To raise your spirits, let’s begin with a clip:

Now, let’s whip up the framework for a Major Paper 1 on a new sound-script for Roger & Me.

First, aside from making a new sound-script, what do we have to do?

• Make a complex claim about why your sound-script matters and how it intersects with an important social issue relevant to your film or TV show.
• Be supported by intertextualized evidence from the following materials:

• Your new sound-script,
• Your film or TV show (visuals or sounds),
• At least one peer-reviewed journal article or academic text outside of the course material, and
• (OPTIONAL) A selection from the 121 course material.

• Demonstrate an awareness of your sound-script’s rhetorical strategies and conventions.
• Use writing strategies that are proper to academic writing to argue why your sound-script matters.
• Include an appropriate title.

Ok, now we also need to make sure we cover the course outcomes. Today, we’ll focus especially on the first three and begin with some important pre-writing questions.

• Who is our audience? What do they expect? (MLA, for one)
• What evidence do we have to work with? (I’m thinking of at least five here.)
• What tools from class do we have to work with? (I’m thinking of at least five here, too.)
• What’s our primary artifact of analysis? And what is the gist of it? What is it arguing? How is it engaging Roger & Me?

Now that we have a toolbox, the prompt, and the course outcomes in hand, let’s frame the paper.

• Introduction: What might it include?
• Body: What might it include?
• Conclusion? What might it include?

Here’s an example paragraph that I wrote about Roger & Me for 121, should you wish to use it as an example. Note the use of three-step analysis.

In his 1989 documentary film, Roger and Me, Michael Moore assumes the role of narrator, a position through which he verbally arranges the visual material, describes and contextualizes it, and ultimately makes an argument about it. That argument is essentially that General Motors (GM), and particularly GM’s chief executive officer (CEO), Roger Smith, ruined the economy and culture of Flint, Michigan when they closed their factories and consequently laid off over thirty thousand GM employees. Importantly, Moore grew up in Flint. As such, Roger and Me might be understood as Moore’s way of speaking for the people of Flint–representing them through the film, articulating their histories and best interests on their behalf, and circulating those representations, histories, and interests to an audience beyond the city’s physical limits. For example, consider a trailer for the film, in which Moore declares: “To raise [the people of Flint’s] spirits, I made this movie.” The visuals corresponding with Moore’s voice-over narration consist of a large crowd of (ostensibly angry) people, who are presumably from Flint. This crowd collectively exclaims, “Fire Roger Smith! Fire Roger Smith!” And so, in subsequent scenes, the audience witnesses Michael Moore engaging in a hopeless search for the elusive CEO of GM. Of note, the audience also hears Moore sarcastically narrating his own experiences, helping the audience move from visual to visual and transitioning them between the documentary’s informational gaps. In short, the audience is to understand Michael Moore not only as the documentary’s narrator, who synthesizes audio and video with the film’s plot and Flint’s history, but also as a type of superhero or champion, who seeks justice for the people of Flint at all costs. However, if we consider arguments such as Linda Martín Alcoff’s “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” then Moore’s voice-overs and narrative approach, especially his appropriation of others, may be ethically problematic. Additionally, when considering the generic conventions of Roger and Me as a documentary, Moore’s various rhetorical moves, though persuasive, might very well lead an audience to inaccurate or extremely biased conclusions about Flint’s people, culture, and economy. The next question is, then: How might an alternative mode of narration resolve the apparent dissonance between Moore, as narrator, and the city of Flint, as Moore’s “subjects”?

Ladies & gents of 121, it’s time to e-portfolio.

→ Let’s get started!←

(But hold ye britches until class on Thursday the 7th, k?  Much obliged.)

Morning and good Monday, everyone.

1.4 is due tomorrow (by the end of the day). Remember: your 1.4 is about your major paper research question. As such, your claim should include and argue for that question. For example:

For my first major paper, I am researching the question of how, in Grizzly Man, the notion of “nature” is understood differently by the voice-over narrator (Werner Herzog) and the film’s protagonist (Timothy Treadwell) and to what effects on the film’s audience. This question matters because it attends to the potential bias in the film’s voice-over narration, as well as to how that bias opens up a political and cultural tension between the narrator, the subject, and the audience. What’s more, the question will serve as a launching pad into my new sound-script, which follows a more “traditional” model of voice-over narration comparable to popular documentaries like Planet Earth.

Note how the claim states the question; states why it matters, for whom it matters, how it matters, and to what effects; and then proceeds to engage the question with the new sound-script.

Also, Blog #4 (Conference Thought Piece) is due on Thursday (before class).

Please note that your main claim for your MP1 should be about your new sound-script and why it matters. Here’s an example claim:

I propose a new sound-script for the film, Grizzly Man. This new sound-script is a more traditional mode of voice-over narration, which, rather than explicitly arguing for or against its subjects, supplements the visuals with data and context. While some might argue that this proposed voice-over will simply “tell” and not “show” information, such arguments elide the subtle complexities of voice-over narration in nature documentaries. Taking the popular television show, Planet Earth, as a model, my proposed sound-script historicizes nature and wildlife in Alaska and — without judgment or hyperbole — articulates Treadwell’s relation with that nature and wildlife. Consequently, the new sound-script by necessity attends to how Herzog’s narration relies upon the conventions of the nature documentary genre only to mobilize them in the service of social commentary. The implication of this commentary-documentary conflation is not simply that all voice-over narration is somehow biased, but that bias emerges from a particular set of political purposes. In the case of my proposed sound-script, what’s at stake, then, is the future of both how nature and wildlife are represented in film and how audiences understand the conditions of those representations.

Here, the claim is about the sound-script (and not the film). It then unpacks what the sound-script is doing, how it is doing it (with detail and counterarguments), and the trajectory or future of what it is doing.

I hope both of these examples help you along. And no worries. We have a few more classes — plus your first conferences — to discuss the major paper.

Be in touch with questions and take care!

Just in case you need a dose of Kenny Loggins and the World to liven up your weekend:

Thanks for your contributions to class today, everyone. And thank you, Ainsley, for being the class Word jockey and annotating Alcoff’s article. I especially enjoyed tracing the discursive functions of “putting words into the mouths of others” — in whole and in part — through conceptions of intersectionality (e.g., of gender, race, sexuality, and ethnicity), responsibility, authorship, expertise, epistemology, context, history, and — perhaps my favorite, per Aitza’s comment — the “uninvited imposition.”

Of course, we may not have solved any great dilemmas today. So be it. We’ll just let Pluto be Pluto.

But, honestly, here are some questions to consider for the balance of the quarter — questions that particularly map Alcoff onto the course material:

• How does “immersion” or “first-hand experience” generate different forms of knowledge-making than “critical distance” or similar forms of “objective,” academic knowledge? In short, how is expertise defined, when it is defined?
• How is voice-over narration a form of a narrator speaking for a subject? Is a voice-over narrator who speaks with her subjects even possible, and, if so, how?
• How is “service” defined through speaking for others? How is it defined through speaking with them?
• In future writing, how will we write about and for Boys and Girls Clubs? Or write with them? How is “responsibility” and “authorship” understood in these contexts?
• How do we work through the problems of speaking for others when we collaborate?
• Finally, how do we compose media with others? About others? For others? How do differences between the these three emerge?

With these questions in mind, let’s move toward next week, your 1.4, and your first conference. For next week:

• Please note that we DO NOT have class on Tuesday, February 5th.
• Although we do not have class on Tuesday the 5th, before Tuesday’s end, Response Paper 1.4 — which is crucial for your first conference — is due in the course drop box.
• Blog #4: Conference Thought Piece is due on Thursday the 7th. It is required for your first conference. Aside from a skeleton for your first major paper, it also asks you to comment on two of your peers’ entries.
• For Thursday’s class, please be prepared to return to the “Speak Again Twice” workshop that we began today. Today, you began with three questions that would help you speak for/about your peer’s “stance” on a social issue. On Thursday, you’ll begin generating questions that help you speak with your peer on that issue. We will then explore the knowledge that emerges from “about/for” and “with.”
• Finally, for your first conference, aside from your Blog #4: Conference Thought Piece, I suggest — but do not require — that you revise at least one of your response papers from the first sequence. That way, you will have the opportunity during the first conference to ask me about revision and preparing your final e-portfolio. Cool?

Be in touch with questions, people, and enjoy your weekend. Of note, next weekend will be a weekend off from 121. So keep that break in your horizon.

I’ll have your Response Papers 1.3 to you soon. In the meantime, thanks for being rad.

Yours,

Jentery

Your first conference is required and evaluated.  Please come prepared and on time to Art 347.  I also suggest that you bring a print copy of your Conference Thought Piece.

If you are not on this list, then get in touch with me ASAP.

Thursday, February 7th

11:40 — Alexandra

12 — Juhi

12:20 — Ashley

12:40 — Lynn Leigh

1 — Alyson

1:30 — Jillian

1:50 — Jenna

2:30 — Ryan

2:50 — Seth

3:10 — Aitza

3:30 — 4:40 are open

Friday, February 8th (Thank you, Krysta, for your revision here)

9:50 — Casey

10:10 — Ainsley

10:30 –  Krysta

10:50 — Summer

11:10 — OPEN

11:30 — Sam

11:50 — Sohroosh

12:10 — Francis

12:30 — Colleen

12:50 — Scott

In Word .docx format:

the-problem-of-speaking-for-others1.docx

You. One social issue.

&

Your peer. One social issue.

Now what?

>>> Three questions that would help you speak “for” or “about” your peer’s “stance” on the issue.

>>> Get the answers to those three questions.

>>> Share.

>>> Three questions that would help speak “with” your peer’s “stance” on the issue.

>>> Get the answers to those three questions.

>>> Let’s chat about how knowledge emerged.

If you don’t mind, then please post your questions and answers in your own blog entry (categorized under “Speak Again Twice”). Thanks!

Let’s get (re-)thinking about the first major paper!

Recall that your major paper is engaging the research question you’ve been formulating since Response Paper 1.2. During your first conference, which is approximately twenty minutes in duration, you and I will chat about that question, how you are exploring it (through your paper and new sound-script), and why your research question and line of inquiry matter in the first place.
To prepare for the conference, please prepare a brief blog entry that:

Briefly explains your new sound-script (e.g., its purpose, audience, and narrative style).

States your research question (from Response Paper 1.4). (Of course, you may have revised your question since 1.4).

Expresses the main claim of your first major paper and why you believe the claim is reasonable and risky.

Explains the stakes of your argument and why your claim and new sound-script are both important.

Articulates how your new sound-script serves to augment, critique, or complicate your chosen film or TV show.

Provides one artifact (e.g., a journal article, academic text, or selection from the course material) that you will be using in support of your new sound-script.

Raises any specific questions you have about your claim, your analysis, or your research. Of course, your questions can be about any nervousness or frustration you are having. Remember: both nervousness and frustration are a part of the writing process.

Be prepared to discuss your thought piece at the conference. In fact, I suggest that you print it and bring it with you. I will! (Please note that not having your thought piece for your conference seriously cramps your participation grade.)

Your thought piece can be written in a fragmented, bulleted manner, though your complex claim should be well-articulated and grammatically correct.

Please post your thought piece by Thursday, February 7th at 9:30 a.m. and categorize it under “#4 – Conference Thought Piece.”

Also, please read and comment on at least two thought pieces posted by your peers. What do you like about their ideas? What is missing? What needs explaining?

Thanks! Looking forward to reading your arguments and hearing your new sound-scripts,
Jentery

Of use for your new sound-scripts?

Since I already gave you my preface by e-mail, I will move directly to what’s up for Thursday and then to blog notes from today.

For Thursday, please:

• Read Alcoff’s “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” which you might want to print for Thursday’s class.   Take notes as you read.
• After you read Alcoff, take a deep breath, exhale, and put your feet up.
• Compose, categorize and publish your own blog entry in response to this prompt.  Then, fini!

If you have questions about Alcoff or the blog prompt, then let me know!   Otherwise, I’ve posted two blog entries about today’s class.  Here are those entries:

• “Teaching the Debate,” which includes instructions for the workshop and a video (egad!)
• “Response to Your 1.2, In Broad Strokes,” which briefly addresses larger concerns about your 1.2 papers.

Cool?  Be in touch with your inquiries. Later!