Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
A fresh article on satire and election season
Check out this recent article that directly addresses some of the topics we have been considering:
http://www.salon.com/2016/09/20/jon-stewart-resigned-trump-is-a-joke-and-larry-wilmore-got-canceled-understanding-the-power-of-political-satire-this-election/
For those in the 12:30 class, take a look if you can at this article on the Harambe meme phenomenon: http://www.vox.com/2016/8/17/12457468/harambe-meme-social-commentary-explained
http://www.salon.com/2016/09/20/jon-stewart-resigned-trump-is-a-joke-and-larry-wilmore-got-canceled-understanding-the-power-of-political-satire-this-election/
For those in the 12:30 class, take a look if you can at this article on the Harambe meme phenomenon: http://www.vox.com/2016/8/17/12457468/harambe-meme-social-commentary-explained
Monday, September 19, 2016
Paper 2: Details and debates
For the first paper, we practiced emulating one of the central features of academic writing: its narrow, specific, and tight focus. For this second paper, we will keep that level of specificity, but also employ research to connect our claims to the work of other scholars studying the same topic. As with the last paper, you can select any class text as the basis for your analysis, and you are also free to explore other topics of interest to you. The most important thing, again, is not what you write about, but how you write, and by focusing in on a precise detail or aspect of whatever text, film, clip, or other phenomenon you are exploring, you will ensure that your writing keeps this narrow and focused quality.
For this paper, you will again pick a significant detail and focus on explaining its importance. This time, however, you will also add in research to help develop your claims by building them on the views of others. Instead of thinking about research as the process of finding information, we will instead think of it as a process for locating and entering an ongoing scholarly dialogue, conversation, or exchange of ideas. By clearly defining who you are talking to and why you are talking to them, scholarly research helps to focus your writing and to clarify its significance. In addition to finding out facts, academic research helps organize such information into distinct arguments with a defined relationship to one another, thereby clarifying what information is useful and what information is extraneous.
For this assignment, do not think of yourself as simply trying to disprove other scholars or contradict their work. Your claim, rather, should simply situate your topic within an existing conversation, and even when you are exploring a point of disagreement make sure to concede the strengths of other positions and use these strengths to help develop your own views. See disagreement as a way to add specificity and focus to the position you are arguing, not simply as a way to refute or disprove other viewpoints. Be positive and productive: show how the conversations help make sense of what you are studying, and show how your topic contributes and extends existing conversations. Remember the lesson of Monty Python: mere contradiction is not argumentation. Instead, think of yourself as very modestly using the work of others to amplify your claims and help establish why they are significant by clarifying whom you are speaking to and why.
This paper should be 3-4 pages long, typed, double-spaced, in Times New Roman 12 inch font with 1 inch margins. You should include at least 1 scholarly article, but you can use as many as are necessary. You are also free to use non-peer reviewed sources from quality publications such as those found through the library databases, but this is not a requirement. Bring a rough draft for peer editing Friday, October 7. The paper is due Friday, October 14 by the start of class.
For this paper, you will again pick a significant detail and focus on explaining its importance. This time, however, you will also add in research to help develop your claims by building them on the views of others. Instead of thinking about research as the process of finding information, we will instead think of it as a process for locating and entering an ongoing scholarly dialogue, conversation, or exchange of ideas. By clearly defining who you are talking to and why you are talking to them, scholarly research helps to focus your writing and to clarify its significance. In addition to finding out facts, academic research helps organize such information into distinct arguments with a defined relationship to one another, thereby clarifying what information is useful and what information is extraneous.
For this assignment, do not think of yourself as simply trying to disprove other scholars or contradict their work. Your claim, rather, should simply situate your topic within an existing conversation, and even when you are exploring a point of disagreement make sure to concede the strengths of other positions and use these strengths to help develop your own views. See disagreement as a way to add specificity and focus to the position you are arguing, not simply as a way to refute or disprove other viewpoints. Be positive and productive: show how the conversations help make sense of what you are studying, and show how your topic contributes and extends existing conversations. Remember the lesson of Monty Python: mere contradiction is not argumentation. Instead, think of yourself as very modestly using the work of others to amplify your claims and help establish why they are significant by clarifying whom you are speaking to and why.
This paper should be 3-4 pages long, typed, double-spaced, in Times New Roman 12 inch font with 1 inch margins. You should include at least 1 scholarly article, but you can use as many as are necessary. You are also free to use non-peer reviewed sources from quality publications such as those found through the library databases, but this is not a requirement. Bring a rough draft for peer editing Friday, October 7. The paper is due Friday, October 14 by the start of class.
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Idiocracy ten years later
Here's a quick article that discusses the legacy of the movie ten years on: http://consequenceofsound.net/2016/09/welcome-to-costco-i-love-you-idiocracy-10-years-later/
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Essay 1 - Comedy, detail, and focus
In this initial paper we will practice the first crucial feature of academic writing to master: focus. For the assignment, pick a specific reading from class, or another work that discusses or presents comedy, and locate a significant detail: an element that seems important but whose significance you cannot initially fully explain. In a three page essay, offer an explicit account of why you think this detail is important. The most important thing for this essay is that you remain focused on the detail and your account of it. Support your claims with concrete features of the work. While you can discuss other relevant aspects of the work, the most important thing is that you remain focused on demonstrating the significance of your detail throughout the course of the paper.
Your paper should feature a strong, refutable, significant thesis. The thesis should possess all of the components we've discussed in class (clear topic; focusing question; central claim; a connection to and role in a larger debate or conversation; clearly defined key concepts; organized evidence; and a strong sense of significance).You can approach the assignment using either of the two types of comedy analysis we have discussed: dissecting the work as a piece of comedy by using some of the theories we have read; or showing what the comedy itself reveals or demonstrates about its own subject matter. Be as specific as you can in posing your questions. Instead of trying to show, for example, which theory of comedy explains why the work is funny, instead focus on mapping all the features of incongruity theory onto one moment: what are the two ideas contrasted, how are they contrasted, and what does this contrast show? Instead of arguing that a piece of comedy mocks hypocrisy, again, be very focused: map out in explicit terms what the character appears to be, what he or she really is, and what the significance of this deception is.
You may write about the novel we are reading, about a clip we have watched, or about any other thing we have read or watched in class. You may also pick almost anything else of interest to you (run the topic by me if you have any doubts or questions about it). If you are unsure what to write about, then pick something from the class.
As with all college writing, what you write about is less important than how you write about it, and it is this latter skill we are attempting to master. The most important thing for this assignment is to focus in on a very specific feature of the work you are writing about, hone in on a narrow topic and question it suggests, and provide a strong, refutable claim in answer to it. The point of this exercise is to practice framing narrow questions and topics; making significant, specific, refutable, non-trivial claims about them; and to support those claims with specific bits of textual or detailed evidence.
Have a posible topic picked out for a writing exercise on Friday, September 9th. Bring a rough draft to class for Friday, September 16th. The paper is due Friday, September 23th.
Your paper should feature a strong, refutable, significant thesis. The thesis should possess all of the components we've discussed in class (clear topic; focusing question; central claim; a connection to and role in a larger debate or conversation; clearly defined key concepts; organized evidence; and a strong sense of significance).You can approach the assignment using either of the two types of comedy analysis we have discussed: dissecting the work as a piece of comedy by using some of the theories we have read; or showing what the comedy itself reveals or demonstrates about its own subject matter. Be as specific as you can in posing your questions. Instead of trying to show, for example, which theory of comedy explains why the work is funny, instead focus on mapping all the features of incongruity theory onto one moment: what are the two ideas contrasted, how are they contrasted, and what does this contrast show? Instead of arguing that a piece of comedy mocks hypocrisy, again, be very focused: map out in explicit terms what the character appears to be, what he or she really is, and what the significance of this deception is.
You may write about the novel we are reading, about a clip we have watched, or about any other thing we have read or watched in class. You may also pick almost anything else of interest to you (run the topic by me if you have any doubts or questions about it). If you are unsure what to write about, then pick something from the class.
As with all college writing, what you write about is less important than how you write about it, and it is this latter skill we are attempting to master. The most important thing for this assignment is to focus in on a very specific feature of the work you are writing about, hone in on a narrow topic and question it suggests, and provide a strong, refutable claim in answer to it. The point of this exercise is to practice framing narrow questions and topics; making significant, specific, refutable, non-trivial claims about them; and to support those claims with specific bits of textual or detailed evidence.
Have a posible topic picked out for a writing exercise on Friday, September 9th. Bring a rough draft to class for Friday, September 16th. The paper is due Friday, September 23th.
Friday, August 26, 2016
Some models of blogging
For your blog posts, feel free to follow your interests and passions, even if you see only a tenuous connection to some of the main topics we have discussed so far. All I ask is that the blog posts draw our attention to a piece of writing, a clip, a news article, or even an excerpt from a novel or other longer work, and provide your take on that: why is it significant? What makes it meaningful for you? What do you want others to understand about it? Feel free to interpret comedy in the broadest possible sense: you can blog about not only things that are intentionally meant to be funny, but things that are unintentionally funny, or anything else that presents an interesting incongruity, unexpected detail, or surprising feature that is worth comment.
I'm always a bit hesitant to provide models, because there's no set formula for writing these posts. The following are just some examples of different things you could do, and you should feel free to ignore them if they are not interesting or appealing, for they are not at all the only way of approaching the subject.
Here is an example of a fun post on a very dry topic--typography--that nonetheless points out the unexpected beauties of a classic film (not exactly comedy, but incongruous or unexpected beauty, shall we say).
This post is a smart and silly critique of the unintentional comedy and inanities of popular culture.
Here's an example of a music review of an old album of an old band from my hometown that more or less became The Shins. It's not exactly an analysis of something comedic, but it is an insightful review that points out some interesting and unexpected details in its own way.
Of course, best and worst lists can always be a fun way to do a blog post.
You can go with something light and silly on college life or other close-to-home topics. Hey, it may seem a bit informal, but it actually does a very nice job of closely analyzing the language in the emails, albeit in a goofy way.
And of course, you can always try to elevate the dialogue when it comes to current events.
Here is an example of a fun post on a very dry topic--typography--that nonetheless points out the unexpected beauties of a classic film (not exactly comedy, but incongruous or unexpected beauty, shall we say).
This post is a smart and silly critique of the unintentional comedy and inanities of popular culture.
Here's an example of a music review of an old album of an old band from my hometown that more or less became The Shins. It's not exactly an analysis of something comedic, but it is an insightful review that points out some interesting and unexpected details in its own way.
Of course, best and worst lists can always be a fun way to do a blog post.
You can go with something light and silly on college life or other close-to-home topics. Hey, it may seem a bit informal, but it actually does a very nice job of closely analyzing the language in the emails, albeit in a goofy way.
And of course, you can always try to elevate the dialogue when it comes to current events.
Lippitt's three other articles
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
Lead blogger sign-up sheet for 12:30 class (FYW 1213-02)
Post the week you want, along with the address of your blog, in the comments, or email it to me. Spots are distributed on a first-come, first-served basis.
Lead blog posts are due the Friday of the week before we discuss them.
September 2: Erika (erikacsite.wordpress.com)
Sep. 23: Margie (comedychatblog.wordpress.com)
Sep. 30: Isaac (isaacwetherillfyw.wordpress.com)
Oct. 7: Hailey (haileyvaleriano.wordpress.com)
Oct. 14: Whitney (whitneymanessblog.wordpress.com)
Oct. 21: Matthew (matthewcomedy.blogspot.com)
Oct. 28: Olivia (oliviascomedyblog.wordpress.com/blog)
November 4: Linnea (linneacarlson.wordpress.com)
Nov. 11: Sarah (thoughtsofsarahrinker.blogspot.com)
Nov. 18 (For discussion after Thanksgiving): Bailey (baileyrogersblog.wordpress.com)
Lead blogger sign up sheet for 9:30 course (FYW 1213-01)
Post the week you want, along with the address of your blog, in the comments, or email it to me. Spots are distributed on a first-come, first-served basis.
Lead blog posts are due the Friday of the week before we discuss them.
September 2: Jillian (whyimlaughing.weebly.com)
Sept. 9: Moseley (Moseleysite.wordpress.com/blog)
Sep. 16: Matthew (whythechickencrossedtheroadcom.wordpress.com)
Sep. 30: Ellen (laughwithme2016.wordpress.com)
Oct. 7: Lindsay (thememery.blogspot.com)
Oct. 14: David (comedyinculture.blogspot.com)
Oct. 21: Henry (topofthejoke.blogspot.com)
Oct. 28: Thomas (ivenevercaredforgob.blogspot.com)
November 4: Rachel (rachelreedfyw.wordpress.com)
Nov. 11: Arnav (thequestioniswhyareyoulaughing.wordpress.com)
Nov. 18 (For discussion after Thanksgiving): Philip (comediesblog.wordpress.com)
Lead blog posts are due the Friday of the week before we discuss them.
September 2: Jillian (whyimlaughing.weebly.com)
Sept. 9: Moseley (Moseleysite.wordpress.com/blog)
Sep. 16: Matthew (whythechickencrossedtheroadcom.wordpress.com)
Sep. 23: Amanda (humorisjoggingforthepsyche.blogspot.com)
Sep. 30: Ellen (laughwithme2016.wordpress.com)
Oct. 7: Lindsay (thememery.blogspot.com)
Oct. 14: David (comedyinculture.blogspot.com)
Oct. 21: Henry (topofthejoke.blogspot.com)
Oct. 28: Thomas (ivenevercaredforgob.blogspot.com)
November 4: Rachel (rachelreedfyw.wordpress.com)
Nov. 11: Arnav (thequestioniswhyareyoulaughing.wordpress.com)
Nov. 18 (For discussion after Thanksgiving): Philip (comediesblog.wordpress.com)
Welcome! Here is our course schedule, updated in real time as needed.
After the first few weeks, the assignment for each Wednesday also
includes reading and responding to the lead blogger, and the assignment for
each Friday includes reading and commenting on your peers’ blogs. From time to
time I may move readings around or replace them to more closely coincide with
the class’s current interests. Watch the blog for these updates.
From time to time I may announce changes in the course schedule.
Although I will try to post an updated version of the syllabus online as
quickly as possible, you are responsible for all changes announced in class.
Heller = Catch-22 by Joseph
Heller
Zupancic = The Odd One In by
Alenka Zupancic
Stott = Comedy by Andrew Stott
Stott = Comedy by Andrew Stott
M August 22
W 24: Introduction.
Other activities: Buy Catch-22 and start reading ahead (it is
a long book and we will attempt to finish it by week six).
F 26: Watch:
Monty Python, Argument
Clinic sketch.
Other activities: Start blog, email me
the link, and select a date to serve as lead blogger. Post your first blog
entry on the best piece of comedy you’ve seen recently (post the link or
describe it), and whether you feel the reading helps you understand the work or
its ideas.
Week
2 – Superiority, Incongruity, Relief: Theories of the Comic
M 29: Read: Stott, Introduction and Chapter 1
W 31: Read: Hutcheson’s “Thoughts on Laughter”
Other activities: Write a blog post on
which account we have read so far you find most persuasive, and use another example of comedy to illustrate
your claims. Do the theories just describe different types of comedy, or does
one get closer to the essence (and why aren’t all examples of incongruity,
superiority, or relief funny?)
F Sep. 2: Read: Freud, Humour
·
Zupancic, Introduction
Week
3 – A Lazy and Stupid Labor Day
M 5: Labor Day. No Class
W
7: Read: Zupancic, 63-86
Other
activities: Post first response to lead blogger’s post and readings
by Wednesday’s class.
F 9: Read
Catch, 8-60
Bring rough draft for peer editing.
Week
4 – Comedy and Politics: Or, Is Conservatism Really a Kind of Comedy?
M
12: Read Zupancic, 13-40
Watch The Big Lebowski (On Netflix
Streaming)
F 16: Read
Catch, 60-103
Bring in rough draft for peer editing.
Week
5 – Comedy and Satire
M 19: Read Stott, Chapter 7
F 23: Paper 1 due.
Week
6 – Irony and Satire
M 26: Read Zupancic, 89-107
W 28: Read:
The Irony of Satire (Moodle).
F 30: R
Bring
rough draft for peer editing.
Week
7 – Genres of Comedy – From Satire to Slapstick and Back
M Oct. 3: Watch Chaplin, The Great Dictator.
Read:
Zupancic, 43-60
F 7: Read: Catch 164 - 206
Bring
rough draft for peer editing.
Week
8 – Genres of Comedy – From Silly To Gross
M 10: Read: Stott, Chapter 3
F 14: Read
Catch 206 - 266
Paper 2 due. Writing workshop or
library day.
Week
9 – Genres of Comedy – From Gross to Absurd
M 17: Fall
break. No Class.
Read
Zupancic, 201-217
F 21: Read Catch 266-329
Bring rough draft of paper 3.
Week
10 – From Absurd to Dark
M 24: Read Rochester, A Satyr.
W 26: Watch Twin
Peaks (on Netflix and Hulu - watch episode one (pilot) and, if time, episode 2)
F 28: Read Catch, 329-376
Bring rough draft of paper 3.
Week
11 – From Dark to Anxious and Existential
M 31: Watch Annie
Hall.
Read Stott, Chapter
4
W Nov. 2: Watch Inside Amy Schumer and Inside Amy Schumer
F 4: Read Catch 376-420
Paper
3 due. Possible library day or writing workshop.
Week
12 – From Existential to Political
M 7: Read Stott, Chapter 5
F 11: Read Catch, 420-end
Possible
writing workshop or library day.
Week
13 – Farting around before break
M 14: Watch:
South Park: The Movie
W 16: Read: TheBenefits of Farting
F 18: Read Zupancic, 111-129
Possible
Writing workshop
Week
14 – Giving Thanks
M 21: Clip show/Student Choice Awards
W 23: Thanksgiving
break. No class
F 25: Thanksgiving
break. No class
Week
15 – Almost there
M 28: Writing workshop.
W 30: Bring in rough draft.
F Dec. 2: Bring in rough draft.
Week
16 - Finish
M 5: Last class.
W 7: Study day.
F 9: Final exams.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)