WEBVTT 00:00:00.170 --> 00:00:03.580 >> Congratulations, you have made it 00:00:03.580 --> 00:00:07.960 through the content modules of this class, 00:00:07.960 --> 00:00:09.880 and now you get 00:00:09.880 --> 00:00:12.900 to create your own media criticism. 00:00:12.900 --> 00:00:14.240 So you have been reading 00:00:14.240 --> 00:00:17.680 the criticism of other scholars, 00:00:17.680 --> 00:00:20.240 and now it is your turn, 00:00:20.240 --> 00:00:23.705 so congratulations for making it this far. 00:00:23.705 --> 00:00:29.340 Your goal in Modules 7 and 8 is to select 00:00:29.340 --> 00:00:32.400 a media artifact to analyze and an 00:00:32.400 --> 00:00:34.620 appropriate critical lens to 00:00:34.620 --> 00:00:36.180 use in analyzing it, 00:00:36.180 --> 00:00:37.700 and then to produce that 00:00:37.700 --> 00:00:39.800 polished piece of media criticism. 00:00:39.800 --> 00:00:41.920 So we will do this in two steps. 00:00:41.920 --> 00:00:46.320 The first step is to write a proposal, 00:00:46.320 --> 00:00:47.500 and you can find 00:00:47.500 --> 00:00:48.920 this document that I'm referring 00:00:48.920 --> 00:00:52.040 to linked from the online classroom. 00:00:52.040 --> 00:00:55.340 So before you can begin writing a proposal, 00:00:55.340 --> 00:00:56.860 you have to decide what 00:00:56.860 --> 00:00:58.700 it is that you'd like to write about. 00:00:58.700 --> 00:01:01.240 And the goal of your proposal is 00:01:01.240 --> 00:01:03.880 to tell me what 00:01:03.880 --> 00:01:06.860 your planned topic is 00:01:06.860 --> 00:01:09.600 and what you expect your argument might be. 00:01:09.600 --> 00:01:10.880 And then I can give you 00:01:10.880 --> 00:01:12.460 some feedback on whether 00:01:12.460 --> 00:01:15.840 that sounds like an argument that can work, 00:01:15.840 --> 00:01:17.880 or maybe I have 00:01:17.880 --> 00:01:19.680 some suggestions for resources 00:01:19.680 --> 00:01:20.420 you could read to 00:01:20.420 --> 00:01:21.500 help you make that argument, 00:01:21.500 --> 00:01:23.220 or I might have some ways 00:01:23.220 --> 00:01:25.460 to clarify the argument 00:01:25.460 --> 00:01:26.880 or make the argument better. 00:01:26.880 --> 00:01:28.880 So that's the goal 00:01:28.880 --> 00:01:31.365 of turning in the proposal. 00:01:31.365 --> 00:01:33.250 So first, you have to decide, 00:01:33.250 --> 00:01:35.010 what am I going to analyze? 00:01:35.010 --> 00:01:36.490 So you could select a film, 00:01:36.490 --> 00:01:38.350 and we saw a couple of examples of this, 00:01:38.350 --> 00:01:41.545 the Kristy Maddux article 00:01:41.545 --> 00:01:45.465 on Iron Jawed Angels would be one example. 00:01:45.465 --> 00:01:48.690 The Celeste Lacroix article 00:01:48.690 --> 00:01:51.010 analyzed several films, 00:01:51.010 --> 00:01:54.470 looking at a common theme across the films. 00:01:54.470 --> 00:01:57.410 So those are some examples of that approach. 00:01:57.410 --> 00:01:59.350 You could analyze a television show, 00:01:59.350 --> 00:02:00.870 and it might be a whole series 00:02:00.870 --> 00:02:02.910 that you analyze, it might be a season. 00:02:02.910 --> 00:02:04.590 You may have an argument 00:02:04.590 --> 00:02:08.270 that leads you to focus 00:02:08.270 --> 00:02:12.300 a special attention on 00:02:12.300 --> 00:02:15.020 just a couple of key episodes. 00:02:15.020 --> 00:02:17.480 That just depends on what your argument is. 00:02:17.480 --> 00:02:20.340 You could analyze an advertising campaign. 00:02:20.340 --> 00:02:23.280 You could analyze news discourse 00:02:23.280 --> 00:02:25.380 about a particular topic. 00:02:25.380 --> 00:02:28.480 So the Jamie Landau article that 00:02:28.480 --> 00:02:31.680 you read for the module on 00:02:31.680 --> 00:02:33.760 queer criticism looks at 00:02:33.760 --> 00:02:35.920 lesbian and gay families as 00:02:35.920 --> 00:02:39.030 covered in the media as an example. 00:02:39.030 --> 00:02:41.980 You could analyze an activist 00:02:41.980 --> 00:02:45.700 or social movement use of the media. 00:02:45.700 --> 00:02:47.080 You could select another 00:02:47.080 --> 00:02:49.100 media text altogether. 00:02:49.100 --> 00:02:51.400 So we saw an example in 00:02:51.400 --> 00:02:55.100 the Thomas Leslie article of 00:02:55.100 --> 00:02:58.140 an analysis of popular science books 00:02:58.140 --> 00:02:59.900 and science textbooks. 00:02:59.900 --> 00:03:03.165 So it's up to you what you select. 00:03:03.165 --> 00:03:05.070 I really think you should 00:03:05.070 --> 00:03:07.230 select something that you 00:03:07.230 --> 00:03:13.955 find interesting or provocative in some way. 00:03:13.955 --> 00:03:19.990 So if you think about why any of the authors 00:03:19.990 --> 00:03:22.310 that we read for 00:03:22.310 --> 00:03:26.370 this class wrote the pieces that they wrote, 00:03:26.370 --> 00:03:27.770 and you can think 00:03:27.770 --> 00:03:29.270 about this for the articles we read, 00:03:29.270 --> 00:03:30.650 you can think about it for the book 00:03:30.650 --> 00:03:32.630 review that you conducted. 00:03:32.630 --> 00:03:34.410 It really just depends 00:03:34.410 --> 00:03:36.985 on what you're trying to do. 00:03:36.985 --> 00:03:39.960 But think about why did 00:03:39.960 --> 00:03:41.600 these people write 00:03:41.600 --> 00:03:43.080 the articles that they wrote? 00:03:43.080 --> 00:03:44.880 And I would argue that 00:03:44.880 --> 00:03:47.240 they saw in those media 00:03:47.240 --> 00:03:49.700 texts something that struck 00:03:49.700 --> 00:03:52.880 them as unusual or noteworthy. 00:03:52.880 --> 00:03:55.590 So Thomas Leslie is 00:03:55.590 --> 00:03:58.000 reading a popular science book, 00:03:58.000 --> 00:04:02.635 and he sees this story about Galileo, 00:04:02.635 --> 00:04:05.960 and he knows from his historical reading 00:04:05.960 --> 00:04:08.440 and his historical research, 00:04:08.440 --> 00:04:14.180 he notices that the story he 00:04:14.180 --> 00:04:19.740 finds in these popular science books 00:04:19.740 --> 00:04:23.340 does not match up with historical fact. 00:04:23.340 --> 00:04:27.040 And he begins to wonder if this is a pattern. 00:04:27.040 --> 00:04:29.060 So he starts to look for other books, 00:04:29.060 --> 00:04:31.340 and he notices a pattern. 00:04:31.340 --> 00:04:34.040 And then based on his research 00:04:34.040 --> 00:04:37.000 and based on his own creative thinking, 00:04:37.000 --> 00:04:39.940 he comes up with an argument about that. 00:04:39.940 --> 00:04:43.120 First, he argues that science is a culture 00:04:43.120 --> 00:04:47.650 and that it can have a folklore about it. 00:04:47.650 --> 00:04:50.120 And then he argues 00:04:50.120 --> 00:04:52.100 that historical inaccuracies in 00:04:52.100 --> 00:04:56.060 folklore resonate and they 00:04:56.060 --> 00:04:58.085 hold even though they aren't true, 00:04:58.085 --> 00:04:59.860 and finally, that the function 00:04:59.860 --> 00:05:01.020 of these stories is to 00:05:01.020 --> 00:05:04.590 link science to intellectual morality. 00:05:04.590 --> 00:05:08.000 So he offers several examples from 00:05:08.000 --> 00:05:12.640 the books to substantiate his claim. 00:05:12.640 --> 00:05:14.680 And then in the end, he makes 00:05:14.680 --> 00:05:17.660 this conclusion about the Cold War, 00:05:17.660 --> 00:05:19.600 if you will, in his language 00:05:19.600 --> 00:05:22.360 between science and religion. 00:05:22.360 --> 00:05:26.520 So it all began with his noticing 00:05:26.520 --> 00:05:28.560 this story that struck 00:05:28.560 --> 00:05:29.800 him as unusual because it 00:05:29.800 --> 00:05:31.040 didn't match up with what he 00:05:31.040 --> 00:05:33.910 understood the facts to be. 00:05:33.910 --> 00:05:36.390 And I could work through 00:05:36.390 --> 00:05:37.960 that same example with 00:05:37.960 --> 00:05:39.540 any of the other articles 00:05:39.540 --> 00:05:41.100 that we read or 00:05:41.100 --> 00:05:42.620 with any of the books that you 00:05:42.620 --> 00:05:46.420 read for your book review projects. 00:05:46.420 --> 00:05:48.500 In every case, the author 00:05:48.500 --> 00:05:50.345 said, "Wait a second. 00:05:50.345 --> 00:05:52.135 Something isn't right here." 00:05:52.135 --> 00:05:54.180 Or, "Wait a second. 00:05:54.180 --> 00:05:56.225 This is really interesting." 00:05:56.225 --> 00:05:58.540 And I wonder what it means to 00:05:58.540 --> 00:06:01.680 think about this in a new or different way. 00:06:01.680 --> 00:06:04.260 So you certainly can pick 00:06:04.260 --> 00:06:06.900 something of which you are a fan, 00:06:06.900 --> 00:06:08.960 but the point of your paper should not 00:06:08.960 --> 00:06:11.100 be this book is really great, 00:06:11.100 --> 00:06:14.810 or this movie was terrible, 00:06:14.810 --> 00:06:17.940 or I love this television show. 00:06:17.940 --> 00:06:20.200 You need to make a critical argument, 00:06:20.200 --> 00:06:22.740 and that doesn't necessarily mean negative, 00:06:22.740 --> 00:06:24.980 but it needs to be an interpretive, 00:06:24.980 --> 00:06:26.860 critical argument based on 00:06:26.860 --> 00:06:29.320 evidence in the text from 00:06:29.320 --> 00:06:31.620 which your reader will 00:06:31.620 --> 00:06:32.880 learn something that the 00:06:32.880 --> 00:06:35.170 reader did not know before. 00:06:35.170 --> 00:06:39.080 So that's the focus of the paper. 00:06:39.080 --> 00:06:41.540 You need to be able to make an argument 00:06:41.540 --> 00:06:44.380 about what you see. 00:06:44.380 --> 00:06:49.380 So you notice that Leslie does not just say, 00:06:49.380 --> 00:06:51.220 this story is bad 00:06:51.220 --> 00:06:53.755 or this story is poorly written, 00:06:53.755 --> 00:06:55.680 he has a much 00:06:55.680 --> 00:06:58.040 more nuanced argument than that. 00:06:58.040 --> 00:06:59.980 And the same is true of 00:06:59.980 --> 00:07:01.520 the other articles that we 00:07:01.520 --> 00:07:03.440 read for this class. 00:07:03.440 --> 00:07:07.380 They don't just say this news coverage is bad 00:07:07.380 --> 00:07:10.000 about gay and lesbian families or 00:07:10.000 --> 00:07:13.310 the movie Iron Jawed Angels is awful, 00:07:13.310 --> 00:07:15.855 or that it's really great. 00:07:15.855 --> 00:07:17.790 In fact, Kristy Maddux 00:07:17.790 --> 00:07:19.620 begins her article by saying, 00:07:19.620 --> 00:07:21.130 "I really like the movie, 00:07:21.130 --> 00:07:23.685 but I notice that 00:07:23.685 --> 00:07:26.310 it has some troubling implications." 00:07:26.310 --> 00:07:28.550 So she does begin by stating she's a fan, 00:07:28.550 --> 00:07:30.390 but then she goes off and makes 00:07:30.390 --> 00:07:32.675 an argument about the film. 00:07:32.675 --> 00:07:34.210 So think about that as you 00:07:34.210 --> 00:07:35.990 think about selecting an artifact. 00:07:35.990 --> 00:07:37.550 You need to do more than just 00:07:37.550 --> 00:07:39.820 a critical review of it, 00:07:39.820 --> 00:07:43.650 the way that Roger Ebert might 00:07:43.650 --> 00:07:47.340 do a review of a film. 00:07:47.340 --> 00:07:49.440 You need to do something more than that. 00:07:49.440 --> 00:07:51.060 You're making an argument 00:07:51.060 --> 00:07:53.920 in a scholarly conversation. 00:07:53.920 --> 00:07:56.360 So you have to think 00:07:56.360 --> 00:07:59.700 about what critical lens do you plan to use? 00:07:59.700 --> 00:08:01.380 How are you going to read 00:08:01.380 --> 00:08:03.180 this particular text? 00:08:03.180 --> 00:08:04.660 And so you have several 00:08:04.660 --> 00:08:06.140 examples from the class, 00:08:06.140 --> 00:08:07.620 the rhetorical, the cultural, 00:08:07.620 --> 00:08:09.280 the feminist, the queer, 00:08:09.280 --> 00:08:14.300 and the activist applied lens. 00:08:15.980 --> 00:08:19.180 So you just need to determine 00:08:19.180 --> 00:08:22.960 which lens would be most appropriate for 00:08:22.960 --> 00:08:25.940 helping you to make an argument about 00:08:25.940 --> 00:08:30.020 the text and to do that, 00:08:30.020 --> 00:08:33.360 you go back to the question I posed before. 00:08:33.360 --> 00:08:34.840 What about this media 00:08:34.840 --> 00:08:37.700 artifact stands out to you? 00:08:37.700 --> 00:08:40.740 And if you're not 00:08:40.740 --> 00:08:43.440 certain exactly what argument 00:08:43.440 --> 00:08:44.440 you'd like to make, 00:08:44.440 --> 00:08:47.220 you might think through the lenses 00:08:47.220 --> 00:08:51.465 and apply them to the particular text. 00:08:51.465 --> 00:08:53.085 So you might say, 00:08:53.085 --> 00:08:58.080 I'd like to analyze this particular film, 00:08:58.080 --> 00:09:01.840 what would a queer lens say about this film? 00:09:01.840 --> 00:09:03.320 How would that be different from 00:09:03.320 --> 00:09:05.450 what a cultural lens would say? 00:09:05.450 --> 00:09:07.920 Or a rhetorical lens. 00:09:07.920 --> 00:09:09.620 And so if you think about 00:09:09.620 --> 00:09:11.680 what these lenses would offer 00:09:11.680 --> 00:09:16.080 to reading or analyzing your artifact, 00:09:16.080 --> 00:09:18.920 you can determine which one might be 00:09:18.920 --> 00:09:20.580 the most appropriate for 00:09:20.580 --> 00:09:22.780 the work that you're trying to do. 00:09:22.950 --> 00:09:26.290 Once you have done that, 00:09:26.290 --> 00:09:28.470 you need to think 00:09:28.470 --> 00:09:30.190 about what your argument is. 00:09:30.190 --> 00:09:33.370 And along the way, you can find 00:09:33.370 --> 00:09:34.690 a substantial amount of 00:09:34.690 --> 00:09:37.470 help in other scholarly sources. 00:09:37.470 --> 00:09:38.870 So you're welcome to cite 00:09:38.870 --> 00:09:40.890 the work that we've read in class, 00:09:40.890 --> 00:09:42.410 and you should also do 00:09:42.410 --> 00:09:45.180 other research about work 00:09:45.180 --> 00:09:47.595 from the lens that you're using, 00:09:47.595 --> 00:09:49.600 and even perhaps work 00:09:49.600 --> 00:09:53.720 on the media artifact that you are studying, 00:09:53.720 --> 00:09:55.360 or perhaps if you're studying 00:09:55.360 --> 00:09:57.720 a brand new movie or something like that, 00:09:57.720 --> 00:09:59.300 there isn't going to be previous 00:09:59.300 --> 00:10:01.000 research on that exact movie, 00:10:01.000 --> 00:10:02.960 but there will be previous research 00:10:02.960 --> 00:10:04.560 on that kind of genre. 00:10:04.560 --> 00:10:07.440 So if you're going to analyze a horror film, 00:10:07.440 --> 00:10:11.520 you may want to look at previous analyses of 00:10:11.520 --> 00:10:16.285 horror films to help you make your argument. 00:10:16.285 --> 00:10:20.940 And so for the purposes of the proposal, 00:10:20.940 --> 00:10:22.380 you should include at 00:10:22.380 --> 00:10:25.220 least three annotated sources 00:10:25.220 --> 00:10:28.965 from scholarly work, 00:10:28.965 --> 00:10:31.660 so peer-reviewed journal articles, books, 00:10:31.660 --> 00:10:33.440 or book chapters that 00:10:33.440 --> 00:10:35.700 you plan to use in your paper. 00:10:35.700 --> 00:10:38.740 And if you look on the online classroom, 00:10:38.740 --> 00:10:41.540 you will see links to 00:10:41.540 --> 00:10:44.760 the reference librarians page for 00:10:44.760 --> 00:10:48.930 this class to help you determine 00:10:48.930 --> 00:10:51.570 how to find scholarly sources 00:10:51.570 --> 00:10:53.670 that will be appropriate for this project, 00:10:53.670 --> 00:10:57.070 and you'll also find links to APA style 00:10:57.070 --> 00:10:59.190 to help you with 00:10:59.190 --> 00:11:02.250 citing those sources appropriately. 00:11:02.250 --> 00:11:05.350 So for the three sources 00:11:05.350 --> 00:11:07.750 you use in your proposal, 00:11:07.750 --> 00:11:09.310 you should annotate them, 00:11:09.310 --> 00:11:11.910 and an annotation as described here, 00:11:11.910 --> 00:11:14.230 is simply one or two sentences 00:11:14.230 --> 00:11:16.670 where you summarize the argument in 00:11:16.670 --> 00:11:18.210 your article and 00:11:18.210 --> 00:11:20.450 then another sentence to explain how 00:11:20.450 --> 00:11:22.430 the article is going to help 00:11:22.430 --> 00:11:24.920 you in making the argument in your paper. 00:11:24.920 --> 00:11:29.130 So again, to look at the proposal, 00:11:29.130 --> 00:11:31.550 what you need in the proposal is to 00:11:31.550 --> 00:11:33.030 tell me what media artifact 00:11:33.030 --> 00:11:34.150 you're going to analyze, 00:11:34.150 --> 00:11:36.330 what critical lens you plan to use, 00:11:36.330 --> 00:11:38.970 what argument you expect that you will make, 00:11:38.970 --> 00:11:40.470 and you're welcome to change 00:11:40.470 --> 00:11:42.890 this or to develop it a little bit, 00:11:42.890 --> 00:11:45.170 but at least what you're thinking right now. 00:11:45.170 --> 00:11:48.490 And then at least three scholarly sources, 00:11:48.490 --> 00:11:50.570 including annotations. And you 00:11:50.570 --> 00:11:52.710 can see here how I'm 00:11:52.710 --> 00:11:56.810 going to grade the proposal. 00:11:57.460 --> 00:12:00.580 You can then read the rest of the guidelines 00:12:00.580 --> 00:12:03.700 for what the full paper should look like, 00:12:03.700 --> 00:12:05.920 but it really shouldn't be a surprise. 00:12:05.920 --> 00:12:08.340 You are doing a shorter version of 00:12:08.340 --> 00:12:09.900 the books and articles 00:12:09.900 --> 00:12:11.600 that you have read in this class. 00:12:11.600 --> 00:12:13.040 So by now, you know what 00:12:13.040 --> 00:12:15.200 a good media criticism looks like, 00:12:15.200 --> 00:12:18.320 and your goal is to produce your own with 00:12:18.320 --> 00:12:20.640 an original argument that 00:12:20.640 --> 00:12:22.235 I will learn something from. 00:12:22.235 --> 00:12:24.770 So at some point, after you have 00:12:24.770 --> 00:12:26.010 turned in your proposal 00:12:26.010 --> 00:12:27.770 and received feedback from me, 00:12:27.770 --> 00:12:29.530 you should set up a meeting with me 00:12:29.530 --> 00:12:33.250 either face to face or via Google Hangout, 00:12:33.250 --> 00:12:35.250 and we can talk in 00:12:35.250 --> 00:12:37.630 specific about your paper and your progress, 00:12:37.630 --> 00:12:39.090 and I'd be happy to answer 00:12:39.090 --> 00:12:41.670 any questions that you have. 00:12:41.670 --> 00:12:43.310 And again, use 00:12:43.310 --> 00:12:44.910 the articles that we've read in class, 00:12:44.910 --> 00:12:47.170 as well as the books that you've read for 00:12:47.170 --> 00:12:51.430 the book review for help in 00:12:51.430 --> 00:12:53.870 terms of a model for what 00:12:53.870 --> 00:12:58.830 a good piece of media criticism looks like. 00:12:58.830 --> 00:13:01.230 You're also welcome to 00:13:01.230 --> 00:13:04.240 ask questions of the reference librarian. 00:13:04.240 --> 00:13:06.085 He is here to help you, 00:13:06.085 --> 00:13:09.250 and he's embedded in the class, 00:13:09.250 --> 00:13:12.430 and he's also created the class page for us. 00:13:12.430 --> 00:13:16.710 So I hope that you will talk with Mark and 00:13:16.710 --> 00:13:18.910 thank him for being with us 00:13:18.910 --> 00:13:21.970 and also ask him any questions that you have. 00:13:21.970 --> 00:13:24.330 So I am helpful and willing to 00:13:24.330 --> 00:13:26.780 be a resource, he's very helpful, 00:13:26.780 --> 00:13:27.740 and he's here to be 00:13:27.740 --> 00:13:29.520 a resource so that you have a lot 00:13:29.520 --> 00:13:32.500 of support if you need it along the way. 00:13:32.500 --> 00:13:33.480 So the goal of 00:13:33.480 --> 00:13:35.260 this video was just to give you 00:13:35.260 --> 00:13:37.060 a sense of what the guidelines 00:13:37.060 --> 00:13:38.880 are for the final project, 00:13:38.880 --> 00:13:40.600 as well as the 00:13:40.600 --> 00:13:42.540 first step of the final project, 00:13:42.540 --> 00:13:44.340 which is the proposal 00:13:44.340 --> 00:13:47.380 that you're turning in in this module.