>> Congratulations,
you have made it
through the content
modules of this class,
and now you get
to create your own
media criticism.
So you have been reading
the criticism of
other scholars,
and now it is your turn,
so congratulations for
making it this far.
Your goal in Modules
7 and 8 is to select
a media artifact
to analyze and an
appropriate
critical lens to
use in analyzing it,
and then to produce that
polished piece of
media criticism.
So we will do this
in two steps.
The first step is to
write a proposal,
and you can find
this document that
I'm referring
to linked from the
online classroom.
So before you can begin
writing a proposal,
you have to decide what
it is that you'd
like to write about.
And the goal of
your proposal is
to tell me what
your planned topic is
and what you expect
your argument might be.
And then I can give you
some feedback on whether
that sounds like an
argument that can work,
or maybe I have
some suggestions
for resources
you could read to
help you make
that argument,
or I might have some ways
to clarify the argument
or make the
argument better.
So that's the goal
of turning in
the proposal.
So first, you
have to decide,
what am I going
to analyze?
So you could
select a film,
and we saw a couple
of examples of this,
the Kristy Maddux article
on Iron Jawed Angels
would be one example.
The Celeste
Lacroix article
analyzed several films,
looking at a common
theme across the films.
So those are some examples
of that approach.
You could analyze
a television show,
and it might be
a whole series
that you analyze, it
might be a season.
You may have an argument
that leads you to focus
a special attention on
just a couple of
key episodes.
That just depends on
what your argument is.
You could analyze an
advertising campaign.
You could analyze
news discourse
about a particular topic.
So the Jamie Landau
article that
you read for the module on
queer criticism looks at
lesbian and gay
families as
covered in the media
as an example.
You could analyze
an activist
or social movement
use of the media.
You could select another
media text altogether.
So we saw an example in
the Thomas Leslie
article of
an analysis of
popular science books
and science textbooks.
So it's up to you
what you select.
I really think you should
select something that you
find interesting or
provocative in some way.
So if you think about
why any of the authors
that we read for
this class wrote the
pieces that they wrote,
and you can think
about this for the
articles we read,
you can think about
it for the book
review that you conducted.
It really just depends
on what you're
trying to do.
But think about why did
these people write
the articles
that they wrote?
And I would argue that
they saw in those media
texts something
that struck
them as unusual
or noteworthy.
So Thomas Leslie is
reading a popular
science book,
and he sees this
story about Galileo,
and he knows from his
historical reading
and his historical
research,
he notices that
the story he
finds in these
popular science books
does not match up
with historical fact.
And he begins to wonder
if this is a pattern.
So he starts to look
for other books,
and he notices a pattern.
And then based
on his research
and based on his own
creative thinking,
he comes up with an
argument about that.
First, he argues that
science is a culture
and that it can have
a folklore about it.
And then he argues
that historical
inaccuracies in
folklore resonate and they
hold even though
they aren't true,
and finally, that
the function
of these stories is to
link science to
intellectual morality.
So he offers several
examples from
the books to
substantiate his claim.
And then in the
end, he makes
this conclusion
about the Cold War,
if you will, in
his language
between science
and religion.
So it all began
with his noticing
this story that struck
him as unusual because it
didn't match up
with what he
understood the
facts to be.
And I could work through
that same example with
any of the other articles
that we read or
with any of the
books that you
read for your book
review projects.
In every case, the author
said, "Wait a second.
Something isn't
right here."
Or, "Wait a second.
This is really
interesting."
And I wonder
what it means to
think about this in a
new or different way.
So you certainly can pick
something of which
you are a fan,
but the point of your
paper should not
be this book is
really great,
or this movie
was terrible,
or I love this
television show.
You need to make a
critical argument,
and that doesn't
necessarily mean negative,
but it needs to be
an interpretive,
critical argument based on
evidence in the text from
which your reader will
learn something that the
reader did not
know before.
So that's the focus
of the paper.
You need to be able
to make an argument
about what you see.
So you notice that Leslie
does not just say,
this story is bad
or this story is
poorly written,
he has a much
more nuanced
argument than that.
And the same is true of
the other articles that we
read for this class.
They don't just say this
news coverage is bad
about gay and
lesbian families or
the movie Iron Jawed
Angels is awful,
or that it's really great.
In fact, Kristy Maddux
begins her article
by saying,
"I really like the movie,
but I notice that
it has some troubling
implications."
So she does begin by
stating she's a fan,
but then she goes
off and makes
an argument
about the film.
So think about that as you
think about selecting
an artifact.
You need to do
more than just
a critical review of it,
the way that
Roger Ebert might
do a review of a film.
You need to do something
more than that.
You're making an argument
in a scholarly
conversation.
So you have to think
about what critical lens
do you plan to use?
How are you going to read
this particular text?
And so you have several
examples from the class,
the rhetorical,
the cultural,
the feminist, the queer,
and the activist
applied lens.
So you just need
to determine
which lens would be
most appropriate for
helping you to make
an argument about
the text and to do that,
you go back to the
question I posed before.
What about this media
artifact stands
out to you?
And if you're not
certain exactly
what argument
you'd like to make,
you might think
through the lenses
and apply them to
the particular text.
So you might say,
I'd like to analyze
this particular film,
what would a queer lens
say about this film?
How would that be
different from
what a cultural
lens would say?
Or a rhetorical lens.
And so if you think about
what these lenses
would offer
to reading or analyzing
your artifact,
you can determine
which one might be
the most appropriate for
the work that you're
trying to do.
Once you have done that,
you need to think
about what your
argument is.
And along the
way, you can find
a substantial amount of
help in other
scholarly sources.
So you're welcome to cite
the work that we've
read in class,
and you should also do
other research about work
from the lens that
you're using,
and even perhaps work
on the media artifact
that you are studying,
or perhaps if
you're studying
a brand new movie or
something like that,
there isn't going
to be previous
research on that
exact movie,
but there will be
previous research
on that kind of genre.
So if you're going to
analyze a horror film,
you may want to look at
previous analyses of
horror films to help
you make your argument.
And so for the purposes
of the proposal,
you should include at
least three
annotated sources
from scholarly work,
so peer-reviewed journal
articles, books,
or book chapters that
you plan to use
in your paper.
And if you look on
the online classroom,
you will see links to
the reference
librarians page for
this class to help
you determine
how to find
scholarly sources
that will be appropriate
for this project,
and you'll also find
links to APA style
to help you with
citing those sources
appropriately.
So for the three sources
you use in your proposal,
you should annotate them,
and an annotation
as described here,
is simply one or
two sentences
where you summarize
the argument in
your article and
then another sentence
to explain how
the article is
going to help
you in making the
argument in your paper.
So again, to look
at the proposal,
what you need in
the proposal is to
tell me what
media artifact
you're going to analyze,
what critical lens
you plan to use,
what argument you expect
that you will make,
and you're
welcome to change
this or to develop
it a little bit,
but at least what you're
thinking right now.
And then at least three
scholarly sources,
including
annotations. And you
can see here how I'm
going to grade
the proposal.
You can then read the
rest of the guidelines
for what the full paper
should look like,
but it really shouldn't
be a surprise.
You are doing a
shorter version of
the books and articles
that you have read
in this class.
So by now, you know what
a good media
criticism looks like,
and your goal is to
produce your own with
an original argument that
I will learn
something from.
So at some point,
after you have
turned in your proposal
and received
feedback from me,
you should set up
a meeting with me
either face to face or
via Google Hangout,
and we can talk in
specific about your
paper and your progress,
and I'd be happy to answer
any questions
that you have.
And again, use
the articles that
we've read in class,
as well as the books
that you've read for
the book review
for help in
terms of a model for what
a good piece of media
criticism looks like.
You're also welcome to
ask questions of the
reference librarian.
He is here to help you,
and he's embedded
in the class,
and he's also created
the class page for us.
So I hope that you will
talk with Mark and
thank him for
being with us
and also ask him any
questions that you have.
So I am helpful
and willing to
be a resource,
he's very helpful,
and he's here to be
a resource so that
you have a lot
of support if you need
it along the way.
So the goal of
this video was
just to give you
a sense of what
the guidelines
are for the final project,
as well as the
first step of the
final project,
which is the proposal
that you're turning
in in this module.