What is one particular part of Kukharsky’s piece that you would give constructive corrective feedback on? What would you tell the author to change and why? Your answer should be at least three sentences long.
6 thoughts on “Blog Post #18: The Russians Are (Still?) Coming (Kukharsky, pp. 249-253)”
Comments are closed.
One part of this piece that I would give constructive corrective feedback on is providing a quote to defend the counter argument in the first rebuttal paragraph. I would tell the author to provide a quote within the same paragraph because I think saying, “Yet they still insist on making their main villains Russian,” isn’t a strong enough argument to rebuttal. It just sounds like the author is inputting their own opinion rather than backing it up with stronger evidence.
A part of the piece that I give constructive corrective feedback on is the section where the author is speaking about the history between US and Russia. I felt as if more information could have been provided maybe about the Cold War for example or their relations when World War II took place. Many may not be too familiar with the history and disputes between the United States and Russia so I feel if there was more elements added to the history of their topic it would have been more effective.
Something I enjoyed from this section was the historical context given by the author. It was short and informative. Though, compared to mine, I have a lot of history about my topic. I feel like my topic is something that does not end and I have so much to add. So maybe the author can add more information and more context.
A piece of constructive feedback I would give to the author would be to explain in further detail more how those stereotypes were true or not. The author just stated them but didn’t address if they were true or not so the reader would not be as quick to take her side. Also, I think the author could have gone into more detail on why the U.S. and Russia are in the relationship that they are in, the author talked about the Cold War but that was it.
I don’t like that paragraph three and four were based on the views of Katchanovski and that they didn’t other evidence to further support Katchanovski’s claims. It’s one thing to agree with his views but to only use it as evidence makes their point weak. I would advise that they analyzed more and make their own arguments and not just base them off other people’s opinions. Or not use one source for a whole paragraph.
I think the author could have gave a short summary of what some of the movies they mention are about because the only movie I know is John Wick. But with just knowing John Wick, I do get the gist of what the other movies might be. I also feel like the author could have used more then one source to support his claim instead of just going by what Katchanovski says. Most of the points they try to make are from Katchanovski. The author could have said why there were positive views on an extremely stereotypical movie compared to other groups of people.