Course Evaluations
Hi everyone,
The powers that be are really pushing these course evaluations as tremendously important. So, *please*, if you have a moment, fill it out?
You can, apparently, also win prizes…(IPods, etc)
http://www.qc.cuny.edu/courseevaluation
Thanks so much for a wonderful semester…and looking forward to seeing you tomorrow!
SA
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
final post (due 12.14 by 5 pm)
hope the papers are going well..and best of luck!!
I look forward to reading them.
SA
Filed under: Uncategorized | 3 Comments
Revised Homework, etc
No reading due wednesday, but please bring Othello and the Spivak. Enjoy the break! (we do still have class wednesday)
Dec 8th: Some form of a written rough draft. It need not be 2 pages, but it has to show some substantial thinking about the topic.
See you wednesday!
SA
Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment
Final Essay
Please take any one of the texts we’ve read since you handed in your first essay (anything other than Poe or Frankenstein) and analyze it from two critical lenses. The rough breakdown of your paper should be as follows:
- one paragraph introduction
- three pages from one analytical lens
- three pages from a second analytical lens
- three pages in which you discuss the benefits and draw backs of using one lens instead of the other. What is gained and what is lost in the choice to use a particular critical perspective? Is there something gained by using the two lenses you have chosen in conjunction with one another
- one paragraph conclusion
- I would recommend, for clarity’s sake and to make sure that you have a thesis that’s an argument, that your thesis begin with the words “even though” and include the word “because”. That will make sure you weigh two options carefully in the essay and provide an argument — not a statement of fact. You may use this format for the “mini” theses for each of the sections if it’s helpful to you.
You can approach the “analytical lens” issue in one of two ways:
1) You may pick a reading we have done from a particular vantage point (e.g. Spivak for postcolonial criticism) and take a sentence – or two or three – and use those sentences as a tool to open up the text. E.g. “Spivak says, ‘_________’ which sheds some light on _________ issues in Kate Chopin’s The Awakening.”
2) Pick one of the questions from the list of questions I gave you in class and use it to offer an analysis. Please don’t cite the question itself, simply make a statement about what you fact you are noticing to open up the text. E.g. “The veritable lack of women in Frankenstein whose characters demonstrate any complexity of reaction, emotion, or motivation reveals ______________.”
In fact, some incorporation of both approaches would probably result in the most successful paper.
The other suggestion I would make is that the most successful papers will probably focus on one issue, moment or problem and use two lenses to look at that one thing. If you remember when we talked about Frankenstein, various lenses were interested in the creation of the monster. One might also think about, for example, the role of the home, a particular activity, a particular friendship, setting, etc. In other words, if both of your analyses begin by focusing on the same issue, I think it will be easier for you to compare the effects in the third part of the essay and will be more generative of ideas in general. But, of course, you will need to choose carefully.
8-10 pages double-spaced, Times/Times New Roman 12 point font, one inch margins, etc.
You must, as always, have a “works cited” page.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
One of you sent me a very helpful email, reminding me how difficult the Spivak is. To that, I would say this:
I left this essay in the course — even though it is BY FAR the hardest piece I’ve assigned — because I think it offers useful difficulty. If nothing else, it shows you, in part, how hard literary theory can get…before you get in too deep. That being said, don’t worry too, too much about getting the whole thing. I’ll tell you what I’m interested in.
1) you should probably know that her whole argument is laid out in the second paragraph. that may help orient you. I think her comment that the essay is “necessarily circuitous” should also suggest that it’s okay if you can’t see in the middle where she’s headed.
2) I’m less interested in you understanding her critiques of “western intellectual production” than I am in you understanding her conclusions: “In the end, I will offer an alternative analysis of the relations between the discourses of the West and the possibility of speaking of (or for) the subaltern woman.” This part begins on p. 294 — and I’d start really focusing in there.
3) That being said, pay attention to her central image which we will discuss beginning on p. 297 (I didn’t write the annotation — it’s a library book).
4) And finally, please pay attention to the story she tells beginning on p. 307. This is a nice way of her offering a conclusion, AND, I think, the clearest part of the essay.
If you’ve got post to do, here’s what I’d suggest:
a) think about the idea of a “subaltern” and the question that frames this essay as you understand it — namely, “Can the subaltern speak?”
b) Othello is a “subaltern” figure. Does he “speak” in the way spivak seems to mean? Why/why not?
c) the end of this essay — the most concrete part of the essay — is about a subaltern’s act of suicide and suicide’s potential meanings in these cases. Most provocatively, Othello’s final acts are suicide and an attempt to “speak”. Do either of these acts succeed in allowing Othello to “speak” in the way Spivak means? Why/why not?
d) If you are completely at a loss as to what to say about the essay — pick one or two interesting sentences or images and discuss them. They might be good to discuss next to our discussions about Said.
I hope that helps…
Looking forward to the discussion,
SA
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Search
-
Blogroll
Recent Entries
Categories
- Uncategorized (39)
