Your revised research paper is due to turnitin.com by 8AM on Sunday. I’ve added the revision workshop handouts (including the checklist) to the “handouts” tab.
Make sure to read the chapter from The World Without Us for Tuesday. If you’ve misplaced your copy, or if you weren’t in class on Thursday, it’s up under the “readings” tab (password “defoe”).
Hope you’re feeling like this!
The two sample essays we’ll be discussing for Thursday are up under the “readings” tab. (The password is “defoe” all lowercase.) Be sure to print those out and bring them with you. They’re both about 10 pages long (the length your essays will be), so you’ll need to take the time to read them before class; we won’t have time to read them carefully in class.
Think about how each paper uses sources—for background, key terms, to build on or disagree with, etc. (You might look back over the handouts from the last couple of weeks as well.) We’ll also be thinking about how each paper is structured, so pay special attention to the ordering of the paragraphs/moves.
As I announced in class, the draft will now be due on Saturday, April 19th at 8AM. (You may, of course, get it to me before then.)
Here’s a link to a fun essay on historical instances of interpreting earthquakes as signs of the looming end of the world: It Starts with an Earthquake
It’s a useful essay not only because it gives you some leads on possible essay topics (especially for those of you interested in historical or perhaps religious studies essays), but also because it provides a works cited list at the end, so you can mine it for more sources for your essays. If you’re interested in looking at any of those sources but are having trouble finding them, let me know.
For Tuesday, read (print, annotate, bring to class) this essay by Paul Cantor, which considers why apocalyptic scenarios are so popular these days: Cantor Essay
Remember, when you read, to think both about the content of Cantor’s essay (what he’s arguing and how he supports that argument) and also about his choices as a writer (is the argument clear? what do you think of the structure? etc.).
Just a reminder that you’ll need to bring two copies of your latest draft on Tuesday for our peer review workshop. Also, the two short chapters on motive and transitions are up under the Readings tab. Think about these (and the strategies they offer) as you keep revising.
Email me if you have questions or if you’d like me to look over something.
Update: You might be interested in this short article on the latest “notpocalypse,” debunking the most recent theory about the end of our world: Asteroid Impact?
UPDATE: Here are the papers we’ll be workshopping in class on Thursday:
Anika and Sandy have been generous enough to offer to have their papers discussed, so make sure you come prepared, having read and thought about the essays (and with hard copies to mark up and refer to.) We’ll also discuss the thesis statements posted below, so be sure to read them in advance of class.
We won’t have time for you to read through the essays and thesis statements in class, so I repeat: prepare them ahead of time so that we can analyze and discuss them!
*********
We won’t have class on Tuesday, March 11, to accommodate draft conferences, but you do need to post the argument for your essay in a comment to this post. Remember, most arguments for this assignment will have three parts:
1) What theory are you responding to?
2) What’s the problem or limitation of that theory?
3) What are you offering in its place or how are you extending it?
There will be variations, as we discussed in class, but this framework can come in handy. You may also want to look over the templates from the chapter we read or the sample beginnings that we discussed (both are posted under the Readings tab).
Before class on Thursday, you’ll need to read everyone’s arguments (below) and come prepared to discuss them. I’ll also be posting two essays here that we’ll workshop in class. (They should by up by Tuesday, so check in then.) Be sure to print those and bring them with you.
As I said in class, the reading on Dr. Strangelove is now optional, though I highly encourage you to look at this short essay from The New Yorker if you’re writing about that film. I’m also including a link to a post by the same author, which looks at a few film clips in light of the historical information contained in the first essay.
Almost Everything in Dr. Strangelove Was True
Deconstructing Dr. Strangelove
For Thursday, we’ll be talking about structuring an essay that uses a theory to think about a film. Make sure to read the two handouts I passed out at the end of class on Tuesday (the chapter about ways to respond and the series of sample beginnings). Make sure to come prepared to talk about your responses to those beginnings. If you’ve misplaced your copies (or if you weren’t in class), they’re also posted under the Readings tab.
Click on the image for a review of the film from the journal Screen Machine.
The reading for Tuesday, Sigmund Freud’s essay “On Mourning and Melancholia,” is now up under the Readings tab. Please read pages 243-250. I’m also posting below a sketch of an outline of the essay to help you read. I’ll stress that this outline should not be used in place of reading the essay. Class on Tuesday will be very difficult for you if you do not read and annotate Freud’s essay in advance. Remember, annotation can (and should!) include notations of moments that puzzle you. You should also make sure to look up words and concepts you don’t understand, having first consulted the outline.
We’ll be thinking about Freud’s essay alongside Melancholia. How might Freud’s distinction between mourning and melancholia help us understand Justine’s depression? How might Freud’s theory help us develop or modify the theories about apocalyptic film we’ve been discussing?
UPDATE: Here’s an example of a really great scene analysis from the pre-draft assignment. There are some very minor issues, but, overall, this is a useful model for going from observation to analysis: “The Earth Is Evil”
Here is a link to the shot-by-shot reading of the beginning of Melancholia by Manola Dargis at The New York Times:
It’s a strange form: not a review, and also not entirely analytical (some entries seem to just gloss or explain the shots). I’m posting the digital version here because I encourage you to follow up on some of the links, which are very useful if you’re planning on writing about Melancholia yourself.
The readings for Thursday (2/27) are now available under the “readings” tab at the top of the blog. (The password is “defoe”—all lower case.) Remember to print them out and read them before class, marking any passages that puzzle you or that you think we should discuss. As always, pay special attention to the argument. What is each writer arguing about cinematic depictions of the end of the world (and what are they arguing against)? (NOTE: You might notice that the syllabus included three readings; I’m revising that to two to make things a bit more manageable.)
It will be important, though challenging, to differentiate between the main argument and the numerous claims that are used to support that argument. (We’ll discuss this distinction in class.)
The essay by Conrad E. Ostwalt, Jr. has two parts: the first is a categorization of recent apocalyptic films; the second offers an argument about how they differ from traditional apocalyptic narrative. While the first section is useful, pay special attention to this second part.
The essay by Jon R. Stone also includes a section that categorizes apocalyptic films (in this case, it’s the long middle section). But pay primary attention to his argument, which he introduces in the beginning of the essay (after a reading of Dr. Strangelove), with a repetition and clarification of the argument at the end. Be sure to read his endnotes, which at times clarify his terms.
