English 1130 Summer 2016 Dr. Roger Clark
Section 006 (22055) Tuesday 12:30-3:20 pm Room 1231 Section 051 (22090) Wednesday 6:30-9:20 pm Room 4219
Introductory Material (Marks, Academic Integrity, etc.) 2
SCHEDULE Week 1 6 Week 2 6 Week 3 10 Week 4 11 Week 5 Rhetorical Analysis Essay 25% 11 Week 6 12 Week 7 13 Weeks 8-9 14 Week 10 Evaluative Analysis Essay (Tuesday class) 30% 16 Week 11 Evaluative Analysis Essay (Wednesday class) 17 Week 12 Peer edit: outline 5% 17 Week 13 Peer edit: essay draft 5% 17 Week 14 Research Essay 25% 18 participation 10%
THE ACADEMIC ESSAY 23
RHETORIC 27 16 Rhetorical Categories 29 Samples On Lord of War 38 On Mad Men 42 On Gandhi 43 On “Canadians” 47
EVALUATION AND RESEARCH 49 Samples On Lord of War 57 On “The Culture of Violence” 58 On “Canadians” 59
Marking Notes and Symbols 64 Appendices 1. Boston Legal 67 2. “Stillbirth of the American Dream” 70 3. “Serializing the Past” 73 4. “So Much Woman” 78
2
INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL
Contacting the Instructor
Office 2806E. Due to construction this term, all office hours will be by appointment only. The usual hours are Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday 5:30-6:20, but I could meet at other times during those days.
Email: [email protected] or [email protected]. I get my gmail more often. Please make sure to identify yourself by full name, course name, and class time—i.e. "Robin Smith, English 1130, Monday night." I have about 120 students per term and don’t always have my class lists with me.
Course Materials
- This course file - The course pack: English 1130: Academic Writing. Buy this at the bookstore. Look for my name and the section number. - Optional text: Everyone’s An Author (Norton, 2013)
CF = course file CP = course pack EAA = Everyone’s An Author
There’s no assigned grammar book, since this course deals with argument, rhetoric, evaluation, and research. For those who need a refresher on grammar and basic writing, EAA Chapters 29-31 has information on grammar and sentence structure, starting with the excellent section, “Writing Good Sentences” (551-569). CF “Marking Notes and Symbols” has sample expression errors and corrections.
Course Goals
In general, this course aims to improve your critical thinking, your academic writing skills, and your research abilities. To think critically involves 1) looking at an idea and figuring out how and why that idea is conveyed (rhetoric), 2) figuring out whether or not the idea makes sense (evaluation) in light of 3) examining other contexts and considerations (research). Critical thinking also involves coming up with your own arguments and counter- arguments.
In particular, this course aims to improve your writing, especially in the traditional academic essay format:
-- The introduction takes your reader from a general state of awareness to your particular subject. -- The thesis statement tells the reader exactly what you’ll be saying about your subject; it presents your overall argument in a condensed form.
3 -- The topic sentences show your reader how each subsidiary point you are making advances your overall argument. -- The conclusion highlights your overall point, and either completes any scenario you developed in your introduction or suggests further avenues of enquiry.
English 1130 also aims to improve your research abilities. Increasingly throughout the course, the quality of your research will be central to the arguments you make. In the first essay you’ll be looking at a primary source. In the second essay you’ll use a variety of primary and secondary sources. In the third essay you’ll find your own scholarly sources and use them to support your own original argument. You can document your sources in MLA or APA style.
MARKS
25% Essay # 1: Rhetorical analysis 30% Essay # 2: Evaluative analysis (in-class) 10% Two peer edits for research paper (in-class) 25% Essay # 3: Research paper 10% Participation
A+ = 95-100% = flawless or nearly flawless A = 90-94% = exceptional A- = 85-99% = excellent B+ = 80-84% = extremely good B = 75-79% = very good B- = 70-74% = good C+ = 65-69% = competent C = 60-65% = barely competent C- = 55-59% = flawed P = 50-54% = seriously flawed F = 0-49% = unacceptable, fail
Assignments and Essays
- There will be no re-writes or make-up assignments.
- Late essays will be docked 10% per day late. If you’re absent for an in-class essay you’ll receive 0%. Exceptions can be made in rare and documented circumstances.
- If you don’t show up for a peer edit, you’ll only be able to make up the assignment if you have a documented reason. Even then, you’ll get at best 50% of the mark. This is because the mark is mostly based on helping other students during the peer edit.
- Computer or printer problems won’t be accepted as valid reasons for missing or incomplete work. Always back up your latest copy. Since computers and printers can malfunction, complete your work at least a day in advance. Keep copies of earlier drafts.
4 - If you can’t physically hand me a paper when it’s due, put it in the LLPA assignment drop-box next to 2600. If you are sick (or an emergency prevents you from coming to class), send me the essay by email. You must also (at a later date) give me a hard copy that’s exactly the same as the emailed version. I’ll mark the hard copy. If the hard copy differs from the original, I’ll count the hard copy as late.
- Except in exceptional circumstances, I won’t mark emailed assignments or essays.
Participation and Attendance
The participation mark reflects the degree to which you’re prepared for class and the degree to which you engage in classroom discussion in a constructive manner.
TEXTING AND TALKING DURING LECTURES ARE SURE WAYS TO LOWER YOUR PARTICIPATION MARK.
Attendance is mandatory. For a three-hour class, I’ll dock 5% of your final course mark for the second and for subsequent undocumented absences. For a two-hour class I’ll dock 2.5% for the third and for subsequent undocumented absences.
If you don’t attend at least 70% of the class—for whatever reason—you can’t get credit for the course. You’ll receive a “UN” grade—an unofficial withdrawal.
If you have a job that conflicts with the class, get time-release commitments from your employer or drop the class. Don’t expect me to let you skip classes, come late, or leave early. If you repeatedly arrive late or leave early, you’ll be marked absent on those occasions.
After term ends I can give you mark breakdowns, and we can set up an appointment to discuss your mark, yet I won’t discuss your mark in detail over email.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Whenever you use a specific source for a marked assignment, you must document it. You don’t need to document what’s common knowledge (for example, that AIDS stands for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), but you must document any wording or information that has a specific source (for example, a specific statement made about AIDS, a statistic on infection rates, etc.). Using the work of another student, or collaborating on the details of a final draft (apart from the two peer edits), is considered plagiarism.
Plagiarism will result in a 0% for the paper, and may also result in additional measures decided by the College according to its Academic Dishonesty Policy—www.douglas college.ca/~/media/1B20B254925B41DD9F93C5B7CAF16700.ashx.
I suggest looking at EAA “Quoting, Paraphrasing, Summarizing” (388-400) and EAA “Giving Credit, Avoiding Plagiarism” (401-406). The College library has handouts on
5 citations, and their website has plenty of detailed information on citing and sourcing. The OWL site at Purdue University (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/) is also an excellent resource for MLA and APA documentation. It has a helpful section, “Using Research.”
Classroom Etiquette
While I want students to feel free to discuss almost anything in class, here are four rules to keep in mind:
1. Please put up your hand if you have a question or comment.
2. Try to be diplomatic when responding to the ideas of other students.
3. Electronic Devices
Don’t use cellphones, tablets, or computers during class (except when we’re looking at a text that’s in CF). Take notes by hand.
Please make phone calls in the hallway.
If you’re expecting an important call or message, or if you’re an emergency contact, please tell me about it before class. Students who need to use laptops to take notes must have a letter from the Centre for Students with Disabilities.
4. Side conversations
Please give your undivided attention while someone’s talking. Side conversations can be distracting to other students and are especially distracting to teachers. The occasional very brief comment to your neighbour is fine, but any sort of sustained conversation will lower your participation mark.
6 SCHEDULE
CF = Course file CP = Course pack EAA = Everyone’s An Author Readings in bold = read before class, and bring to class
WEEK 1
CF Introduction CF The Academic Essay CF Rhetoric
Optional Reading EAA “Preface” (vii-xvi) and “Introduction” (xxix-xxxiv) EAA From Part I (1-40) EAA “Chapters 26-9” (515-569) – note the following sections: “Tweets to Reports: Moving from Social Media to Academic Writing” (526) “Meeting the Demands of Academic Writing: ‘It’s Like Learning a New Language’” (538)
WEEK 2
CF “Continued Perplexities” (Twain, below)
Optional Reading EAA “Chapter 8: “Writing a Narrative” (101-121) EAA “Emotional, Ethical, and Logical Appeals (284-9)
How does Twain use metaphor in the first paragraph. How is metaphor developed in the rest of the essay? How do the second and third paragraphs mirror each other? How does the fourth paragraph conclude the essay?
In exploring a rhetorical strategy, feel free to include subsidiary strategies. If you can show how strategies overlap and reinforce each other, then you are getting closer to explaining the nature of writing, which is generally complex and integrated. In good writing, strategies tend to thread through a text in a seamless way. The trick is to show how these threads flow: to show where one colour contrasts with another, and to show how the threads create minor and major patterns. (What strategy did I just use to describe good writing?)
At some point in the first several weeks, practice writing a rhetorical analysis on Atwood’s use of comparison in CP “Canadians: What Do They Want?” Then compare your analysis with the sample essay, CF “The Bristling North.”
7 Continued Perplexities (From Life on the Mississippi, Mark Twain, 1883) The face of the water, in time, became a wonderful book—a book that was a dead language to the uneducated passenger, but which told its mind to me [a river pilot] without reserve, delivering its most cherished secrets as clearly as if it uttered them with a voice. And it was not a book to be read once and thrown aside, for it had a new story to tell every day. Throughout the long twelve hundred miles there was never a page that was void of interest, never one that you could leave unread without loss, never one that you would want to skip, thinking you could find higher enjoyment in some other thing. There never was so wonderful a book written by man; never one whose interest was so absorbing, so unflagging, so sparklingly renewed with every reperusal. The passenger who could not read it was charmed with a peculiar sort of faint dimple on its surface (on the rare occasions when he did not overlook it altogether); but to the pilot that was an italicized passage; indeed, it was more than that, it was a legend of the largest capitals, with a string of shouting exclamation points at the end of it; for it meant that a wreck or a rock was buried there that could tear the life out of the strongest vessel that ever floated. It is the faintest and simplest expression the water ever makes, and the most hideous to a pilot's eye. In truth, the passenger who could not read this book saw nothing but all manner of pretty pictures in it painted by the sun and shaded by the clouds, whereas to the trained eye these were not pictures at all, but the grimmest and most dead- earnest of reading-matter. Now when I had mastered the language of this water and had come to know every trifling feature that bordered the great river as familiarly as I knew the letters of the alphabet, I had made a valuable acquisition. But I had lost something, too. I had lost something which could never be restored to me while I lived. All the grace, the beauty, the poetry had gone out of the majestic river! I still keep in mind a certain wonderful sunset which I witnessed when steamboating was new to me. A broad expanse of the river was turned to blood; in the middle distance the red hue brightened into gold, through which a solitary log came floating, black and conspicuous; in one place a long, slanting mark lay sparkling upon the water; in another the surface was broken by boiling, tumbling rings, that were as many-tinted as an opal; where the ruddy flush was faintest, was a smooth spot that was covered with graceful circles and radiating lines, ever so delicately traced; the shore on our left was densely wooded, and the somber shadow that fell from this forest was broken in one place by a long, ruffled trail that shone like silver; and high above the forest wall a clean-stemmed dead tree waved a single leafy bough that glowed like a flame in the unobstructed splendor that was flowing from the sun.
8 There were graceful curves, reflected images, woody heights, soft distances; and over the whole scene, far and near, the dissolving lights drifted steadily, enriching it, every passing moment, with new marvels of coloring. I stood like one bewitched. I drank it in, in a speechless rapture. The world was new to me, and I had never seen anything like this at home. But as I have said, a day came when I began to cease from noting the glories and the charms which the moon and the sun and the twilight wrought upon the river's face; another day came when I ceased altogether to note them. Then, if that sunset scene had been repeated, I should have looked upon it without rapture, and should have commented upon it, inwardly, after this fashion: This sun means that we are going to have wind to-morrow; that floating log means that the river is rising, small thanks to it; that slanting mark on the water refers to a bluff reef which is going to kill somebody's steamboat one of these nights, if it keeps on stretching out like that; those tumbling 'boils' show a dissolving bar and a changing channel there; the lines and circles in the slick water over yonder are a warning that that troublesome place is shoaling up dangerously; that silver streak in the shadow of the forest is the 'break' from a new snag, and he has located himself in the very best place he could have found to fish for steamboats; that tall dead tree, with a single living branch, is not going to last long, and then how is a body ever going to get through this blind place at night without the friendly old landmark. No, the romance and the beauty were all gone from the river. All the value any feature of it had for me now was the amount of usefulness it could furnish toward compassing the safe piloting of a steamboat. Since those days, I have pitied doctors from my heart. What does the lovely flush in a beauty's cheek mean to a doctor but a 'break' that ripples above some deadly disease. Are not all her visible charms sown thick with what are to him the signs and symbols of hidden decay? Does he ever see her beauty at all, or doesn't he simply view her professionally, and comment upon her unwholesome condition all to himself? And doesn't he sometimes wonder whether he has gained most or lost most by learning his trade?
9
THINK AHEAD
There are not many required readings for the first five weeks. This gives you time to 1) write your first essay and 2) look ahead to your second and third essays.
Watch at least the first season of Mad Men. Get familiar with the characters and read Cox’s essay—the one you’ll be evaluating in Week 10. As you are watching, ask yourself, “Is she right?”
Your final paper on the Internet is not due till Week 14, but you need to start planning for it now. Take a good look at the topics and do some preliminary research. For instance, - start surfing for articles on cognition, - read a book on identity and the Web, - watch Don Jon or Men, Women, and Children and think about the effect of the Net on sexuality, women vs. men, family structure, marital structure, etc.
10 WEEK 3
CP “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” (Carr) ß In bold = bring to class
Take a look at the timeline below. What other things are important in the history of communication? What things does Carr refer to in the past, and how does he connect these to the present?
***** Draw a timeline for Carr’s essay. Beneath it, explain in a thesis statement how he uses historical references and metaphors to make his point. *****
100,000 BC 40,000 BC 10,000 BC P R E H I S T O R Y NEOLITHIC REVOLUTION cave cities, trade, laws, religion, literature, art, etc. SPEECH & LANGUAGE drawing NUMBERS & SCRIPTS
A N C I E N T à C L A S S I C A L à M E D I E V A L Stone à Bronze Age à Iron Age 4000 3000 2000 1000 BC 0 1000 AD Cuneiform script Phoenician ‘wedge-shaped’ marks on tablets alphabet è Greek à Roman (used for English) Sumer / Akkad / Babylon / Assyria ê Aramaic à Hebrew, Arabic, etc. Egypt - hieratic - hieroglyphic China: characters paper à west to Europe - papyrus, parchment Sumer - 3000 BC Analysis of Sanskrit 450 BC (Panini) Universities letter punch Rhetoric 4th C. BC (Aristotle) - Bologna ß number systems (base 10 and 60) - Al-Azhar - Sorbonne ê (Cairo) - Oxford woodblock printing 3rd C BC China moveable type China 11 C geometry metal type Korea 13 C algebra: Babylon, Middle East, Greece, India, etc. India: zero, decimal system
MODERN Renaissance; Rise of Science; Age of Reason; Industrial Revolution
1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 calculus photography screens PCs tablets film, TV, Video Gutenberg telescope computer and digital coding, INTERNET PRINTING microscope electricity telegraphy satellite PRESS radio microchip Transportation: ß walking, running wireless transistor ß horse, chariot, wagon train car phone: cell, smart ß ship plane space vehicles
11 WEEK 4
In class we’ll analyze clips and sight texts. Reminder: There are not many required readings for the first five weeks. This gives you time to 1) write your first essay and 2) look ahead to your second and third essays.
WEEK 5
I’ll collect your papers at the start of the library visit, which is in the instructional room on the left as you enter the library. Meet back in the regular classroom at 8:00 PM.
Rhetorical analysis due (25%): write a rhetorical analysis on one of the following:
Suicide Squad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3OZ0eOTLTU The Lunchbox https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJIGJtb_N7E The Social Network https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB95KLmpLR4 Don Jon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcGO_oAahV8 Men, Women, and Children “international trailer” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS7uc8OF6Rs and/or “trailer 1” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5aKdBxlmIc Edward Snowden Citizen Four (documentary) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiGwAvd5mvM and/or Snowden (film) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMCgjrq1Ohk
For Men, Women, and Children and the two Snowden pieces, you can write on one or you can compare two.
The essay must be typed, double-spaced, and be no more than 600 words.
- Don’t use a cover page or folder. Simply put your full name in the top right hand corner of all pages (i.e. Roger Clark – 4) and staple the pages together. - See CF The Academic Essay for details on essay structure, content, etc. - Highlight argument and analysis; avoid summary, observation, and repetition. - Provide a word count, below and to the right of your conclusion. Essays longer than 700 words will be marked down.
You don’t need to cite the trailers. You're not required to use other sources (articles, books, etc.), yet if you do, cite them according to MLA or APA format. For bibliographical information and format, see EAA 407-462 or 463-510 or Purdue University’s interactive “Formatting and Style Guide”—on the right hand side of the page at http://owl.english.purdue.edu/.
After the library visit, we’ll begin the evaluation and research part of the course. You're not required to read anything specific for this part of the class, yet please bring CF.
12 WEEK 6
CP “Attenborough’s Gandhi” (Rushdie) (read once) CP “Attenborough’s Gandhi” (Hay) (read once) CP “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” (Carr) (read twice)
CF Evaluative Analysis and Research CP “Defending Against the Indefensible” (Postman)
Rushdie. How does Rushdie attack Gandhi by using a political theory that's critical of Britain and the West? Is his stance effective? To what degree is his effectiveness dependent on his audience? Hay. How does Hay praise Gandhi by using a legal interpretation? Does he see Britain in the same light as Rushdie? Is Hay’s stance effective? To what degree is his effectiveness dependent on his audience? Rushdie and Hay. What counter-arguments do Rushdie and Carr use? How are their primary arguments affected by counter-argument? What sort of viewing or reading would you need to do in order to fully evaluate the arguments of Rushdie and Hay? Who do you think makes a better argument? Why?
Carr. Do you find Carr convincing? Why or why not? What do you think he should have included? What should he have avoided? Evaluate Carr in light of CF “16 Evaluative Categories,” CF “Weak and Strong Argument,” and CP “Defending Against the Indefensible.” Can you advance a new perspective or interpretation that supports or counters Carr’s argument? You might start by 1) looking at his historical timeline, and 2) thinking of an alternate timeline.
Evaluation = 1) Primary Text + 2) Context
1. You can evaluate an argument by limiting yourself to the primary text. In this case, you evaluate an argument strictly on its own merits, by looking at such things as internal logic, tone, or metaphors. This strategy by itself is not recommended. It is, however, very effective when combined with strategy #2.
2. You can also evaluate an argument by using a contextual strategy, that is, by comparing the argument with other sources, ideas, arguments, or theories.
Evaluating an argument only on its own merits has limitations. Even if you successfully show that an argument is strong or weak, you still haven’t shown whether or not there are better or worse arguments. You haven’t supplied your reader with a sense of how good it is in the context of the larger debate about the topic. It is preferable to combine 1) dealing with the primary text with 2) examining outside factors, arguments, and contexts.
The best evaluations go a bit further: they create an integrated framework, interpretation, or theory to explain the success or failure of the original argument. This isn't as difficult as it sounds. For the Cox evaluation, you’ll already be using a
13 secondary source: the TV series itself. For an even wider perspective, try bringing an idea or theory from Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, Biology, History, Gender Studies, or Media Studies. Under Week 7 below, I've listed two cases in which argument is strengthened by using a contextual strategy, that is, by developing a larger framework.
There's no exact ratio about how much emphasis you should put on the primary text and how much emphasis you should put on secondary sources and contexts. This will depend on how solid the primary arguments are and on how pressing the outside contexts are.
REMINDER: At this point in the term you should have already watched five or six episodes of Mad Men. I've put several seasons on reserve, and Netflix has all seven seasons. For essay #2 you need to watch at least the first season—but preferably the first two seasons. The library has a large number of books on Mad Men, such as Analyzing Mad Men: Critical Essays on the Television Series, Mad Men: Dream Come True TV, Mad Men, Mad World: Sex, Politics, Style, and The 1960s, Lucky Strikes and a Three Martini Lunch: Thinking About Television's Mad Men.
WEEK 7
CP “The Culture of Violence” (Miedzian) CP “Canadians: What Do They Want?” (Atwood) CF Appendix: Excerpt from “Serializing the Past” (Miggelbrink)
Optional Reading EAA Argument 57-88; 269-304; Analysis 137-144, 160-169; Information 182-199
How effective are the following contextual strategies? ---- In “Army Boots and Romans” I argue that Atwood’s argument is flawed in its own terms (her sexist vision of men and army boots) and in terms of her simplistic placement of Canada in relation to empire. I argue that Canada is less like Roman Gaul than Transalpine Gaul, and that any argument about Canadian attitudes toward empire must take into account the British Empire. Look again at the rhetorical analysis, CF “The Bristling North,” and notice how it differs from “Army Boots and Romans.” ---- In “Serializing the Past,” Miggelbrink praises Mad Men by advancing a theory about narrative complexity. The article is an excellent introduction to complex TV narratives and to the recent wave of TV serials—The Sopranos, Deadwood, Breaking Bad, Boss, Homeland, Boardwalk Empire, Game of Thrones, Magic City, Rectify, The Americans, etc. Try to keep in mind the narrative arcs and larger themes in Mad Men, and make sure your points and arguments take them into account. You don’t want to make an argument about one aspect of the show that is contradicted by another.
14 Note that for essays # 2 and # 3 you must use outside sources and you must document these according to APA or MLA conventions. Purdue University’s Online Writing Lab—at http://owl.english.purdue.edu/—has detailed, recent information on documentation. I strongly suggest familiarizing yourself with documentation format immediately, so that you’ll be sure to collect the necessary type of information as you go along.
WEEKS 8-9
“Stillbirth of the American Dream” (Havrilesky, in CF Appendix or EAA 170)
I suggest answering the following questions before looking at my arguments about inclusion and complexity in Mad Men. Is Havrilesky’s definition of the American Dream accurate? What other definition might not work so well for her? How scholarly is her article, compared to the articles of Migglebrink and Cox? What proof from the show does Havrilesky use? What proof from the show might she have used? Keeping in mind Migglebrink’s idea about story arcs, which arcs does Havrilesky include and which does she leave out? What type of context could you use to evaluate Havrilesky’s argument?
In Week 7 we looked briefly at Migglebrink's argument about history and complexity in Mad Men. In Weeks 8-9 we’ll look in more detail at Havrilesky and Cox' arguments in terms of inclusion and complexity.
Inclusion. I’ll start by arguing that Havrilesky’s definition of the American Dream is too limited. Omitting the Dream’s ideal of inclusion, she ignores one of the show’s main strategies—to create sympathy and anger by dramatizing exclusion. These emotions move the audience to desire inclusion, especially for women (Peggy, Betty, Joan, Rachel, etc.), gays (Salvatore), African-Americans (Sheila, Dawn, Hollis, etc.), and Jewish-Americans (principally Rachel).
The Mad Martini Show Bill
Migglebrink, Media and Personalized History:
1. "Meditations in an Emergency" (S2 E13: 13:00-21:00) 2. “Babylon” (S1 E6: 19:30-47) www.123rf.com www.dreamstime.com
One part historical context Havrilesky and the American Dream--with Two parts emotional drama references to Cox and Feminism: Dash of angostura bitters 1. "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes"(S1 E1: 22-49) Mix logos and pathos in shaker, 2. "The Wheel" (S1 E13: 31:00-41:00) add ice and a dash of bitterness. 3. "The Gold Violin" (S2 E7: 24:30-47:00) Shake and pour into a cold martini glass.
15
For some, Mad Men’s dramatization of prejudice and exclusion may be painful. Yet the guiding logic of the American Dream is that the nation moves toward the ideal, which is after all a dream or hope. Those bothered by the re-enactment of exclusion might note that exclusion is no longer so severe or entrenched. Others might get from the show a better understanding—perhaps even an emotional understanding of the bitter experience of women, gays, African-Americans, Jewish-Americans, etc. By dramatizing ways in which the Dream has been deferred, the series helps viewers to understand the historical moment. Viewers get an in-depth, personalized view of the 1960s, a decade lying between our present decade and the first decade of the 20th Century—a time when women could not vote, when gay rights were not even near the table, when the Harlem Renaissance had not yet begun, and when the Holocaust was not yet a dark dream in the mind of Hitler.
In 1951 Langston Hughes wrote "Harlem," a poem about the dream most famously articulated earlier in Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (1863) and later in Martin Luther King's speech, "I Have a Dream" (1963):
What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun? Or fester like a sore— and then run? Does it stink like rotten meat? Or crust and sugar over—like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?
Complexity. I’ll also argue that Havrilesky misreads the complexity of Mad Men. Focusing on the superficial aspects of the show, she misses the psychological depths and nuances of the characters, as well as the type of sociological and historical complexity Migglebrink explores in “Serializing the Past.” Havrilesky argues that the show reflects a 'stillbirth,' that is, a death of the Dream before it has even been born. Yet she leaves out the history of the Dream, and ignores the idea of inclusion. She also fails to look deeply at the complexity of the characters, who are in the process of supporting or tearing down the barriers that keep American society from realizing its collective Dream.
In your essay on Cox you must evaluate Cox in light of Mad Men episodes, and you must flesh out your argument by referring to scholars such as Migglebrink. You can
16 elaborate my argument about inclusion and complexity, or you can come up with your own evaluative context.
WEEK 10
In-class evaluative essay (30%) of “So Much Woman” (Cox, in CF Appendix). You’ll have three hours to write the essay. You can write on the author’s overall argument or on a part of it. If you write on a part of it, establish in your introduction why the part you chose is crucial to the success or failure of the author’s overall argument.
You MUST bring in a typed bibliography and a typed 200-300-word outline. You may also bring in 100-150 words of quotes. Provide a word count for the outline and quotes. You can have the quotes on a separate sheet of paper or you can insert them into your outline. In the latter case, highlight your quotes (or use a clearly different font) so that I can see them easily. You can use complete sentences in your thesis statement and topic sentences, but you must use point form for the bulleted points.
You can’t use your computer, and should therefore bring in a hard copy of the article. There can be no writing on the hard copy, although you can underline and highlight as much as you want (I suggest colour-coded highlighting).
You MUST use at least - Three specific references to Cox - Three specific references to episodes of Mad Men. You’ll need to show a clear understanding of the first season. You’ll probably make better arguments if you watch at least the first two seasons. - Three specific references to scholarly sources (which can include Migglebrink, but not Havrilesky)
You don’t need to give bibliographical information for Mad Men references, yet make sure to supply the season and episode—use the following format: (“Babylon,” S1 E3) or “Babylon” (S1 E6). Make sure to cite primary and secondary sources according to MLA or APA.
There is no word limit for this essay. The average paper is about 800 words. Those who have grammatical problems should write less and proofread more. Excellent papers tend to contain detailed analysis and tend to be longer. Don’t, however, pad your paper or repeat yourself—this will just lower your mark.
In evaluating Cox, remember to answer these questions: What does Cox argue, and where does she argue it? Why—or why not—is her argument convincing? What outside context supports your evaluation? This context must take the form of at least three examples from Mad Men and at least three scholarly references—to articles or studies of Mad Men or scholarly sources from Gender Studies, Psychology, Sociology, History, etc.
17
WEEK 11
CP “The Juggler’s Brain” (Carr) CP “Back to the Future” (Greenfield)
Carr does the following things well:
– He makes a clear argument about a topic on which one can have different views. – He writes clearly, directly, and energetically. – He integrates scholarly sources, and documents these appropriately.
There are, however, some problems with Carr’s text. While he brings in opposing arguments, sometimes he downplays their authority. He also uses metaphor to push our thinking in a certain direction. Is this helpful to his argument, or do you find it manipulative? You may want to take another look at CP “Defending Against the Indefensible,” in which Postman argues that metaphor can shape our thinking, even without our realizing it.
Do you agree with Greenfield’s argument in “Back to the Future”?
WEEK 12
Peer edit of a 300-word minimum, typed outline of your research paper (5%). - Your outline can be longer if you like. Put in bold your thesis statement and your topic sentences. - The outline must be in the proper form, as in the full outline samples on Lord of War and Gandhi. - See Week 14 below for the research paper topics and instructions.
WEEK 13
Peer edit (5%) of a draft of at least 700 words (typed, hard-copy). - Put the thesis statement and the topic sentences in bold. You don’t need to have an introduction or conclusion at this point. - You must also bring in two scholarly sources. These must be hard copy and a minimum of six pages each. They must be clearly relevant to your thesis, yet they don’t necessarily have to be Internet-derived; they could be books, print journals, studies, etc. If you bring in a book, you don’t need to bring in copies of the pages. You can also bring in Internet sources that are not journals but are authoritative and documented.
18 WEEK 14
Research essay (25%), 1000-1200 words in length, due 9:00 PM Wednesday August 3.
- On Tuesday and Wednesday of Week 14 I’ll be in my office (2806E) from 6:30 to 9:20 PM. I suggest coming well before 9:00 PM on Wednesday, just in case you need to make last-minute adjustments. - You can also leave your paper in the LLPA Drop Box by Wednesday 9:00 PM. If you use the drop-box, make sure to put the two separate copies in an envelope and write “ROGER CLARK” very clearly on the front. - There is a strict 1200 word maximum. Put a word count after the text and before the bibliography (References or Works Cited). The topic, title, and bibliography are not included in the word count. -- At the top of the first page, just before the title, write the essay topic in full (the topic and title are not included in your word count). Put your full name on the top right hand corner of all pages, before the page number—i.e. Roger Clark -- 3. -- Don’t use a cover page, and don’t put your paper in a folder (unless, of course, you are putting it in the assignment drop-box); merely staple the pages together. Include a self- addressed stamped envelope if you want your paper mailed back to you (and be sure to affix sufficient postage). Or, you can pick up your paper in a subsequent term. -- If you use pictures, photos, maps, charts, etc., provide sources. You can indicate these in an abbreviated manner below the items.
You must hand in TWO COPIES of the paper. (I ask for two copies in order to check for plagiarism from subsequent papers.) 1. The first copy includes the essay and the bibliography. 2. The second copy includes the essay, the bibliography, and hard copies of every page you cite. For the hard copy source pages: -- Include ONLY the pages you cite; don’t include entire articles or chapters. -- Highlight, underline, or otherwise clearly indicate the precise location of your quote or reference on the hard copy page. -- Give the source at the top of the page as in the body of the paper—i.e. (Smith 23).
Focus Your Topic
Remember that you must narrow the focus of the topic. For instance, you can’t possibly write a 1200-word essay on the Net’s effect on literacy in general. There are far too many types of literacy, and too many groups of people to consider. You could, however, make an argument about literacy among elementary school students in North America or university students in China. Unless indicated otherwise, you can write about any location, people, or group in the world. One way to make an interesting argument is to compare the effect of the Net in two places, in different age groups, in different genders, etc.
19
Compare Net to Previous Media
Implicit in every question is a comparison with pre-Net media. The topics require you to reference the effect of pre-Net culture (books, magazines, radio, telephones, TV, video games, films, etc.) and then focus most of your argument on the effect of the Net. After every topic, simply add the question, How does this differ from watching TV and films, listening to the radio, playing video games, reading newspapers, magazines, books, etc.?
Make a Final Judgment
The topics require you to make a final judgment on the overall effect of the Net. Avoid merely listing instances of positive and negative effects. Instead, compare these effects and conclude what the overall effect is on your target group.
Avoid the Obvious
Everyone knows that the Net supplies easier access to information, more information, and more points of view than previous media, yet the question here is, How is a given population (or given populations) affected in a specific area by the diverse information and points of view offered by the interactive, amorphous medium of the Web? How is the medium changing the way we think, feel, behave, interact, etc.?
Consider Contrary Arguments and Take a Stand
The main differences between the evaluation and research essays are that the research essay requires 1) a more rigorous use of peer-reviewed sources, 2) a stronger consideration of counter-arguments, and 3) an original argument of your own.
Remember to present an argument, rather than a summary or a series of observations. In order to make sure that you have an argument, you must either 1) analyze something that is not obvious to an educated reader, or 2) enter a debate in which there is more than one side. If there is a strong counter- argument, then you know that you have an argument.
Remember not to merely list points, and not to merely list pros and cons. If you are merely explaining a situation or process, then you are writing an exposition paper, not an argument paper. If you are merely listing pros and cons, then you are not arguing that one side is more important or significant than another. Remember to weigh the issue, to take a stand, and to show evidence of original thought.
Sources
Subordinate research to your argument. Don’t catalogue or parade the research of others so that it makes your argument for you. Rather, use the research of others to back up
20 and give context to your own argument. Make sure that your thesis, and your analysis and judgment, constitute the core of the paper.
In general, refer to sources about eight to ten times in the body of your essay. The exact number depends on the depth and completeness of the references.
In general, you should be taking into serious consideration, and quoting from, the equivalent of four or five ten-page academic articles. There is no fixed number of sources you should use; the number depends on their depth and length, and on the extent you make use of them. For instance, a book with in-depth coverage may be more helpful to your argument than several articles. Yet be careful not to use only one book written by a single author (such as Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows); compare the author’s point of view with the ideas of other authors. You need to come up with your own argument, and this may not be easy if you are overly influenced by one author or by one point of view.
Structure
You can structure your paper the way you want, yet feel free to use the following: 1. Introduction: explain the effect of media on your target group in the past (before the Net); end with a thesis statement that presents an argument about the nature of recent changes taking place. 2. Body: argue how the Net affects your target group in the present. 3. Conclusion: suggest possible changes the future may hold, based on past and present trends. Or, return to your opening scenario and present a final statement or insight about the nature of the change between past and present.
TOPICS
In the past, students have had difficulty making good arguments about cellphones, texting, and Facebook. You can refer to cell phones or texting in your arguments, yet don’t make them the focus of your argument. The exact mode of accessing the Net (computer, tablet, phone, etc.) is not as important here as what happens when on the Net.
Cognition and Knowledge
Is the Net changing the way we think in a radical or fundamental way? How does accessing many points of view in rapid succession affect cognition—that is, the way we process sensory experience and ideas? Is the Net overwhelming us with information and points of view, or is it helping us make coherent, constructive patterns? Is it better to read print media or use the Net if one wants to understand a topic deeply? What impact is 1) Google, 2) Wikipedia, or 3) the Internet in general having on our ability to think for ourselves or to successfully navigate a variety of perspectives? Take one of Carr’s main claims (in “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” or “The Juggler’s Brain”) and argue whether or not he is right. How is the shift from print and TV news to online news affecting coverage or quality?
21 Is the Net increasing literacy? (You can look at reading or cultural literacy).
Identity
How is the Net affecting the process of individuation? Is the Net increasing or decreasing emotional maturity? How is the Net affecting the relation of peer groups to individuals? Is the Net destroying identity or invigorating it? You can look at individual, cultural, political, or national identity. Individual identity could include sexuality, spirituality, career, peer groups, etc.; cultural identity could include ethnicity, language, religion, customs, sub-cultures, etc.
Sexuality & Relationships
Is Internet addiction more damaging than television addiction? Is the Net increasing the ratio of sex to romance, or of sex to commitment? Is the Net increasing the divide between the way men and women see or judge sexuality? Is the scenario in the film Don Jon (2013) a realistic one? Will porn addicts eventually realize that direct sexual experience (with real partners) is better than indirect sexual experience (on the Net)? Is Internet porn more damaging to body image and expectations than offline porn? As compared to for-profit sites, how do personalized, non-profit sites affect body image or sexual expectations?
Marriage & Family
Is the Web to blame for decreased interest in marital commitment (as some argue is the case in Japan)? Is the Net helping, redefining, or harming traditional notions of trust or fidelity? Is the Net helping, redefining, or harming communication between parents, between parents and children, between siblings, or between grandparents and grandchildren? Is the Internet creating a generational gap in North America that is more serious than that of the 1960s? Or is Greenfield right in “Back to the Future”? How is the Net affecting the balance between what an individual wants and what family and culture want for that individual? Is the film Disconnect (2012) or Men, Women & Children (2015) an accurate depiction of the negative effect of the Net? Take an angle that one of the films explores (adolescent sexuality, peer pressure, bullying, sexual exploitation, family dynamics, criminality, freedom of information, etc.) and argue whether or not the film is an accurate reflection of the effect of the Net.
Society & Censorship
Is the Net increasing impatience, selfishness, or self-centredness? Is the Net increasing crime, extremism, or terrorism?
22 In the Fourteenth Century, Chaucer argued that one should "turn the page" if one is offended by what one considers immoral content. How successful or damaging to morality is the Net’s personally-driven version of censorship? Does Wikileaks increase the well-being of society? Does the philosophy behind it, and the precedent it sets, increase freedom and/or justice?
The Dark Web
Using the documentary Deep Web (2015) either as a starting point or more extensively, advance an argument on the effect of the Dark Web or sites like Silk Road. You may want to answer one or more of the following questions. What is the effect of the Dark Web on privacy rights vs. crime investigation? What is the effect of the Dark Web on the 4th Amendment? Are conservative forces demonizing the dark web? Is a perpetual Dread Pirate Roberts unstoppable? Does Silk Road do what it claims -- reduce drug harm (and not just of the street crime type)? What is the effect of the Dark Web and sites like Silk Road on the war on the War on Drugs? Is it possible -- now, not in the future -- to stop deep drug dealing? Will the cats (DEA, etc.) get well-fed while the mice win?
Global Issues
Is the Net increasing international crime, extremism, or terrorism? Lord of War (2005) depicts the small arms world of the 1980s and early 1990s. How has the Internet affected the world of small arms dealing? Is the Net improving our understanding of foreign cultures, or is it creating more stereotypes and prejudices? Using Gandhi (1982), The Jewel in the Crown, (1984), or more recent films like Salaam Bombay (1988), Slumdog Millionaire (2008), or Filmistaan (2012), compare the role of traditional media to the Internet in the Indian subcontinent. For instance, you could focus on the way the India/Pakistan divide is explored in Filmistaan and then explore how this divide is affected by the Net? Atwood wrote “Canadians: What Do They Want?” in 1982. Responding to one of her concerns or arguments, advance an argument about how the Net has altered Canadian perceptions of the US. Is the Internet accelerating Americanization?
Your Own Topic
You can come up with your own topic, yet you must clear it with me in person at least one week before the outline peer edit. If you think of a topic early on in the course, talk to me about it. If you present it to me only one week before the outline peer edit, I strongly suggest you present it to me in outline form. I won’t accept topics emailed to me. There are several reasons for this. I may get deluged with topics, and in this case I may not have time to respond adequately. Also, I may want to discuss the topic with you in detail. This requires alot of back and forth discussion, which can take too long by email.
23
THE ACADEMIC ESSAY
Websites
The following sites contain information on writing essays and documenting sources. Also see EAA Chapters 26-9 (515-569).
Purdue University and the International Writing Centers Association have lists of writing resources available on the Net: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/internet/owls/writing-labs.html
Purdue’s OWL is an excellent site, and includes PowerPoint presentations: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/
The University of Richmond has a very extensive and user-friendly site, which covers a wide range of topics, including writing in other disciplines: http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb.html
St. Cloud State University has an excellent site, which tends to use graphics helpful to visual learners: http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/catalogue.html
The University of Wisconsin at Madison has an excellent handbook: http://www.wisc.edu/writing/Handbook/index.html
ESSAY STRUCTURE
The parts of an essay can be seen as parallel (//) to the parts of a Reese’s peanut butter cup:
- Outside wrapper // Title - Tray // Thesis statement: gives overall shape or structure to the contents - Paper wrappers // Topic sentences: define the shape or structure of each part - Chocolate pieces // Paragraph content: what you bite into and digest
Remember that while Reese’s peanut butter cups come in threes, you can also buy the large size, which has four cups. Topics can be divided in two, three, four, or any number of parts. The ‘three-paragraph essay’ is an easy way to talk about essay structure, yet you don’t have to bend your ideas to fit into this structure.
Title
Generally, the last thing to decide on is the title, as it often comes from the most insightful argument, angle, scenario, or analogy you come up with. Working titles, however, are a good idea, as they help to focus your thinking.
24 Try to find a title that is creative, thought provoking, humorous, sums up your argument, or points your readers in the direction you want them to think.
Introduction
Once you figure out your argument, you should find an interesting way of introducing your subject—that is, of taking your reader from the world around us to the specific focus of your topic. In your introduction, you want to do the following:
-- Introduce the main elements of your subject. -- Grab the reader’s attention. Find a challenging, provocative, informative, imaginative or intriguing way of moving into your topic. You should also think about how you’ll return to your opening in your conclusion. -- Make sure your argument is clearly stated in your thesis statement, which should be placed at the end of your introductory paragraph. -- The thesis statement should be detailed and should show the relation between strategies. Instead of writing, “the author uses pathos and examples,” write “the author appeals to pathos to motivate us through guilt, and then gives examples of behaviour that can prevent guilt.” -- Put your thesis statement in the second paragraph only if your first paragraph develops a context or analogy which is more effective without a thesis statement tacked on at the end.
There are at least three ways of doing an introduction:
1) You can start with an overview of the aims and strategies of the essay. This way tends to be drier, yet is very consistent with the analysis that follows it.
2) A more interesting method is to start, as in “Turning the Tables,” with a historical context. Or, you could start with a situation, quote, or theory from politics, sociology, law, medicine, statistics, psychology, science, etc.
3) You could come up with a more casual way to start your essay. You could use a personal situation, movie or TV reference, analogy, popular theory, misconception, etc. This tends to be more interesting for general readers, yet is sometimes more difficult to integrate into the analysis that follows.
Often you’ll write your introduction after you have figured out your thesis statement and main points. This way, you can pick the type of introduction that works best with the final shape of your argument.
25 Body
Start each paragraph with a topic sentence that clearly connects to your thesis statement. The reader shouldn’t have to guess the relation of a topic sentence to the thesis statement. It is often helpful to use in a topic sentence the same word or phrase (or a variant of the word or phrase) that you use in the thesis statement.
-- Don’t link paragraphs using the last sentence of the paragraph. Use the topic sentence to make that link—as in “Another example of ____,” or “Such ____ [use a word or phrase which sums up the last paragraph] stands in opposition to ____.” -- Give the details of your argument in each paragraph. -- Your argument must contain proof in the form of logical arguments, textual references, illustrative examples, etc. -- Your argument must be rigorous. It must be a product of analytical thought, that is, of a process which has taken the components of the subject apart, analyzed them, and then configured them into a new, distanced, critical understanding. -- Underline or italicize books, magazines, journals, films, plays, TV shows, and albums. -- Use quotation marks for essays, articles, short stories, chapters, TV episodes, and songs. -- Avoid long quotes. If you use a long quote, make sure to explain the key elements in it. -- Offset quotes of more than two lines. Indent, single space, and omit quotation marks. -- Integrate shorter quotes into your sentence structure. The use of short quotes (as opposed to long quotes) is the most efficient and readable way to prove your point. Short quotations by nature integrate tightly into the contours of your argument and thinking; the reader does not have to go from your point, to a long quote where they have to make the link to your point, and then back to your point. Using short quotes you make your point and prove it side by side, thus allowing your reader to get connections more quickly and move on to your next point. -- Use / to show the end of a poetry line, as in “across the water / With his galleons and guns.” -- Don’t directly address your audience, and avoid commenting on your own writing. -- You may use contractions, but not slang. Avoid big words when small words will do.
26 -- Don’t worry about repeating a term or word. Often it confuses your reader if you switch terms. In academic writing (as opposed to literary writing), content is more important than style. -- Write in a direct and formal manner. This does not mean, however, that you have to be dry or boring. Spice up your writing with well-chosen words and phrases. For take-home papers, add photos, pictures, or coloured graphs and charts to liven up the presentation of your ideas. -- If you are a very good writer you can write in a slightly more creative manner. If the instructor can’t understand your creative moments then you are probably not communicating in an academically effective manner. Consult the instructor before trying a style that is unconventional. -- Avoid choppy sentences; link complete thoughts with conjunctions and subordination. -- Don’t use point form in essays for English courses, except in outlines. (Point form may be fine in other disciplines). All English essays must be in sentences and paragraphs—unless you are labeling a chart, photo, etc. -- Vary your sentence length. -- Don’t use contractions. -- It is often easier to use they than he or she; avoid he/she or s/he. -- Use italics and exclamations marks for emphasis, but not too often. -- Try to write simply and directly. Avoid jargon.
Conclusion
-- Quickly summarize your argument, highlighting your most striking points. -- End by suggesting a further direction or asking a provocative question. Make your reader think about what you have argued. Don’t simply restate your introduction or your main ideas. -- In order to lend unity to your essay, you can also return to your opening by advancing or commenting on your initial position.
Argument: Avoiding Summary and Observation
The biggest problem that students encounter is that they summarize or make observations when they should be making arguments. If you are repeating the content of a text, or if you are pointing out something that is obvious to an educated reader, then you are not making an argument. For this reason I have highlighted this distinction throughout this course file.
27 RHETORIC
A Working Definition of Rhetoric
Rhetoric can mean empty or manipulative words, as in “Oh, that’s just rhetoric; he’s saying he’ll provide free tuition because he wants to get elected.” Or, rhetoric can refer to an assertion in the form of a question, as in the following rhetorical question: “Do you really want to crash your car into that guardrail while arguing with your girlfriend on your cellphone?” Rhetoric also refers to the way people use language to influence, persuade, or communicate with other people. This is the sense in which we’ll be using the word.
In Rhetoric, the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) defines his subject as the art of “discovering all the available means of persuasion in any given case.” This definition can be applied to fiction and non-fiction: in Wayne Booth’s Rhetoric of Fiction (1961) he writes about “the rhetorical resources available to the writer of epic, novel, or short story as he tries, consciously or unconsciously, to impose his fictional world upon the reader.” It can also be applied to text and other media, such as film and documentary. For our purposes, rhetoric means the manner in which writers (or directors) try to make their audiences see, think, or believe something.
Note: we study rhetoric for two reasons: 1) to understand the communication of others, and 2) to make our own communication as effective as possible. A good instance of the application of rhetorical analysis to one’s own writing can be found in EAA 14-16.
Analyzing Form Rather Than Repeating Content
The point a writer makes is not the rhetorical strategy. If you re-state the point in depth, you are paraphrasing or summarizing the content. If you show how the point is made, that is, if you explain the form in which it is delivered, then you are analyzing rhetoric.
WRONG FOCUS: Summary of content
The writer shows how violent conflict in gender relationships comes from conflicting assumptions that escalate into violence.
RIGHT FOCUS: Rhetorical analysis of form
The writer starts with an analogy, likening our interaction with the other sex to a walk through a minefield. He then expands on this analogy, using examples of conflict situations that blow up into full-out war.
You shouldn’t simply explain where and that certain strategies are used. Your job is to examine how and why they are used.
28 The following merely observes where strategies are located:
In the first paragraph Harper uses a conceit comparing a heroine dealer to a vampire. In the second paragraph she uses cause and effect …
The following tells where strategies are and explains why and how they are used:
In the opening paragraph Harper grabs the reader’s attention by comparing a drug dealer to a vampire. She implies that a dealer keeps an addict alive so that the dealer can drain the addict of his life-blood, his will to be independent and healthy. In the process, the dealer turns the addict into a dark vampire-figure, who, like himself, operates outside the norms of society. Harper then switches from this pop culture vampire comparison to a more down-to-earth instance of cause and effect, which appeals more to the rational side of the reader. …
Think Like a Lawyer
In analyzing rhetorical strategy, try not to get bothered by the idea that there is only one strategy and that you may have picked the wrong one. Rather, pick the strategy that seems most important to you, and then show how it works throughout the text (or other media). Rhetorical analysis is not like doing a math equation or a science experiment; it is more like making a legal argument, one that aims at the most convincing case. Try to think less like a lab scientist with a specific methodology to follow, and more like a lawyer with a variety of strategies to choose from. Each lawyer will emphasize different aspects of the situation and will play to his or her own perceptual, interpretive, and rhetorical skills.
This does not mean, however, that you can make any argument you want. Just as a lawyer has to keep in mind the basic facts of a case (the police report, the time line of the crime, etc.), so you need to take into account the basic rhetorical situation—for instance, the simplicity or complexity of the communication, the tone, the historical context, etc. You don’t want to make an argument that leaves out or contradicts key aspects. Again, you are trying to make the most convincing case you can.
Block and Splice Approaches
There are two main methods of approaching a text in terms of its arrangement on the page. The first is the block method, where you deal sequentially with the text—block by block, or section by section (making sure to highlight the relation between the blocks). The other is the slice method, where you analyze one aspect (or slice) as it appears throughout the text, and then relate this to another aspect (or slice) as it appears throughout the text. These two methods can be used to analyze many things—texts, films, parties, etc. In audio-visual media, blocks are usually blocks of time. The following sees a hockey game in terms of block and splice approaches.
29 In examining a hockey game, you start off with the overall structure or facts of the case: three periods of twenty minutes, plus goals scored. So far this is an observation. To analyze a game rigorously, you need to go into how the teams played, how the coaching strategies worked, etc.
In a block analysis you examine how the teams played in each period, how the play changed from one period to the next, and what was the overall pattern of play:
Essay Period Analysis Paragraph 1 1 Goals, strengths, weaknesses, offense and defense, strategy, etc. 2 2 Goals, etc., plus how play compared to 1st period 3 3 Goals, etc., plus how play compared to 1st and 2nd periods
In a splice analysis, you compare different aspects—such as goalie and defense performance—throughout the game:
Essay Period Analysis Paragraph 1 1-3 Goalie performance throughout game 2 1-3 Defense performance throughout game 3 1-3 Relation of goalie performance to defense performance
3 RHETORICAL AIMS
Traditionally, people refer to three aims or purposes in writing:
1. Argument: to argue a particular case or point; to persuade; e.g. an editorial in a newspaper or magazine; an M.A. or Ph.D. thesis; most post-secondary essays 2. Exposition: to explain, inform, or educate; e.g. a news article, memo, bulletin, newsletter, textbook, or manual 3. Expression: to explore and to provoke thought and feeling; this can be creative or personal, and includes narrative; often a writer tries to make you see into a situation by showing what it is like experiencing it; e.g. an interview in a newspaper, a poem, short story, play, film, or novel
16 RHETORICAL CATEGORIES
There are countless ways of categorizing strategies that are used to advance the three aims of (argument, exposition, and expression). You could even say that rhetoric is as complex as verbal thought and psychological motive combined.
If you look into the classical or learned names for categories of rhetoric, you’ll find tremendous detail and a rather alienating nomenclature (naming system)—that is if you don’t know Latin or Greek! Don’t worry about all this. Your job is to see what the author is doing and then describe it in your own terms. If the 16 categories help, great. If not, choose
30 another term or category. Don’t, however, avoid helpful and well-known categories— such as the 16 listed below—in favour of obscure or idiosyncratic ones.
Once you have isolated appeals or strategies, you need to show how they tie into the author’s overall point. You need to show how one appeal or strategy is linked to another. Writers and directors don’t think in lists; rather, they create texts or films which are integrated and unified. When you are analyzing, you need to keep this integrity and unity in mind all the time.
An essay that merely lists appeals or strategies and shows how each works in the text— without showing how they are linked—won’t get higher than a B. I strongly suggest that instead of isolating appeals or strategies and then figuring out how they fit together, first think about how the whole text works. Then isolate some of the strategies involved, and pick the most important strategy (or two or three of the most important strategies if you can see how they are related). Doing an analysis this way will allow you to arrive at a unified or integrated thesis more easily.
Remember that in rhetorical analysis your goal is not to determine whether the appeal is effective or not. That is what we’ll be doing in evaluation. You may indicate the effectiveness of rhetoric to some degree, but it is not the focus of your analysis. If you want to evaluate a little bit, do this in your introduction or conclusion.
Read the 16 categories very carefully, and see if you can recognize their operation in what you read and see in newspapers, on TV, in films, etc.
The following categories can be used in rhetorical analysis, evaluation, and research. Since these categories overlap, I have often put in parentheses the number of a related category.
1. Space or Setting. Rhetoric - From a practical point of view (rather than from a philosophical or theological point of view), the three dimensions of space, along with the fourth dimension of time, constitute the world that exists around us. One might argue that an author’s attempt to make us see space in a certain light is thus an attempt to make us see reality in a certain light. - Almost all types of narrative (16) need a setting—for example, “Last night in my apartment…”, “On a dark and stormy night,” etc. Setting tells the reader or listener where things take place, and often sets up the theme or argument. For example, if the author of an environmental argument sets the scene with a perfect clear blue lake, then he can shock us with the polluting of this lake. Or, if he begins by describing scenes of industrial carnage, he could go more directly into an argument against pollution. - In literature, film and TV, space and time are often seen in terms of setting and plot. Writers often arrange the structure of their narrative in flashbacks and flash-forwards, which in film can be accompanied by voice-overs. Evaluation
31 Does the author describe a place accurately or inaccurately? Does he assume that an argument that makes sense in one location will necessarily make sense in another? This question holds true for regions of cultural, linguistic, and political differences as well.
2. Time or Chronology. Rhetoric Time is (from a philosophical angle) a seamless sequence of spaces (1), and in most writing time is a fundamental element. You can always give the basic spatial and temporal setup in your introduction—as in The text was written in France in 2005, the year of the car- burnings. Then, if applicable, you could in the body of your essay go into more detail— about, for instance, how the author shifts backward in time, from Paris in 2005 to Paris in 1789, the year of the French Revolution, and then forward in time to the more recent Paris of 1968, when students took to the streets to change education and society. What would be the effect of this arrangement of time? Is the author using the issues of earlier times (peasant and bourgeois revolt in 1789, and student revolt in 1968) to imply parallels to a more recent time (immigrant unrest in 2005)? This example could also be analyzed in terms of three examples (11) of revolt, or in terms of comparison (12) of three revolts. Evaluation Does the author manipulate or confuse the sequence of events? Does the author provide an accurate historical chronology? Could you set up a temporal or historical framework in your essay that would help your reader to see how what you are talking about fits into the bigger picture of history? Often you can use cause and effect (9) to set up a pattern in history that explains how we got from the past to the present.
3. Ethos (moral character or authority). Rhetoric Authors appeal to their own authority, reputation, fairness, reasonableness, status, or trustworthiness: “As a broker, I can tell you which stocks you ought to buy”; “Since I was a quarterback, let me sell you a bar of soap”; “In all my time in the U.S. Senate, I have never seen such a ridiculous plan”; “Having considered the plan very carefully, I suggest we invest two billion dollars in the Betamax video format”; “As a mother of three boys and three girls, I can tell you that boys are more difficult to control.” American directors often make use of ethos or authority when they show the status of politicians (a man walks up to the podium and is introduced as “The President of the United States”), mafia bosses (a man in a finely tailored suit is introduced as “Carlo Gambino”), technology wizards (such as “the Warlock” in Die Hard 4.0), powerful businessmen, scientists, priests, etc. Evaluation Does authors refer only to authorities who agree with them, and omit others who don’t agree? Do they misplace authority—for example, have a rock star give advice that a doctor should give—hoping that we’ll transfer the status of one to another? Or do they accurately place authority, for instance having an expert on nuclear energy (rather than Bono) comment on whether or not Iran has the capacity to make nuclear weapons. This is a tricky area, because you need to be sure that the “expert” is respected in his field and that those who you say are inexpert are in fact not knowledgeable (perhaps Bono does know a lot about nuclear weapons; in which case, you need to see what he uses—apart from his fame—to back up his arguments).
32 4. Pathos (emotion). Rhetoric Authors appeal to your emotions—your fears, sympathies, compassion, frustrations, prejudices, etc.: “How can you refuse to help this poor baby dying of AIDS in a shantytown?”; “If you loved me you would do this for me”; “Are you really going to let homosexuals run in elections?”; “All people who love their country must hunt down all subversive or dissenting elements within it”; “Since the Calgary Flames are the best hockey team in Canadian history, the city of Calgary should be given a special sports grant from the federal government.” Evaluation Provoking an emotional reaction makes sense at times, yet you need to ask if emotion is being substituting for logic and other more relevant appeals. For example does an appeal to send more money to Africa rely solely on images of starving children and leave out information about foreign debt, disease, creating sustainable markets, clean water projects, etc.? Appeals to prejudice or patriotism are often called ad populum (“to the people”) appeals, and these can be very effective. Yet, for arguments to be satisfying intellectually, authors should question prejudices and ascribe limits to patriotism.
5. Logos (logic and reasoning). Rhetoric Authors appeal to your logic or reason: “Since expensive drugs are the problem, we must lower the cost of drugs”; “If we fund heroin use, then we are giving tacit approval to its use”; “The only rational solution to the AIDS problem is a combination of health and economic measures.” Logic in often the main element in courtroom scenes. For instance, in Good Night and Good Luck (2005) the director George Clooney uses all three appeals when he redefines the patriotism of the press during the McCarthy hearings in 1953. Evaluation This is a very large category that overlaps with many of the other categories in this list. Are authors using logic or are they using such things as slippery slope, non sequitur, misplaced authority or ethos (3), prejudices or stereotypes (4), pathos (4) when they should use logic (5), skewed definitions or doubtful premises (6), illogical cause and effect (9), incompatible geographical comparison (1), inaccurate history or chronology (2)?
6. Definition: Rhetoric Is the author urging you to re-think the meaning of a term or idea—such as democracy, freedom, meaning, responsibility, honesty, corruption, peer pressure, self-image, addiction, or love? Does the definition predispose you to think about the topic in a certain way, or is it a standard dictionary definition? For example, if the author defines love as the spiritual communion between a man and a woman, how would this facilitate a discussion of celibacy? On the other hand, if love is defined as an irrepressible urge to be with a particular person, how might this facilitate a discussion of safe sex? Evaluation Are definitions accurate or are they used as faulty premises, convenient points of departure? For example, do authors start off their arguments against nuclear arms by defining arms as weapons used to defend one’s country? Why would this definition skew their arguments?
33 Often writers start off with a convenient definition then provide an argument that fits with this definition.
7. Categorization. Rhetoric Is the author dividing up the topic in a way that makes you include or exclude certain things? What are the relationships between the categories? Think of other possible ways the topic might be divided up. This will make you see more clearly the way the author has done it. For instance, if the author divides the topic of crime into 1) crime and 2) punishment, and then you think about the way you would add 3) rehabilitation, this helps you see more clearly the binary or dualistic approach the author takes. Remember that you are not critiquing the way the author divides the topic (that you’ll do in evaluation); you are examining how and why the author constructs categories. Evaluation Do authors lay out their categories accurately, according to some accepted or logical schema? Or do the categories seem to be illogical or to fit too conveniently into their argument? If authors divide the criminal justice system into 1) committing offenses and 2) punishment, and leave out 3) rehabilitation, this would be a flaw based on inadequate consideration of categories.
8. Process and sequence. Rhetoric - Sequences often link categories (7) and often work chronologically (2), although you can also have an analysis that works backwards in time—often from effect to cause. - For example, an essay could give the history of Hastings and Main—how it changed from being the center of town to being a rougher area with many alcoholics and drug addicts (this would follow a chronological sequence). Or, an essay could start by describing Hasting and Main today, and then may go back to the causes of its present state (this would invert the chronological sequence). - Many manuals use process and sequence in order to describe the operation of machines, systems, and appliances. We won’t be going into these descriptions, as they are the subject of technical writing. Scientific disciplines such as Physics and Chemistry also make great use of process and sequence, as the scientific method, experiments, and procedures require repeatable and verifiable steps that need to be clearly delineated in ordered lists. - Directors often give sequences of events, as in a montage (see Team America for a funny take on the montage). Sequences can imply rather than state cause and effect (9). Evaluation Is a process or sequence inverted, distorted or incomplete, or is it logically developed, accurately reflected, and fully covered?
9. Cause and effect. Rhetoric This is a sequence (6) divided in two parts and connected by cause and effect. Sometimes there is an implied cause and effect, as when an author describes a series of events so that you can’t help but infer that the earlier event caused the later one. Evaluation
34 Do authors divide a sequence in two parts when in reality there are other intermediary stages? What are the intermediary stages and how do these work for or against the binary division? When there is an implied cause and effect, ask if it is inevitable or logical to infer the link, or is there some other cause that may have produced the effect?
10. Description. Rhetoric This refers to giving details and using very specific language. It can include using comparative and stylistic devices such as analogy or tone (12, 14) and often delineates space and time (1, 2). Ask yourself if the description is designed to make you picture the subject mentally (if so, why?) or make your respond emotionally (if so, why?). In TV and film, description is basically done by the camera, but can also be done by voice-overs, lyrics in songs, and dialogue. In Gandhi, Attenborough gives detail of the massacre in Amritsar to make us see British control less as a matter of policy than of actually killing people, and to set up certain visual images that he’ll return to—the well where the baby and her mother are shot, and the field of shoes. Evaluation Is the description both specific and faithful to the original? Does it try to manipulate the emotions, as in the detailed picture of a crying baby in an essay on world hunger? Is this manipulation selective or manipulative (or a bit of both)?
11. Examples. Rhetoric Examples are indispensable, because if you want people to believe you when you say that something happens, you need to show where and when this thing happens. How many examples does the author use, and how do they help make the point? In TV and film, examples can be seen in the range of characters, personality traits, or scenarios the director explores. Evaluation - Do writers give examples that are appropriate, that prove the point? For instance, in arguing against marijuana, do writers give examples of depression or anxiety produced by other drugs, such as crack or heroin? Do the examples too conveniently prove the argument? How many examples do authors give? Is the range sufficient to prove the point? What other examples would support or contradict the authors? Why are certain examples more applicable than others? If you can establish a rationale for why certain examples are legitimate, then you can gauge the argument in light of this rationale. - Be careful in using ‘examples’ and ‘insufficient sources’ as evaluative categories. Authors can’t possibly cover all relevant examples; most work within word constraints and don’t want to tire their readers. Being selective is not a fault in itself. Selective examples only become a problem when the points authors make are seriously weakened or contradicted by omitting examples. In many types of writing, sources are neither expected nor required. Arguments are of course more convincing when backed up with references and examples. But in short pieces or in essays where writers want to cover alot of ground, they can’t prove every point they make. If they are doing a book-length study then they have the space to back up their points with references and sources. The difference between Carr’s essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” and his chapter CP “The Juggler’s Brain” is instructive here: in the former he is writing a magazine article
35 for a general audience and is not expected to give all his sources; in the latter he is writing an entire book on one theme and is expected to provide an extensive array of sources.
12. Comparison and Contrast. Rhetoric This category is often an extension of examples (7), except that the writer is usually asking you to compare two related or differing examples. A comparison can also be made through analogies, metaphors (13), and other stylistic devices (14). In TV and film, comparison is often made by switching back and forth between scenes or settings. Imagine a shift from a quiet suburban home where everyone is happy to the van where the killers are approaching the happy home... Evaluation If authors are asking you to compare two examples, ask yourself why these two are chosen: do they fit all-too conveniently into their argument? Do the authors leave out other examples? Do they create a false dichotomy? Do the authors make comparisons or contrasts based on ultra-selective features, or do they show how features used are relevant to the overall case being made?
13. Metaphor. Rhetoric - This is a very specific type of comparison in which one sees a complex situation in terms of a simpler one. In this way it is like an analogy. The difference is that with metaphor the comparison is implicit, that is, it is not stressed or made openly. For this reason it is a very powerful way of using language, since it is often affecting the way we think without our necessarily being aware of it. - If we talk of ‘fields of study,’ we are using a metaphor based on space or geography, one which suggests discreet or separate domains, like a wheat field next to a rye field. If we said ‘overlapping spectra of study’ we would think more in terms of overlap, which is appropriate given that life doesn’t come to us in discreet zones. Chemistry overlaps with biology, which overlaps with ecology, which overlaps with politics, which overlaps with human geography, etc. - If the comparison is unusual, the writer may be trying to shock us into an awareness. If it’s common, the writer may be trying to make his or her point conform to an idea we’re already familiar with. - Metaphor is also discussed under “Stylistic Devices” (14). Evaluation Does the metaphor help us to understand the idea? Or does it distort the idea in some crucial way? Is it overused? Or does the writer discard it at some point to show us that the issue is more complex than the metaphor? For instance, when Carr uses deep vs. shallow it may help us understand what he’s saying yet it may also distort or manipulate us in a negative way.
14. Stylistic Devices. Rhetoric These include sound, tone, repetition, juxtaposition, image, symbol, etc. This category also includes comparative devices such as analogies, similes, metaphors, and conceits. Ask yourself, How does one device work with the other strategies? For example, a certain tone
36 (foreboding, dark, gloomy) can lead to a certain image (a dead bird on a seashore spilled with oil), both of which can help the author make an elegiac point (about environmentalism). Because students often confuse basic stylistic terms, I’ll provide some definitions and examples. - Image and imagery. An image is a visual impression—as in E.J. Pratt’s seagulls “etched upon the horizon” (from his poem, “Seagulls”). Here we see seagulls against the sky in our mind. The images are of birds in flight—small, sharp living things against a wide inanimate space. - Symbol and symbolism. An image can remain a simple description, or it can be developed into a symbol. For example, a dove could simply be a bird a character sees on a path, next to a blue jay, and this may interest the character because he is an ornithologist. Or, the dove could be seen next to a hawk, and come to represent peace as opposed to aggression, as in ‘hawks and doves.’ - Generally, symbols have either a personal meaning (the seagull may symbolize freedom and beauty to E.J. Pratt) or a public meaning (the dove symbolizes peace to most people). In general, a symbol is an object, not a person. - Irony. Irony occurs when words and meaning are at odds, or when expectations are contradicted. For instance, if we expect a psychopathic serial killer to be punished, yet she is rewarded, then the situation is ironic. Dramatic irony occurs when the expectation or understanding of a character (or group of characters) is contradicted by the expectation or understanding of the reader or audience. - Metaphor. While a simile compares two things explicitly (“Mike works like a horse”), a metaphor compares them implicitly (“Mike is a work horse”). Here is another way to think about the difference: similes are honest because they admit that a comparison is occurring, while a metaphor is a type of lie because it does not admit to being a comparison; rather, it equates two things that are not the same. Metaphor is a very important category, as it shapes our ideas in a great number of ways. See Postman’s essay CF ”Defending Against the Indefensible” for a look at the ways that metaphor shapes our thinking, even when we are not aware of it. - Conceit. A conceit extends or continues a metaphor, taking elements of it and exploring it in new ways.
Often people are confused by literary terms such as metaphor and conceit, as if these came from some obscure realm of academia, rather than from the way people explain their experience. Yet using a metaphor’s a very natural way of explaining—through analogy—things that are often quite difficult to explain. And using a conceit’s merely extending this metaphor so that people can see the way things connect. We can see how this works in “The One with the Image” (E 2, S 1) from Friends. Can you identify where simile shifts into metaphor, and metaphor shifts into conceit? Monica: What you guys don’t understand is, for us, kissing is as important as any part of it. Joey: Yeah, right!...... Y’serious? Phoebe: Oh, yeah! Rachel: Everything you need to know is in that first kiss. Monica: Absolutely.
37 Chandler: Yeah, I think for us, kissing is pretty much like an opening act, y’know? I mean it’s like the stand-up comedian you have to sit through before Pink Floyd comes out. Ross: Yeah, and-and it’s not that we don’t like the comedian, it’s that-that... that’s not why we bought the ticket. Chandler: The problem is, though, after the concert’s over, no matter how great the show was, you girls are always looking for the comedian again, y’know? I mean, we’re in the car, we’re fighting traffic... basically just trying to stay awake. Rachel: Yeah, well, word of advice: Bring back the comedian. Otherwise next time you’re gonna find yourself sitting at home, listening to that album alone. Joey: (pause)....Are we still talking about sex?
15. Genre Devices. Rhetoric - These include categories such as comedy, wit, sarcasm, irony, satire, parody, caricature, spoof, drama, tragedy, period piece, documentary, horror, action, thriller, novel, poem, pastoral, elegy, eulogy, utopia, dystopia, science fiction, cartoon, anime, etc. - Some genre devices—such as parody—are comparative in nature (12) and use a disrespectful or mocking tone (14). Is the author working within a recognizable tradition? For instance, is the author working within the tradition of satire or parody, in which an author is given a certain license to rail against the evils of society? Does the genre shift, and if so, why? For instance, a writer might start off with a humorous depiction of a historical figure, and then shift into a very serious discussion—in which case the humour might be used to draw the audience in to what might otherwise appear too heavy or serious. - TV shows and films are divided into genres yet within one genre you can switch genres momentarily. For example in a very serious film you might have a comic moment to relieve the tension, or in a comic film you might deepen the impact with a serious moment. Evaluation Does the device fit the situation? Is it overused, or underused? Do authors confuse device with situations? Are authors too negative or too positive in using tone, image etc., or do they maintain a respectful, objective distance?
16. Narration. Rhetoric - Is the text dominated by narrative (in which case the author is probably making a point rather than an argument) or is narrative used as an example? Many writers who are not telling a story will use small stories or anecdotes to keep their readers interested (people have a natural fascination with the stories of other people’s lives, and with the way other people perceive the world). Whose narrative is used, and why? For instance, if the writer were to advance a point by telling a story about Abraham Lincoln, this would mean, first, that the writer’s appeal to ethos is working in conjunction with narrative, and second, that the writer may be targeting the emotions of an American audience. Narrative is almost always rooted in space and time (1, 2), which in narration often takes the form of setting and plot, and narration is often accompanied by genre and stylistic devices (14, 15). - In TV shows and films, as in literature, the problem of showing the relationship between rhetorical strategies often disappears because all the strategies can be seen as
38 contributing to the development of the protagonist and theme. Almost all TV shows and films rely on story-telling or narrative as the major mode of operating, as opposed to documentary which can use moments of narrative, yet is not guided by the need for character and conflict—the two crucial features of an engaging story. Narration is often analyzed according to schools of interpretation (historical, mythical, political, etc.) or according to character development, conflict between characters, theme, style (14), genre (15), space or setting (1), and time or plot (2). Evaluation What other narratives might provide a larger context? Is the narrative too personal or limited to make the larger point, or does it help us to see the larger picture? Remember that a single narrative isn’t necessarily trying to cover all angles or cases. How can it? Evaluating it negatively because it doesn’t cover this or that case isn’t often fair. You need to see if the case it does explore is A) realistic, B) insightful, or C) helpful, or whether it A) doesn’t correspond to reality, B) distorts the issue at hand, or C) gets in the way of understanding the bigger picture.
SAMPLES
On Lord of War (Niccol, 2005)
Below is an expanded outline, illustrating 1) how to go from observation of details to the point made by the director, and 2) how to analyze details in terms of rhetoric, arriving at topic sentences and a thesis statement. While this outline is in reverse order from a normal outline (this one starts with details and ends with a thesis statement and a title), it mirrors the order one usually follows when doing a rhetorical analyses—from observation of detail to analysis of the relationship between content and structure, to articulation of rhetoric. It also emphasizes the difference between content (the point being made) and rhetoric (the manner in which this point is made). I have put the key linking concepts in colour. red = use of contrast, parallelism, pathos-laden image black = use of humour blue = use of circular technique: the cycle orange = use of music green = use of time and space
Setting 1 (War-torn Street): Details à Point
-- ground scattered with bullets: -- dealer (Orlov) amid destruction -- link to later factory production of bullets and to use of bullets in street battle -- speech full of high numbers of guns: -- expectation that this is horrible -- wryly humorous reversal: he says the numbers should be higher! Conclusion: dealer is ruthless Point: Amid violence, the arms merchant doesn’t think about the harm guns create, just about how to sell more guns and make more money.
39 Rhetoric
1) sustained contrast between his sharp business appearance and the destruction around him 2) surprising, abrupt contrast (reversal of expectation) between A) the calm, reasonable tone of his opening words, and B) his ruthless, unreasonable conclusion. The incongruity (a basic component of most humour) provokes a wry laugh, which is almost immediately cut short by the serious music and by the scenario in the second and third parts of the sequence 3) beginning of cycle or sequence: (destruction à bullets à battle)
Topic sentence # 1: Niccol’s use of puzzling contrast and wry humour draw us into the first part of his arms cycle, which is economic motivation, regardless of the cost in destruction.
Setting 2 (Bullet Factory): Details à Point
-- link to Orlov and bullets on ground; Orlov works in parallel with factory -- visual depiction: the travels of a bullet: -- allows credits to roll -- creates subtle parallel between bullets and missiles (upward camera angle) -- red star and Cyrillic script remind audience of Cold War and proxy wars -- suggests secrecy: lifting crate lid creates momentary light and ability to inspect, followed by darkness -- links Odessa, Ukraine, to Orlov’s Little Odessa, USA -- music: “For What It’s Worth” (Buffalo Springfield, 1967), links to protest Point: The production of arms is part of the Cold War, which pits the USSR against a USA in which musicians protest against ‘the war machine.’
Rhetoric
Parallel between heartless arms dealer and hard business of production and distribution? The proliferation of arms during the time period of the Cold War. Do the lyrics of 1967 apply to the 80s? To the present? Music: cues audience emotionally and historically to protest, especially against the Vietnam War Spatial journey 1) gives us the unconventional spatial perspective of a bullet (thus encouraging us to look again at arms proliferation?) 2) middle of sequence: (destruction à bullets à battle)
Topic sentence # 2: Shifting from contrast to parallelism, Niccol uses time and space (historically-driven musical cues and the unconventional journey of a bullet) to urge us to question the second part of the arms cycle—production and distribution.
Setting 3 (Journey from Factory to Street Battle): Details à Point
-- link to opening scene (ground scattered with bullets); here, a more detailed journey into a war zone where the ground is scattered with bullets -- visuals emphasize:
40 -- link to original setting: both use warm yellow tones, and both could possibly be set somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa (plagued by colonial abuse and by recent deadly wars) -- chaos of journey and war zone -- shift from mechanical production to human fingers lifting bullets and putting them in rifles -- at first, target unknown, yet bullet slows down so we see the human face, eyes, (and innocence?) of the child about to die Point: Bullets from dealers and factories get used in armed conflicts and kill children.
Rhetoric
Spatial journey and cycle continued and concluded: 1) end of sequence: (destruction à bullets à battle in which victims can include children) 2) Sequence constitutes a cycle. Bullets promoted by arms dealers and made in factories end up in guns which fuel deadly conflict, which in turn is good for business. We can assume that Orlov will be placing more orders at bullet factories… Yet, unlike at the beginning of the sequence, there is no way the reader can laugh—however wryly—at the business Orlov is in: the final visual is too clear and horrible, and the focus is still too clearly on the bullet.
Topic sentence # 3: Niccol continues and concludes the journey of the bullet so as to underscore a pathos-laden image that no one can even wryly laugh about: a bullet entering a child’s forehead.
Thesis statement: Niccol indicts the arms cycle by taking his viewers on a journey, first amusing us with humorous contrast, then challenging us with parallel historically- charged music and the novel spatial trajectory of a bullet, and finally shocking us with a graphic image.
Title: Target Audience
Outlines
Below you’ll find the following: 1) a scratch outline taken from the above analysis of the opening credits to Lord of War, 2) a full outline.
Scratch Outline
A scratch outline is composed of a title, a thesis statement, and several topic sentences.
Title: Target Audience
Thesis statement: Niccol indicts the arms cycle by taking his viewers on a journey, first amusing us with humorous contrast, then challenging us with historically- charged music and the novel spatial trajectory of a bullet, and finally shocking us with a graphic image.
41
Topic sentence # 1: Niccol’s use of puzzling contrast and wry humour draw us into the first part of his arms cycle, which is economic motivation, regardless of the cost in destruction.
Topic sentence # 2: Shifting from contrast to parallelism, Niccol uses time and space (historically-driven musical cues and the unconventional journey of a bullet) to urge us to question the second part of the arms cycle—production and distribution.
Topic sentence # 3: Niccol continues and concludes the journey of the bullet so as to underscore a pathos-laden image that no one can even wryly laugh about: a bullet entering a child’s forehead.
Full Outline
Target Audience
Niccol indicts the arms cycle by taking his viewers on a journey, first amusing us with humorous contrast, then challenging us with historically-charged music and the novel spatial trajectory of a bullet, and finally shocking us with a graphic image.
Niccol’s use of puzzling contrast and wry humour draw us into the first part of his arms cycle, which is economic motivation, regardless of the cost in destruction. - sustained contrast: business appearance vs. destruction - surprising contrast (reversal): calm opening words vs. ruthless, unreasonable conclusion. - provokes wry humour—cut short by music and what follows - beginning of cycle: destruction à bullets à battle
Shifting from contrast to parallelism, Niccol uses time and space (historically- driven musical cues and the unconventional journey of a bullet) to urge us to question the second part of the arms cycle—production and distribution. - Cold War 60s anti-war protest lyrics: emotional, historical cues - unconventional spatial perspective of bullet - middle of sequence: (destruction à bullets à battle)
Niccol continues and concludes the journey of the bullet so as to underscore a pathos-laden image that no one can even wryly laugh about: a bullet entering a child’s forehead. - end of sequence: (destruction à bullets à battle, child victims - constitutes a cycle: dealer à production (factory) à use in battle à more bullets - this time, no wry humour: serious final image of bullet into head 233 words
42 On Mad Men The Falling Cat
The images in the 36-second opening credits for Mad Men are so dense that we can’t process them all in the 15 seconds we’re given. The lines of the office, which at first seemed stable, collapse. This subtly indicates that things will ‘fall apart’ in the series, as they do when Don’s marriage collapses. The connections between the three main parts of the sequence are also subtle: Don’s vertical descent through skyscrapers is filled with the images of sensuality and alcohol he promotes in the office, and the couch symbolizes a return to the safe, horizontal world in which Don always seems to land on his feet.
In the second part of the sequence Don falls vertically into the sensuality and alcoholism he promotes in his advertisements. He falls past advertisements that comfort, lure, sparkle, and at times literally move. To left of centre we can just make out a happy nuclear family—like that Don appears to have—and a boy literally running toward a giant glass being poured full of golden beer. In the centre, we see Don falling past sleek underarms, a stockinged thigh, and a woman who hovers half-dressed and nymph-like over a pool that turns out to be a giant tumbler of whiskey. These are the images Don uses in his ads and these are also the things which make Don cheat on his wife.
Also on the skyscraper walls are images of two types of women in Don’s life. The first women is shaving her legs and lifting her ankle toward Don, as if to cradle his fall. This suggests that Don is constantly falling for sexy women—such as Rachel or Suzanne—and also that he’s constantly being rescued by them. All the while a diamond ring sparkles on a finger in the background. The diamond suggests the lure of wealth and beauty, as well as the marriage Don betrays by chasing this beauty. At about the time Don ought to be hitting the ground, a woman stretches up the length of a skyscraper toward the blue sky. This image suggests the aspirations of characters like Peggy and Joan, who follow two distinct career philosophies in the male- dominated work world of the 1960s.
In the final seconds of the credits, Don regains the security of a horizontal world, represented by the couch and his comfortable position on it. Don’s office may have crumbled, and Don may have undergone a metaphoric ‘falling to the temptations’ of the commercial and sensual world he manipulates in his job, yet he doesn’t drown in a pool of whiskey or fall onto the pavement. While we don’t actually see him land, we do find him sitting comfortably, elegantly on a couch, the bright white cigarette in his hand offset by the white collar of the black suit. His cat-like ability to land on his feet can be seen in episode thirteen of season six: after Meagan walks out on him, he does a remarkable about-turn: usually adept at lying and at manipulating his clients in order to make a sale, he loses a very important
43 client by telling the truth. He then takes his children to look at the rough part of town where he grew up. As they stand looking at the decrepit house, we can see that Sally still loves him and that he has every chance of making her a part of his life. 569 words
On Gandhi (Attenborough, 1980)
Summary
In this clip, Attenborough depicts the Amritsar Massacre and some of its repercussions. Attenborough starts with a calm image of the Golden Temple. He then shifts back and forth between protesters listening to a speech in a compound (where the passionate speaker advocates following Gandhi’s path of peaceful civil disobedience) and Dyer’s rifle-bearing troops moving into the compound. After Dyer’s subordinate asks if they should issue a warning, Dyer says that they have had their warning (“No meetings”) and he orders his troops to fire. Dyer then detachedly presides over a brutal massacre of peaceful protesters, women, and children. In the court-martial scene that follows, Dyer is questioned about the manner and motives of his actions. We then see Gandhi and Nehru at the scene of the massacre, looking at the well and at the field scattered with shoes, while mournful Indian music plays in the background. In the next scene, Gandhi (with Nehru and Jinnah beside him) confronts the Vice-Roy and other British officials, arguing that the British are “masters in someone else’s home.” Gandhi gets the best of the British in argument, and calmly concludes that Indians will oust the British through “peaceful, non-violent non-co-operation.”
Dialogue from the film:
JALLIANWALLAH BAGH. AMRITSAR.
SPEAKER: England is so powerful – its army and its navy, all its modern weapons – but when a great power like that strikes defenseless people it shows it brutality, its own weakness! Especially when those people don’t strike back. That is why the Mahatma begs us to take the course of non-violence! . . . If we riot, if we fight back, we become the vandals and they become the law! If we bear their blows, they are the vandals –God and His law are on our . . . side. . . . We must have the courage to take their anger . . . Our pain will be our victory.
ADC: Do we issue a warning, sir?
DYER: They've had their warning – no meetings. Fire! … Take your time. Take your time.
THE ARMORY HALL. THE FORT OF LAHORE.
ADVOCATE: General Dyer, is it correct that you ordered your troops to fire at the thickest part of the crowd?
44 DYER: That is so.
ADVOCATE: One thousand five hundred and sixteen casualties with one thousand six hundred and fifty bullets.
DYER: My intention was to inflict a lesson that would have an impact throughout all India.
INDIAN BARRISTER: General, had you been able to take in the armored car, would you have opened fire with the machine gun?
DYER: I think, probably – yes.
HUNTER: General, did you realize there were children – and women – in the crowd?
DYER: I did.
ADVOCATE: But that was irrelevant to the point you were making?
DYER: That is correct.
ADVOCATE: Could I ask you what provision you made for the wounded?
DYER: I was ready to help any who applied.
ADVOCATE: General . . . how does a child shot with a 3-0-3 Enfield "apply" for help?
THE VICE-REGAL PALACE. NEW DELHI. GOVERNMENT COUNCIL ROOM.
CHELMSFORD: You must understand, gentlemen, that His Majesty's Government – and the British people – repudiate both the massacre and the philosophy that prompted it.
CHELMSFORD: What I would like to do is to come to some compromise over the new civil legis –
GANDHI: If you’ll excuse me, Your Excellency, it is our view that matters have gone beyond "legislation."
GANDHI: We think it is time you recognized that you are masters in someone else's home. Despite the best intentions of the best of you, you must, in the nature of things, humiliate us to control us. General Dyer is but an extreme example of the principle. It is time you left.
KINNOCH: With respect, Mr. Gandhi, without British administration, this country would be reduced to chaos.
GANDHI: Mr. Kinnoch, I beg you to accept that there is no people on earth who wouldn’t prefer their own bad government to the "good" government of an alien power.
BRIGADIER: My dear sir – India is British! We're hardly an alien power!
CHELMSFORD: Even if His Majesty could waive all other considerations, he has a duty to the millions of his Muslim subjects who are a minority in this realm. And experience has taught that his troops and his administration are essential in order to keep the peace.
GANDHI: All nations contain religious minorities. Like other countries, our will have its problems. But they’ll be ours – not yours.
45
GENERAL: And how do you propose to make them yours? You don't think we're just going to walk out of India.
GANDHI: Yes . . . in the end you’ll walk out. Because one hundred thousand Englishmen simply can’t control three hundred fifty million Indians if the Indians refuse to co-operate. And that is what we intend to achieve – peaceful, non-violent, non-co- operation.
GANDHI: Until you yourself see the wisdom of leaving . . . your Excellency.
LATER. THE SAME GOVERNMENT COUNCIL ROOM.
GENERAL: "You don't just expect us to walk out?" "Yes."
BRIGADIER: Extraordinary little man! "Nonviolent, non-co-operation" – for a moment I almost thought they were actually going to do something.
CHELMSFORD: Yes – but it would be wise to be very cautious for a time. The Anti- Terrorist Act will remain on the statutes, but on no account is Gandhi to be arrested. Whatever mischief he causes, I have no intention of making a martyr of him.
Outline Turning the Tables
Attenborough condemns British control of India by first providing physical evidence of British brutality—in settings, sounds, colours, and images—and then by highlighting more abstract verbal reasons why the British should leave India.
Settings increasingly suggest the British don’t control India -- British in control as they enter compound (yet why use guns?) -- courtroom: questions British use of violence -- Gandhi observes massacre compound -- Gandhi turns the tables on the British in the vice-roy’s residence
Sounds, colours, and images emphasize British brutality -- inhuman tanks, harsh guns, and European music, versus peaceful protesters, Gandhi's ideals, and Indian music -- Indian music links compound scenes before and after massacre (where Gandhi and Nehru look on in the “dead” quiet) -- massacre noise and colour versus the courtroom quiet (conscience? sober judgment?) -- use of red, white, and blue of the Union Jack (Britain condemns Dyer? Britain on trial?)
Verbal rhetoric in the courtroom links to prior and later scenes -- the judge’s question about "women and children" -- reminds us of the baby crying in the massacre scene -- leads to the next scene, with the bloody well where the baby was -- arguments in the courtroom prepare us for arguments with the vice-roy
46
Gandhi's verbal arguments turn the tables on the British -- viceroy, walking in, circles the table of already seated people -- suggests they are waiting for him; that he is in control -- lectures Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah from the British side of the table -- Gandhi turns the tables on the viceroy by interrupting (politely) -- Gandhi's complex, tight syntax appeals to educated British elite -- clear metaphor: "You are masters in someone else's home" -- clear action-oriented statement: "It is time you left" -- Gandhi’s rhetoric shames the viceroy (who lowers his head) (300 words)
Essay Turning the Tables
In 1919 the British General Edward Dyer fired upon an unarmed crowd of protesters in Amritsar, India, killing 379 and wounding about 1,200. In his film Gandhi (1982), Richard Attenborough depicts the massacre and its immediate impact in a 10 minute sequence, in which he condemns British control of India by first providing physical evidence—in his shifting settings, with their sounds, colours, and images—and then by highlighting more abstract verbal arguments. Each setting in the sequence increasingly suggests that the British either shouldn’t, or don’t, really control India. The resolute way that Dyer lines up his troops and fires into the crowd initially seems to suggest that he, and the British government he works for, are firmly in control. Yet why, one might ask, does a government need to use its military force to fire upon unarmed citizens? In the next scene Dyer is being court-martialed. While Dyer will be punished, still it is the British who control the courtroom proceedings. Yet this control is set up to make points against the British (the main point being, How did a man like Dyer get to have so much power?). This tenuous control slips drastically in the third and fourth settings, in which Gandhi visits the site of the massacre and then tells the top British administrators that they’ll leave India. That Gandhi delivers his ultimatum to the top power in the land, the viceroy, and that he delivers this message in the viceroy's government house, suggest that Gandhi will disrupt British power at the highest level. Thus audiences go from the street level, where Gandhi’s ideals are put into a very dangerous practice, to a government house, where Gandhi’s arguments threaten to bring down that house altogether. Attenborough uses sound, colour, and image in the first three scenes to give the audience strong emotional reasons to agree with Gandhi in the fourth. The shrill, piercing violins in the first scene reinforce the harsh sounds of the tank, Dyer's orders, and the gun-firing. These "European" sounds contrast with the Indian music played while the protest leader cries out Gandhi’s message of non-violence. Also, mournful Indian music is played while Gandhi and Nehru look at the deserted compound in the third scene. Here Attenborough adds the image of red of blood on a well—a reminder of the image of the motherless baby we saw at the end of the massacre scene. Colour—and the symbolism of colour—is also used when Attenborough shifts from the wailing motherless
47 baby to the courtroom, with Dyer's face against the background of a gigantic flag: the red, white and blue of the Union Jack. Symbolically, it is not just Dyer, but the entire British Raj, that is on trial here. Verbal rhetoric is also used to great effect in the courtroom scene. One judge asks Dyer, "Did you know there were women and children in the crowd?" and "How does a child, shot with a 303 Lee-Enfield, apply for help?" These questions make us think of the child wailing next to the well, and prepare us for the more difficult questions and answers that come in the final scene. In this last scene, Gandhi not only interrupts the viceroy as he circles the table and 'lays down the law,' but also disarms the British with his well- reasoned and straightforward words. He mixes complex reasoning (that the well-educated British elite would respect) with powerful metaphors and simple, direct imperatives. He respectfully tells them that "despite the best intentions of the best of you, you must humiliate us to control us"; he tells them that they "are masters in someone else's home"; and he concludes, "It is time you left." When asked if he expects the English to walk out of India, he responds, "Yes," and explains simply that the British population is far outnumbered and that Indians can be marshaled by ideas of non-violence and non-cooperation. The success of Gandhi’s arguments is seen in the way the viceroy lowers his head and looks downward, the body language strongly suggesting shame. Gandhi's threat of non-violent non-cooperation takes us full circle, back to the protest leader who pleads for non-violence seconds before the noisy, bloody massacre starts. The ten minute sequence thus moves from the sacrifice of peaceful protesters, to a table at which the same ideals are espoused much higher up in the hierarchy of power—a table at which top British administrators fail to justify their rule to Mohandas K. Gandhi, the spiritual leader of Indian Independence, or to the two other men who will play key roles in coming history: Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the future President of East and West Pakistan, and Jawaharlal Nehru, the future Prime Minister of the world's largest democracy. Attenborough's film is of course about Gandhi, but Attenborough's point here is that the Amritsar Massacre has pushed him to speak forcefully for an entire subcontinent.
On “Canadians: What Do They Want?” (Margaret Atwood, 1982)
“The Bristling North”
In her essay “Canadians: What Do They Want?” Margaret Atwood examines Canadian identity in relation to the United States. Leaving aside questions of Quebec nationalism, aboriginal land claims, and the influence of England, she focuses primarily on today’s over-riding influence on Canada— the United States—and on how Canadians sometimes bristle when Americans assume Canadians ought to be happy about the present position of influence Americans have in the world. Atwood gets her points across by using comparisons that align gender with militarism, use geography to illustrate a
48 power differential, and make parallels between the history of Roman imperialism and US foreign policy. Atwood starts and ends her essay by aligning the male gender with militarism. Taking a feminist and pacifist position, she likens the violence of men to the violence of America. Men’s shoes remind her of jackboots or army boots, and she asserts that women have a difficult time appreciating the entirety of a man because even looking at his shoes reminds them of the violence men commit. Likewise, Canadians have a difficult time appreciating the positive aspects of America because they find it difficult to see past the violence Americans commit. She does not examine American violence, yet this is presumably obvious to Canadians who watch U.S. media, or who know about criminology or U.S. military history. Atwood’s geographical comparison, between the U.S. and a hypothetically larger Mexico, helps to illustrate to her American audience the sensitivity that comes with a large power differential. She urges her audience to imagine a Mexico that is ten times as large as the US—a hypothetical situation that may well resonate, given the large recent increases in Latino populations in the US, especially in states bordering Mexico. Explaining to Americans how their neighbours to the north feel, she points out that the uncomfortable feeling Canadians have (that they are like a satellite or branch plant) is a function of sheer numbers and economic forces, not of excessive national sensitivity. By giving Americans a comparison that they might appreciate, she is helping them to understand that Canadian resentment is a natural feeling. It may cause Canadians to bristle, but it is understandable on an emotional level. This power differential leads to her third comparison—between imperial Rome and imperial America. She asserts that just as France during the Roman Empire was a satellite, so Canada during the present American empire is a satellite. The difference, according to Atwood, is that the Romans did not expect the French to like them, whereas Americans expect Canadians to like them. By giving this historic dimension to her essay, Atwood suggests that Canadian sentiment is a function of time, and is a function of a process that has happened for ages. It is really nothing unique or idiosyncratic. Although this historical comparison leaves out the seminal relation between Canada and Britain (whose empire preceded the American, and whose power helped to define and protect Canada), it nevertheless complements the previous geographical comparison to give the reader a larger context—in both space and time—which helps to explain the feelings of Canadians. While only two pages long, “Canadians: What Do They Want?” covers a wide range of perspectives—including gender, geography and history. Her comparison involving army boots and her omission of England may appear odd to some, yet in general she does a good job making Americans think about some of the reasons Canadians may bristle when Americans expect to be admired. (578 words)
49
EVALUATION AND RESEARCH
In rhetorical analysis you explain form (how something is written), whereas in evaluation you gauge quality and effectiveness (how effective the rhetoric is in light of outside reasoning and information).
Exercises in evaluation require the use of critical faculties, and attempt to cultivate judgment, that is, the ability to reason and judge matters carefully within a wide context. While in rhetorical analysis, you try to think like a lawyer and build a case about how rhetoric works, in evaluation you try to think like a judge and come to a conclusion after careful consideration of the arguments before you.
Evaluation and Rhetorical Aim
The focus of your evaluation will change depending on the aim of the rhetoric. This is obvious if you think about how you approach media: in general you don’t expect a popular novel or TV drama to convince you about something. The aim of those forms of rhetoric is to express and— through expression—to entertain. In evaluating a popular novel or TV drama, you would therefore evaluate it according to its expressive aim: Are the characters realistic or engaging? Is the plot believable? Is it funny, scary, etc.?
Likewise, you wouldn’t judge a textbook, whose aim is expository (to explain or educate) according to whether or not it was entertaining or made a good argument. Of course, it is helpful if the textbook is in some way entertaining (or at least keeps you awake!), but the primary aim is to explain and educate. You would therefore evaluate it according to its expository aim: Is it clear? Does it use illustrative examples? Etc.
While argument and expository essays often use logic, example, and process analysis, stories and films generally use narrative and one extended example or scenario. It is thus more appropriate to evaluate whether an expressive work is effective rather than convincing, or whether it is insightful, believable, or relevant rather than exhaustive, logical, or conclusive.
From Rhetorical Analysis to Evaluative Analysis
In rhetorical analysis you ask, “How does the author make the point?” In evaluative analysis you ask, “How convincingly or effectively does the author make the point?”
Evaluation involves using a larger context of reasoning, information, and judgment to determine how well rhetoric is put to use. If an author uses
50 comparison, you’ll, for a rhetorical analysis, answer the following question: For what purpose does the author use the comparison and how— in specific detail—does the author use it to achieve that purpose? In evaluation you distance yourself from the strategy, and ask a wider range of questions: Is the comparison appropriate, that is, does it help to delineate and illuminate the original situation or does it distort and obscure the original? Are there other analogies that would be more helpful? Is the comparison archaic or up to date, offensive or engaging, boring or lively? Is comparison itself the problem? Would the writer be better off using logic, example, description, or statistics?
It is imperative that you bring in outside information and context. You must ask questions such as the following: Are the ideas presented accurate in light of outside context and research? Do they agree or are they at odds with practical observation, logic, case studies, and expert opinion? What crucial factors are included or left out?
Below is an example of how one can take into account rhetoric, yet focus on evaluation. The analysis below is on a fictitious essay on gender conflict.
Analogy is used effectively throughout the essay “Venus, But Mostly Mars” because it delineates the focus and is backed up with credible research. By starting with an analogy, Brown limits our perception to violent interaction, thus forcing us to see the relation between the sexes as potentially violent. This could be a problem if Brown was trying to define the nature of gender relationships in general, yet it isn’t a problem here since Brown’s topic is conflict in relationships. One could object that Brown should at some point examine the ways one can broker peace— using analogies drawn from career counselling, diplomacy, peacekeeping, etc.—yet Brown’s aim is to give a precise account of escalating conflict, not of the ways it can be prevented. This ‘battle of the sexes’ model works well in terms of research as well, since Brown draws on five studies, ranging from 1950 to 2012, all of which show that hostility in relationships escalates incrementally. Brown emphasizes the findings of a 1995 study by Stokes, which is particularly convincing because it draws on the accounts of 300 couples over a ten-year period, is extensive (23 pages), includes statistical data, and has been cited by Thorpe (1999), Bowers and Weinstein (2001), and Konkle et. al. (2007). Brown also quotes Stokes, who concludes that “as the battle of the sexes heats up, couples draw from an increasingly gender-oriented arsenal that takes them further and further from the specifics of their relationship.” In a minefield, one sees oneself in relation to a certain potentially explosive piece of ground, yet in a battlefield one loses one’s individuality and starts to operate on a broader plain. On this battle plain one no longer sees the other as a person, but as one more soldier in an opposing horde. Brown’s essay is effective since it shows how we get from the minefield to the plain.
51
WEAK AND STRONG ARGUMENT
Writing texts usually focus on weak or invalid arguments—called fallacies of argument—but don’t supply the names or characteristics of valid arguments (they often assume that the valid argument lies in not committing the error). Given that you are writing an essay in which you take into account strengths as well as weaknesses, I have supplied terms and phrases that denote strengths as well. For fallacies of argument in EAA, see pp. 295-300.
It is also worth rethinking whether or not 'logical fallacies' are not sometimes too rigidly applied. For instance, it makes sense to 'argue against the man' (argumentum ad hominem) if we can determine such things as hypocrisy or practicability by doing so. If someone argues against environmentalism yet drives a Hummer to work, this may not effect our evaluation of his argument about environmentalism, yet we might question his sincerity or the degree to which we can hope to change the human desire for status or power. Hence, I try to be careful in articulating the limits and conditions of weak argument.
The list below should be considered in addition to the sixteen categories of argument above. Some of the categories below overlap with the sixteen categories and with each other. Don’t worry about such overlaps, as long as you are focusing on the reason why arguments are strong or weak.
Most of the categories below are sub-categories of reasoning—logical vs. illogical, balanced vs. biased, accurate vs. distorted, narrow vs. exhaustive, etc.
False Dichotomy; Either/or Option Giving an unfairly limited choice of two options, when there are more than two options that ought to be considered You’re either with us or against us. It’s either illegal prostitution or a whorehouse on every block. VS. Fair Range of Options Providing a reasonable range of options You’re either with us, against us, or you agree with us in this but not in that. Bordellos could be restricted to certain areas.
Using Over-selective Examples or Evidence Only using examples that prove your point Politicians are dirty because Nixon lied. VS. Supplying a Fair Range of Examples or Evidence Taking into account a range of examples, including those that don’t prove your point
52 While Nixon lied about Watergate, while Clinton bent the truth about his extra- marital activities, and while George W. Bush seems to have lied about the WMDs, Carter and Bush senior are not infamous for having lied to the nation. Including examples that work against your argument provides you with an opportunity to pre-empt counter arguments. If you merely leave out inconvenient examples, your reader will supply them for you !
Ignoring Contrary Arguments or Evidence One of the main reasons arguments fail is that they don’t consider contrary points of view. The worst strategy is to ignore opposing arguments and hope no one will notice. The best way is to face the opposing arguments and show why they're limited, inapplicable, or otherwise overpowered by other considerations. The U.S. is a negative force in the world because it interferes in the domestic affairs of other countries—such as Guatemala, Vietnam, and Nicaragua. VS. Taking into Account Contrary Arguments or Evidence While the U.S. fought against German Nazism and the communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union, it had a negative impact in Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Iraq.
Begging the Question Making a statement which assumes that an important question has already been answered The 20-40 billion dollars for the new F-35 jet fighters should be paid through a special levy rather than through an increase in income tax rates. Here, it is assumed that we have already answered affirmatively questions such as, ‘Do we need these jets?’ ‘Can we get less expensive jets?’ ‘Where else might such money go?’ VS. Examining Assumptions We ought to weigh many factors in determining whether or not to spend 20-40 billion dollars on F-35 jet fighters.
Ignoring or Distorting Context In discussing Canadian identity vis á vis the American Empire, Atwood all but leaves out Canada’s relation with the British Empire. VS. Supplying Appropriate Context Atwood grounds her comparison between Gaul and Canada in the reality of trade, where Canada becomes a branch plant.
Exaggerating or Making Unrealistic Claims Marijuana shouldn’t be legalized because then everyone will be stoned all the time. VS. Making Realistic Claims If someone argues that marijuana shouldn’t be legalized because then everyone will be stoned all the time, you could respond that this exaggerates or is
53 unrealistic because everyone won’t want to do this (just as everyone won’t want to be drunk all the time). Or, if someone argues that communism is better than capitalism because it allows everyone to share everything, you could observe that people don’t generally want to share what they have. If someone argues that a completely open market is the best form of economy because it allows a free and benevolent interplay of economic forces, you could observe that companies can be as ruthless as individuals and must therefore be subject to restrictive laws.
Making Inaccurate Statements Stating something that can be clearly contradicted Vancouver has the best beaches and the best climate in the world. Anyone can assert anything, and often flimsy information is masked by the way the speaker is writing or by appeals to biases, authority, etc. Often it is necessary to discern if writers are asserting their opinions or asserting facts. The statement, “Vancouver is the best city in the world,” is simply an opinion, yet if it is followed by reasons then it becomes an argument. In this case, it is easy to think of many places with better beaches and less rain. VS. Making Accurate Statements Presenting perspectives that can be backed up Vancouver lies at the feet of beautiful mountains and has many beaches and ocean walkways, yet it can be rainy and cold in the winter.
Omitting Sources or References Making statements that need corroboration yet have none. Barack Obama was in fact born into a fundamentalist family in Waziristan. VS. Including Sources or References Making statements and then backing them up with authoritative sources. According to his State of Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961.
False or Inappropriate Analogies Using analogies that don’t fit, are over-extended, or otherwise distort the original; often this involves comparing the original to something that it is similar to in only one way, yet different from in a crucial and unacknowledged way The universe is like a sand bag: full of shifting particles. VS. Appropriate Analogy Using analogies that help readers see the nature and functioning of the original Deists see God as a Clockmaker: He creates the universe, yet then does not constantly involve Himself in its day to day functioning.
Doubtful Cause Saying one thing causes another without showing how or why Westerners want to exoticize India because they want to promote their own market values.
54 VS. Clear Cause and Effect Logic Showing how one thing causes another Rushdie argues that the reason the British portray Gandhi as a saint is because they want to stress peaceful disobedience, which discourages more dangerous forms of direct action and keeps British economic interests in place. Circular Logic Arguing for an effect based on a predetermined or unexamined cause; begging the question is a type of this I agree with him because he is always right. VS. Linear Logic Showing how an effect derives from an examined cause I agreed with him because he backed up his statement with context, logic, and fact.
Using a predetermined system or point of view to prove your point only works if your audience shares that system or point of view. If they don’t, your argument may appear circular. You could, for example, argue to a group of fundamentalist Christians that capitalist greed would disappear if people converted to Christianity. Yet a different audience may not agree with the assumption that Christianity will root out greed. In academic prose, it is best to avoid religious or ideological assumptions and vocabulary. Rather, assume that your audience is a secular—but not an anti-religious—one. Religious content is completely valid if you are talking about a particular group of people—as in, “fundamentalist Christians will probably not go for capital punishment because of their belief in the commandment, Thou shalt not kill.” In this scenario you are not assuming that your audience is either for or against Christianity.
Slippery Slope Saying that if you take one step in a direction, then another step is inevitable If you legalize marijuana then you have to legalize cocaine. VS. Contextualized Projection or Defining Limits Showing where a certain trend or direction is likely to go, or where it can, should, or will stop You can legalize marijuana and keep cocaine illegal.
Argumentum ad Hominem ‘Argument against the man’ rather than against what the man says What does Oprah know about Shakespeare? VS. Avoiding Pre-judgment or Citing Experts Judging by what is said not by who is saying it; using known authorities Oprah pointed out that Westside Story is largely a reworking of Romeo and Juliet.
55 Straw Man Setting up a contrary argument that is easy to knock down, and ignoring a more difficult and relevant contrary argument Christianity is full of hypocrisy and zealots; just look at Jim Bakker and Jim Jones! VS. Tackling the Real Issue Christianity may have its share of hypocrites and zealots, yet figures such as Saint Francis of Assisi and Bartolomé de las Casas seem to have been helpful and sincere.
False Appeal to Tradition Arguing that if something was done or believed in the past it should therefore be continued Smacking a child was good enough for my parents so it’s good enough for me. VS. Re-evaluation or Appropriate Use of Tradition Many parents used to discipline their children by hitting them, yet today many parents try to find other ways to alter their children’s behaviour.
Non Sequitur A statement that doesn’t logically follow another statement Guns often cause deaths, and those who portray gun usage in films should be fined or imprisoned. VS. Proper Cause and Effect Logic Guns often cause deaths, and as a result several organizations are trying to limit gun access and restrict the ownership of semi-automatics.
SAMPLE THESIS STATEMENTS
Here is a range of thesis statements, from completely unconvincing to completely convincing. You can use alternative words for unconvincing (wrong, inaccurate, misguided, deceptive, uninformed, etc.) and for convincing (right, accurate, clear-headed, honest, informed, etc.). Use the categories of deceptive and honest sparingly, as these imply motives that you often can’t be sure about.
In general, it is better to take a side—at least leaning toward unconvincing or convincing—yet there are rare cases where an argument appears equally weighted on both sides. Still, imagine that you are an administrator or judge, and need to make a decision. This will force you to consider which factors are most important
You’ll always need to consider counter arguments in your essays, although you won’t always need to put these in your thesis statement.
56 The author is completely wrong because he uses doubtful cause, illogical development, selective examples, and an exaggerated conclusion.
The author is very unconvincing because he makes the basic mistake of ignoring historical context.
While the author does make a few accurate statements, she is ultimately unconvincing because she uses these to force the reader into a false dichotomy.
While overall the author has an unrealistic view of the social welfare system, he does make several strong points about delinquency.
While the author is not convincing because she is deceptive in her use of analogy, she does give accurate dates and statistics.
While the author’s main argument about bureaucracy is exaggerated, he nevertheless makes important secondary points regarding administrative process.
The author is convincing in his view of language but not in his view of behaviour. Given that behaviour is more important in this context, his argument remains unconvincing.
The weaknesses of exaggeration and selective examples are not quite enough to dilute the overall strengths of the author’s analogies and historical perspective.
While the author uses authorities that are not always convincing, he makes up for it in detailed examples and scientific facts.
While some factual inaccuracies mar parts of her argument about poverty and violence, her overall cause and effect scenario is more than adequately backed up with references to a wide range of demographic studies and historical precedent.
Despite some problems involving too strong an appeal to emotional scenarios, his argument about the need for Third World aid is strongly backed up with economic studies, cultural background, and historical context.
Her argument is strong not only in terms of historical context and insightful analogies, but also in terms of logical argument and countering objections.
57 Samples
On Lord of War “Guns Are Evil. Everybody Should Have One.” Manohla Dargis, September 16, 2005 From http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/16/movies/16lord.html?_r=1&
Lord of War, a misfire of a political satire about the international gun market, opens with a killer scene: Nicolas Cage standing on a veritable carpet of bullet casings. Mr. Cage's character, Yuri Orlov, is a gunrunner who has placed untold weapons in untold numbers of hands. Now, surrounded by gutted buildings and dressed to impress, a cigarette burning between his fingers, Yuri looks straight into the camera and wonders aloud how he can furnish everyone in the world with a gun to call his very own.
This carpet of casings also serves as a launching pad for a subsequent and even more outlandish opening credit sequence that tracks a bullet from its manufacture in Russia to its final resting place in the skull of a young African. A bullet in the head always seizes the imagination or at least the audience's attention, but because the African is merely cinematic collateral damage, the image registers both as showboating and as a warning shot for the problems to come. The screenwriter for Lord of War, Andrew Niccol, lavishes a great deal of time and many words building a case against guns; unfortunately, the film's director, who also happens to be Mr. Niccol, enjoys playing with toy guns. His words may say no, but his overworked, overslick visual style says lock and load, baby.
The problem, of course, is that violence is so inherently cinematic, so visually and aurally captivating. Loud pops, big bangs and the sights and sounds of bodies seizing up and spurting blood have long been the stock in trade of certain movies, which partly explains why the bangs are getting ever louder, the bloodletting more spectacular. The noise in these films has grown so deafening that it can be hard to hear the message (if there even is one), especially when that message carries a familiar, been-there, done-that, eat-your- oatmeal-because-it's-good-for-you moralism. Like: guns are bad, corporations are soulless, and some first world governments traffic in third world misery. To which any reasonably informed viewer might be expected to wonder, And your point is what, exactly?
Mr. Niccol's point here, it appears, is both to entertain and to instruct with the story of Yuri, a Russian émigré who rises from humble Brooklyn to become a globe-trotting gunrunner with all the moral reasoning of a flea. Guided by Mr. Cage's intermittent voice-over, the story tracks Yuri's decades-long evolution as a merchant of death saddled with a few familiar distractions: a beautiful model wife played by Bridget Moynahan and a drug-addled brother played by Jared Leto.
Yuri gets his break in the early 1990's when he snaps up materiel in the recently imploded Ukraine that he subsequently offloads in war-ravaged Africa. Like everything else in this film, Mr. Cage's performance is watchable if never credible because his director never resolves the disconnect between this star's function (to entertain) and that of his character (to repel).
58
On “The Culture of Violence” Michelle Temple
In her essay “The Culture of Violence” (1999), Myriam Miedzian explores some of the causes of violence in American culture and makes a convincing case through her use of examples; however, these tend to be over-selective and too general, and she fails to employ any sources to support her arguments. Miedzian’s main question is “what [do] we teach our boys that makes them become such violent men?” (section 12). One of her main foci is the media and she gives examples of three role models/heroes, namely the action characters Rambo, Chuck Norris, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, indicating that they would be “high on the list” (section 13). On whose list, though? She does not indicate where this list comes from. On review of some of the idols from the 80’s (the time period one would assume she is referring to as per her examples), that list could have included Wayne Gretzky, Michael J. Fox, Michael Jackson, and Christopher Reeve (Wikipedia, 2012), none of whom one would think of as particularly violent. She also discusses music and audiovisual programming, and comments on the prevalence of angry-sounding music and scantily clad women who look like they’re about to get raped, and the example she gives is rock band Poison’s 1987 song “I want action.” While Miedzian’s example does make a case based on the lyrics she provides, it is quite extreme, and that particular song actually only peaked at 50 on Billboard’s Hot 100 (Billboard, 2012), and can hardly be considered representative of the music of the time. “The 1980’s in America were a time of illusional prosperity… [with] music that paralleled an overall sense of satisfaction in American society,” as Thomas Harrison notes in his book Music of the 1980s (2011). Miedzian overlooks all the feel-good pop, rock, and R&B hits that are commonly associated with the 1980s. She also stereotypically blames heavy metal musicians, tying them in with drug use, and then linking drugs to the increase in violent crime. The logic behind this line of reasoning needs to be more fully explored to be plausible and the lack of tangible evidence makes the argument weak. In fact, one study which sought to “quantify a possible relationship between drug use and music style” (Barnard, 1997) actually found that teens who listened to rave/techno music were more likely to be doing drugs, followed by pop, and then by rock-and-roll, with heavy metal having a less significant impact. In summary, while Miedzan’s arguments are certainly compelling, her points are too general and over- selective, making her sound more like an out-of-touch, overprotective parent. Her essay would be much more powerful with a more appropriate range of examples and with well-researched evidence to support them.
References
Barnard, M., Forsyth A. J. M., McKeganey, N. P. (1997). Music preference as an indicator of adolescent drug use. Addiction, 92 (10), 1317-1325. doi: 10.1080/09652149736828 Billboard.com. (2012). I want Action - Poison, Song Information. Retrieved from http://www.billboard.com/#/song/poison/i-want-action/22802435 Harrison, T. (2011). Music of the 1980s. ABC-CLIO. Retrieved from http://lib.myilibrary.com
59 Miedzian, M. (1999) “The Culture of Violence.” In G. Goshgarian (Ed.), The Contemporary Reader (6th ed.) (pp. 455-460). New York: Longman. Wikipedia. (2012). 1980s. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
On “Canadians: What Do They Want?” (Margaret Atwood)
Note the way this essay differs from the rhetorical analysis, “The Bristling North.”
Army Boots and Romans: Atwood’s Flawed Comparisons
As Canadians, we have a problematic relationship with our neighbour to the south. We, at least in English Canada, speak the same language and share basic modes of culture and everyday life—in business, sports, entertainment, etc. Yet we differ historically and politically: we slowly disengaged from British control, whereas they revolted against Britain in 1776; we have unresolved history with the Quebecois, whereas they have unresolved history with African-Americans and Latinos; while we both took land from the Natives, the American wars against the Native populations was on a much larger scale; we by and large have a multilateral foreign policy, whereas they often act unilaterally. There is also a more subtle, emotional difference between Canadians and Americans, one which derives from the fact that they are so much more powerful than we are. It is this difference that Margaret Atwood addresses in “Canadians: What Do They Want?” (Mother Jones 1982). In this essay she explains to her American audience that Canadians are justified in their resentment of American power. While Atwood is provocative and at times insightful, her writing is ineffective because her gender comparisons are insulting and confusing, and her argument is unconvincing because her comparison between the U.S. and Rome leaves out crucial elements related to neocolonialism and the British Empire.
Atwood’s comparison between militant men and militant America is insulting. While associating men’s feet with jackboots (army boots and totalitarianism) is a provocative way to start the article, it is very likely to alienate or offend her male readers. Even if men agreed that they are responsible for most of the violence and totalitarianism in the world, throwing this in their faces, when her main aim is to discuss the attitude of one people to another, could make them feel that they are being used unnecessarily as a negative (and unexamined) premise. The same would apply to Christians or women if she started with a negative comparison involving Christians or women.
The comparison also confuses the issue. How, for instance, do American women fit into it? Do they disagree, by virtue of their gender, with the values and attitudes of their countrymen? Are they immune to feelings of power and dominance? And what about Canadian men? Do they, by virtue of their gender, feel that their military should act eagerly or unilaterally? The comparison could be overlooked if it were only a provocative opening, yet when Atwood returns to it at the end, it raises the following question: if she is so negative in her perception of half of the people
60 around her, how are we to gauge her perception of those who live even further from her, south of the 49th parallel?
Atwood’s second comparison—between American and Roman empires—is far more useful to her argument. That the U.S. is an empire, like Rome, and that Canada lies within this empire, like Gaul, is useful in that it helps to explain the feeling that Canadians often have of being overpowered. Her subsidiary comparison, between present-day America and a hypothetical Mexico ten times the size of the U.S., is also effective: many of her readers could imagine such a ‘Mexicanization,’ especially given the recent reconquista of states like California and Texas. While Atwood is writing in 1982, the trend in Mexican immigration was clearly already evident, as the following graphic illustrates:
(From http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/05/01/a-demographic-portrait-of-mexican- origin-hispanics-in-the-united-states/)
In addition, Atwood’s historical information (in paragraphs ten and eleven) and her linkage of empires to corporations (Canada being the branch-plant) ground her hypothetical Mexico comparison in the economic realities of NAFTA, lumber, oil, and the auto industry.
Her comparison between American and Roman empires starts off strong yet ends up weak—for two reasons. First, she leaves out the crucial distinction between colonialism and neocolonialism. Her comparison of the United States to Rome makes sense from the angle of power in general, yet it fails to get at the specific way the U.S. has exercised its power, and this specificity is crucial to the Canadian sensibilities she is analyzing. While the U.S. has indeed used their military to serve their economic and geopolitical interests, they have not used it in Canada since the
61 early 19th Century in the manner that Rome and Britain did. The distinction between colonialism (direct geographic, political, and economic control) and neocolonialism (less direct political and economic control) may seem an insignificant one to Guatemalans in 1954, Vietnamese in 1970, Chileans in 1973, or Iraqis in 2003, yet it shouldn’t be lost on Canadians. The fact remains that ever since the war of 1812-14 the U.S. has not exercised against us the type of unwanted imperial power exercised by Rome in Gaul or Britain in India.
Atwood’s comparison is further weakened because she leaves out the positive role empire has played in Canada. She leaves out that we were born under the British Empire, that the British Empire served our interests in the past, and that the American Empire serves our interests now. The land on which we stand, which we took from the Natives (“Oh, Canada, our home and Native land,” indeed!) comes from our being part of an unprecedented colonial enterprise managed from London. In our early years we were protected from the U.S. by the British, and in the present we exist under a Canada-friendly umbrella of American military power. Now that Washington and New York have replaced London, we resemble more than ever a larger version of Scotland, which benefits from the markets and economic systems generated by its powerful neighbour to the south. In brief, we can deal with the world’s most aggressive capitalist power (the U.S.) because we were a working part of the world’s most aggressive capitalist power for over two hundred years (England). Lister Sinclair once wrote—referring to the U.K and the U.S.—that Canadians "lie between the greatest and grimmest of the Grim Great Powers" (quoted in Waters, 608). Yet Atwood's only reference to the British Empire—apart from a general reference to America's revolt against its "colonial situation"—is that it behaved slightly better than the Americans and the Mongols, and that it, like Rome, didn't expect to be liked. Yet again she leaves out the crucial part: in English Canada the English were liked.
Atwood shies away from the crucial question: Is the reason Canada has fared so well—despite its proximity to the two most powerful empires of the last three hundred years—that we have always been an integral part of these empires? Answering in the affirmative would explain why Canada does not have a completely negative view of empire—like many other nations do. Canada did not, for instance, suffer the fate of Burma during the three brutal wars Britain fought against it from 1824-86, or of China during the Opium Wars against the British from 1839-60, or of the Philippines in 1900 when the U.S. defeated its colonial Spanish master yet then went on to become its colonial overlord, or the fate of Vietnam from the time the French left in 1954. To return to Atwood’s comparison of Canada and Gaul, perhaps we are less like the Roman province of Celtic Gaul (in central and northern France), where Roman legions were stationed in great numbers because of the deep tensions with Rome. Perhaps we are more like the Roman province of Transalpine Gaul (also called Narbonensis—see Figure 1), which was so integrated into the economic structure of the Roman Empire that legions hardly needed to be stationed there at all.
62
Figure 1: Roman Gaul c. 58 B.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transalpine_Gaul)
Cisalpine Gaul (Gallia Cisalpina above) was part of the Roman Empire until 41 B.C., after which it was integrated into Roman Italy. In my analogy, Cisalpine Gaul stands for land integrated into the United States as a result of the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Oregon Treaty (1846), and the annexation of Native and Mexican land from Texas to California (1835-48). Transalpine Gaul (Narbonensis above) stands for land north of the 49th parallel, which was never completely integrated into the more powerful union to its south. Unlike Atwood, however, I would emphasize that this analogy only goes so far—as all analogies do. Moreover, the Rome analogy must be discarded precisely because of the factor Atwood sidelines: Britain. The Rome analogy contains only one imperial power—Rome—whereas in explaining the Canadian relation to the geo-political empire of the United States, two imperial powers must be taken into consideration—the United States and Britain.
One could argue that the French Empire should also be taken into account, and that Atwood ought to have spent more time on France and less on Gaul. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that the French Empire abandoned Quebec after 1759, one year before which time Voltaire wrote in Candide that Canada is only “quelques arpents de neige,” only “some acres of snow.” Voltaire meant that the effort to defend French Canada was not worth the value obtained from the land itself (for instance, the plantations of Guadeloupe and Martinique were more profitable). Partly as a result of this abandonment, and partly as a result of the rivalry between Britain and revolutionary America, the relation between French and English Canada has involved a unique mentality of compromise—one that does not exist south of the 49th parallel. For instance, the American union is indissoluble, while Quebec is free to leave at any time. Canada’s position is in some ways like that of Scotland, yet it is also complicated by the rivalry between two Empires, and by an ongoing mentality of negotiation between French and English Canada. It is this multi-national complexity that makes the Rome-Gaul analogy too simplistic. And it is this mentality of negotiation that helps explain why both Canadian men and Canadian women are not as eager to put on army boots as are their good friends to the south.
63
Works Cited
Watters, R.E. “Stephen Leacock’s Canadian Humor.” Canadian Anthology. Toronto: Gage, 1974.
Outline Army Boots and Romans: Atwood’s Flawed Comparisons
While Atwood is provocative and at times insightful, her writing is ineffective because her gender comparisons are insulting and confusing, and her argument is unconvincing because her comparison between the U.S. and Rome leaves out crucial elements related to neocolonialism and the British Empire.
Atwood’s comparison between militant men and militant America is insulting. -- starting with jackboots provocative yet alienating to men -- even if men agreed about overall point, it’s still an unexamined premise -- similar to starting by insulting women or Christians
The comparison also confuses the issue. -- American women? Canadian men? -- returns to comparison at end -- if so biased against nearby men, how biased against neighbour nation?
Atwood’s second comparison—between American and Roman empires—is far more useful to her argument. -- comparison explains feelings of being overpowered -- Mexico analogy likely to resonate with Americans: reconquista -- also makes sense in terms of economy—NAFTA, etc.
Her comparison between American and Roman empires starts off strong yet ends up weak—for two reasons. First, she leaves out the crucial distinction between colonialism and neocolonialism. -- makes sense in terms of power, yet not exercise of power -- U.S. has not treated Canada like it treated other countries: Guatemala, Iraq, etc. -- 1812-14 excepted (mention of Britain here)
Atwood’s comparison is further weakened because she leaves out the positive role empire has played in Canada. -- role of Britain: protector, economic gain -- role shift from London to Washington, yet Canada still benefits -- ‘between the greatest and grimmest’ powers -- Canada fared much better than Burma, Philippines, Vietnam -- Canada more like Cisalpine than Celtic Gaul -- limits of above analogy: two imperial powers are part of the equation -- Conclusion: third imperial power (France); compromise 299 words
64
MARKING NOTES AND SYMBOLS
Most Common Errors: pmc proofread more carefully pmc throughout (plus downward arrow) proofread more carefully for the remainder of the essay (grammar errors won’t all be marked from here on in) th st arg thesis statement is not an argument, but is an observation or statement ts arg topic sentence is not an argument, but is an observation or statement th st à ts topic sentence is not clearly linked to thesis statement
Format: Italics or Quotes?
Academic writing differs from everyday writing in that titles are given a particular format. Since students are often confused about when to use italics and when to use quotes (and since it is quite easy to fix these errors) I’ll supply a brief run-down.
Put in single quotes: quotes-within-quotes, an uncommon use of a word or phrase, ironic or doubtful statements, inexact quotations, approximations, and idioms which might otherwise cause confusion. The following are correct: She told him, “You mispronounced ‘to be or not to be,’ but you acted very well.” She wasn’t exactly what communists call a ‘fellow traveller.’ I suspect he is ‘around the bend.’
Put in double quotes: direct quotations, short texts, articles, chapters, short poems, lyrics, short stories, and TV episodes. The following are correct: He said, “the poor need to pay more tax because they are all lazy.” The short story “Under the Volcano” was expanded into the novel Under the Volcano, which was made into the 1984 film Under the Volcano. The song “Paranoid Android” is from the 1997 Radiohead album OK Computer.
Put in italics (or underline if writing): long texts, movies, documentaries, journals, books, novels, TV shows or series, TV seasons, long poems, and novellas. The following are correct: Bowling for Columbine is a film about gun violence (handwritten); Bowling for Columbine is a film about gun violence (typed). The episode “My Maserati Does 185” from Entourage is very funny. Also use italics to highlight a word or oppose it to another—as in the following: assertiveness is different from aggression.
Marking Symbols
// or //ism parallelism: Error: She came, she saw, and she is eating doughnuts. Correction: She came, she saw, and she ate the doughnuts. ¶ paragraph. ^ insert. ( ) omit, usually to avoid awkward or redundant wording, as in “the (big) huge cat.”
65
circling means that there is something wrong; try to fix it. ✓ check mark = good ✓✓ = very good ✓✓✓ = excellent agr agreement, usually subject-verb or singular-plural: Error: They loves TV dinners. Correction: They love TV dinners. art article: Errors: the Canada. They love Great Lakes. Corrections: Canada. They love the Great Lakes. awk awkward: Error: Then she saw that when he was very happy she thought she’d leave. Correction: When she saw that he was very happy, she decided to leave. cap capitalization: Error: the Myth of white picket fences. Correction: the myth of ‘white picket fences.’ Note: Use capital letters for ultimate or unique versions of Heaven, Hell, God or Devil, but small letters for metaphorical usage or for cases in which there are more than one heaven, hell, god or devil. coh coherence; confused syntax or ideas: Error: It begins once not every single time in separate ways. Correction: Sometimes the show begins in a different way. conj conjunction: Errors: She hated him, while she never told him this. It was a nice day, although the sun was shining. Corrections: She hated him, but she never told him this. It was a nice day, and the sun was shining. cs comma splice; two independent clauses with only a comma between them: Error: They like it, they want to buy it. Correction: “They like it, and they want to buy it.” You need to show the relation between the two clauses. Often, you need to use a conjunction, a semi-colon, a full colon, or a new sentence. diction too elevated or not elevated enough; improper, slang, colloquial: Errors: She wanted to eat the burger, but she was afraid that she couldn't masticate it very well. She was pissed off when she fell ass over heels. Corrections: She wanted to eat the hamburger, but she was afraid that she wouldn’t be able to chew it very well. She was angry when she fell head over heels. Note: It is OK to use swear words when these are part of a quotation. fc full colon should be used before a list or an idea which follows or completes what comes before. The pattern is A: B, as in "He wants the following: cash, car, and endless credit." format usually this is incorrect use of italics or quotes; see the section above, “Italics or Quotes?” frag sentence fragment; a sentence missing a subject or predicate: Errors: What he liked about it. Moved like a rat into his apartment. Corrections: What he liked about it was its colour. He moved like a rat into his apartment. fs fused sentence: two independent clauses lacking conjunction: Error: He drew she wrote. Correction: "He drew while she wrote" or "He drew and she wrote." id idiom or expression; this is a specific type of expression error, one which isn't necessarily illogical, but isn't common or acceptable. Error: He’ll make it to the top dog. I couldn’t fuse into the next lane. She’ll reach it to the top one day. I can’t stand on this weather! Correction: He’ll be top dog one day. I couldn’t change into the next lane. She’ll make it to the top one day. I can’t stand this weather! integ integration of quotation into your text or syntax: Error: “I love you!” This showed his passion. Correction: When he said, “I love you,” this showed his passion.
66 md mixed discourse; confusion of direct and indirect discourse: Error: I said Hi, how are you? Correction: I said "Hi, how are you?” or I asked how you were. mc mixed construction; clashing syntax: Error: Although he saw it, then he knew. Correction: When he saw it, he knew. Note: mc often leads to errors in coherence or logic. mm misplaced modifier: Error: Grabbing the gun, it went off. Correction: When Jerry grabbed the gun, it went off. mod modifier: either dangling, misplaced, or otherwise faulty. Dangling modifier errors: The best actor in the movie was John, lasting at least three hours. She said that she liked him, purring along the highway. Correction: The best actor in the movie was John, who acted brilliantly throughout the three-hour film. She said that she liked him, as the car purred along the highway. pass passive voice; unnecessary use of to be infinitive + past participle: it was believed. Note: sometimes you want to use pass, as when you want to indicate that something happened, but you don’t want to be specific about who did it. In most cases, however, you want to be specific. Ask yourself if you want your reader to know who the subject is. Remember that if you are avoiding naming a subject, I’ll probably wonder why. When you write, “It is believed that three out of four men don’t understand women,” I’ll want to know who believes this. poss possessive: Error: She likes it’s texture. Correction: She likes its texture. rep repetitive ref reference: Error: The place was smoky and full. This seemed odd! To fix this, clarify what “this” refers to. “The place was smoky and full. It was odd that the room was full.” sc semi colon should be used for listing long items in a sequence (category A: item 1 in A; item 2 in A; item 3 in A, etc.) or for reworking (A; A): Error: He couldn’t stand it any longer; his brain exploding. Correct: He couldn’t stand it any longer; he felt like his brain was going to explode. Both sides of the sc must be complete sentences—that is, they must contain a subject and a predicate; otherwise, what you have is a fragment. sp spelling error trans transition, usually between paragraphs, but also between sentences wch word choice error ww wrong word
67 APPENDICES
1. Boston Legal
From “The Mighty Rogues” (Season 4, Episode 16, April 17, 2008, written by David Kelley, Lawrence Broch, Jill Goldsmith). The following scenes are in a court room.
Excerpt # 1
Shirley Schmidt [played by Candice Bergen]: He [her father] doesn't wanna live like this. His mind is rotting away, much of it's already gone, his organs are shutting down, he's incontinent. The indignity is beyond words. Alan Shore [Shirley’s lawyer, played by James Spader]: When your father was competent, did you two ever discuss… Shirley: We did. He signed a living will. He did not wanna be kept alive by extraordinary means… AAG [Assistant Attorney General] Jeremy Hollis: But we're not talking about keeping him alive with any extraordinary means. You're here asking for permission to euthanize him. Shirley: My father is in extreme discomfort, I'm asking to manage his pain with morphine. AAG: Yes. You have to couch it in those terms to get the court order. But, Ms. Schmidt, you're not denying what this is really about, are you? Shirley: Are you denying this happens all the time under the heading of pain management? AAG: When there is actual pain to manage. But here your father isn't in any real physical discomfiture. He's probably not even aware of his mental state. The pain we're talking about managing here is yours. Shirley: First of all, my father suffers from broken ribs. He is in pain. Second, the agitation he experiences, the fear, the anxiety, are an extreme form of discomfiture, Mr. Hollis. Please don’t suggest to me that he does not anguish. Dr. Giles Bromfield [on the witness stand]: Well, the fact of the matter is we can now manage his pain quite effectively without morphine. And we are, with codeine. The other fact… He stops. AAG: Is what, sir? Dr.: Well, the pain we're talking about is from injuries that will heal. In cases where morphine drips have been turned up with fatal results… it's irreversible pain. Which, I certainly sympathize with the family's position, if it were my father I would probably wanna do the same thing. But the law simply doesn't allow it. Alan Shore: I read an article that said people in comas can actually experience physical pain. Is that true?
68 Dr.: Yes. Alan: Do you think it's possible that a conscious person could be experiencing pain but because of his advanced mental deterioration that he be incapable of communicating that pain? Dr.: I suppose it's possible. Alan: So if a doctor, say, wanted to make such a finding, let's say the patient was his own father say, he might be able to find pain, prescribe the morphine, and nobody could state to a reasonable medical certainty that he was wrong. Dr.: I'd like to think that my medical ethics would prevent me from doing that. Alan: I see. So, in your opinion the medically ethical thing to do here is let this person's brain continue to rot until all his vital organs shut down, he shrinks to 85 pounds, his esophagus closes up so he can no longer eat and he begins to suffer grand mal seizures. These are the ethics you bring to this court room today?
Excerpt # 2 Alan: This is not a new debate, but the fact that we still continue to have the debate in this country baffles me. People are helped to die every single day in virtually every hospital. In the hospices, at home, all under the wink-wink of pain management. And yet every time someone suggests bringing this practice out of the closet opponents leap up screaming, "There's potential for abuse!" "We'll end up killing people who wanna live!" Come on! If there's potential for abuse then by all means let's regulate it. Have an administrative hearing, or go to court like we're doing now. But there's much more potential for abuse when we do it secretly! AAG: No, no, no. There's a good reason for the secrecy. The last thing we want to do is to cultivate a culture of suicide. Almost twenty percent of today's teenagers contemplate taking their own lives at one time or another. Recent five-year analysis showed a twenty percent rise in suicides among middle-aged people. It's becoming epidemic! Not the time to lift the stigma. Alan: We wouldn’t be sending the message that… AAG: Oh yes we would, Mr. Shore. You make it permissible, that's one step closer to making it acceptable. And the real danger is that elderly parents start thinking maybe it's their duty to spare their children so they won't drain their finances. Alan: This wouldn’t be that case. AAG: Could be tomorrow's case. Alan: Which is why we take it on a case by case basis. Addressing all the concerns you raised, but why must we have an absolute blanket ban when it causes such immeasurable suffering? For so many! Judge Victoria Peyton: Because it's not potential for abuse that's really in play, Counsel. Let's all admit that. It's politics. And the legislator gets to make the laws. Not the Judges.
69 Alan: But it's for the Judges to safeguard the constitution, included therein is our fundamental right to privacy. Can there be anything more private, more personal than the destiny of one's own body? One's life. It's also for the Judges to step in and be humane when a gutless, politically expedient Congress refuses to do so. My God, we put dogs to sleep! To spare their needless suffering. Why don't we extend the same compassion to human beings? This man is terminal. He’ll die. He fears people. All people. He can't control his bowels. He is in utter lack of cognizance and an inability to have any meaningful exchange or even contact. Would you choose to live like that? Would anybody? AAG: To allow assisted suicide is to say that life itself has no intrinsic value. No sanctity. Alan: Oh baloney! I'm saying Walter Schmidt's life in its current state has no intrinsic value. He lies in his bed with no apparent capacity to discern or think. His days have devolved into a horrible cycle of soiling his bed sheets and screaming incoherently at the very touch of the nurse who cleans him. His life is a misery. I'm sorry, there is no sanctity in that. I don't care what… [He leans over the table to compose himself. He goes to his chair, closes his binder and chuckles derisively. To Jeremy Hollis softly:] I'm sorry. [He takes a moment to compose himself]. My best friend [Denny, played by William Shatner] has Alzheimer's. In the very early stages, it hasn't… He is a grand lover of life, and will be for some time. I believe even when his mind starts to really go he'll still fish, he'll laugh, and love. And as it progresses he'll still wanna live because there'll be value for him in a friendship, in a cigar. The truth is, I don't think he'll ever come to me and say, "This is the day I want to die." But the day is coming. And he won't know it. This is perhaps the most insidious thing about Alzheimer's. But you see, he trusts me to know when that day has arrived. He trusts me to safeguard his dignity, his legacy and self- respect. He trusts me to prevent his end from becoming a mindless piece of mush. And I’ll. It will be an unbearably painful thing for me but I’ll do it because I love him. I’ll end his suffering. Because it's the only decent, humane, and loving thing a person can do. Ms. Schmidt is here today because she loves her father. She's asking you to show mercy that the law refuses to. AAG: She is asking you to play God. Alan: Your Honor, whatever one's belief in God, I know we can all agree, some lives are taken far too early, and others far too late. [He sits. So does Jeremy Hollis. And back in the last row of the courtroom, unnoticed, sits Denny.] Judge Victoria Peyton: I really don't believe in playing God. I do believe in God, by the way. I believe there's a sanctity to every human life. The idea that doctors and relatives get to start weighing the quality of a given life to decide who shall live, who shall die. It horrifies me. And I see tremendous potential for abuse. But there is no suggestion of such abuse here. Mr. Schmidt is terminal, his condition is irreversible, he is suffering. The law allows patients to refuse medical treatment even when to do so means death. It allows the disconnection of nutrition and hydration tubes thereby basically starving the person to death. What rational distinction can there be for not allowing a more humane method? The plaintiff's motion is granted. Ms. Schmidt? My prayers are with you. [Shirley mouths, "Thank you."] Adjourned. [She pounds her gavel and leaves.]
70
2. “Stillbirth of the American Dream” (Heather Havrilesky, Salon, July, 2010)
Americans are constantly in search of an upgrade. It’s a sickness that’s infused into our blood, a dissatisfaction with the ordinary that’s instilled in us from childhood. Instead of staying connected to the divine beauty and grace of everyday existence — the glimmer of sunshine on the grass, the blessing of a cool breeze on a summer day — we’re instructed to hope for much more. Having been told repeated stories about the fairest in the land, the most powerful, the richest, the most heroic (Snow White, Pokémon, Ronald McDonald, Lady Gaga), eventually we buy into these creation myths and concede their overwhelming importance in the universe. Slowly we come to view our own lives as inconsequential, grubby, even intolerable.
Meanwhile, the American dream itself — a house, a job, a car, a family, a little lawn for the kids to frolic on — has expanded into something far broader and less attainable than ever. Crafty insta-celebrities and self-branding geniuses and social media gurus assert that submitting to the daily grind to pay the mortgage constitutes a meager existence. Books like “The 4-Hour Work Week” tell us that working the same job for years is for suckers. We should be paid handsomely for our creative talents, we should have the freedom to travel and live wherever we like, our children should be exposed to the wonders of the globe at an early age.
In other words, we’re always falling short, no matter what our resources, and we pass this discontent to our offspring. And so millions of aspiring 3-year-old princesses hum “Someday my prince will come!” to themselves, turning their backs on the sweetness of the day at hand.
Maybe this is why AMC’s hit series Mad Men (premieres 10 p.m. Sunday, July 25) resonates so clearly at this point in history, when the promise of the boom years has given way to two wars, a stubborn recession and a string of calamities that threaten to damage our way of life irreparably. Somehow Mad Men captures this ultra-mediated, postmodern moment, underscoring the disconnect between the American dream and reality by distilling our deep-seated frustrations as a nation into painfully palpable vignettes. Even as the former denizens of Sterling Cooper unearth a groundswell of discontent beneath the skin-deep promises of adulthood, they keep struggling to concoct chirpy advertising messages that provide a creepily fantastical backdrop to this modern tragedy. Don (Jon Hamm) sighs deeply and unlocks the door to his lonely apartment, Peggy (Elisabeth Moss) whiles away her waking hours trading casual quips with co-workers, but happiness is still just a shiny kitchen floor or a sexy bikini or a cigarette away.
As the American dream is packaged for mass consumption, these isolated characters find themselves unnerved by its costs. Alternating between befuddled breadwinner and longing lothario, Don has finally put his ambivalence toward Betty (January Jones) behind him: He’s leaving his marriage and focusing on the
71 new ad firm as his true passion, just as we saw at the end of the third season. But can someone as conflicted as Don commit wholeheartedly to anything? Not surprisingly, the premiere seems to suggest that Don may not feel comfortable yielding his entire life to his career. And now that he’s free to pursue any woman he wants, instead of focusing on a woman whose intellect matches his own (like so many of his lovers, from Midge to Rachel to Suzanne the schoolteacher), Don appears likely to be drawn in by the same manipulative style of femininity that Betty embodied.
Of course, Roger Sterling (John Slattery) has always provided a sort of an omen of where Don was headed, hence their volatile relationship. Roger also has a somewhat childish habit of falling for anyone who makes him feel powerful. First there was Joan (Christina Hendricks), whose standoffish charms sometimes obscure the fact that she’s the most adaptive, resilient and personally effective character on the show, and next there was Jane (Peyton List), a character who could just as easily be called That Crying Girl, who’s developed into more of a high-maintenance daughter to Roger than a real partner. Roger and Don may represent the wildly fluctuating fortunes bequeathed to the masters of the universe: Told that they can have everything they want, these two are haunted by a constant desire for more. But what variety of more will suit them this time? The answer typically — and somewhat tragically — seems to spring out of impulse and ego and fear more often than any real self-reflection or wisdom.
Betty represents the female version of this lack of foresight, and as the fourth season develops, the arbitrary nature of her recent decisions starts to become more apparent. Showing her usual startling lack of insight, Betty smoothes over bumps in the road with Henry Francis (Christopher Stanley) while lashing out at her daughter, Sally (Kiernan Shipka). Betty has always had a life that’s built around men, but she entirely lacks Joan’s wisdom, survival instincts and compassion, and instead tends to resort to the foot-stomping of a petulant child. But what else can you expect from someone whose closest relations — overbearing father, paternal but deceitful husband — have consistently rewarded her for quietly, obediently playing along with their games?
Having taken the opposite path in life, Peggy represents the victories (and defeats, and insults) of the single career girl. At the start of Season 4, Peggy appears more committed to this path than ever, and she’s growing much more resilient and unflappable in the face of her co-workers’ personal slights. Nonetheless, we’ll surely see many of the fairy tales Peggy has been forced to give up along the way. Likewise, selling a kittenish flavor of femininity and sex while asserting your own power can’t be an easy tightrope to walk for Peggy, and it’s this uncomfortable spot that makes her one of the show’s most riveting characters.
The ambition and conflicted desires of these characters in their pursuit of happiness is what makes “Mad Men” such a singular and resonant reflection of a particularly American puzzle. But even as it strains to capture the transformation
72 of the American dream into a commodity that can be bought and sold, Mad Men itself is the ultimate, endlessly marketable über-brand: Everyone and everything is gorgeous to the point of luminosity, a pitch-perfect reflection of the times that’s been polished to such a high gloss that it upstages our hazy memories of that era completely. The terse exchanges, the sly banter, even the lighthearted quips dance over the mundane drudgery of workplace interactions like mean-spirited sprites. Bourbon glistens among ice cubes in immaculate glasses, fire engine red lipstick frames heartbreakingly white teeth, fingers tap perkily on typewriters as young men amble by, their slumped shoulders hidden behind the heroic cut of their tailored suits. Don Draper’s unmoving cap of hair gleams like a beacon, sending some Morse code straight to female brain stems, stirring long-buried childhood notions about one day having a husband who looks just like a Ken doll.
Behind the impeccable facade, of course, we see the longing in Pete Campbell’s (Vincent Kartheiser) tired face, we see the fear in Betty’s eyes as she sits down to dinner with her brand-new mother-in-law. The lovely details of this fantasy — the hairstyles, the costumes and the props that come with the dream — occasionally fail to obscure the confused humans who straighten their shoulders and dry their eyes and take the stage day after day, dutifully mouthing lines about the thrills of work and family, all of it the invented, peppy rhetoric of laundry detergent jingles.
This is the genius of Mad Men, its dramatic reenactment of the disconnect between the dream of dashing heroes and their beautiful wives, living in style among adorable, adoring children, and the much messier reality of struggling to play a predetermined role without an organic relationship to your surroundings or to yourself. We’re drawn to Mad Men week after week because each and every episode asks us, What’s missing from this pretty picture?
What’s missing on both a personal and a broader scale is empathy, of course — embodied most gruesomely in the lawn mower accident last season, but also wrapped up in the sharp edicts Don and Betty issue to their children, in the distracted insults Don aims at Peggy, in the self-involved funk of Joan’s doctor fiancé, in the cruelty that springs from Pete’s existential desperation. While Mad Men’s detractors often decry the empty sheen of it all, claiming that it has no soul, clearly that’s the point. The American dream itself is a carefully packaged, soulless affair. This is the automobile a man of your means should drive. This is the liquor a happy homemaker like yourself should serve to your husband’s business guests. As absurd as it seems to cobble together a dream around a handful of consumer goods, that’s precisely what the advertising industry did so effectively in the ’50s and ’60s, until we couldn’t distinguish our own desires from the desires ascribed to us by professional manipulators, suggesting antidotes for every real or imagined malady, supplying escapist fantasies to circumvent the supposedly unbearable tedium of ordinary life. In show creator Matthew Weiner’s telling, the birth of the advertising age coincides directly with the birth of our discontent as a nation — and what got lost in the hustle was our souls.
73 3. Excerpt from “Serializing the Past: Re-Evaluating History in Mad Men” By Monique Miggelbrink (From http://ivc.lib.rochester.edu/portfolio/serializing-the-past-re-evaluating-history-in- mad-men/) In the midst of Mad Men’s first season, Sterling Cooper’s office manager Joan Holloway informs secretary Peggy Olson about her promotion to copy writer. At the end of their conversation, Joan refers to her position as messenger: “Well, you know what they say: the medium is the message.”1 Of course, the viewer can classify this as one of the show’s many anachronisms. We know that Marshall McLuhan’s slogan, which is one of media studies’ essential phrases, became popular in 1964 and not in 1960 as depicted by the show.2 But there is more to that. This famous sentence self-reflexively signifies that Mad Men’s form, its complex serial condition, is central to the way it represents the past. The medium, i.e. Mad Men as contemporary hybrid serial television drama, is the message as it signifies the show’s basic principle of investigating the past. We follow the characters of the fictional Madison Avenue advertising agency Sterling Cooper through their troubled public and private lives, and see them struggling, sometimes even capitulating, in the light of challenging historical times, from episode to episode, from one season to the next—over and over again. At the same time, the chronological order of (historical) events is disrupted by experimental storytelling techniques like narrative gaps and temporal discontinuities. Like both McLuhan and Mad Men, this article explores the relationship between the medium and the message. For Mad Men, it is not simply the televisual form, but the serial televisual form that communicates the show’s message. Given the show’s focus on the medium, it here quickly becomes apparent that there is a need for new terms in television studies. Following the recent development of primetime television drama’s narrative forms, including Mad Men, but also Lost, The Wire, and The Sopranos, contemporary television drama is now more focused on complex and never- ending storylines, and the links between episodes than on the narrative closure of weekly episodes. So-called ‘quality television’ primetime series are also accompanied by immense academic output, either due to formal considerations or topics addressed. In television companion books, scholars analyze the shows’ non-conventional narratives. Invested in this current televisual phenomenon, Jason Mittell names this “narrative complexity” a key feature of contemporary storytelling in US-American television. Over the course of their development, television series like Mad Men use innovative narrative styles and a self-reflexivity about the forms they employ.3 They become an experimental ground for trying out new modes of storytelling. As the primetime television drama expands serial features and is, therefore, more focused on continuity than on closure, narrative complexity foregrounds the continuity of plots.4 This shift within contemporary primetime programming originating in the United States liberated both the serial and the soap opera from its stigmatizing label as a low-quality daytime format. Heralded in a new form as critically-acclaimed evening dramas, this ongoing but nevertheless fractured form of storytelling suggests and enables Mad Men’s re-telling and re-evaluating the past. One possible method for considering the complex relationship between content and form in contemporary television dramas may be drawn from a 1988 article in The American Historical Review in which Hayden White discussed the relationship between history in
74 words—“historiography”—and history in images—“historiophoty.”5 White asserts that both forms are not simply marked by difference, as it is often assumed by historians, but are unified in the basic fact that neither can ever depict historical events objectively. Every medium shapes its content according to its own nature, no matter if it speaks the language of the written word or the filmic image.6 Concerning Mad Men, one has to consider its visualization of history and, perhaps even more importantly, its serialization of history as its message. Telling history through the modes of seriality and narrative complexity establishes a deepened narrative scope that is not driven by linearity and closure, but provides space for historical complexity. So what possibilities are there to transform history in today’s hybrid, multiple storyline serial form? Here, I argue that the hybrid serial form is significant in the way Mad Men chooses to tell its version of the 1960s. As its complex narration features elements of nonlinear storytelling, (historical) events in Mad Men are not presented as a coherent narrative but are marked by dissonance. History itself is negotiated anew as an elliptic experience. Moreover, the serial nature of its storytelling universe provides space for re- telling and re-evaluating history through personalization. The Mad Men narrative offers its audience the opportunity to experience abstract history through the life of different individuals. As we are witnesses of the micro-perspective on 1960s history, we are asked, as viewers, to draw conclusions about the macro-level production of history by historians, textbooks, and a conservative culture. Glen Creeber states that the historical serial, as Mad Men may be considered, is so successful because it is “able to balance and address the ‘personal’ and the ‘political’ within one complex narrative trajectory.”7 Complex Narration and Hybridization: Multiplying the 1960s As Sarah Kozloff suggests, television can be described as the essential storyteller of our times.8 Since its rebranding in 2002, AMC has redefined itself as major competitor in the storytelling universe of television, symbolized by its current slogan “Story Matters Here.” Its first original drama series, Mad Men became a cultural phenomenon after the first season aired. In addition to its visual style, a new quality of contemporary primetime drama can be found in its narrative structure. One primary distinction in the narrative structure of serialized television is that between series and serial: Series refers to those shows whose characters and setting are recycled, but the story concludes in each individual episode. By contrast, in a serial the story and discourse don’t come to a conclusion during an episode, and the threads are picked up again after a given hiatus.9 In the following analysis I refer back to this basic assumption. The television serial, synonymous with the daytime soap opera, features a continuous narrative. Though the series also offers its viewers a consistency with regard to setting and characters, it gives prominence to discontinuity in narration as each single episode presents a self- contained storyworld. In general, the series signifies the neglecting of episodic memory, whereas the serial denotes the materialization of episodic memory. With regard to contemporary programming, however, it is no longer useful to strictly differentiate between both forms of storytelling. Rather, it is crucial to show how flexibility and fluidity characterize new narrative forms. British television scholar Robin Nelson coined the term “flexi-narrative” to explain the hybridization of the contemporary television drama as a “mixture of the series ‘plot-resolution model,’ the serial’s ‘extended
75 story over several episodes’ and the soap’s ‘on-going narrative.’”10 This concept is also highly relevant to the discussion of Mad Men. Elements of continuation clearly prevail in the show. Some storylines are expanded over several episodes while others are temporarily forgotten and then referred back to and modified in later episodes. Narrative enigmas—described by Jeremy Butler as the core of serial programming—remain unsolved over the course of whole seasons.11 Don Draper’s true identity as Dick Whitman, for example, is a central mystery of the first three seasons’ storytelling universe. Don’s reluctance to talk about his childhood is a continuing storyline that gains depth throughout the serial narration. This is exemplified in a conversation with his colleague Roger Sterling and their wives, in which Don evades the topic in a comical way: “I can’t tell you about my childhood. It would ruin the first half of my novel.”12 But at this stage of the program, it is already obvious that there is no need for a Don Draper autobiography. Serial narration in the contemporary television serial is richer in detail and character drawing than any life depicted in print.13 In Mad Men’s diegetic universe, anyway, Don would never approve of a novel based on his story. Rather, he has gotten used to employ humor and self-assurance as a means to conceal his fear of getting caught living under a false identity. Nevertheless, three episodes later, viewers witness the sudden appearance of a central link to Don’s secret past, his brother Adam Whitman. Don tells Adam that he must have mistaken him for someone else, as he wants his brother to believe that he died in Korea.14. In a second meeting, Don finally states that they can’t have a relationship again as he has taken on another life and identity.15 In order to deepen the enigma of Don’s past, the show features flashbacks to his youth and life as a young man. There are several fragments depicting his family life on a farm16 and his time as a soldier in the Korean War.17 Various flashbacks into the elusive main character’s time as a car salesman and his relationship with the real Don Draper’s widow, Anna Draper, cast light upon his identity change.18 It is not until the end of season three that Betty finally discovers her husband’s secret past and confronts him.19 Still, for the audience, Don’s past remains an ongoing suspenseful storyline. The course and outcome of Peggy Olson’s pregnancy is another story arc that remains mostly unsolved several seasons into production. At the end of season one, Peggy has visibly gained weight, but her pregnancy is not made explicit until the season’s finale.20 In a subsequent episode, a flashback in which her mother and sister, and later on Don, visit her in a hospital shortly after she gave birth illuminates the missing parts of this particular storyline.21 But again, the audience is largely left in the dark about the primal sequence of events. Such enigmas—which are caused by narrative gaps— postpone the closure of storylines. Rather, as the story arcs involving Don and Peggy illustrate, one enigma seems to give cause to the next. As Sean O’Sullivan suggests, Mad Men’s serial narrative is ambivalent in nature. It stages a central conflict between narrative coherence with regard to its characters and events and, at the same time, features elements of discontinuity through alterations of formula as well as in time and space.22 Likewise, Glen Creeber describes the merger of the series and the serial as “small screen hybridization,” and simultaneously declares the triumph of the serial form within contemporary programming.23 As he explains,
76 “television drama now has a ‘soap-like’ quality to it,” as the serial form has become more flexible.24 Thus, the Mad Men narrative seems potentially endless. Apart from its ongoing serial storylines, Mad Men also features the elements of a series. In the midst of many unresolved and mysterious narrative threads, music gives the audience a sense of episodic closure. The sound accompanying the ending credits— realized through instrumentals, original music from the 1960s, contemporary pop songs, diegetic noise or just silence—displays a more or less intense culmination for and commentary on the contents of the discrete episode. In this regard, the show uses music toward narrative functions to bring episodes to an implicit end. The episode “Babylon”, for example, concludes with Don and his mistress Midge attending a performance of the song “Babylon” in a Greenwich Village bar.25 The old folk song, based on Psalm 137, was adapted and released by the singer-songwriter Don McLean in 1971. The lyrics deal with Jewish exile in Babylon and the quest for unity and match the counterculture setting of the sequence perfectly well. While the song establishes a melancholic atmosphere, it comments on an accompanying montage. Viewers see Rachel Menken, whom Don had courted earlier in the episode, folding ties in her department store, Betty putting on lipstick on her daughter, Sally, each of them absorbed in thought and calmness. While Don is listening intently to the song, Roger and Joan, engaged in a long-term affair, are departing a hotel room, leaving like strangers. The music unites these fragmented images through its affect and tone, highlighting the theme of loneliness. At the end, the song fades into diegetic traffic noise, and finally into silence. An additional element of closure is given in the episode titles. As discussed above with regard to the music, “Babylon” focuses on Jewishness, exile and the feeling of isolation in general. These subject matters are also broached in other episodes, but not as intensely as here. In order to prepare a presentation for the Israeli Tourism account, Don and his colleagues have, comically enough, compiled “research material,” including the bestselling novel Exodus and a copy of the Old Testament.26 In an attempt to find out more about Judaism, Don seeks advice from Rachel Menken, a Jewish client. Over lunch, she tells him about Jewish exile from Babylon and throughout the world.27 The theme of exile extends beyond the physical exile experienced by the Israelites and later Jews, the subject to Don and Rachel’s conversation, but speaks to the self-exile, remaking of self, and dissociation experienced by various characters throughout the episode. The title “Babylon” therefore functions not as a capsule or definition, but as a hint to specific topics that are addressed with in singular episodes, here speaking to the latent feelings of alienation that defined American postwar culture. Even with continuing plot lines, the episode simultaneously functions as an individual capsule. Thus, as this analysis of Mad Men’s narrative structure has shown, it features serial as well as series elements. Though music and episode titles function as significant elements of closure, Mad Men’s most prevailing narrative characteristic is not that of the series, but the ongoing story arcs of the serial. To this point, Mad Menfeatures many instances of what Mittell calls “the narrative special effect.” It is a hybrid period drama. This break with conventional television storytelling “push[es] the operational aesthetic to the foreground, calling attention to the constructed nature of the narration.”28 To elucidate Mad Men’s possibilities for analyzing history, I’ll take a closer look at the techniques of its complex narration.
77 1. “Babylon.” Episode 1.06. Mad Men. 35. min. 2. Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. 1964 Reprint (London: Routledge, 2005), 7. 3. Jason Mittell, “Narrative Complexity in Contemporary American Television”, The Velvet Light Trap 58 (2006): 39. 4. Ibid., 32. 5. Hayden White, “Historiography and Historiophoty”, The American Historical Review 93.5 (1988): 1193. 6. Ibid., 1194. 7. Glen Creeber, Serial Television. Big Drama on the Small Screen (London: BFI Publications, 2004), 13f. 8. Sarah Kozloff, “Narrative Theory and Television”, in Channels of Discourse, Reassembled: Television and Contemporary Criticism second edition, ed. Robert C. Allen (New York: Routledge, 1992), 67. 9. Ibid., 91. 10. Robin Nelson, “TV Drama: ‘Flexi-Narrative’ Form and ‘a New Affective Order’,” in Mediatized Drama/Dramatized Media, ed. Eckart Voigts-Virchow (Trier: WVT, 2000), 115. 11. Jeremy Butler, Television. Critical Methods and Applications (London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002), 29. 12. “Ladies Room.” Episode 1.02. Mad Men. 2. min. 13. Ironically, Roger Sterling’s fictive memoirs were published as an item of Mad Men merchandise. This self-reflexive comment is another reference to a cross-media comparison between the television serial and the novel. Sterling’s Gold: Wit & Wisdom of an Ad Men (New York: Grove/Atlantic, 2010). 14. “5G”. Episode 1.05. Mad Men. 15. min. 15. Ibid., 18. min. 16. See for example “The Hobo Code.” Episode 1.08. Mad Men. 24. min., 35 min.; “Out of Town.” Episode 3.01. Mad Men. 1. min.; “Shut the Door. Have a Seat.” Episode 3.13. Mad Men. 3. min. 17. See for example “Nixon vs. Kennedy.” Episode 1.12. Mad Men. 25. min., 38. min. 18. See for example “The Gold Violin.” Episode 2.07. Mad Men. 2. min.; “The Mountain King.” Episode 2.12.Mad Men. 7. min., 22. min., 32. min 19. “The Color Blue”. Episode 3.10. Mad Men. 28. min. 20. “The Wheel.” Episode 1.13. Mad Men. 43. min. 21. “The New Girl.” Episode 2.05. Mad Men. 26. min, 39. min. 22. Sean O’Sullivan, “Space Ships and Time Machines: Mad Men and the Serial Condition”, in Mad Men: Dream Come True TV, ed. Gary R. Edgerton (London: I. B. Tauris, 2011), 120. 23. Creeber, Serial Television, 11f. 24. Ibid., 12. 25. “Babylon.” Episode 1.06. Mad Men. 42. min. 26. Ibid., 15. min. 27. Ibid. 28. min. 28. Mittell, “Narrative Complexity,” 35. 29. “Seven Twenty Three.” Episode 3.07. Mad Men. 1. min.
78
4. “So Much Woman: Female Objectification, Narrative Complexity, and Feminist Temporality in AMC’s Mad Men” By Fiona E. Cox From Invisible Culture, Issue 17 (http://ivc.lib.rochester.edu/portfolio/issue-17-article-1-so- much-woman-female-objectification-narrative-complexity-and-feminist-temporality-in- amcs-mad-men/)
Photo Credit: Carin Baer/AMC In February 2011, in anticipation of the release of the fourth season of US TV drama Mad Men on DVD, The New York Review of Books published a review by Daniel Mendelsohn. In what is a predominantly scathing assessment, Mendelsohn decries AMC’s critically revered series—set in Manhattan in the early 1960s and centering on fictional advertising agency Sterling Cooper1—for what he argues is its hypocrisy in offering up “an alluring historical fantasy of a time before the present era’s seemingly endless prohibitions against pleasures once taken for granted.”2 The show’s hypocrisy, Mendelsohn feels, stems from its eroticization of that which it also seems to intend as shocking. In his words: to invite an audience to feel superior to a less enlightened era even as it teases the regressive urges behind the behaviors associated with that era strikes me as the worst possible offense that can be committed in a creative work set in the past: it’s simultaneously contemptuous and pandering.3 I would like to unpick one of the areas Mendelsohn holds up for criticism: the representation of women in Mad Men. The paradox he outlines with regards to pandering and contempt can be considered, in this instance, not to be hypocritical but instead to gradually but actively encourage a feminist perspective in the viewer. Taking into account the four seasons aired thus far, the teasing of “regressive urges” Mendelsohn points out is revealed as a central feature of an extended deconstruction of female objectification: a damning critique that gains momentum over the course of the series.4 There are certainly many occasions of this particular form of sexism both within the diegesis and the mise-en-scène of Mad Men. The glamour of objectified women—beautifully dressed, perfectly coiffed, and wielding sexual power over men—is a major part of the drama’s signature style. The visual appearance of these women has been celebrated in the popular press for
79 adhering to traditionally gendered modes of dress, and has inspired a retro fashion trend in high street stores, with designs for women mimicking the tightly fitted and brightly colored outfits featured by the show.5 Yet the women of Mad Men are repeatedly shown to suffer because of their position within a gendered hierarchy that positions females primarily as the tantalizing focus of a desiring male gaze. Joan Holloway (later, Joan Harris), played by Christina Hendricks, begins the series as the most tantalizing vision of all, achieving a form of power by deliberately offering her body up to the male gaze as erotic spectacle. However, Mad Men then proceeds to enact a subtle, protracted criticism of this self-objectification, steadily chipping away at its power and appeal over time. While the surface pleasures the series offers might entice audiences, the enduring nature of the show’s appeal could be said to stem not from its glamorous representation of women as sexual objects but rather from the ways in which it questions female roles, complicating audience investment in the objectification for which Mad Men is both celebrated and reviled. This article proposes that, while Mendelsohn is correct in recognizing the ostensibly oppositional tactics within Mad Men’s representation of women—especially visible within the depiction of Joan—the co- existence of the dual appeals he names is neither truly hypocritical nor an “offense”. An examination of Joan’s representation and narrative arc over the first four seasons reveals a complex use of the prolonged temporality of the narrative which has deeply feminist consequences. Jason Mittell notes that, as opposed to feature films, serial television can make use of its extended temporal form, allowing storylines to unfold over an expanded period of time to form what he calls “narrative complexity”.6 “Rejecting the need for plot closure within every episode”, he writes, “narrative complexity foregrounds ongoing stories.”7 Such a format “encourages”, Mittell argues “and even at times necessitates, a new mode of viewer engagement”, rewarding long-term audiences.8 Mad Men creator, Matthew Weiner, who spent time prior to the production of the AMC series working on TV shows such as Becker (CBS, USA, 1998-2004)and Andy Richter Controls the Universe (Fox Network, USA, 2002-2004), has expressed personal dissatisfaction with his former engagement with the formulaic, simplified format of the 30 minute sitcom.9 Having later worked as a writer for HBO’s greatly acclaimed drama The Sopranos (USA, 1999-2007), Weiner has credited the latter show—one of Mittell’s primary examples of narrative complexity—with giving him “the confidence to tell subtle stories”.10 He has also been vocal about his feminist ideals, noting “the most exciting idea going on intellectually when I was in college was feminism… [T]hose were my politics”, and declaring gender roles to be “both an intellectual and personal interest of mine” when he was writing the series.11 Bearing the mark of its creator’s narrative preferences and personal politics, Mad Men makes use of its protracted structure to question the objectification contained within its diegesis, offering nuanced storylines which gradually complicate audience pleasures surrounding female representation which are set up in the first season. Joan, the ultimate erotic spectacle when the series opens, suffers a series of humiliations, shocks and disappointments over several years as the narrative unfolds. These events trouble her initial positioning as fêted sexual object, providing the groundwork for a long-term critique of her inhabitation of that role. Aiding the developing critique, Joan’s sexual power eventually dwindles, undermining the sexist objectification so prevalent in the show’s 1960s milieu and which, as Mendelsohn complains, holds appeal for contemporary viewers. Her investment in femininity as a means of professional manipulation is contrasted with the more progressive Peggy Olsen, played by Elisabeth Moss, who has an entirely different outlook on life, preferring to use her brain rather than her body to achieve goals. As the series progresses, Peggy’s successive triumphs and Joan’s increasingly compromised position add to the critique of the latter’s manipulative tactics. Analysis of this overall strategy within Mad Men reveals not only what I believe to be clear feminist intentions within the text, which steadily deconstructs the female objectification it so famously showcases, but also strongly feminist critical possibilities contained within the very format of the series.
80 Step one: objectifying Joan In order to provide an overview of Mad Men’s gradual critique of Joan’s objectification, we must first outline her presentation in early episodes. From the moment she is introduced, it is clear Joan is a woman of her particular era, not yet engaged in the second-wave feminist movement but embracing the precursors of the sexual revolution, reveling in the freedoms and opportunities on offer. Weiner has spoken of drawing inspiration from Helen Gurley Brown’s work when writing for Hendricks’ character.12 Gurley Brown’s playful and frank manuscript, Sex and the Single Girl, published in 1962, instructs single women on how best to navigate the public sphere. Much of the advice she proffers concerns behavior towards the opposite sex, typically revolving around exploiting sexuality for personal gain. “Sex”, she declares, “is a powerful weapon for a single woman in getting what she wants from life…”13 While Joan could not have read the book by March of 1960, the time the pilot is set, Weiner has admitted ignoring the dates slightly. He acknowledges the influence the book had on Joan’s character and remarks that Gurley Brown’s—and Joan’s—ethos was to “use your sexuality to get everything you can”.14 There are many aspects of Gurley Brown’s advice discernable within Joan’s early characterization. For example, Joan regards sex as a tool of manipulation, deeming feminine sensual display necessary in the workplace. Her belief in sex appeal as professional requirement is made immediately apparent during her opening dialogue in the pilot episode. Providing a brief orientation on Peggy’s first day as a secretary at Sterling Cooper, Joan’s career advice to the new employee comes in the form of instructions on what to wear to appeal to men. She notes that “Men love scarves” and suggests that Peggy place a paper bag over her own head and stand before a mirror to assess her aesthetic strengths and weaknesses, then accentuate her figure accordingly.15 This advice, while recognizably Gurley Brown’s, seems to have been adapted not from Sex and the Single Girl but from a passage in the writer’s later book Sex and the Office, published in 1964: An editor of Ladies’ Home Journal… suggests you put a sack over your head with two holes cut out for eyes when you do this figure analysis… Once you understand your figure—what you really look like—you’re more apt to reach for the clothes that will flatter it.16 The use of a second book by the same author emphasizes the influence of the writer’s work in Weiner’s conception of the character, as well as Joan’s strong investment in the particular pre- second-wave-feminist moment of sexual freedom signified by Gurley Brown’s work. In the pilot episode, Joan jokes that making the right moves in the office centers on finding a man to marry, ostensibly pinpointing matrimony as the pinnacle of success for a woman. Later, she appears to buy into this when she marries and leaves the firm with the intention of becoming a full time homemaker.17 However, given that the man in the office with whom Joan is occasionally sexually involved (Sterling Cooper partner Roger Sterling, played by John Slattery) is already married, the goal of her emphasis on sex appeal in the office does not seem to be wedded bliss. Gurley Brown saw sexuality as a tool women could use to gain power in the early 1960s professional arena, which belittled female intellectual prowess but championed their erotic potential: In an ideal world we might move onwards and upwards by using only our brains and talent but, since this is an imperfect world, a certain amount of listening, giggling, wriggling, smiling, winking, flirting and fainting is required in our rise from the mailroom…18 Instead of chasing a husband, Joan appears to adhere to Gurley Brown’s advice on utilizing sex appeal as a career enhancer, dressing well and flirting often to please men as part of a professional strategy. Her conviction that being sexually attractive to males is central to female success in the workplace remains evident in the ninth episode of the first season when she chastises Peggy for putting on weight. Asking ‘Don’t you want to do well here?’, Joan reveals her continued belief that maintaining one’s figure and career progress are inextricably linked.19
81 Early on in the narrative, Mad Men appears to celebrate Joan’s investment in Gurley Brown’s recommended methods, highlighting and rewarding moments of sensual display. She is unabashedly presented as an erotic spectacle by the script, mise-en-scène, and the character herself. In the first season, Mad Men frequently and prominently showcases Hendricks’ curvaceous body, which is highlighted by era-appropriate foundation garments and tight dresses. Joan’s signature gold pen necklace draws attention to Hendricks’ sizable breasts, dangling between them on a long chain, and the actress’ in-character walk makes much use of swaying hips and buttocks.
Fig. 1 Photo Credit: © 2008 Frank Ockenfels/AMC In addition to costume designer Janie Bryant’s designs and the actress’ sultry onscreen physicality, Mad Men capitalizes on Hendricks’ appearance by eroticizing her figure via camerawork. As Mendelsohn points out, “the camera glides over Joan’s gigantic bust and hourglass hips”, frequently reframing to observe her retreating figure as she walks away.20 Jeremy Butler notes, in his article ‘’Smoke Gets in Your Eyes’: Historicizing Visual Style inMad Men’, that low camera angles highlight Joan’s curves by contrasting them with the fluorescent lighting grids in the visible ceiling, “emphasizing”, he argues, “how her masquerade of femininity is the source of her power”.21 The most sexually revered of the women employees at Sterling Cooper, she is also the female with the most authority, running the administrative side of the agency with precision and aplomb: hiring and firing secretaries, holding the key to the supply closet, and instantly solving any problem. Her mastery over her appearance and her professional domain thus seem connected, so that early episodes seem to encourage audience admiration for Joan’s self-objectification. Hendricks’ buttocks are obviously fetishized—both within the diegesis and for the audience—in her outrageously unsubtle display during a focus group for Sterling Cooper client Belle Jolie lipsticks.22 A veritable knock-out in a form-fitting, red dress, Joan bends forward over a table and pushes her hips backwards as she stubs out a cigarette, offering a hidden group of men on the other side of a two- way mirror an isolated view of her tightly-clad behind (Fig. 2.1, top image). Joan’s visual offering is picked out by the camera, her generously-sized rump filling the frame as her coquettish move cues playful jazz music on the soundtrack. The scene brings to mind Laura Mulvey’s writing on scopophilia
82 (“pleasure in using another person as an object of sexual stimulation through sight”).23 Certainly, Joan personifies Mulvey’s term “to-be-looked-at-ness” in this scene, and in many early episodes, encouraging the audience to engage, whether consciously or not, with a form of scopophilia.24 Hendricks herself acknowledges this: “When Joan is walking somewhere,” she explains, “she wants to make sure at least one person’s watching her.”25 In their article, “The Best of Everything: The Limits of Being a Working Girl in Mad Men”, Kim Akass and Janet McCabe offer an analysis of Joan as a prime example of Mulvey’s “Woman as Image, Man as Bearer of the Look” thesis.26 They cite the rear-view shot in question as exemplification of Mulvey’s “circuits of pleasure in looking, split between ‘active/male and passive/female’…”27 As their article points out, in this moment Joan ostensibly adheres to Mulvey’s analysis of female roles as erotic spectacle, her display momentarily interrupting the narrative, working “against the development of a storyline” as we temporarily abandon the task at hand—secretaries trying on lipstick—to observe her sensual display and the reaction it provokes.28 One young man, clearly reveling in the image before him, stands and salutes Joan’s posterior from behind the two-way mirror.
Fig. 2.2 Photo Credit: Carin Baer/AMC The scene is reminiscent of one Gurley Brown passage in particular, which seems to pin down Joan’s visually centered career success strategy, mirroring not only her sartorial style but also the many shots in early episodes that focus on her womanly shape: A formfitting wool dress… hugging the figure everywhere… makes you sexy… This dress would zip all the way down the back, from which it is a great angle for your co-workers to view you. (I hope you check all of your clothes for this back intrigue.) When you walk out of his office, you know very well his eyes won’t make contact with that report you left on his desk until you’re well out of sight.29 This advice is part of a list instructing women in “What to wear to be especially sexy” when it becomes necessary to use “secret weapons” (sex appeal) to “move immovable objects’” (men).30 It is significant here that men, and not women, are viewed as “objects”. While certainly a scopophilic moment, the Babylon shot in question does more than merely halt the narrative to objectify Joan’s figure, also showing her in the process of maintaining her professional power. Her actions show that she is very conscious of the effect her body can have on those who desire her, given her awareness that she is being watched by a group of men, including Roger. Flirting, she exercises erotic power
83 over the group, and the salute—while playful—demonstrates that her technique is effective. Joan’s knowledge of her male audience, owing to her senior position in comparison with the other women, sets her apart from the secretaries in the room, who are being unwittingly observed and cruelly critiqued. Able to see only their own reflections, they lack the power and control Joan possesses at that moment. Instead of being positioned purely as a passive scopophilic object, Joan actively takes possession of the male gaze, deliberately directing it towards herself in a bid for power and influence over them. Because her sensual display is enjoyed by the on-screen male audience, as well as glamorized by the camerawork and score accompanying the scene, audiences are encouraged to view such tactics as fun and positive: the secret of Joan’s professional success. Mirroring Joan’s objectification, Christina Hendricks has become an international sex symbol since the series has aired. Presented to television audiences via a series that eroticizes her appearance, the actress has become renowned for her voluptuous figure, relatively unusual in a culture and industry which generally reward thin women. In September 2010, British GQ called her “The sexiest woman on television”.31 Typical article titles in the popular press, punning on her generous proportions, include “Ahead of the Curves”, “Dangerous Curves”, and “Woman of the Hourglass”’32 Her body has become a frequent object of public discussion, with much speculation over whether the actress has undergone breast augmentation, although Hendricks has denied having surgery.33 She has complained about this focus on her body, noting: I’m on what I think is the best TV show there is right now and everyone’s always talking about my boobs… I’m definitely ready for someone to be like, “She’s the most amazing actress ever!” That would be nice.34 Judging from the positive reaction in the press, the appeal of Joan/Hendricks’ objectification in Mad Men is strong, demonstrating how this particular form of sexism is still an acceptable part of mainstream western society.35 For Those Who Think Young, the first episode of season two, seems to play on this erotic appeal so appreciated by audiences, recalling the isolated close-up rear-view shot from Babylon. The opening shot of the second season seems to reference the earlier scene by beginning with the camera pointed at Hendricks’ rear end, panning upwards as she fastens a different—yet very similar—tight red sheath dress. The visual echo reminds the long-term viewer of the earlier outfit and the provocative antics that took place while Joan was wearing it. The upbeat music accompanying the shot invites us to ‘twist again, like we did last year.’ The sequence works as an inside joke for invested audiences aware of the frequent positioning of Hendricks’ posterior as erotic spectacle, referencing and exploiting the fact that looking at her figure is a major pleasure offered by the show. The lyrics offer a meta-textual assurance that this pleasure will be revisited in the second season. That pleasure, however, is soon troubled, as it is within the second season that viewer enjoyment of Joan’s objectification becomes highly problematic. As the series progresses, it becomes clear that the erotic spectacle of the shot in Babylon is, in fact, part of a feminist narrative trajectory that details the decline in Joan’s sexual power, plotting her dwindling erotic appeal against fluctuations in her career so the audience is forced to question her formerly celebrated tactics. Joan’s waning ability to gain a form of power over men by utilizing sexual display retrospectively imbues the scene in Babylon—and occasions like it—with increasing significance, serving as a point of comparison during later moments of erotic and professional successes and failures. Step two: undermining Joan’s objectification through progressive humiliations The critique of Joan’s objectification happens gradually, detectable even while she is at the height of her scopophilic powers. While the lingering camera seems to be celebrating how mouth-watering Hendricks looks in her tight, bright ensembles, her character suffers a series of small humiliations that indicate her Gurley Brown tactics are flawed. For example, in the fifth episode of the second
84 season, The New Girl, secretary Jane Siegel, played by Peyton List, beats Joan at her own game of erotic display. Pretending not to notice the attention she is garnering, Jane displays her chest for nearby appreciative men (another “How to be Especially Sexy” tip: “If you’re small-bosomed, wear a pretty, lacy bra and leave your blouse unbuttoned one button below where it usually is.”36). Joan, usually very covered up despite the unsubtle nature of her Babylon display, admonishes the younger woman, expressing disappointment at the tactics.37 In a later episode, having been fired by Joan in an unrelated incident, the younger woman uses her feminine wiles to her advantage on Roger, by now Joan’s ex-lover, crying in his office in order to get herself reinstated.38 Joan is humiliatingly outmaneuvered by a woman following a set of rules similar to her own and, apparently, possessing more erotic capital. Beaten at her own game, with her inferior position to her male boss reinforced and drawn to the fore, Joan must swallow her pride and remain silent. However, as Bruce Handy notes in his article on the series in Vanity Fair, Mad Men is a show in which “the silences, of which there are many, speak loudest”.39 It is during such a moment of silence that we are invited to understand that, while Joan may well be comfortable with her position in the world—deliberately utilizing her own objectification in pursuit of personal gain—her moral comfort with that position does not necessarily translate to the physical. A shot towards the end of the season two episode A Night to Remember privileges us with the sight of Joan at home, seated on her bed.40 Alone, she gently rubs her left shoulder where the straps of her brassiere dig in. The scene gains poignancy in relation to the fact that, earlier in the episode, a nervous co-worker deems her “so much woman”, explicitly drawing attention to the strong scopophilic appeal of her generous proportions. Playfully showcasing Joan’s figure in early episodes, Mad Men revels in her curves, objectifying the character by presenting her as visual spectacle. In contrast, during this brief, quiet moment in A Night to Remember, the celebrated object becomes the suffering subject. Mad Men initially allows the audience to enjoy Joan’s sensual appearance and behavior, yet by introducing scenes like this the series troubles its own light-hearted presentation of Hendricks’ body as an unproblematic focus of erotic attention. The long-term viewer familiar with Mad Men’s previous celebratory representation of Joan is gently encouraged to gain a new perspective on the appealing image she more typically presents, invited to consider something more than surface pleasures. Being “so much woman” is physically painful, and while the appreciative co-worker—and Mad Men audience—might enjoy the sight of Joan’s breasts, they are a very real burden to her (Fig. 3). A shift seems to be occurring in the silence, following which celebration of her erotic appeal is thwarted by the televisual text. For example, despite the visibility of Joan’s underwear in this scene, it is not a moment of scopophilic spectacle. Instead, we are offered an opportunity for reflection; a brief shot in which to consider Joan as a subject for whom investment in her own objectification has negative consequences. The episode in which this scene occurs marks the beginning of a turning point in Mad Men’s representation of Hendricks’ character. Until season two, Joan appears in a position of control within the office, and when she is at home she holds power over her roommate Carol, played by Kate Norby. However, two storylines that emerge in A Night to Remember begin to seriously trouble the surface pleasures and apparent power of Joan’s image. First, taking on additional responsibilities at Sterling Cooper, she helps the Television Department by vetting scripts for advertisers. Gently but clearly outshining Harry Crane, played by Rich Sommer, whom she is supposedly assisting, Joan notably “impresses a group of men with something other than her looks”.41 However, when the episode introduces us to her fiancé, Greg Harris, played by Sam Page, he belittles her work, saying “I thought you just walked around [the office] with people staring at you.” The offhand remark reveals his lack of interest in her mind, accomplishments and career and his preferred focus on her scopophilic appeal. Joan’s organizational prowess and seniority in the office gives his comment the potential to rankle the long-term viewer, even though audiences often do see her doing this.42 Yes, people stare at her, and viewers have previously been encouraged to do so as well, but Greg’s lazy
85 joke dismisses that which has also been depicted: her professional excellence. By mockingly suggesting that Joan is all image and no substance, the passing comment slightly undermines—for the viewer irritated by the comment—audience focus on that image. It also suggests Greg’s lack of respect for his future wife and in particular for her career. Significantly, Joan’s home attire is relaxed; wearing black pants and a sweater, she walks around barefoot, hinting at traditional notions of the barefoot, submissive housewife. Her informal clothes are indicative of her reduced status in the private sphere and in relation to her fiancé, particularly when compared with her relative high status in the office. Greg’s request for a glass of water places the typically indomitable Joan in a position of immediate and unquestioned domestic servitude, increasing the contrast between her professional and personal status. We see that Joan is willing to severely compromise her power when it comes to her romantic relationship, and the vast difference between her celebrated office vixen role and her submissive domestic status highlights the latter in a negative fashion. Very quickly, Joan’s highly successful foray out of administration and into advertising ends when she is unceremoniously replaced by a man who knows nothing about the task at which she has excelled. As Akass and McCabe write: It is a shocking moment. But it should be no surprise. Speaking in and through a representational type that codifies patriarchal fantasies of a feminine ideal is a precarious business; and Joan’s participation in reproducing the sexist culture has deep implications.43 Existing as “so much woman” in a world where the women, especially “womanly” women, did not have careers outside of marriage, Joan loses a chance at significant professional accomplishment and satisfaction. Her investment in her image as a source of power is an attempt to exploit a gendered system that disadvantages her, and the indirect result is that she remains disadvantaged. The professional storyline introduced in the episode ends in disappointment, but the personal storyline begun in the same episode ends in something much darker. The narrative arc of Joan’s relationship with Greg dramatically alters the possibilities for audience perception and approval of her power and investment in self-objectification. In early episodes, particularly the first season, Joan cashes in on her pneumatic femininity to please men: deploying her figure to maintain power in a world that affords her little outside erotic exchanges. As noted above, viewers are encouraged to take pleasure in this behavior. In The Mountain King, the penultimate episode of the second series, Joan’s overtly sexualized appearance and the conflation of this appearance with power is irrevocably shattered by a harrowing incident involving her fiancé. As Emily Nussbaum puts it: “Joan was raped and everything changed.”44 In a distressing scene, Greg forces himself on Joan on the floor of the office belonging to Sterling Cooper partner Don Draper, played by Jon Hamm. The incident is apparent payback for a moment earlier in the episode in which Joan unwittingly emasculates her fiancé by initiating sex—on top. Immediately prior to the rape, Joan good naturedly but firmly attempts to fight off Greg’s unwanted advances but is overwhelmed by his superior strength as he holds her down. The scene ends with a devastating zoom-in to close-up on her face as she stops fighting and submits to his will (Fig. 4.1). For the long-term viewer used to seeing Joan in charge and in control, it is particularly horrifying. Up to this point in the series, her utilization of female sexual desirability in a world of male privilege is a reasonably effective mode of existence, with only arguably minor humiliations. Sex typically brings Joan status and power, but the rape turns her own weapon against her. That her attack occurs at Sterling Cooper, the very space her sexuality typically allows her to dominate, makes it all the more shocking. Greg uses his masculine strength to reassert sexual and emotional dominance in the relationship but, by raping her in her boss’s office, it is also suggested that he desires to have a power over his future wife that trumps her commitment to her work. “Joan is a story of a generation,” creator Matt Weiner has argued. “Our moms had friends like her—very confident and sexy and they got punished for it. She has the confidence of a man and that’s really hurt her”.45 Contrary to Weiner’s analysis, I would offer a slightly different perspective: Joan has the confidence not of a man, but of a sexually aware woman. She employs
86 femininity and sex as tools to achieve her aims, and Greg’s attack is not only triggered by these actions but enacts a direct reversal of them. The rape is a dramatic moment in which the scopophilic object experiences a narrative event directly related to her investment in sex as her greatest weapon, directly problematizing audience enjoyment of such behavior.
Fig. 4.2 Photo Credit: Adam Taylor/AMC Somehow more disturbing than the rape is that which follows: Joan goes to dinner with Greg immediately following the incident, and eventually marries him. The shock Joan’s rape causes for Mad Men’s long-term audience not only stems from the contemporary western belief that women shouldn’t suffer rape silently, but is also a reaction to the seemingly sexually-indomitable character’s acceptance of the violent act. The upsetting incident and its aftermath punctuate Mad Men’s apparent complicity in Joan’s objectification, which emerges in retrospect as part of a feminist criticism of both the complicity and the objectification. For almost two seasons Joan Holloway is the fun sex object in near-total command of her world: her mind is brilliant, but her body her most effective tool. Although she suffers minor setbacks she is the ever fabulous, sassy woman who has the upper hand in most situations. Following her rape and apparent submission, Joan’s life loses its glamorous appeal. Ultimately, her perpetuation of culturally appropriate feminine behavior results in violent and total subjugation. Her rape and the events that follow signal a shift in the representation of Joan’s character. The incident in The Mountain King marks the moment at which unequivocal celebration of female objectification becomes untenable for the invested audience. While the occasional viewer might watch Mad Men for the camera’s pleasurable fetishization of Hendricks’ curves and buy into the consummate effectiveness of Joan’s manipulative femininity, following her rape, long-term viewers can never see the character in the same way. For the show’s consistent audience, the viewer who is invested in its serial form, such pleasures are, from this point on, highly qualified. Step three: undermining Joan’s objectification by compromising her sexual power Weiner has often claimed that Mad Men is all about a changing world, and the way people react to it:
87 I’m interested in how people respond to change. Are they excited by the change, or are they terrified that they’ll lose everything that they know? Do people recognize that change is going on? That’s what the show’s about.46 One of the ways in which extended temporarily comes into play in deconstructing Joan’s objectification is by showing the effects of change on her everyday experiences over time. Joan belongs to an old-fashioned, disappearing world, accepting the glass ceiling that keeps her in her place as an administrator in a work environment based on gender inequality. In contrast, Peggy forges a path towards greater freedom for herself via hard work and asking for what she wants, for the most part ignoring Joan’s advice on dressing to please men.47 Over time Peggy is rewarded for her tenacity and boldness: receiving promotions and landing a creative position within the agency, a job that had previously been the preserve of male colleagues.48 This is the crucial difference between the two women: Joan clings to gender divides and relies on femininity to gain power, whereas Peggy transgresses gender and consistently irks Joan by actively disengaging with the older woman’s recommended mode of behavior. Instead of relying on her appearance to get ahead, “Peggy recognizes her [intellectual] merits and isn’t shy about going after what she thinks she deserves”, gaining admittance to the traditionally all-male stable of copywriters in the first season despite putting on significant weight, directly proving her would-be mentor incorrect.49 In this way, Peggy acts as a foil to Joan, progressing at the agency despite her resistance to the redhead’s constant advice. A shot towards the end of the first season contrasts the two when, in an echo of many shots of Joan, Peggy is caught walking away from the camera.50 Instead of seeking to exploit her retreating figure, however, the shot reveals Peggy’s skip of glee inspired by her success at copywriting for the Belle Jolie account. Unlike early rear views of Joan that emphasize her figure as the direct object of a desiring heterosexual male gaze, Peggy’s walk away from the camera reveals her happiness and links this to professional accomplishment based on merit, not looks. Although Peggy is less than ten years older than Joan, her progress begins to make Joan’s ideas seem antiquated, especially when compared with the older woman’s career path over the course of the series so far. While Peggy’s efforts, which revolve around intellectual undertakings, are rewarded with professional progress, Joan’s career-supporting sexual prowess is shown to dwindle, and is rendered virtually ineffective by the fourth season. By this point in the series, Sterling Cooper has given way to the reformed Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce (SCDP). Joan’s aura of sexuality in the office has significantly abated, offering a distinct comparison—for the long-term viewer—with her earlier eroticism. The series no longer foregrounds her figure, nor does it conflate her eroticism with professional excellence or achievement. A new generation of men—significantly younger than Joan—does not take her seriously. Her sexual appeal is acknowledged but, instead of commanding reverence, even elicits a distinct lack of respect. Several incidents show this altered representation of Joan in action. For example, when there is a focus group comprised of female employees Joan is left out for being “old” and “married”.51 In a humiliating reversal of the Belle Jolie focus group in Babylon, she is removed from those deemed worthy of observation. Peggy, one of the unwittingly scrutinized secretaries in the earlier episode, is also removed from the observed, but this is due to her professional advancement which now allows her access to the group of observers. In contrast, Joan, still working in the administrative strand of the agency in a position equivalent to the one she held on Peggy’s first day, is forced to vacate her office to allow the focus group to take place. While she has some administrative authority, Joan holds little power when it comes to influencing or advancing the creative work of the agency and is therefore excluded from both the observers and the observed. The comparison with Peggy, who has moved into the group in the position of creative power, as well as the invasion of her office space, marks Joan out as somewhat professionally hindered.
88 The focus group gives rise to a brief shot that pointedly indicates the differences between the heady sexuality Joan exuded in the first season and the way she is depicted in the fourth. Opening the curtains, she throws the drapes back from the centre so her arms are outstretched; her silhouette displayed to Don, Freddy Rumsden, played by Joel Murray, and Peggy, all seated behind her.52 The outstretched stance Joan momentarily adopts serves to highlight her new position on the opposing side of the one-way mirror, as well as presenting an opportunity for visual appraisal from behind as in Babylon (Fig. 5, second image). Yet no one in the room even glances at her. Her potential audience is uninterested: Don has always been a stickler for respecting women (in public) and remains true to form; Freddy, an enthusiastic member of the on-screen all-male audience of Joan’s display in Babylon, seems to have lost interest, and Peggy, who has crossed the gender divide to inhabit the gaze of the observer, is apparently heterosexual and therefore unmoved. No playful music cues us to regard Joan as seductive in this moment. Even the camera displays a marked difference in the handling of this scene in comparison with the close-up of Joan’s posterior in Babylon. When Hendricks bends down slightly to switch on the audio in the room, there is an opportunity for episode director John Slattery to recreate the tone of Babylon by focusing on her buttocks. He does not. The lack of attention Joan receives in the shot highlights the waning appeal of the sensual tactics on which she has always relied. There are moments of erotic spectacle involving Joan in the fourth season, but by this point they are an exception to the rule. One example occurs when she gracefully leads the conga line at the 1964 SCDP Christmas party.53 When the festive gathering is required at the last minute to impress major client, Lee Garner Jr., played by Darren Pettie, it is organized with great attention to detail by the ever-competent Joan. After Roger informs his sometime mistress of Garner’s potential desire for her, Joan appears to enjoy this brief return to the center of erotic attention. She smiles and laughs as she wiggles her tightly-clad figure around the office, Garner’s hands placed on her hips, and ends the activity by turning to him, leaning forward and subtly but flirtatiously shaking her breasts in his direction. She wears a red dress in this scene; a visual echo of her glory days in the Belle Jolie focus group and her former scopophilic prowess. Yet during the conga line there are no close ups of Joan. The camera does not fragment her body parts in order to fetishize them, and her allure is not emphasized by sultry extra-diegetic underscoring. At one point, two men even cross her path, temporarily blocking the view of her undulating figure. Far from being the centre of visual and erotic attention as she was in Babylon, Joan’s lack of power to command the camera’s focus mirrors her dwindling ability to draw the attention of the desiring gaze. Significantly, this brief reversal of Joan’s lessening erotic impact is enacted for a man who is a shadow of his former powerful self, with Garner shown at the party to be a petty, vindictive man who belittles Roger in front of the guests. Pleasing him seems rather unsavory, as though Joan is in some way prostituting herself to a seedy client for the agency’s benefit rather than playfully reveling in her power over men. Although audience enjoyment of her objectification has already been severely qualified, as argued above, any temptation to celebrate Joan’s attempted return to form is additionally compromised by Garner’s unworthiness. It has also previously been hinted that he might be gay, with his third season attempt to seduce former Sterling Cooper employee Salvador Romano, played by Bryan Batt.54 For long-term viewers, awareness of Garner’s possible homosexuality further undermines Joan’s attempt at creating an erotic spectacle here, as her intended audience is possibly entirely uninterested. Her decreasing power over men is made especially clear in the following episode when she fails to manipulate SCDP partner Lane Pryce, played by Jared Harris, into giving her a few days off work.55 Sashaying into his office, she offers to order him fried chicken, launching into some classic Joan innuendo: Joan: Interested? Lane: I am. Joan: [Twisting her body slightly, drawing attention to her figure] Breast? Thigh?…
89 Assuming she has distracted Lane with thoughts of her body, she then places her request for time off. Gurley Brown would approve. However, this strategy fails spectacularly. Lane even calls Joan out on her not-so-subtle tactics, irritated by her assumption that she could persuade him in this way: “I understand that all men are dizzy and powerless to refuse you – but consider me the incorruptible exception. Fried chicken indeed!”, he scoffs. Perhaps it is the British Lane’s stiff-upper-lip or his work-dominated outlook that makes him impervious to Joan’s manipulations, but later episodes confirm this is part of her changing reception within the diegesis. By the fourth season, she no longer holds the celebrated power over men that she was afforded within the first season. Joan’s old-fashioned sexual strategizing irritates more than just Lane. In The Suitcase young freelance artist Joey Baird, played by Matt Long, refuses her instructions to clean up his trash in the office.56 Joey’s refusal undermines Joan’s authority and demonstrates her failure to have any power—sexual or otherwise—over him. In the following episode, The Summer Man, when Joan summons Joey into her office for disciplinary reasons, he calls her arrogant, asking “What do you do around here besides walking around like you’re trying to get raped?”57 An obviously reflexive remark that resonates with long-term viewers aware of her history, this comment not only propagates Mad Men’s depiction of era-appropriate cultural views (the belief that rape is the victim’s fault) but draws attention to the fact that Joan’s typical reliance on sexual allure is going out of style. Joey connects Joan’s style with old-fashioned behavior and previous generations by informing Peggy that: “There’s a Joan in every company. My Mother was a Joan… She even wore a pen around her neck so people would stare at her tits.” Naming the base nature of Joan’s visual appeal, Joey evidences disdain for her tactics, once again problematizing any remaining audience objectification of Joan’s appearance. His damning analysis adds to the sense that her former powers are failing, and his comparison between Joan and his mother confirms the dated appeal of Joan’s office vixen act. One particular incident that takes place in The Summer Man displays both the lack of respect Joan’s behavior elicits as well as the misguided nature of her preferred methods of asserting power: Joey draws a cartoon of the redhead performing fellatio on (the rather unattractive) Lane. Peggy fires Joey in response, but Joan is unimpressed. She explains that, had she wanted the artist to be let go, she would have gone for dinner with a senior male client and gently persuaded him to remove Joey from the account. Joan clings to her belief that a woman’s power stems from using feminine wiles to influence men to do her bidding rather than from directly enacting her own desires. However, at this stage in season four, by which point Mad Men has consistently undermined Joan’s power over men, her stated plan of action is unconvincing. In contrast, Peggy wields power in the same manner a man might. She possesses the authority to fire Joey owing to her senior position and, following Don’s encouragement to enact this authority, does the job herself. Joan’s preferred method of handling the situation reveals her adherence to strict gender roles and desire to maintain the status quo. However, because Peggy succeeds—and because viewers have repeatedly seen Joan’s favored system fail her—the old fashioned tactics seem outdated, impotent, and damaging. Joan’s advocacy of Gurley Brown’s methods of female empowerment is also destabilized when her diminishing sexual power is accompanied by an increase in her professional accomplishments. In the third season, Joan leaves Sterling Cooper, having achieved her initial goal of quitting work for marriage. Disappointingly, her husband’s incompetence as a doctor forces her to seek employment in a department store. This humiliating step down is followed by her triumphant return to the advertising fold at the end of the season. Having been off-screen for a significant portion of that year’s episodes, Joan is an indispensable and integral part of making the necessary arrangements for covertly setting up SCDP. Despite being called in by old flame Roger, she is chosen not for her erotic capital but for her unsurpassed knowledge of the inner workings of the agency. Sterling Cooper’s best men—hand picked and pooling their knowledge—can’t even locate the necessary files, but Joan, who has been absent for months, is able to pick up exactly where she left off, making several calls to organize the clandestine operation before she even walks in the door.58 In the fourth season,
90 within the SDCP offices, we see Joan making phone calls, conducting interviews, chairing meeting of the partners, and discussing the agency’s accounts. She not only has a desk, but her own office.59 In the fourth season finale, she is promoted to Director of Agency Operations.60 Although SCDP is in a severely compromised financial position and has been forced to cut back on staff, reducing Joan to menial jobs like delivering the mail, the new position is clearly a reward for her professional skills and hard work, not her looks. Notably, it is Lane, demonstrably immune to her feminine charms, who informs her of the news. The series ultimately privileges Joan’s intellectual prowess and skill over tactics of self-objectification, significantly rewarding the character in the professional arena only after her formerly powerful erotic appeal has demonstrably weakened. Conclusion: feminism and extended narrative form For the occasional viewer, it might be possible to view female representation on Mad Men as a series of surface pleasures and sexual thrills. That such offerings continue to appeal to audiences is evident in the use, in 2011, of Hendricks’ tightly skirted rump pushed towards the camera in Babylon as part of UK Mad Men trailers.61 Alone, the clip is robbed of its context as part of an ongoing narrative that troubles the sexism contained within the shot. Non-viewers seeing the trailer are left with the objectification minus the crucial criticism that extends over a significant amount of time. Specifically televisual temporality (the long-form drama, taking place over several years) delivers feminist results. As discussed above, Joan’s rape is given additional shock value by the amount of time Mad Men spends building up the character as an admirable, sexually powerful woman before the attack. The rape pulls the rug out from beneath viewers comfortable with her objectification. After the incident, celebration of Joan’s former self-positioning as erotic spectacle is at best compromised for the long-term viewer who cares about the character. The triumphs that do eventually come to Joan take an inordinately long time to occur, so that the process of watching her failing investment in scopophilic spectacle is painful to the viewer sympathetic to her cause. The protracted nature of Mad Men’s critique of female objectification strengthens its effects, suggesting that the long-form drama contains within its very structure feminist possibilities in a so called post- feminist era when audiences are so willing to indulge in “regressive urges”. Extended narratives pander to the emotional responses of the invested viewer, whose sympathies with characters can reach significant depth over time. Mad Men makes effective use of the possibilities contained within its narrative form to trouble Joan’s initial presentation as successful spectacular female, her reliance on image rather than intellectual substance emerging as increasingly problematic season by season. Viewers who begin the series worshiping Joan’s scopophilic presence are increasingly guided towards a more critical perspective. The overall result, building as the series progresses, is strongly feminist. Perhaps there is hope for Mrs. Harris in Mad Men’s future. In 1970, Germaine Greer, part of the feminist second-wave, published The Female Eunuch, in which she argued: Now as before, women must refuse to be meek and guileful, for truth can’t be served by dissimulation. Women who fancy that they manipulate the world by pussy power and gentle cajolery are fools. It is slavery to have to adopt such tactics.62 I can envisage Peggy reading Greer’s book. I wonder whether she’ll pass it on to Joan. 1. Later, Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce. 2. Daniel Mendelsohn. “The Mad Men Account.” The New York Review of Books. 24 Feb. 2011, 1. Accessed 24 Feb. 2011. 3. Mendelsohn, 1. 4. So far. At the time of writing only four seasons have been aired in the US.
91 5. See Sarah Tomczack, “How to Dress Like a Lady.” Glamour Nov. 2010: 136+. In 2011, retailer Banana Republic teamed up with the show’s designer, Janie Bryant, to create an official Mad Men fashion range. 6. Jason Mittell, “Narrative Complexity in Contemporary American Television.” The Velvet Light Trap 58 (Fall 2006), 31. 7. Mittell, Ibid. 8. Mittell, 38. 9. Matthew Weiner, interview for Archive of American Television, full interview available here. 10. See Mittell, 29, and Matthew Weiner, speaking in a clip from the above full interview available here. 11. Matthew Weiner, quoted in Kathy Lyford. ”Mad Men’ Q & A: I’m fascinated that people get so much out of it.” Season Pass. 22 Oct. 2008. Accessed 21 April 2011. 12. Matthew Weiner, audio commentary on Smoke Gets In Your Eyes (pilot episode) (Mad Men Season OneDVD, Lions Gate Home Entertainment, Europe, 2008) ASIN: B0014XVTIY. 13. Helen Gurley Brown. Sex and the Single Girl (New Jersey: Barricade Books, 2003), 267, 70. 14. Matthew Weiner. Qtd. in Lyford. 15. Smoke Gets In Your Eyes. 16. Gurley Brown, Sex and the Office (New Jersey: Barricade Books, 2004), 23. 17. Guy Walks Into An Advertising Agency (3.6). 18. Gurley Brown, Sex and the Office, 3. 19. Shoot (1:9). 20. See Mendelsohn, 1. Also see Maidenform (2:6) and Roger Sterling’s deliberate survey of her “Valentine’s Heart” in Those Who Think Young (2:1). 21. Jeremy G. Butler, ‘’Smoke Gets in Your Eyes’: Historicizing Visual Style in Mad Men” in Gary R. Edgerton (ed.), Mad Men: Dream Come True TV (London & New York: I.B. Tauris, 2011), 63. 22. Babylon (1:6). 23. Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” in Issues in Feminist Film Criticism. Patricia Erens (ed.) (Bloomingdale and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990), 33. 24. Mulvey, 33. 25. Christina Hendricks, quoted in Logan Hill, “Dangerous Curves: Christina Hendricks, TV’s retro-sexy secretary, on living in a Mad Men’s world”, New York Magazine, 2 Aug. 2009, 1. Accessed 17 Nov. 2011. 26. Kim Akass & Janet McCabe, “The Best of Everything: The Limits of Being a Working girl in Mad Men” in Gary R. Edgerton (ed.), Mad Men: Dream Come True TV, 182. 27. Akass & McCabe, 183. Also see Mulvey, 34. 28. Mulvey, 33. 29. Gurley Brown, Sex and the Office, 33. 30. Brown, 32. 31. Dylan Jones. “Christina Hendricks Drives Mad Men Wild!” British GQ Sept. 2010. 32. Brandon Voss, “Ahead of the Curves.” The Advocate Nov. 2009: 3; Logan Hill; Amy Larocca, ‘Woman of the Hourglass’. New York Magazine, February 14 2010. Accessed April 21 2011. 33. See Carrie Zender, “Christina Hendricks Breast Augmentation Looks to be Confirmed.” makemeheal.comFeb. 4 2011 . Accessed Jan. 4 2012 and Lina Das, “’I’m learning to celebrate what I was born with’: Why life is shaping up nicely for Christina Hendricks.” Daily Mail Online May 24 2011. Accessed Jan. 4 2012. 34. Qtd. in Brandon Voss, 3. 35. Of course others have made the general point about objectification within contemporary western societies far more eloquently and with infinitely more detail. For example, see Ariel Levy, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. New York: Free Press, 2005 and Natasha Walter.Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism. Great Britain: Virago, 2010. 36. Gurley Brown, Sex and the Office, 33.
92 37. The New Girl (2:5). 38. The Gold Violin (2:7). 39. Bruce Handy. “Don and Betty’s Paradise Lost.” Vanity Fair Sept. 2009, 134. 40. (2.8). 41. Tom & Lorenzo, “Mad Style: Joan Holloway, S2 Part 2”, Project Rungay. Accessed 21 April 2011. 42. She doesn’t appear to have her own desk and, when not swanning about amongst secretaries dispensing cutting remarks and precise instructions and looking fabulous, is frequently found drinking, smoking and/or chatting in the break room or kitchen. 43. Akass & McCabe, 186. 44. Emily Nussbaum, “Nussbaum on Mad Men: How Joan’s Rape Changed Everything.” Vulture, 24 Oct. 2008. Accessed 21 April 2011. 45. Hill, 1. 46. Matt Weiner, quoted in Fred Kaplan “Drama Confronts a Dramatic Decade.” New York Times 9 Aug. 2009. Accessed Nov. 17 2011. Also see Melissa Maerz, “The Mind Behind Mad Men.” Rolling Stone, 17 June 2009. Accessed 17 Nov. 2011. 47. Peggy does listen to Joan’s advice to ”stop dressing like a little girl” for one night, joining a client in a strip club in a bid to operate on the same terms as her male colleagues in Maidenform, but her efforts are an isolated incident. 48. See Babylon and The Wheel (1:13). 49. Ashley Jibee Barkman, “Mad Women: Aristotle, Second-wave Feminism, and the Women of Mad Men” inMad Men and Philosophy: Nothing Is As It Seems, Rod Carveth and James B. South (eds.), 206. 50. The Hobo Code (1:8). 51. The Rejected (4:4). 52. The parallels were pointed out to me in a Basket of Kisses blog post, but I have not included this as a direct reference as my interpretation of the meaning was slightly different. See Therese. “Joan Won’t Be Rejected.” Basket of Kisses. 18 Aug. 2010. Accessed 17 Feb. 2011. 53. Christmas Comes But Once A Year (4:2). 54. Wee Small Hours (3:9). 55. The Good News (4:3). 56. (4.7). 57. (4:8). 58. Shut The Door. Have a Seat (3:13). 59. However, although she exerts a lot of organizational power in the SDCP offices, she lacks professional status. Gender differences play a part here, since although she essentially runs the agency with Lane Pryce, who has a quiet office with a secretary, Joan’s professional space is taken over for other purposes, and serves as a walkway for the entire agency – much to her annoyance. ↩ 60. Tomorrowland (4:13). 61. On satellite channel Sky Atlantic. 62. Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1970), 328.