Friday, April 14, 2017

Final Deadline Reminder

If you've been in class recently then this should come as no surprise — and if you haven't, then hello, what have you been up to? — but here's the lowdown on your final project's deadline. You'll recall that the details of the final are already discussed in depth both here and here, and if I had to sum the whole thing up in a sentence, Id' say that you want to find an interesting topic around which you can construct a compelling (and sufficiently complex) argument that makes good use of strong evidence from a diverse array of sources. Easy, right?

But what you really want to know: when is it due? Your deadline is 9PM on Thursday April 27th. You should e-mail your paper to me at my gmail address and once I'm able to download and verify that there are no problems with the file I'll write you back to acknowledge receipt. Recall also that the minimum acceptable length is 2000 words (approximately 7 pages), however you're more than welcome to go (well) beyond that limit and it will be very difficult to get a good grade with a paper that short.

If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to drop me a line.


Sunday, March 5, 2017

Workshop Schedule, Rounds 1 and 2

Round 1


Week 11

Monday, March 20:

Wednesday, March 22:
  • Boocher (lead reader: Turner)
  • Callahan (lead reader: Almeida)
  • Lyon (lead reader: Yisrael)
  • Knehans (lead reader: Haendel)
  • Smith (lead reader: Jansen)

Friday, March 24:


Week 12

Monday, March 27:

Wednesday, March 29:
  • Linaults (lead reader: Price)
  • Schwetschenau (lead reader: Bush)
  • Nguyen (lead reader: Gillogly)
  • Yisrael (lead reader: Gault)
  • Kendra Lewis (lead reader: Obrecht)

Friday, March 31
  • Wooten (lead reader: Cowperthwait)
  • Jones (lead reader: Schwetschenau)
  • Rolls (lead reader: Smith)
  • Obrecht (lead reader: Knueven)
  • Ashworth (lead reader: Crispen)


Week 13

Monday, April 3:
  • Crispen (lead reader: Brandts)
  • Gault (lead reader: Callahan)
  • Leck (lead reader: Linaults)
  • Hawkins (lead reader: Brokamp)
  • Knueven (lead reader: Lyon) 

Round 2


Wednesday, April 5:

Friday, April 7:
  • Price (lead reader: Gault)
  • Yisrael (lead reader: Jones)
  • Knehans (lead reader: Lauren Lewis)
  • Gillogly (lead reader: Price)
  • Callahan (lead reader: Turner)


Week 14

Monday, April 10:
  • Lauren Lewis (lead reader: Boucher)
  • Haendel (lead reader: Leck)
  • Wooten (lead reader: Jansen)
  • Crispen (lead reader: Harney-Davila)
  • Gault (lead reader: Lyon)

Wednesday, April 12:
  • Ference (lead reader: Almeida)
  • Leck (lead reader: Bush)
  • Turner (lead reader: Smith)
  • Jones (lead reader: Knehans)
  • Hawkins (lead reader: Obrecht)

Friday, April 14:


Week 15

Monday, April 17:

Wednesday, April 19:
  • Brandts (lead reader: Wulfhorst)
  • Brokamp (lead reader: Ashworth)
  • Bush (lead reader: Wooten)
  • Boocher (lead reader: Knueven)

Workshop Guidelines

Over the course of weeks 11–15 you'll have the opportunity to workshop two excerpts from your final paper. We've already talked extensively about the scope and potential of this project, so there's no need to do so here, but it's worth restating that this is a wonderful chance to interrogate your identity, tastes, learning habits, and cultural contexts as well as a chance to data-mine your bookshelves, record collection, favorite movies, etc. for things that will fit your chosen theme. Last-minute hunting probably won't serve you well; instead carry your topic (or shortlist of topics if you're still not decided) with you, brainstorm lists of potential evidence, and keep an eye out for moments of sudden inspiration.


Response Details

Your responses should be approximately 500–750 words, though that could vary wildly — the goal here isn't to meet a minimum word count, it's to offer us an effective and engaging piece of hybrid prose that aims to be both creative and critical. There's no place for filler here. Because these are segments of a larger essay, it's okay if they don't have a "proper" beginning and end, though you might want to provide some sort of brief note, if possible, setting up your transitions in and out of what we're reading.

In your pieces you should be sharing your opinions, but also moving beyond that to offer up a form of analysis, or an argument, or convincing your reader of a given point or position, and the best way to do that is with copious evidence from your chosen texts themselves. You can (and certainly should) have fun, be weird, take risks, commit daring stylistic feats, and even exploit tenuous connections to your theme, but remember to make a point as well; without that, your piece is incomplete. 

Your responses must be posted no less than two days prior to their workshopping (i.e. before our class meeting on the class day before a Wednesday or Friday workshop, or before 2:30PM on Saturday for Monday workshops) and should be cleanly formatted, cited, etc. You'll e-mail them to me at my Gmail account (my last name [dot] my full first name [at] gmail [dot] com) in advance of that deadline and I'll link them on the schedule. Your writing should be in Word or PDF format, which should be able to accommodate hyperlinks, embedding of photos/videos/etc., and which everyone in the class should be able to view. 


(Peer) Participation

Because of the sheer number of students in this class, we're going to need to move quickly as we workshop each piece (I'm estimating 8 minutes total per student) and that means that everyone is going to need to be prompt, brief, and to-the-point with their in-class feedback (which also presupposes that you've read the day's posts at least once and are familiar with them). To make the process easier, each student being workshopped on a given day will have a lead reader chosen at random, and this student will be responsible for getting our discussion off to a quick start with a few comments. These three criteria are an excellent (and simple) way to frame your reaction to a given piece:
  1. Is this response effective? Is it interesting? Why or why not? Note specific details(!)
  2. Comment on the use of evidence: is it sufficiently clever and/or convincing?
  3. Are there any major questions that remain unanswered for you or concerns that you have?
The lead reader will also bring two copies of their responses to these questions on the day of the workshop: one for me, one for the author. Being absent on your lead reader day (or on the day your writing is being workshopped) is not recommended without serious extenuating circumstances and grades will be docked accordingly and you'll be skipped for that round.

Finally, while it should go without saying, our workshop should be a place for constructive criticism rooted in mutual respect and guided by a desire to learn about and improve our own writing processes while helping others do the same.  


Grading / The Progressive Approach

Feedback is more important than grades, but during the workshop portion of our semester I will be giving students grades for each of their pieces on a simplified scale: essentially ✓, ✓+, ✓-. Letter grades will only be given for your final essay, but this should offer you some sort of sense of how you're doing. Because honesty and growth are important, there will be no grade inflation here, but if you get a ✓- it will come with some concrete ideas on how to do better next time. In general, this progressive approach should guide your efforts this semester, and while that's a double-edged sword, it is so in a positive manner: you should aim to make improvements (whether small or large) as you progress through the two workshop rounds, and that means that a poor showing in first round will have less of an effect on your final grade than exemplary work later in the term.

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Weeks 8–9: Lauren Redniss' "Thunder & Lightning: Weather Past, Present, and Future"

A two-page spread from Lauren Redniss' Thunder and Lightning: Weather Past, Present, Future.
If we've already experienced one sort of expressive leap from Maggie Nelson's Bluets (a very visual book without images) to Claudia Rankine's Citizen (a book full of visual arts and iconic images that also aims to mitigate the divide between the printed page and the moving image at times), then we're going exponentially farther with Lauren Redniss' Thunder and Lightning: Weather Past, Present, Future, a book that describes itself as "an uncatagorizable fusion of storytelling and visual art." Elsewhere, Redniss describes herself as an "author of visual non-fiction." That feels more apt than "graphic novelist," though some of the lessons we learned from Scott McCloud will serve us well here.


Thunder and Lightning is Redniss' third book and the follow-up to the much-beloved Radioactive, which told the story of Nobel-winning scientist Marie Curie. Her first book, Century Girl, traced the life of Doris Eaton Travis, the last living showgirl from the Zigfield Follies. In her MacArthur Foundation citation, the common threads linking these disparate projects, as well as the techniques that serve her well:
Lauren Redniss is an artist and writer seamlessly integrating artwork, written text, and design elements in works of visual nonfiction. Redniss undertakes archival research, interviews and reportage, and field expeditions to inform every aspect of a book's creation, from its text, to its format and page layout, to the design of the typeface, to the printing and drawing techniques used for the artwork. Her intimate, idiosyncratic perspective illuminates widely varying subjects.
In Thunder and Lightning this meticulous attention to detail carries over into her self-designed typeface (named Qaneg LR after the Eskimo word for "snow") and the various printmaking and coloring techniques used for the book's many images, which, in and of themselves, are inspired and directly reference naturalist's engravings of the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Rather than take well-trod paths through weather phenomena, she offers us chapters focusing on abstract ideas like "chaos," "dominion," "war," "profit," and "pleasure," tying together oblique stories to make for a compelling narrative. We're a nation already torn about over the fundamental question of whether climate change is fact or fiction, along with the grim future prospects it might bring, therefore it's no stretch, especially when taking the historical longview (as Redniss does here), to view Thunder and Lightining as "the year's most political picture book" (as The Telegraph opines).

Here's the breakdown for our four days with the book. We'll also spend a little time towards the end of this segment laying out plans for the workshop sessions we'll begin after Spring Break. Also, please note that there are notes on each chapter starting on page 237, as well as notes on the typeface and printmaking techniques that will be useful foreknowledge in approaching the book:

  • Friday, March 3: Ch. 1–3
  • Monday, March 6: Ch. 4–7
  • Wednesday, March 8: Ch. 8–10
  • Friday, March 10: Ch. 11–12

Here are some supplemental resources that might be of interest to you:
  • the New York Times offers two reviews of Redniss' book: one by Sadie Stein, the other by Jennifer Schuessler
  • Smithsonian considers how Redniss "is rethinking biography": [link]
  • Elle agrees, asserting that she "is inventing a new literary genre": [link]
  • The Guardian (UK) hails the book as "thrillingly original": [link]
  • the aforementioned Telegraph review: [link]
a 2011 TED Talk where Redniss discusses her creative process

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Weeks 7–8: Claudia Rankine's "Citizen: An American Lyric"


We're following up Maggie Nelson's Bluets with a book that all too perfectly encapsulates our nation's fragmented zeitgeist and which, for that reason, is one of the most universally-lauded books in recent memory: Claudia Rankine's Citizen: An American Lyric (Greywolf). Citizen was nominated for two of the three top literary prizes — the National Book Award and the National Book Critics Circle Award — winning the latter (FYI: the Pulitzer is the third); it also won the PEN Center USA award, the Los Angeles Times Book Prize, an NAACP Image Award, and the UK's Forward Prize. Finally, like our other two authors, Rankine is a 2016 recipient of the MacArthur Foundation's "Genius" Grant. She is using her $625,000 prize to found the Racial Imaginary Institute, which, per a recent article in the Guardian, will be:
a "presenting space and a think tank all at once" where artists and writers can really wrestle with race. She wants it to be a "space which allows us to show art, to curate dialogues, have readings, and talk about the ways in which the structure of white supremacy in American society influences our culture."
As the retrospective articles on 30 Rock that we read a few weeks ago attest, America briefly allowed itself to be comforted by the thought that we had reached a "post-racial" state after the groundbreaking election of President Barack Obama. The past eight years — marred by countless acts of racially-motivated violence, including the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Freddie Gray, the Charleston Nine, Sandra Bland, Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, and Cincinnati's own Samuel DuBose, among far too many others — has demonstrated that woefully, that's not the case. Taking that as a foundation, it's easy to understand why Rankine's book has be so eagerly embraced by audiences desperately searching for answers, or at least perspectives, in these troubled times. Rankine's NBA citation succinctly sums up exactly why everyone is talking about this book:
In Citizen, Claudia Rankine recounts mounting racial aggressions in ongoing encounters in twenty-first-century daily life and in the media. Some of these encounters are slights, seemingly slips of the tongue, and some are intentional offensives in the classroom, at the supermarket, at home, on the tennis court with Serena Williams and the soccer field with Zinedine Zidane, online, on TV — everywhere, all the time. The accumulative stresses come to bear on a person’s ability to speak, perform, and stay alive. Our addressability is tied to the state of our belonging, Rankine argues, as are our assumptions and expectations of citizenship. In essay, image, and poetry, Citizen is a powerful testament to the individual and collective effects of racism in our contemporary, often named "post-race" society.
Born and raised in Jamaica, Rankine earned both a BA and MFA in the US and has published five volumes of poetry (which have become increasingly multimodal and genre-bending) over the past twenty years. With Don't Let Me Be Lonely: An American Lyric (2004) — an ambitious book that intermingled America's long history of racial injustice, post-9/11 terror paranoia, media manipulation, and the author's own struggles with depression in the face of all these things — Rankine gained widespread attention for her considerable talents. As its subtitle suggests, Citizen continues the mission of Don't Let Me Be Lonely, bringing her focus to present-day tragedies that have filled our news cycle in recent years.

Here's a breakdown for the three classes we'll spend with Citizen:

Friday, February 24: parts I–III
Monday, February 27: IV–V (up to Jena Six, ending on pg. 103)
Wednesday, March 1: V (Stop-and-Frisk)–end





Friday, February 17, 2017

Reminder: Late Papers Due Today



As I've mentioned several times during recent class meetings, this Friday, February 17th, is the last day that students scheduled as respondents during the first section of the semester to hand in late papers. If I don't have a paper in hand by our class meeting, then I'm afraid you'll receive an F for the assignment, which, it goes without saying, will make it difficult to do well in this class as a whole.

At present, I only have a little more than half of what I should have. Please consult the course information and policies at the link on the right if you have any further questions drop me a line.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Weeks 6–7: Maggie Nelson's "Bluets"


I am certainly not the only person to be blown away upon first encountering Maggie Nelson's Bluets (Wave Books, 2009) — an unassuming, slight book of tiny prose fragments whose minimalisms disguise an intoxicating complexity — and I hope your reaction will be similar to mine.

"Suppose I were to begin by saying that I had fallen in love with a color," the book begins, "Suppose I were to speak this as though it were a confession; suppose I shredded my napkin as we spoke. It began slowly. An appreciation, an affinity. Then, one day, it became more serious. Then (looking into an empty teacup, its bottom stained with thin brown excre­ment coiled into the shape of a sea horse) it became some­how personal." Thus we likewise begin our journey alongside Nelson through her love affair with the color blue, a process she tells us happened "as if falling under a spell, a spell I fought to stay un­der and get out from under, in turns," over the course of 240 brief number prose vignettes.

Along the way, she'll consider the color and its wider implications through a number of frames — from literature to the fine arts, music to film, philosophy to psychology,  science to religion, medicine to geography — all the while remaining deeply-rooted in Nelson's own personal experiences. In one regard, this is a book with a singular focus, but in reality that specificity merely serves as the nexus for an exploration of incredible breadth.

By the same token, as the central model for the sort of writing you'll be doing later in the term, I hope that the ambitious flexibility of Nelson's form will serve you as well as it does her in Bluets.

Here's our reading breakdown for our week with Bluets (n.b. the numbers here refer to the book's individual sections, not pages):
  • Friday, Feb. 17: sections 1–89
  • Monday, Feb. 20: sections 90–164
  • Wednesday, Feb. 22: sections 165–240
And here are some supplemental resources related to the text: