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 agents? What differentiates genre from "canon," or "discourse," or "text"? Who determines which genres circulate and how they evolve? What are the critic's unique challenges in interpreting literary genres? In evaluating them? Draw on reference texts and cases as needed.
Discuss how at least two of the critical theorists above either pose or deflect challenges to the act of interpretation. What difficulties do they predict for literary interpretation, or--conversely--what possibilities do they suggest? How do these theorists think readers should understand text so as to see the potential challenges, or--conversely--so as to recognize the interpretive possibilities? Do they promote a certain way of thinking about text? Of responding to text? Of using text? Of thinking about agency? Or language? Draw on reference texts and cases as needed.
If there is one thing that all of these critical authors address, to one extent or another, it might be the limitations of form. What (new) meaning does "form" take on in this unit? What values--contingent or stable--get assigned to various textual forms? What might be (or have been) the repercussions of these values on what you understand to be "the literary canon"? Select two critical texts to help you construct a response to this question, drawing on reference texts and cases as needed.

CHARACTERISTICS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

This assignment is worth 10% of your grade. Here are some specific criteria I will use to evaluate:

Argument and Thesis

Textual and Contextual Evidence

Reader Awareness

Organization and Coherence

Language and Style

Discourse Conventions and Formatting

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 ~~2/27/12~~ 2/28/12 by 10:10 a.m. to Oncourse dropbox

PURPOSE AND TASK
For this second 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 Anti/Signification paradox. Putting them into conversation with each other generally requires that you do more than simply comment on them, compare 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 in SCD #1, your aim is two-fold:

to demonstrate a solid (even sophisticated) understanding of a couple of our theorists and their texts; and
to craft an interesting, non-obvious, and coherent argument based on some curiosity, question, or problem that arises from reading these texts or theorists together.

the following critical texts:

Locke “From Essay on Human Understanding” (814-827)
Richards and Ogden “From The Meaning of Meaning” (1270-1280)
Derrida “Differance” (278-288)
Bakhtin “Discourse in the Novel” (9-21)
Burke “The Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle'” (191-220)
McCloud “The Vocabulary of Comics” (24-45)

the following reference texts:

Bizzell/Herzberg background on “Enlightenment” (791-799)
Richter background on “Structuralism and Deconstruction” (826-827, 832-832)
Rivkin/Ryan background on “Formalisms” and “Structuralism” (3-6, 53-55)
Rivkin/Ryan background on “Deconstruction” (257-261)
Relevant pages from Bedford Glossary

and the following cases:

Barton “Textual Practices of Erasure” (169-199)
Welling “Ecoporn: On the Limits of Visualizing the Nonhuman” (53-77)
Satrapi Persepolis

PROMPTS

Discuss how at least two of the critical texts above are concerned (explicitly or implicitly) with this question: "What is language?" Though 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 necessarily guarantee or negate the presence of the thing that conveys the signification?
Choose one of the key terms or key concepts in the title of one critical text above, and trace its development, meaning, and significance in another text where it does not explicitly appear in the title. For example, you might consider the use of the concept discourse in a text other than Bakhtin's, and then consider the ways in which each text takes up or treats differently the concept of discourse. Draw on reference texts and cases as needed.
In "Linguistic Approaches to the Problem of Education," Kenneth Burke writes: "Man is literally a symbol-using animal. He really does approach the world symbol-wise (and symbol-foolish)" (260). For Burke, language can only be symbolic, but symbolic of what? If no foundationalist theory will resolve disagreements over what language means, then what it is that we do when we "symbol-use"? What does this mean for the literary critic? Select two critical texts from above to compose your response. Draw on reference texts and cases as needed.

CHARACTERISTICS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

This assignment is worth 10% of your grade. Here are some specific criteria I will use to evaluate:

Argument and Thesis

Textual and Contextual Evidence

Reader Awareness

Organization and Coherence

Language and Style

Discourse Conventions and Formatting

Please feel free to ask questions if any part of the assignment is unclear or if you become stuck while working through an idea.

-------------------------