MAC 447 Modules 7 & 8 overview

>> 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.