Okay I just wanted to post a little about my project and I'm borrowing portions of my proposal because it's the most concentrated information I've written on the topic.
Dramatic television shows in the police office, crime scene, and detective genre portray gruesome crimes that occur in real life or are based on real life. While popular belief is that these dramatic television shows would produce viewer discussion on the horror of these fictional crimes and their relation to real world crimes, blog responses from viewers contain no such substantial topics. Instead, bloggers respond to the actors and character portrayal on the television show rather than the horrific crimes being portrayed. This is a problem in the media community because people are missing the hard issues and discussing frivolous, superficial details of the show and actors. This shows that the viewers of the television dramas in this genre prefer to distance themselves from the issues that cross over into the real world and instead preoccupy themselves with fan responses of the actors on the show.
My method for this project is to follow the path of communication through media chronologically. I will review episodes of the ninth season of Law and Order Special Victims Unit and critically analyze the content of the episodes that deal with rape as a particularly horrible crime that occurs in society as well as on television. Then I plan to analyze the content of blogs that respond to these episodes. This entails sorting the blog responses by categories such as actor/actress commentary, fan advocation, show critique, and issue critique. I then plan to show that these blogs feature more fan advocation type responses and less issue critique. I also want to talk about the lack of pathos evoked by the show in relation to these blogs. I think it will also be beneficial to my argument to discuss the idea that television shows like Law and Order Special Victims Unit evoke some kind of hard response from viewers but these responses never make it to blogs or forums. An interesting part of the project will entail a contrast between Jenkins’ story about how Harry Potter has captivated people to respond immensely on the Internet and Law and Order which does not produce anywhere near as great of an analytical or exploratory response. I hope to show through these analyses that this dramatic television genre does not illicit a response on serious issues and shows that people have a hard time facing difficult criminal issues as reality.
Any comments, opinions, or advice would be REALLY appreciated. Thanks!
Monday, March 3, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
bell hooks, not Bell Hooks
Ethnography: the study and systematic recording of human cultures; this term is also used to describe any work produced from this research
“Play with a puppy he’ll lick you in the mouth:” emphasizes the importance of distance; about the danger of falsely assuming familiarity and presuming to have knowledge of matters that had not been revealed (328)
In relation to cultural studies and race, this saying could be about an African-American assuming to be on the same level as a white person, but the white person treats the African American with contempt, thereby emphasizing “difference” and “otherness.”
As bell hooks reads works of literary and cultural studies that focus on race, she finds that white writers often assume the position that they are aware of the African-American views and write outside of white supremacy, but white writers do write as if shaped and informed by the context of white supremacy. She adds that these white writers don’t think they should address the fact that they write within the context of white supremacy. She then adds that scholars (who belong to groups who dominate, exploit and oppress) should be able to look through their work to find areas that imply the context of supremacy without being afraid or feeling guilty (328-329).
In the essay, hooks asserts that cultural studies is the area that seems most willing to include the race issue because it is more contemporary, and many scholars are focusing on “otherness,” post-colonialism, and also feminism (329).
The feminist movement is important in bell hook’s view because it brought about race as a political issue with which she attributes powerful African-American women (329).
She also tells that she is disheartened with the prestige and acclaim denied African-American studies. She is also upset with the way cultural studies programs are run by white men, as some of these programs are beginning to replace African-American studies and women’s studies. Immediately after these statements, bell says that cultural studies is exciting because it calls attention to race and gives academic legitimacy (329).
Later, bell asserts that scholars in the academy resist awkward or uncomfortable situations of diversity. She agrees with Cornel West in his suggestion that the domain of the academy should not highlight “otherness” because it marginalizes those people (330).
She is unhappy with a book (Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography) that admits to giving little attention to new realms of ethnography and with the idea that African-American scholars are not being counted in the field of ethnography as though no one has realized the importance of difference of experience (330).
“Play with a puppy he’ll lick you in the mouth:” emphasizes the importance of distance; about the danger of falsely assuming familiarity and presuming to have knowledge of matters that had not been revealed (328)
In relation to cultural studies and race, this saying could be about an African-American assuming to be on the same level as a white person, but the white person treats the African American with contempt, thereby emphasizing “difference” and “otherness.”
As bell hooks reads works of literary and cultural studies that focus on race, she finds that white writers often assume the position that they are aware of the African-American views and write outside of white supremacy, but white writers do write as if shaped and informed by the context of white supremacy. She adds that these white writers don’t think they should address the fact that they write within the context of white supremacy. She then adds that scholars (who belong to groups who dominate, exploit and oppress) should be able to look through their work to find areas that imply the context of supremacy without being afraid or feeling guilty (328-329).
In the essay, hooks asserts that cultural studies is the area that seems most willing to include the race issue because it is more contemporary, and many scholars are focusing on “otherness,” post-colonialism, and also feminism (329).
The feminist movement is important in bell hook’s view because it brought about race as a political issue with which she attributes powerful African-American women (329).
She also tells that she is disheartened with the prestige and acclaim denied African-American studies. She is also upset with the way cultural studies programs are run by white men, as some of these programs are beginning to replace African-American studies and women’s studies. Immediately after these statements, bell says that cultural studies is exciting because it calls attention to race and gives academic legitimacy (329).
Later, bell asserts that scholars in the academy resist awkward or uncomfortable situations of diversity. She agrees with Cornel West in his suggestion that the domain of the academy should not highlight “otherness” because it marginalizes those people (330).
She is unhappy with a book (Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography) that admits to giving little attention to new realms of ethnography and with the idea that African-American scholars are not being counted in the field of ethnography as though no one has realized the importance of difference of experience (330).
In bell’s view, the picture in the beginning of the post shows the white male as authority and writer and the passive black or brown man.
Questions to think about:
Can the cover undermine radical writing (331)?
Can the cover undermine radical writing (331)?
Is bell just venting?
Why doesn't she ever mention the things she thinks should be heard?
Why does she use absolutes?
Do you agree with her opinions about the cover?
Do you think white writers write about African-American issues blindly?
Do white writers intentionally deny African-Americans the same privileges.
*Note: Instead of merely using her given name, bell hooks (a pseudonym) uproots the ability of others to define her by creating her own identity. Furthermore, and here is where she goes further down the path to linguistic equality, bell hooks does not capitalize the initial letters in the new name: a convention so fundamentally accepted that only ee cummings comes to mind as having also cast it to the proverbial curb. This simple defamiliarization is a constant reminder to take nothing for granted. Is the "b" really more important than either "l"? Or, more significantly, should a name stand above all else in a narcisistic uplifting? (PS I checked for some more info but didn't come across any)
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Differences Between Men and Women
I wanted to reflect on my personal reactions to Flynn's article on feminism, specifically the idea that morality of boys and girls differ even though they are usually both raised primarily by the female figure of the family. Lexi relayed on her blog post that women view morality as "conflicting responsibilities" and their solution is "contextual and narrative." She also posted that men think of morality in terms of "rights and rules."
This is so true and so mind-boggling! I don't have sibling so I can't say I see this first-hand, but to go to a close example, my godfather has a boy and a girl. They were raised mostly by their mom because she was home during the day and volunteered at school as they got older. Before reading this article, I would assume that my cousins would develop the same system of morality since they were raised the same way. Flynn says differently and I think in many situations, she is right. Women tend to be very emotionally driven with a strong sense of justice and fairness, but men tend to make quicker judgements supported by previous or given knowledge.
I think it would be interesting to poll a group of law students or lawyers about their feelings on controversial court cases. Do you think women would be more likely to look at the predisposition of the criminals and be sympthetic for their actions, which may have been caused by circumstances outside of the criminal's control? And would men be more likely to look the other way when a women robs a bank to feed her starving children because it is still against the law?
This is so true and so mind-boggling! I don't have sibling so I can't say I see this first-hand, but to go to a close example, my godfather has a boy and a girl. They were raised mostly by their mom because she was home during the day and volunteered at school as they got older. Before reading this article, I would assume that my cousins would develop the same system of morality since they were raised the same way. Flynn says differently and I think in many situations, she is right. Women tend to be very emotionally driven with a strong sense of justice and fairness, but men tend to make quicker judgements supported by previous or given knowledge.
I think it would be interesting to poll a group of law students or lawyers about their feelings on controversial court cases. Do you think women would be more likely to look at the predisposition of the criminals and be sympthetic for their actions, which may have been caused by circumstances outside of the criminal's control? And would men be more likely to look the other way when a women robs a bank to feed her starving children because it is still against the law?
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Continental Criticism: Deconstructionist or Marxist?
The deconstructionist and Marxist methods of criticism really grabbed my attention from all the readings for today's class. I want to reflect on each of them a bit.
I didn't know there was a name for critics who are specifically intrigued by the use of words. Well, that's me. I think I am deconstructionist in my critiquing and my writing. In my opinion, these deconstructionists are rebel-rousers. I linked then in my own mind to English Nazis (you know, those people who impulsively correct any verbal grammar mistakes you accidentally make). Again, that's me. I learned in one of my English classes to write with deliberate words in support of your argument. I think this lesson has in turn motivated me to pay more attention to the meanings of words in my formal arguments.
I also love the fact that the deconstructionist "accepts no utterance at face value and instead examines a text for what they find interesting, whether or not it coincides with the author's intended interpretation" (315). The issue of finding the author's meaning versus finding your own has been on my mind since early in high school. The way I see it, a lot of writers have long died and didn't necessarily leave behind a SparkNotes outline so that readers know exactly what they were trying to get at in their works. So many novels don't have one message or one symbolic interpretation or one whatever to be absorbed from reading the book. If a reader gets some extraordinary message out of a novel that wasn't intended to be there, who cares? If you tell the reader he was wrong, it only destroys his message.
So as for Marxist critics, I have to say that I'm probably not one when it comes to literary critques but when it comes to cultural and especially political critiques, I am at least part Marxist. It may be my liberal minded political science teachers that have molded me into a little Marxist, but I do tend to question motives of actions in relation to monetary gain for the elite. It is fairly easy to find sources to criticize for using rhetoric to advance the elitist. Turn on the TV; wait five minutes. I think that a lot of the economic factors that the Marxists harp on are also social factors. Even the way a person speaks could have to do with their economic class. (The stereotype of Harvard frat boys.. similar to a Mr. Carlton Banks a la The Fresh Prince) But I think this criticism is very pessimistic of the government even though I think good points are made with Marxist criticism. It would be sad to devote yourself to Marxist criticism only.
I didn't know there was a name for critics who are specifically intrigued by the use of words. Well, that's me. I think I am deconstructionist in my critiquing and my writing. In my opinion, these deconstructionists are rebel-rousers. I linked then in my own mind to English Nazis (you know, those people who impulsively correct any verbal grammar mistakes you accidentally make). Again, that's me. I learned in one of my English classes to write with deliberate words in support of your argument. I think this lesson has in turn motivated me to pay more attention to the meanings of words in my formal arguments.
I also love the fact that the deconstructionist "accepts no utterance at face value and instead examines a text for what they find interesting, whether or not it coincides with the author's intended interpretation" (315). The issue of finding the author's meaning versus finding your own has been on my mind since early in high school. The way I see it, a lot of writers have long died and didn't necessarily leave behind a SparkNotes outline so that readers know exactly what they were trying to get at in their works. So many novels don't have one message or one symbolic interpretation or one whatever to be absorbed from reading the book. If a reader gets some extraordinary message out of a novel that wasn't intended to be there, who cares? If you tell the reader he was wrong, it only destroys his message.
So as for Marxist critics, I have to say that I'm probably not one when it comes to literary critques but when it comes to cultural and especially political critiques, I am at least part Marxist. It may be my liberal minded political science teachers that have molded me into a little Marxist, but I do tend to question motives of actions in relation to monetary gain for the elite. It is fairly easy to find sources to criticize for using rhetoric to advance the elitist. Turn on the TV; wait five minutes. I think that a lot of the economic factors that the Marxists harp on are also social factors. Even the way a person speaks could have to do with their economic class. (The stereotype of Harvard frat boys.. similar to a Mr. Carlton Banks a la The Fresh Prince) But I think this criticism is very pessimistic of the government even though I think good points are made with Marxist criticism. It would be sad to devote yourself to Marxist criticism only.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Political Criticism, Doing Rhetorical Criticism, The Nature of Rhetorical Criticism
The problem with departments of literature being the ‘place’ for our dissent and debate is that while no one will tell you WHAT to believe, the dept. of lit. tell us HOW to use language in ‘acceptable’ ways. What we think is constrained by specific rules of discourse.
This idea came from Leah's post on Eagleton's article, and I think it is an interesting topic for discussion. I actually agree and disagree with these statements at the same time. It is true that there are certain ways of grammar and argument that you learn in school. For the most part (at least until MLA decides they need more money) grammar stays the same, and you will learn the same rules throughout middle school, high school, and college. But the idea of learning how to use words and argument in a successful way differs with each teacher. (Side note: From personal experience I know that Jesuit and Dominican in New Orleans teach different methods of writing. I went to Dominican and proofread many a Jesuit paper. I usually had problems with the organization of the arguments and techniques used, but in the end that method got the Jesuit boy and A, while my totally different method also got me an A.) In college I was taught by a professor to argue a point by repeating key words over and over in order not to confuse the reader with synonyms and vague words. I grew attached to this technique, but when I applied it in another class I got a big fat C on my paper. So to get to my point, I think each professor or teacher has a different idea of what he or she considers a good argument with good rhetorical techniques and the smart student will find those echniques and use them to get the grade. But outside of class, I don't think people care how you write even when they critique or choose works to be considered in the canon. Conrad's Heart of Darkness hardly follows the use of any established technique as he resorts to the difficult to follow stream-of-consciousness. Emily Dickenson's poetry is widely loved but is also greatly awkward in its fragmentation. Also, many words have turned into parts of speech that are not acknowledged by Oxford (mostly slang like sketchy, facebooked, etc.). So I guess my final point for everyone to think about is "Do you feel constrained by rules of discourse?" I don't.. but maybe I've been brainwashed not to realize it.
This idea came from Leah's post on Eagleton's article, and I think it is an interesting topic for discussion. I actually agree and disagree with these statements at the same time. It is true that there are certain ways of grammar and argument that you learn in school. For the most part (at least until MLA decides they need more money) grammar stays the same, and you will learn the same rules throughout middle school, high school, and college. But the idea of learning how to use words and argument in a successful way differs with each teacher. (Side note: From personal experience I know that Jesuit and Dominican in New Orleans teach different methods of writing. I went to Dominican and proofread many a Jesuit paper. I usually had problems with the organization of the arguments and techniques used, but in the end that method got the Jesuit boy and A, while my totally different method also got me an A.) In college I was taught by a professor to argue a point by repeating key words over and over in order not to confuse the reader with synonyms and vague words. I grew attached to this technique, but when I applied it in another class I got a big fat C on my paper. So to get to my point, I think each professor or teacher has a different idea of what he or she considers a good argument with good rhetorical techniques and the smart student will find those echniques and use them to get the grade. But outside of class, I don't think people care how you write even when they critique or choose works to be considered in the canon. Conrad's Heart of Darkness hardly follows the use of any established technique as he resorts to the difficult to follow stream-of-consciousness. Emily Dickenson's poetry is widely loved but is also greatly awkward in its fragmentation. Also, many words have turned into parts of speech that are not acknowledged by Oxford (mostly slang like sketchy, facebooked, etc.). So I guess my final point for everyone to think about is "Do you feel constrained by rules of discourse?" I don't.. but maybe I've been brainwashed not to realize it.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
CC Conclusion: The Grand Finale
Consumers are considering some media channels as "lifelines." Is this a bad thing that consumers are becoming so dependent upon these media channels?
I want to respond to Leah's question above. I think the jobs and lifestyles of each particular consumer has to do with their reliability on certain media channels. You can't judge whether or not it is a bad thing until the consumers' jobs and lifestyles are considered. For example, students in elementary school, middle school, and high school spend most of their time in school, doing extracurricular activities, and doing homework. These students are learning the basics and should not be dependant on media channels while they are learning the basics of education. If these students are so focused on television or text-messaging, they may miss out on the basics. To take this example to the next step with college students, I think it is okay to depend on some media channels because these students have already learned the basics of education and communication without media channels or with limited access to media channels (at least for my age group and older). Adults should be able to depend on media channels to manage their time with their jobs. Blackberries can be used to take advantage of long car rides and get some work done (especially for party planners or jobs with similar requirements). Other types of jobs like babysitting do not require the use of media channels as much and it would be adverse for those people to depend on media channels because it would distract them from their jobs.
I want to respond to Leah's question above. I think the jobs and lifestyles of each particular consumer has to do with their reliability on certain media channels. You can't judge whether or not it is a bad thing until the consumers' jobs and lifestyles are considered. For example, students in elementary school, middle school, and high school spend most of their time in school, doing extracurricular activities, and doing homework. These students are learning the basics and should not be dependant on media channels while they are learning the basics of education. If these students are so focused on television or text-messaging, they may miss out on the basics. To take this example to the next step with college students, I think it is okay to depend on some media channels because these students have already learned the basics of education and communication without media channels or with limited access to media channels (at least for my age group and older). Adults should be able to depend on media channels to manage their time with their jobs. Blackberries can be used to take advantage of long car rides and get some work done (especially for party planners or jobs with similar requirements). Other types of jobs like babysitting do not require the use of media channels as much and it would be adverse for those people to depend on media channels because it would distract them from their jobs.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Links for CC6
YouTube - Ben's Oreo TrueMajority.org
TrueMajority
YouTube - Donald Trump Fires President Bush
Anti-Obama Designs for tshirts and household items
The Anti Hillary Clinton Store : Shop The Right Conservative Republican & Christian : CafePress.com
Stop Her Now: homepage
JoeTrippi.com
FreakingNews.com - News Photoshop Pictures Contests - home page
TrueMajority
YouTube - Donald Trump Fires President Bush
Anti-Obama Designs for tshirts and household items
The Anti Hillary Clinton Store : Shop The Right Conservative Republican & Christian : CafePress.com
Stop Her Now: homepage
JoeTrippi.com
FreakingNews.com - News Photoshop Pictures Contests - home page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
