1 Gateway 100 – Section 26 – Jewish Humor Instructor Irv Epstein
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Gateway 100 – section 26 – Jewish Humor Instructor Irv Epstein Office Hours:Tuesday, Thursday: 1:00 – 3:30 pm and by appointment. Office Telephone: 556-3098 Home Telephone: 454-7937 e-mail: [email protected] Course Rationale All instructors who teach gateway seminars are committed to the teaching of critical thinking through the writing process. We will attempt to accomplish that goal in this course through learning about Jewish humor. Our explorations will focus upon the nature and social functions of humor, the ways in which humor can be used to express religious and cultural values, and how in analyzing humor, we can gain a better understanding of issues of identity, assimilation and acceptance, issues that confront many immigrant groups. Course Goals 1. Students will develop those critical thinking skills involved in the process of argumentation that include: constructing thesis statements, analyzing premises and conclusions, evaluating evidence, and weighing completing claims. 2. Students will react to different forms of writing that represent different fields of study including oral history, social theory, the social sciences, and literature. 3. Students will through the processes of peer review and large group interaction, evaluate each other’s writing for the purposes of expediting self-improvement in the writing process. 4. Students will analyze, compare, and contrast visual images as represented in various films. 5. Students will examine the nature of laughter, definitions of the “comedic,” and will evaluate the cultural and universal characteristics of Jewish humor. 6. Students will gain an appreciation for the nature of the Jewish immigrant experience in North America, and will be able to identify values that are relevant to that experience in comedic situations. 1 Course Texts 1. Aleichem, Sholom. Tevye the Dairyman and the Railroad Stories. New York: Schocken, 1996. 2. Berger, Peter. Redeeming Laughter: The Comic Dimension of Human Experience.New York: De Gruyter, 1997. 3. Coen, Joel. Gates of Heaven. New York: Delta, 1999. 4. Frommer, Myrna Katz and Harvey Frommer. Growing Up Jewish in America. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1995. 5. Rosen, Leonard J. and Behrens, Laurence. The Allyn and Bacon Handbook, 4th edition. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, 2000. 6. Ziv, Avner, ed.. Jewish Humor. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction, 1998. Course Requirements 1. Essay analyzing the nature of a joke and a humorous circumstance 150 points. 2. Essay comparing and contrasting two of the films viewed in class. 150 points. 3.Group Research Paper investigating an aspect of North American ethnicity and/or humor. 150 points. 4. Review of Growing Up Jewish as an example of contemporary history. 150 points. 5. Team led discussions of selected short stories by Sholem Aleichem and selected chapters of Jewish Humor by Ziv. 100 points. 6.Comparison of two of the short stories by Joel Coen with Barton Fink 150 points. 7. Attendance and Participation (including peer review work and informal Writing) 150 points. Totals 1000 points. Approximate Grading Scale 1000 - 960 points A 959 - 920 points A- 2 919 - 880 points B+ 879 - 840 points B 839 - 800 points B- 799 - 760 points C+ 759 - 720 -points C 719 - 680 - points C- 679 - 640 points D Below 640 points F 3 Grading and Assessment Procedures This course is designed to offer varied forms of assessment throughout the term and it is expected that you will demonstrate competence in all of the prescribed forms of oral and written expression in order to receive credit for the class. Although instructor to student and student to instructor expectations will become clearer as the course proceeds, please keep in mind the following general performance criteria that will be used in the course. I. Evaluation of formal written work 1) "A" papers demonstrate excellence in content, organization and style. The author presents a unified thesis, followed by a sound organizational strategy. The ideas that are presented are engaging and illuminate insights not readily apparent in reading the required text. Assertions are supported by evidence and logical argument. Where appropriate, contrary arguments and conflicting evidence are noted and reasons for disagreements are made clear. The author is aware of her/his role, the appropriate audience for whom the piece is intended, and presents ideas that are clearly stated and easy to understand. A papers rarely contain any spelling or grammatical mistakes. 2) “A-” papers differ from A papers in that there may be one or two fewer truly engaging and illuminating insights that are presented. Still, the ideas that are expressed are creative and insightful, assertions are supported by evidence and logical argument, and contrary arguments are presented when called for. Grammatically and stylistically, the author may make one mistake but this is the exception. In short, this is not the perfect paper, but it comes close. 3) "B+" papers are solid pieces of work that demonstrate good ideas and insights that are somewhat more common and perhaps less useful than those presented in "A" papers. The organization and style of the papers are of a generally high quality although there may be an occasional inconsistency in this area. Assertions are supported by evidence and logical argument although one might expect further elaboration and development of the material that is presented. Only a few spelling or grammatical errors are in evidence in a B+ paper. 4) “B” papers are solid pieces of work that demonstrate author familiarity and engagement with the important issues at hand. A “B” paper fulfills the teacher’s expectations for the assignment, but it is not exceptional or extraordinary in any way. The writer will demonstrate logical reasoning and support her/his arguments with relevant evidence but will not take any chances or reach beyond a conventional understanding of the material. 5) “B-” papers are solid pieces of work with one or two slight exceptions. The author will demonstrate general familiarity and engagement with important issues but may miss the implications of one important argument or make a statement that is empirically and 4 factually incorrect. Still this will not take away from a general understanding of the issues at hand.The paper will for the most part be well organized, but there may be a particular paragraph that is stylistically or grammatically inappropriate. 6) "C" papers are adequate pieces of work that demonstrate acceptable understanding of the assignment. The insights and ideas presented will rarely go beyond the obvious and there may be some organizational and stylistic inconsistencies that detract from the content of the piece. It is generally clear that the author understands the nature of the assignment and appreciates her/his role and that of the audience for whom the piece is intended. But the use of evidence and logical argument while present throughout the piece, is limited. Sometimes, one argument will be clearly delivered but opposing points of view will not be considered. Clarity of expression is present although it may be seriously lacking in a few areas. Grammatical and spelling errors may be present, but one can still understand the author’s intention and meaning. C+, C, and C- grades will differ depending upon how well the author communicates her/his understanding of the assigment, and demonstrates evidence for having completed the required reading in its entirety. 7) "D" papers may have some virtues: an occasional insight or good idea, but they are marred by unclear writing, organization, and style. They demonstrate lack of attention to audience and communicate the purpose of the piece unclearly, and they are lacking in the presentation of solid argumentation and evidence. Upon reading this type of paper, one can’t be absolutely sure that the author understands the assignment and has read the required material, necessary to complete the assignment intelligently. Grammatical and spelling errors are abundant. 8) "F" papers fail to address the requirements of the assignment. Their authors show no insight into the work being studied and show poor attention to organization and style. These are papers that often are written at the last minute and do not clearly demonstrate that the author understands her/his role or the nature of the audience for whom the work is to be written. No evidence is given to demonstrate that the author has actually read the required material or completed the required tasks prior to writing this paper. No effort is made to organize one's thoughts clearly. All formal written work for the course should be proofread and spell checked before being turned in. II. Formal Writing Assignments A. Essay Analyzing a Joke and a Humorous Circumstance In a coherent 3-5 page essay, analyze the joke described below. Explain what makes the joke funny or not funny, what one has to know in order to appreciate the joke, and what the joke says about its characters, the storyteller, and the audience. Then describe a humorous situation that happened to you and explain why the situation was funny at the time. Explain what would have to know in order to appreciate the situation, and compare 5 the elements of comedy in the joke with the comedic elements of the circumstance explaining why you think comedy is either universal or culturally specific. p. 93 from Berger. A Jewish man is sitting in a railway carriage in the old country. A considerably younger man, evidently also Jewish, joins him after a while and sits across from him after a perfunctory greeting. As the train begins to move, the younger man says: “Excuse me, could you tell me what time it is?” The older man does not reply. “Excuse me again, but could you tell me what time it is?” The older man looks out the window.