Please, Sir, I Want Some More

The first thing I want to do in this post is present my annotated versions of that charity ad you just deconstructed.  My annotations are basically a summary of the details you noted about the image, especially the details that revealed that something is "off" in this image.(I will also note that many of you responded to the comments of other students, which is terrific.)

Your comments about the ad were spot on.  Many of you pointed out the big eyes (you also used the phrase "sad eyes"), the empty cup, the dirty (or injured, or "disfigured") face, her positioning against a crumbling wall.  (I've pointed out those things in the illustration below.)  What I most want to emphasize, though, is that in all of those instances you were doing two things that are crucial to successful critical reading and successful analysis:

1. You indicated the point that the author was trying to make.  (Here I'm using "author" simply as a convenient way to refer to the person or persons who designed this ad.)
2. You pointed to the physical evidence, the proof, to explain how the author was accomplishing what he/she was trying to accomplish.

It's the stuff in #2 that all-too-often is missing in college writing, yet it's the stuff that your teachers will want time and time again.

So here's what we have about the charity ad (and if I miss something, please feel free to point it out).  First, the details that you noticed that suggest how the photographer is trying to persuade us to send money:

All well and good.  The key, however, was noticing a second set of details, details that suggested a different story about this image.  I think you did a good job detecting the problems with this photograph.  As several of you correctly point out, this is a powerful emotional appeal, and we can tend to get swept away by our emotions and forget that we're supposed to be rational creatures too.  And this matters for college writing.  If we look at the photograph rationally, suppressing our emotional reactions, we can see some things that are not quite right.  As above, I'm simply summarizing things you pointed out, such as the bright eyes, the healthy-looking face and the adorable hair style, all of which creates what we would call a cognitive dissonance--basically two contradictory and conflicting ideas co-existing at the same time.  In this case, the conflicting ideas are a starving child who seems to be anything but starving.  Below you'll find another illustration of the contradictory aspects of the photograph.Here is what you pointed out about those other details:

Even though we are supposed to believe that this child is hungry and we can feed her, there's ample evidence that the child is anything but hungry, and a closer look at the details reveals that.  And that's the point.  A surface reading doesn't reveal much; a closer reading reveals much more.  In terms of college writing, it's that closer reading that your teachers are going to be looking for. 

Raising the Stakes

I want to continue with the issue of critical reading, this time bringing into play two elements that can help lead us to more analytical readings: comparison and audience.  

Sometimes we can struggle with what something "means" because it's the first time we have ever seen this thing whose meaning we're trying to figure out.  We have nothing to which to refer in order to help us out.  If, for example, I were to show you this:

 

My guess would be that few, if any of you, would be able to identify what this is, other than to say it's a machine of some sort.  And that would be understandable, given that you have probably never seen this, so have no frame of reference.  So maybe if I added this image:

   

Now you might be able to start teasing out some sense of what the first machine is--maybe not absolutely, or even easily, but at least probably something is forming in your mind as you establish some patterns.  So if I finally dropped in this:

Then this:

There's a pretty good chance you can probably now state what the first image is an image of.  You may not be able to get into much detail about how it worked, but at least you know what it is and probably have a seminal sense of what it did.  And the reason for that is simple:  you now have frames of reference.  

Your next assignment will ask you to understand and analyze something in light of a similar text, so let's try some exercises to get you to thinking analytically about comparable texts.  We'll start with something fairly straightforward, and similar to something we've already done in here, and try to level up the complexity as we move along.

I have another set of images I'm going to ask you to compare.  In this task (and a subsequent one to follow shortly), I'll be asking you to do the kind of thing I'm asking you to do for the first essay.  Hopefully, then, we can give you some preparation for that.

What I want to focus on in this activity is time.  Basically, part of what a successful college writer needs to do to recognize that there is a world outside of himself or herself is also recognize that what is true now was not necessarily true 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago, or even ten years ago.  This again is something that will become important in research writing (which will be the most important kind of writing that you do in college).  If we don't have a sense for how things change over time, then that increases the likelihood that we'll make a major mistake in college writing: evaluating something using very narrow standards.  

Teachers love it when they see that you understand that something needs to be evaluated in its own context, in its own time and place.  It's not fair, for example, to say that a science fiction movie from the 1950s is a lousy movie because the special effects don't live up to the kinds of special effects produced today.  Or, to use another common example, deciding that a 2010 remake of a movie is better than the 1960 original because the stars in the 2010 movie are more well known.  The problem there is that the writer fails to account for the fact that the actors in the 1960 movie were very well known--to a 1960 audience. 

Your Turn

Seeing how things change over time can give us terrific insight into how values and beliefs change, and teachers love to see that kind of awareness.  And this brings us to the next exercise I want you to do.  Below you'll see three images, in this case, images of movie vampires.  One is from the 1920s, the second is from the 1930s, and the third is contemporary to us (a Twilight vampire).  I've picked these images based on popularity; in other words, these figures were relatively popular among the viewing public, so for some reasons they resonated with the public in that time and place.  We all know what a vampire is.  What we may not realize is that our perception of what they are, and our relationship to them, has changed.  What I'd like you to do is the following:

1. Simply describe the physical differences among the three.
2. What do the differences tell you about how the the perception of the character of vampires have changed?  We can tell pretty easily that there are significant physical differences.  Okay--so what?  How do those physical differences change our perception of these vampires?
3. If you can, speculate about why the Twilight vampire is so popular now?  Why do we prefer this type of vampire in the 21st century, and not the one from the 1920s or 1930s?

Nosferatu (1920s)

Dracula (1930s)

Edward (21st Century)

Let me model what I'm asking you to do for the first image.  Below you'll find the image with my annotations:

Now take a look at the Dracula image, and notice the details in the same way I note the details in the Nosferatu image.  Note how the two images represent the same element in two different ways.  For example, look at Nosferatu’s eyes, then look at Dracula’s eyes.  How are Dracula’s eyes different?  Note that both Nosferatu and Dracula have their right hands posed similarly.  But how is Dracula’s hand different from Nosferatu’s?  

Based upon the physical differences presented in the images--the evidence, the details—what would you say is the difference between how Nosferatu is depicted and Dracula is depicted?  If you had to describe Nosferatu in one word, what would that be?  If you had to describe Dracula in one word, would you use the same word as the one you used for Nosferatu?  I’m betting that our reactions to the two images are different.  Our issue is determining what are the visual cues in each—the evidence, the details—that influence how we react.  

And of course, there is still that elephant in the room: historical context (something that will become a significant part of this class).  Let me up the stakes here a bit.  The figure of Dracula is from the 1930s, the period of the Great Depression in our country.  He is clearly very different from the Nosferatu figure of the 1920s.  What I'd like you to try to do is speculate:  Why would the economic crash of 1929 result in a very different image of a vampire?  As I said, I'm asking you to speculate.  I’ll let you struggle with that for a bit (because I’m generous that way). 

Finally, try this now with Edward.  Address the simpler part first.  In what ways is Edward physically different from his 20^th century vampire brethren (based upon the image), and what evidence can you point to as support for your conclusions?  Then, try to take on the more complex question: in what ways is Edward an ideal vampire for 21^st century America?  

I'd like you to complete this activity by Thursday, Jan. 30.

Curious?

For those of you curious about Nosferatu, I've embedded a copy of the original movie. 



Piazza