As promised, I'm taking today's class discussion on Harper, Parker, and Ong to the course blog! Throughout the semester, some blog posts will be mediated by questions, as is this one, and others will be more open-ended, inviting you to exchange opinions about or expand on issues raised in our course readings. All posts will be evaluated on the "plus" system, and factored into the blogs and quizzes portion of your course grade. Generally speaking, here are some guidelines for our participation:
- Please refer clearly to whatever text(s) you are discussing, not only for the benefit of readers outside of this class, but also to ensure that we see what you want us to see in what you read. Even if your blog post is a response to a question I pose, you are still writing that response to make a point or forward a claim. It will help for us to know authors, titles, and the particular passages you discuss.
- Please title your posts creatively, according to the point you wish to make, rather than redundantly, according to the assignment name ("Blog 1, Blog 2, etc.").
- At times, I may ask you to formally respond to your classmates' posts, although you should always feel free to do this, even if I don't prompt you to do it. Please be respectful and courteous, especially if you disagree with their interpretation of a text, but do not hesitate to question or challenge them. We need to be willing to question and challenge each other.
- Finally, as you would in any piece of writing, if you refer to any published text, please mention the source, include page number(s), and even insert a hyperlink to it, if possible.
Question One:
The question I posed to the Parker discussion group today was "Why doesn't Parker allow the narrator to stop waltzing?" I'd love for you to pose your own theory here, but as you do, please consider building a unified theory. In other words, be prepared to back up your theory by tying it to what you see as the principal aims of her story, the principal strategies she uses in writing it, and the principal outcomes that story could have on a particular audience. Please do not be satisfied with making simple generalizations about the time or the text.
Question Two (for the Harper Group):
We already identified some of the allusions and metaphors Harper uses in order to suggest a more complex portrait of "woman" in the late nineteenth century. Could we justify any of these as metaphors for more abstract social problems, i.e., slavery, racial uplift, promotion of black culture, etc.? Draw explicitly on one of Ong's key claims about how writers fictionalize certain audiences, in order to help you justify how certain allusions or metaphors in Harper's essay may be speaking to a broader audience about a more abstract problem.
Question Two (for the Parker Group):
You began to identify certain comedic devices that Parker uses, and several of you even noted some possible "double-voice" in her story. Draw explicitly on one of Ong's key claims about how writers fictionalize certain audiences, in order to discuss in more detail what you think are Parker's most salient vocalizing or comedic devices. In other words, if you noted "double-voice" (or something else), how does it function in her story and what could be its purpose? What does such a strategy allow the narrator to do (or not do)? How could it enable a reader to respond (or not respond)?
Please make a "New Post" for your responses, and feel free to combine both questions into one longer prose response, if that makes more sense for you. Posts should be completed by our next class (11:15 a.m. on Thursday 1/27).
I am accepting my own homework assignment, so I will post, too. Have fun with this!
-Professor Graban
No comments:
Post a Comment