![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethYou know the trouble with essays is that in the course of the semester thus far I have read... I don't know, umptyzillion words, a few inches of book, the usual. And all of them contained stuff that could be brought to bear on commenting on punk, or even a particular slice of a particular image of a punk. With the possible exception of the book about 80s film which was mostly about Thatcher (slightly after) and the relation between India and Britain in film (which is sometimes slashy, apparently. more relevant once we get up to studying My Beautiful Laundrette.)
There's all that with the words from Barthes about two orders of signification, denotation and connotation, made up of signifier+signified=sign. There's the signs brought together in a syntagm, which has a structure that can be narrative, rhetoric, or montage. Reckon I can say something from the montage bit; iirc there was a bit in the Mediations book where it said montage raises questions, and also by juxtaposing different apparently opposed images you do that dialectic thesis+antithesis=synthesis thing.
Possibly. Though you should understand I feel the ongoing need to look up most of these words before I actually hand in any work containing them, the stupid things just multiply, I keep meaning to write up the glossary but while it would be very useful in writing this essay it would also take up time when I could, you know, write essay, so thus far I hasn't done it.
Anyways, all that is just the description in the first not-introduction paragraph.
Theory to cover goes through the Marxisms, from Marx to Althusser to Gramsci, starting with economic determinsm and how differences in the conditions of productions influence the text (I think, that was the most weeks ago), through interpellation and how texts hail readers into particular subject positions, up to hegemony. And there's a ton to say about hegemony. Culture created through conflict, hegemony must always be fought for but can never be entirely won. Resistant and oppositional readings lead to the production of resistant and oppositional texts and styles. These are dealt with by the dominant/hegemonic culture through marginalisation if they can get away with it, or through incorporation into dominant discourses. By articulating texts to dominant ideologies ie putting punks back into family contexts, or charging a bunch of money for the signifiers in the hopes the signifieds fall out, ideologies maintain hegemony. There's a bunch could go in here from Hebdige, I read that Meaning of Style book but I got to do more than put it in the bibliography if I want to get points for it.
And all that has to be found in a close reading of my chosen text (picture of Johnny Rotten sneering at the camera while wearing a ripped jacket full of chains and an excess of safety pins).
And as the funnest part, we have a very specific question to answer, and the introduction has to say if we're going to answer it. Well, it says "To what extent does your chosen text reflect the realities of working class life" and you have to start off with arguing (a) working class and (b) reflect as well as, of course, (c) realities. You could get the whole essay word count of just arguing with the question. And as long as you can do it by refering to specific parts of the text and using quotes from at least three smart books then you will be doing quite well, apparently. But... to structure it??? Argh.
Plus there's probably something in the learning outcomes I'm forgetting.
Blah.
The usual problem is, trying to turn many many books into very few words. I've got 1250 this time I think. Which is *difficult*. Everything was interesting when I read it, I want to be interesting when I write about it.
The slightly less usual problem is I watched a couple of documentaries that I can't go back and quote from, on account of one was on TV and the other is a DVD the teacher had out last I looked. And I can't even properly put in the bibliography one of them. 'ITV4 the other night' isn't quite the academic standard.
Yes, I know I wrote a draft already. It's a bit of a splodgy mess and needs these words poured back in. I have on one side a lot of stuff I read about punk and on the other a lot of stuff I read about theory, and the essay is where they have to swirl together. Which I've started but I'm going to have to work very hard on.
... this isn't me in a panic, yet. This is me feeling cross enough to thump a book. Later I will be cross enough to thump the computer. Is all very predictable.
There's all that with the words from Barthes about two orders of signification, denotation and connotation, made up of signifier+signified=sign. There's the signs brought together in a syntagm, which has a structure that can be narrative, rhetoric, or montage. Reckon I can say something from the montage bit; iirc there was a bit in the Mediations book where it said montage raises questions, and also by juxtaposing different apparently opposed images you do that dialectic thesis+antithesis=synthesis thing.
Possibly. Though you should understand I feel the ongoing need to look up most of these words before I actually hand in any work containing them, the stupid things just multiply, I keep meaning to write up the glossary but while it would be very useful in writing this essay it would also take up time when I could, you know, write essay, so thus far I hasn't done it.
Anyways, all that is just the description in the first not-introduction paragraph.
Theory to cover goes through the Marxisms, from Marx to Althusser to Gramsci, starting with economic determinsm and how differences in the conditions of productions influence the text (I think, that was the most weeks ago), through interpellation and how texts hail readers into particular subject positions, up to hegemony. And there's a ton to say about hegemony. Culture created through conflict, hegemony must always be fought for but can never be entirely won. Resistant and oppositional readings lead to the production of resistant and oppositional texts and styles. These are dealt with by the dominant/hegemonic culture through marginalisation if they can get away with it, or through incorporation into dominant discourses. By articulating texts to dominant ideologies ie putting punks back into family contexts, or charging a bunch of money for the signifiers in the hopes the signifieds fall out, ideologies maintain hegemony. There's a bunch could go in here from Hebdige, I read that Meaning of Style book but I got to do more than put it in the bibliography if I want to get points for it.
And all that has to be found in a close reading of my chosen text (picture of Johnny Rotten sneering at the camera while wearing a ripped jacket full of chains and an excess of safety pins).
And as the funnest part, we have a very specific question to answer, and the introduction has to say if we're going to answer it. Well, it says "To what extent does your chosen text reflect the realities of working class life" and you have to start off with arguing (a) working class and (b) reflect as well as, of course, (c) realities. You could get the whole essay word count of just arguing with the question. And as long as you can do it by refering to specific parts of the text and using quotes from at least three smart books then you will be doing quite well, apparently. But... to structure it??? Argh.
Plus there's probably something in the learning outcomes I'm forgetting.
Blah.
The usual problem is, trying to turn many many books into very few words. I've got 1250 this time I think. Which is *difficult*. Everything was interesting when I read it, I want to be interesting when I write about it.
The slightly less usual problem is I watched a couple of documentaries that I can't go back and quote from, on account of one was on TV and the other is a DVD the teacher had out last I looked. And I can't even properly put in the bibliography one of them. 'ITV4 the other night' isn't quite the academic standard.
Yes, I know I wrote a draft already. It's a bit of a splodgy mess and needs these words poured back in. I have on one side a lot of stuff I read about punk and on the other a lot of stuff I read about theory, and the essay is where they have to swirl together. Which I've started but I'm going to have to work very hard on.
... this isn't me in a panic, yet. This is me feeling cross enough to thump a book. Later I will be cross enough to thump the computer. Is all very predictable.