synthesis paragraph!

claim about synthesized materials in previous paragraph

2 sources

hmmm......this might sound familiar......once again, it's an

allusion

Shakespeare!

EXACT words......but their meaning?

context

intertextuality

Julius Caesar:

Antony. Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones; So let it be with Caesar.

Words to remember as you (re)read materials from your five units!

Allen's first paragraph asserts that "our Declaration" is important because it shows us freedom is founded on equality.

ACE example #2

ACE example #1

An amazing (strange? terrible?) thing to say, no?

Remind you of anything?

keyterm!

relevant, "relatable"

Assertion Claim

Claim: on the one hand / on the other hand

More "meta-language": author tells readers what he's gonna do

claim?

stakes are HIGH!

again, we can relate to this perspective

"hey....I like popular governments! (I don't like tyranny....)"

Writing as an outsider, Tocqueville tells his readers that he discovered social equality was the crucial fact about American society.

See the linked essay on "freedom/liberty" on our course website for an extended explanation of this

I went there Prof and there was no class!?

OK...so, like, my two little tween sisters are my "fan base" lol

I forgot to add the fruits of my research! Here's the Guardian review of the book that the BoL article draws upon...

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/may/11/rafal-milach-the-winners-belarus

So, Dyson gave us a binary opposition in his 2Pac analysis (the "ghetto...bourgeois" binary); but this author is arguing that gangsta actually belongs on BOTH/ NEITHER side of that binary: the gangsta is an outlaw and a consumer!

So is Botton backing off completely here? Is he "revealing" that his piece is just satire? What's the principle governing his list of hypothetical awards?

A surprising juxtaposition, almost a "contrarian" move in the essay's title: celebrity culture seems to be a thing that completely dominates our existing world--but what would it look like in an ideal world?

Annotation guidelines:

Please write at least 6 comments; make 2 of them replies to group members. (The more, the better: this is a minimum guideline!)

I am looking for two things in your commentary

1) Think about what possible value this source has for your developing argument (and for the arguments of your fellow group members! Use the language of the “B-TEAM” handout, and integrate keyterms from your own essay project as well.

2) Address the essay on its own terms: where is the argument persuasive; where is it difficult; where are you uncertain? The “Academic English” handout will help most with this aspect of your reading: I encourage you to mark academic keyterms and look them up if they appear crucial to the argument.

(Since this assignment is placed within Canvas, our course tags aren’t necessary…)

I will also ask questions & make comments in the annotation process myself to help discussion develop!

So, then: six potential keyterms (since it's unlikely that the entire logic of this analysis is going to be equally relevant to all of your developing essay projects!)

This is a common-sense understanding, one that we've mentioned in class several times (that doesn't mean that it's entirely right, of course: just that it seems to correspond to how people living in our particular environment feel about celebrity).

This, I think, is true (if I did not think it true, I would not be teaching this particular course!)......but my point in annotating is to note a potential source for you all

oho!

"Academic English"! Not only in that it coins a key term, "celebritization," but in that it concerns itself with "structural dynamics." A phrase like "structural dynamics" indicates that the essay will be making a complex analysis of cause & effect. We should expect, then, that "celebritization", as a verb, names the dynamic process or set of processes through which celebrity culture does its thing....

Annotation guidelines:

Please write at least 6 comments; make 2 of them replies to group members. (The more, the better: this is a minimum guideline!)

I am looking for two things in your commentary

1) Think about what possible value this source has for your developing argument (and for the arguments of your fellow group members! Use the language of the “B-TEAM” handout, and integrate keyterms from your own essay project as well.

2) Address the essay on its own terms: where is the argument persuasive; where is it difficult; where are you uncertain? The “Academic English” handout will help most with this aspect of your reading: I encourage you to mark academic keyterms and look them up if they appear crucial to the argument.

(Since this assignment is placed within Canvas, our course tags aren’t necessary…)

I will also ask questions & make comments in the annotation process myself to help discussion develop!

Hannah, Jessica, Julia--I've added general annotation guidelines as a page note. This is a very readable essay; the question I have is in what way it will be helpful to each of you in developing your own perspectives. (Feel free to discuss how your own perspectives differ, if the essay seems of limited use....)

Annotation guidelines:

Please write at least 6 comments; make 2 of them replies to group members. (The more, the better: this is a minimum guideline!)

I am looking for two things in your commentary

1) Think about what possible value this source has for your developing argument (and for the arguments of your fellow group members!) Use the language of the “B-TEAM” handout, and integrate keyterms from your own / your group members' essay projects as well.

2) Address the essay on its own terms: where is the argument persuasive; where is it difficult; where are you uncertain? The “Academic English” handout will help most with this aspect of your reading: I encourage you to mark academic keyterms and look them up, citing definition sources, if they appear crucial to the argument.

(Since this assignment is placed within Canvas, our course tags aren’t necessary…)

I will also ask questions & make comments iin the annotation process myself to help discussion develop!

A dense nexus of keyterms! "Cultural-historical" tells us it's likely to be useful for what I've called a humanistic perspective...

Annotation guidelines:

Please write at least 6 comments; make 2 of them replies to group members. (The more, the better: this is a minimum guideline!)

I am looking for two things in your commentary

1) Think about what possible value this source has for your developing argument (and for the arguments of your fellow group members! Use the language of the “B-TEAM” handout, and integrate keyterms from your own essay project as well.

2) Address the essay on its own terms: where is the argument persuasive; where is it difficult; where are you uncertain? The “Academic English” handout will help most with this aspect of your reading: I encourage you to mark academic keyterms and look them up if they appear crucial to the argument.

(Since this assignment is placed within Canvas, our course tags aren’t necessary…)

I will also ask questions & make comments in the annotation process myself to help discussion develop!

A classic "Academic English" title (with a little subject-appropriate flair as well!)

Annotation guidelines:

Please write at least 6 comments; make 2 of them replies to group members. (The more, the better: this is a minimum guideline!)

I am looking for two things in your commentary

1) Think about what possible value this source has for your developing argument (and for the arguments of your fellow group members! Use the language of the “B-TEAM” handout, and integrate keyterms from your own essay project as well.

2) Address the essay on its own terms: where is the argument persuasive; where is it difficult; where are you uncertain? The “Academic English” handout will help most with this aspect of your reading: I encourage you to mark academic keyterms and look them up if they appear crucial to the argument.

(Since this assignment is placed within Canvas, our course tags aren’t necessary…)

I will also ask questions & make comments in the annotation process myself to help discussion develop!

Annotation guidelines:

Please write at least 6 comments; make 2 of them replies to group members. (The more, the better: this is a minimum guideline!)

I am looking for two things in your commentary

1) Think about what possible value this source has for your developing argument (and for the arguments of your fellow group members! Use the language of the “B-TEAM” handout, and integrate keyterms from your own essay project as well.

2) Address the essay on its own terms: where is the argument persuasive; where is it difficult; where are you uncertain? The “Academic English” handout will help most with this aspect of your reading: I encourage you to mark academic keyterms and look them up if they appear crucial to the argument.

(Since this assignment is placed within Canvas, our course tags aren’t necessary…)

I will also ask questions & make comments in the annotation process myself to help discussion develop!

Honest! Really!

There's a lot of history connected to this little story!

Notice, also, how Morgan uses the ideas of victory / being right to organize the rest of her essay...

General notes:

Morgan's essay, as I mentioned in class, is now 20 yrs old. It was published first in Vibe magazine, then, with revisions and the addition of the longer second section, in Social Text--so, first a general-interest magazine for middle-class African American readership, then an academic journal of cultural studies.

And I discovered that Google Books has the full issue digitized! (Ugly long URL, but it works...)

https://books.google.com/books?id=0CsEAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Vibe+June-Jul+1995&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirrqTz7IjTAhWCgVQKHfRlDl4Q6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=Vibe%20June-Jul%201995&f=false

Note the black banner across the top cover; Morgan, as a regular writer for the magazine, would have been aware that her essay would appear in the same issue as "Tupac's Accuser Speaks!"

General reading notes:

Compare what Dyson does here with what Todorov does with Wilde: Tupac, for Dyson, is interesting both in himself and as a symbolic figure who stands for a particular kind of person at a particular moment in history.

"Authentic blackness" is Dyson's key concept (he will use it to explore Tupac's career. One way to write about concepts is to simply define them; another is to challenge existing definitions; a third way is to show what's at stake in those definitions.

The first full paragraph on p. 144 is an especially important one. It is very abstract in its language: try to figure out how point of view works in this argument. How many different perspectives, according to Dyson, are involved in shaping ideas of authentic African-American identity?

First of all, some ground rules in the interest of avoiding unncessary discomfort: if you think you need to use the terms, when quoting, use two written forms in this topic, “n---a” and “n----r”. Also, note that you can use "authentic African-American masculinity" or related phrases; we can quote Dyson's own language...

Having said that, I do want to draw your attention to what Dyson does here on a “technical” level: a slow unfolding of the complex meanings of a single word. (A few years later, the African-American law professor Randall Kennedy would write an entire short book on the word.) One of the things Dyson wants us to see is how the complexities of authenticity, for African-Americans, are encapsulated in the language itself.

(see my page note for a comment on this paragraph)

My introduction and annotation guidelines are posted as a page note!

Our discussion will start out with two texts: the documentary 2Pac: Resurrection, authorized by 2Pac’s mother, and the Wikipedia biographical entry, “Tupac Shakur,” authored by some 3,000 individual writers. Two very different texts, then, with very different purposes. By juxtaposing these texts, I mean to suggest that the “real” Tupac is not going to be an easy figure to find–and maybe that shouldn’t even be our goal. Tupac will let us begin to think about revisions of the “classic” poet-rockstar concept (exemplified by Byron and Wilde); he exists in a world where the mass media are inseparable from the process of star production and where the starring role is no longer necessarily occupied by a white man of European descent.

Let’s start with a comparative question: questions of “reliability” seem both crucial and complicated with respect to these two texts. Wikipedia has its own particular standards for “objectivity”: what they call "neutral point of view (NPOV)". This, of course, does not mean that Wikipedia is simply "unbiased." I'll quote from a study on "Cultural Bias in Wikipedia Content on Famous Persons" (Callahan & Herring, 2011):

Notwithstanding this potentially broad authorship and audience, given English’s status as a global lingua franca, the patterns appear to reflect the cultural values and history of the United States. These include the notion promoted by the American mass media that celebrities’ private lives are of interest to average persons ...The evidence in the entries of the first notion is especially compelling, in that it appears to contravene the English NPOV policy’s explicit injunction that Wikipedia should not be a “vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people’s lives” (Wikipedia, 2011d, para 3).

Wikipedia, this study suggests, reflects an American understanding of the world, oriented toward the present, toward mass culture, and toward celebrity!

(Here are a few links for those of you interested in how a Wikipedia article gets edited:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#semi

**When annotating the biography, I want you to focus on issues of reliability, but also on questions of style. What are the pros, and cons, of reading a collectively authored text (see pp. 20-22) that purports to have no point of view?

Also, since this is our final assigned biographical text, here's your opportunity to synthesize: make comparisons, find connections, introduce p2r themes....go crazy!**

PAC LIVES!!!

But we are reading this....FIFTY YEARS LATER? Do we still relate to celebrity this way?

Whose voice is this??

One of several elaborate paragraphs from the novel that could easily stand alone....

This juxtaposition seems telling, no?

surface / depth

I will repost the painting (thanks again to the initial poster!): this is Ivan Albright's painting entitled "The Picture of Dorian Gray":

!!!

The narrator here uses a literary device known as "throwing shade"

This page would not annotate properly, so I've re-uploaded it and believe it to be now working correctly--let me know if you have problems!

I want us to discuss this trial record primarily as a set of arguments about Wilde's life and The Picture of Dorian Gray. As such, this conversation will help us prepare for the second paper. Look for claims, then; look for evidence. Don't just state your own position, but comment on the strength of the claims offered by Carson and Wilde. The "big question" here is who wins the battle, Wilde or Carson?

Remember, the battle over the book's relationship to Wilde's life (a battle whose terms I've indicated by noting several passages) was not ultimately the deciding factor in the trial: but it might have been! For further context here, check out the linked page of "5 Myths" for a detailed, demystifying background to the trials.

This is the claim that Carson sought to argue: it was crucial to a defense of his client against the accusation of libel. (See my note on p. 100 for Carson's own remarks re. this!)

And here is Carson again, arguing based on the claim he needed to defend...

Our selection begins with the conclusion of Wilde's legal representative, Sir Edward Clarke; the remainder of the selections from the trial record consist of exchanges between Wilde and Edward Carson, who represented Queensberry.

Discussion game passage

Discussion game passage

3) How will I grade your annotations?

The Wilde text will be open for notations starting [fill in blank]. The book has thirteen chapters. Each of you are required to make one annotation per chapter; you may do more! (These posts will be part of your overall grade for the online discussion forums.) Two other small rules to encourage liveliness: at least once, you must reply to someone else’s annotation; at least once, you must annotate with an image!

2) How to annotate?

Start by thinking of annotations (your commentary in the margins of the text) as existing on a spectrum! I will illustrate with a fancy diagram:

INF__INT

At the left end of the spectrum, purely INFormational; at the right, entirely INTerpretive. “INF” have to do with providing facts or context that aid in reading the text; “INT” have to do with the question of what the text means. Potentially, a single annotation could do both these things… Like a claim, an annotation can seem either too obvious (we know where London is) or too obscure (a response that seems unlinked to the text). These marks the ends of the spectrum: your annotations should be somewhere in between.

Please note: Gifford has provided 155 footnotes for the text. If you choose to annotate a passage that is footnoted, you are telling your readers “this footnote is controversial/inadequate/intriguing”—you are supplementing that footnotes. And this can be interesting: so if one of the footnotes you check surprises you, you should feel free comment and tell the rest of us why!

If your annotation is research-based, leave a link/ links in your comments / anotations; you can also provide an image. An image alone, at the right moment, might be an effective annotation!

1) Why annotate?

First, we are working on building up ideas for longer assignments; you may find yourselves citing conversations that take place “within the pages” of Wilde’s novel in your next essay assignment!

Second, we are trying to read as a community: to have a “discussion” that is grounded in specific textual details.

In a way, every famous book draws much of its meaning from the historical “conversation” about that book: if we could read, say, Shakespeare’s Hamlet with 500 years worth of “annotations” in its margins….well, that “book” would be unreadably long. An editor of a text with a long history considers that text’s potential audience, and their needs, and then draws some small portion of the historical discussion of that text into their own edition. (Consider the notes I’ve given you to Wilde’s “Helas”, a single 14-line poem—I provide everything the editors provide, and add one very small thing I discovered myself…)

Reading as a community will also answer the question “WHO are we annotating FOR?” Some of you have more experience with late 19th-century literature than other; but all of you are readers born around the turn of the millenium. Think of these notes as being written for each other and to help other readers of a similar background to yourselves.

This sentence should not exist! Please ignore it...

Discussion of this "cluster" of readings will take place on the courseblog, but I'll also welcome annotations on either this article or the text of the Supreme Court decision ...

Discussion of this "cluster" of readings will take place on the courseblog, but I'll also welcome annotations on either this court decision or the short New York Times article...

These quotations are here as a starting point for your first Wilde prelim, and to hint at the sheer quotability of Wilde; were I to archive Wilde quotation sites, I'd need another course website to handle the quantity of data....

This biographical entry is relatively recent, contains an extend ed bibliography, and offers a different emphasis than does the biopic Wilde In annotations, I want you to locate moments where you think the interpretive, argumentative aspect of Edward's essay is most evident. Where do you see signs of his particular "take" on Wilde? (We can then discuss the implications of this take: if responding to a comment, please take that approach)

Here, a moment of metacommentary, wherein Todorov signals the argumentative relationship between his essay's two parts (finally! you might say to yourself...)

This "transition" is captured in the two key terms from Todorov's title: "ethics" and "aesthetics." These words are both part of the language of value; Todorov's essay, then, will help you in thinking about your second essay topic.

Bibliographic info: "The Replacement of Ethics by Aesthetics", Tzvetan Todorov (2005).

(I uploaded a version which omitted the title page; my apologies!)

General notes: this is a lecture, lightly revised for print publication. The essay attempts to encompass a great deal of material in a relatively small span of pages; when reading "big picture" arguments like this, thinking about evidence for its claims is especially important...

Ross’s essay takes the form of what’s generally called a “review-essay”: it responds, in a scholarly mode, to a set of related publications. (Unlike in most such essays, though, a more personal perspective is woven into the argument.)

Some review-essays will focus on the arguments and debates embodied by their selected texts; Ross is ultimately most interested in Wilde himself. And while he is concerned with Wilde as a late Victorian, as a man of his own time, he ultimately wants to ask another question: what does Wilde mean to us, in 2011?

Think about this question as you read the article!

Annotate a paragraph from the reading you’ve chosen (Ward or Throsby’s article). Set your annotations to private: this is an individual assignment. I’ll ask you all to reset them to public in class on Tuesday.

1. Highlight and paraphrase what you consider to be the major claim of the paragraph.

2. Highlight keyterms (these will be either terms that the article repeats or otherwise foregrounds, or terms that you recognize from readings/discussion thus far in the course). These terms don’t need to be nouns; verbs are also possible candidates! If you think a keyterm is “Academic English”, indicate that fact in the text of your annotations.

3. What sources does the paragraph cite in relation to the keyterms it deploys? Picking a verb for each source, characterize the relation of that source to the author’s argument. (Eg. "Ward applies Gabler's idea of the "discourse of celebrity" to the case of Byron.") Attach your annotation to the name of the cited author(s).

The quotation I used for your essay #1 prompt contains one of Ward’s claims, one piece of his thesis:

The problem in Byron’s case is that interest in his life, largely prompted by his celebrity, has at times threatened to overwhelm his “real achievement” as a poet. (65)

You’ll see that the words “real achievement” are quoted from Neal Gabler in fuller form earlier in this same paragraph.

It’s important for us to notice that Ward’s own perspective, even when it appears relatively clearly, is interwoven with the perspectives of other writers. Trying to skim this essay and pick out “what it says” (what Ward says) is not an easy task.

Can you find, and annotate, phrases/sentences where Ward comes forward in his own voice? If we assemble those pieces, we can put Ward’s main claim, his thesis, together–and then we can think about why the essay is organized the way that it is!

Here's Ward's claim: some say (C & S) that it's "inappropriate" for recent biographers to treat Byron like a "media-generated celebrity". But Ward never QUITE comes out and agrees until the final sentence of the paragraph.

Annotate a paragraph from the reading you’ve chosen (Ward or Throsby’s article). Set your annotations to private: this is an individual assignment. I’ll ask you all to reset them to public in class on Tuesday.

1. Highlight and paraphrase what you consider to be the major claim of the paragraph.

2. Highlight keyterms (these will be either terms that the article repeats or otherwise foregrounds, or terms that you recognize from readings/discussion thus far in the course). These terms don’t need to be nouns; verbs are also possible candidates! If you think a keyterm is “Academic English”, indicate that fact in the text of your annotations.

3. What sources does the paragraph cite in relation to the keyterms it deploys? Picking a verb for each source, characterize the relation of that source to the author’s argument. (Eg. "Ward applies Gabler's idea of the "discourse of celebrity" to the case of Byron.") Attach your annotation to the name of the cited author(s).

I suspect you’ll find this essay somewhat easier to read than Ward's, for various reasons. She favors shorter sentences; she uses the "I" more frequently; finally, she writes using more of what I will call "metacommentary": statements that tell the reader what the argument has done/is doing/will do.

How far into the essay do we have to go to locate Thorsby's thesis?

In the era of social media and Google, I suspect that this passage will have a very modern ring to some of your ears!

A letter of dedication / dedicatory epistle is an old literary tradition. It implies a patronage relationship between author and patron: the former pays graceful compliments to the latter. The reality behind such letters varies widely; Moore was a decade older and Byron's first biographer (& present at the letter-burning!)

See my "Page Note" for further information...

See the "courseblog" entry for discussion of this poem and the events surrounding it.

I’ll cite two brief summaries of the events of early 1816. (Note that we already have biopic and Britannica versions...)

1. W. Paul Elledge (1986):

Following the birth of Augusta Ada on 10 December 1815, relations between Byron and his wife continued the rapid deterioration notable from early November when normal anxiety over the approaching confinement was exacerbated by a bailiff’s occupation of the house. Byron appears to have vented a good deal of rage and frustration over financial pressures in occasional verbal abuse of his wife, some of it hinting at his amorous relations elsewhere and at plans for a foreign excursion without her. Bewildered and apprehensive,she cultivated a suspicion that he was mentally deranged (possibly a murderer) and delayed a scheduled visit to her parents’ home in the hope of securing medical verification of it. On 15 January 1816 she left Piccadilly Terrace for Kirkby,but wrote Byron admonishingly and yet with good will that evening, in route. By private messenger on Friday, 2 February, after the letter had been intercepted and returned by a well-meaning Augusta the previous Monday, Byron received notification from his father-in-law that separation arrangements were underway. After weeks of distressed appeals and stubborn resistance on his part, coolly determined letters but often distraught behavior on his wife’s, and feverish consultations among their associates-during which time Byron’s mood ranged from initial astonishment through an agitation and depression that led Augusta to fear his suicide, finally to an exhausted and nearly despairing exasperation rendering him particularly susceptible to the importunities of Claire Clairmont- the preliminary Separation Agreement was signed on 17 March. The next day Byron wrote “”Fare Thee Well”” but held it for forty-eight hours before posting it along with a brief note to his wife. Two days later, Hobhouse found him in good spirits, eager to embark for foreign shores. On Byron’s instructions,””Fare Thee Well”” was first printed for private circulation on 8 April, and then without authorization was reproduced with “”A Sketch”” on 14 April in the Champion newspaper. Amidst the scandalized public outcry, directed almost entirely against “”A Sketch,”” Byron fled to Dover on the 23rd, the day after signing the final separation agreement, and thence to the continent on the 25th.

1. Susan Wolfson (2010),:

In a match that seemed absurd to all, Lord Byron and heiress Miss Milbank wed on 2 January 1815. Daughter Ada was born in December, and within a month, a little month, on 15 January 1816, Lady Byron packed her up and left for her parents’ home. Early in February Lady Byron’s father sent Byron a letter notifying him of her wish for a separation. Byron was stung; rumors and gossipbubbled and boiled, the press got involved in mid-April...”Fare thee well!” [began as] some lines of poetry that Byron sent to his “Dearest Bell” in late March or early April (BLJ5: 51-52), just after the draft Separation Agreement, before the finalization five weeks later. “I had a copy of Verses from his Lordship yesterday-very tender and so he talks of me to Every one,” Bell wrote to her mother (Elwin 448). Intimacy notwithstanding, copies were legion. Byron showed his friend Moore the lines (“the tears, as he said, falling fast over the paper as he wrote”), then sent either this paper, blotted, or a fresh copy off to Murray, who quickly shared it (Byron knew he would) with Gifford, Rogers, Canning, Frere, and many others, even Caroline Lamb. Byron then asked Murray to print it up, along with a nasty “Sketch” on Lady Byron’s Maid. Murray relished this last piece, cheering for the general male-clubbing. “It is tremendously exquisite,” he wrote to Byron on 1 April; “the most astringent dose that was ever presented to female Character” (L 159). Byron’s private label debuted a week later, on April 8, for distribution to fifty close friends. The network quickly went wide. Old nemesis Henry Brougham poached a copy, dashing it over to the Champion’s editor John Scott, who featured the two poems in the 14 April Sunday paper, elaborated with attacks on Byron’s character. A feeding frenzy ensued, piracies erupted, and within days everyone from Wordsworth to Stael had weighed in...The whole world interacted. Shops filled with cartoons and caricatures; pamphlets volleyed parodies, gossip, poems cast in the voice of Lady Byron (in a range of tones), spuriously attributed to her or the Lord, and so forth.

See my page note for annotation guidelines!

The two short selections I provide, from Cochrane’s editions of “The Corsair” and “Lara” (1814), consist of portraits of the hero(es) of each of these tales.

These poems are two of Byron’s “Turkish Tales,” all written in the aftermath of the massive success of Childe Harold. As did CHP, they draw upon Byron’s experiences in the Mediterranean. Many readers saw them as following in the line of that poem (perhaps as revisions of material originally intended for CHP before Byron had suspended it). I’ll cite Cochran:

Nothing like the “Turkish Tales” had ever been seen. Their convincing Oriental colours, the wildness of their characters, and the violent events portrayed – or supposedly portrayed – in their plots, made them a phenomenon. As soon as the cessation of war in 1815 permitted, they were translated into French; and within ten years, most were available either in that lingua franca, in continental English-language editions, or in other languages. Between them, they and [Sir Walter] Scott’s Waverley Novels transformed European literature, painting, and music. Never before or since had or has English literature been so influential with such speed. Shakespeare took much longer to percolate through.

Annotation guidelines: we're going to focus on literary analysis AND the analysis of argument. As you read, look at how Byron, in his prefatory prose, discusses the relationship between his protagonists and himself. Then consider how the poetic portraits match, or fail to match, Byron's critical position. Does he really mean what he says in his prose; is the poetry good evidence for these claims; are there any particularly revealing moments?

(I've provided Cochran's 3-page "Bibliography" simply so you could see how these texts circulated)

See my "page note" for annotating guidelines--& remember our class tag: p2r2017 (you can go back and add it with the "edit" pencil if you forget!)

Hours of Idleness was Byron’s debut publication. Our text has a short introduction by Cochrane, Byron’s own “Preface” and the review of the volume, by Henry Brougham, published the next year in the Edinburgh Review. I've included only two poems, as a way of capturing two sides of Byron's early relationship to traditional poetic forms.

This selection gives a much larger context for “A Fragment”; it lets you see what a young poet was “supposed to” sound like at the beginning of the 19th century, and, via Brougham, also gives you a counter-argument against that perspective.

More generally, these documents reveal that poetry around 1800 was already part of a "scene": there existed an ongoing, fast-paced, sometimes vitriolic conversation in the media about the poetry of the day!

In your annotations for this reading, I'd like you to focus on claims: those made by Lord B, in his poetry or in his prose; or those made by others. In particular, claims about poetry and the cultural role of "the Poet": but any other claims that you find of interest are also worthy of comment!

Again, consider reading the introductory "To Ianthe," which Byron added to a later edition of his book (see the footnote), AFTER you read the initial selection from the poem

This reading contains the introduction to CHP, edited, and with notes, by the Byron scholar Peter Cochran. Cochran includes Byron's brief initial "Preface" and a later addition. I have opened a post on the courseblog for discussion.

One reading suggestion: consider reading the introductory "To Ianthe," which Byron added to a later edition of his book, AFTER you read the initial selection from the poem

This reading contains the introduction to CHP, edited, and with notes, by the Byron scholar Peter Cochran. Cochran includes Byron's brief initial "Preface" and a later addition. I have opened a post on the courseblog for discussion.

One reading suggestion: consider reading the introductory "To Ianthe," which Byron added to a later edition of his book, AFTER you read the initial selection from the poem

This short biographical encyclopedia essay is the counterpoint to the Byron movie; both are part of what I will call the “myth” of Lord Byron. Both are part of the conversation about him, his image, his reputation...

This essay is roughly twenty years old. Its author, Leslie Marchand, is also the author of the “standard” 3-volume biography of Byron (“standard” meaning accepted by most/many specialists as the best existing biography): he’s a renowned scholar. Of course, this doesn't mean he will have a "neutral" attitude towards Byron...

If possible, I want you to link your annotations to places in the text where this version and the BBC biopic version of Byron's life seem significantly different; or where the movie treats a particular moment in a manner you think worthy of commenting on.

You may also make general comments (do the two versions seem to “match”?), using the "Page Note" setting, if you have a point that does not naturally link to any specific text.

This is the first time we've used Hypothes.is, so part of what we're doing here is practicing with the interface. Be sure to "post to public" (either right away, or reset "only me" annotations after rereading/editing). Remember: you can reply to existing annotations!And please use our course tag (see below): you can add tags after the initial post by editing as well...

I've added instructions for your annotations as a "Page Note" (the page icon)

Canadian spelling

test

"Prof L, which do you think works better?"

"Lord Breezy", as a student from last semester dubbed him :-)

"Wallace's informational claim of Mackey making quotes is really an interpretative claim."

Yes, or should I say YES YES YES: the distinction you make here is a classic way of making an argument!

I will just add that the "commissioned program note" was not something I knew much about...an interesting kind of collaboration!

Here are annotation instructions for Peterson's essay:

1) Please make at least one annotation that focuses on one of the aspects of the essay listed in our "Writing With Sources" handout (rhetorical; argumentative; paraphrase/summary; context/motive; disposition/stance). You could make this notation as a "Page Note", or key it to a particular piece of language. Use this notation to do something you think will be generally useful to the class, as readers of this text.

2) Please make at least one annotation where you engage with the essay from the perspective of your own particular research idea: how will this essay help clarify/develop your thought process? Try to use the vocabulary from the "B-TEAM" handout ("Kinds of Sources").

Bettance/Ariana: good idea! The Hyp. tool works BETTER for this kind of reading & I will incorporate it in future

classic academic title: the colon!

"sources"

Here is the bibliographical information for the reading (this page was meant to be published with the other page note):

Multiculturalism: examining the politics of recognition / Charles Taylor . . . [et al.]; edited and introduced by Amy Gutmann. Princeton UP, 1994. (Expanded ed. of: Multiculturalism and “The politics of recognition” / Charles Taylor. c1992.)

I quote from Gutman's introduction"

Questions concerning whether and how cultural groups should be recognized in politics are among the most salient and vexing on the political agenda of many democratic and democratizing societies today. Charles Taylor offers an original perspective on these problems in “The Politics of Recognition,” based upon his Inaugural Lecture for the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University (5)

I've added annotation guidelines (they're the same as for Peterson) as a "Page Note"!

Stop before this sentence ! (I would have crossed out the sentence, but doing so messes up text recognition in the document for some reason....)

Reminder: here are my instructions from "In Search of Authenticity," slightly modified:

1) Please make at least one annotation that focuses on the text from one of the perspectives listed in our "Writing With Sources" handout (rhetorical; argumentative; paraphrase/summary; context/motive; disposition/stance). You could make this notation as a "Page Note", or key it to a particular piece of language. Use this notation to do something you think will be generally useful to the group, as readers of this text.

2) Please make at least one annotation where you engage with the essay from the perspective of your own particular research idea: how will this essay help clarify/develop your thought process? Try to use the vocabulary from the "B-TEAM" handout ("Kinds of Sources").

"importance"!

(I'm curious--when did you figure out what he was up to?)

I've added annotation guidelines (they're the same as for Peterson) as a "Page Note"!

Reminder: here are my instructions from "In Search of Authenticity," slightly modified:

1) Please make at least one annotation that focuses on one of the aspects of Shields' chapter listed in our "Writing With Sources" handout (rhetorical; argumentative; paraphrase/summary; context/motive; disposition/stance). You could make this notation as a "Page Note", or key it to a particular piece of language. Use this notation to do something you think will be generally useful to the group, as readers of this text.

2) Please make at least one annotation where you engage with the essay from the perspective of your own particular research idea: how will this essay help clarify/develop your thought process? Try to use the vocabulary from the "B-TEAM" handout ("Kinds of Sources").

I've added annotation guidelines (they're the same as for Peterson) as a "Page Note"!

Reminder: here are my instructions from "In Search of Authenticity," slightly modified:

1) Please make at least one annotation that focuses on one of the aspects of the chapter listed in our "Writing With Sources" handout (rhetorical; argumentative; paraphrase/summary; context/motive; disposition/stance). You could make this notation as a "Page Note", or key it to a particular piece of language. Use this notation to do something you think will be generally useful to the group, as readers of this text.

2) Please make at least one annotation where you engage with the essay from the perspective of your own particular research idea: how will this essay help clarify/develop your thought process? Try to use the vocabulary from the "B-TEAM" handout ("Kinds of Sources").

I've added annotation guidelines (they're the same as for Peterson) as a "Page Note"!

Reminder: here are my instructions from "In Search of Authenticity," slightly modified:

1) Please make at least one annotation that focuses on the essay from one of the perspectives listed in our "Writing With Sources" handout (rhetorical; argumentative; paraphrase/summary; context/motive; disposition/stance). You could make this notation as a "Page Note", or key it to a particular piece of language. Use this notation to do something you think will be generally useful to the group, as readers of this text.

2) Please make at least one annotation where you engage with the essay from the perspective of your own particular research idea: how will this essay help clarify/develop your thought process? Try to use the vocabulary from the "B-TEAM" handout ("Kinds of Sources").

I've added a "Page Note" to this article with annotation instructions!

this concept came up in class last week: read on for a full definition!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVKTx9YlKls&index=8&list=PL6xdQ1-kSQsVpbI8Svt-UEezYj-y5VkCX

(This is part of the playlist; I've also linked here in case you miss that the first time around...)

This is an important sentence...

A key thesis sentence....she is not herself using "authenticity"; rather, she is arguing that the use of the concept, in a particular set of conversations, conceals another agenda (sexism)

Key moment in the essay that provides "motive": here is an answer to "so what", to why the author's claims matter...

This is a perceptive comment! As for the "indirectness": VIBE magazine's implied audience will be African-American. And the "community" she addresses is an African-American one.

"What should I, as a white reader, DO in response to this essay?" is a question worth asking...

....but also a popular source, VIBE magazine, which focused on hip-hop culture and had been founded two years before this date. Thus, the question of multiple voices/audiences should seem especially important to this essay.

An academic journal (published by Duke UP)

This is an important sentence that went unanotated, so I'll just note it. For Karlin, originality/authenticity becomes a PROBLEM, becomes a really complex question, after the technology of musical recording changes the nature of how music is transmitted.

This is a chapter from a recent book entitled on the "singer" as cultural figure. Please see my page note for your annotation instructions!

Here's a link to a playlist that contains most of the key songs mentioned herein (all those by Bob Dylan himself).

Annotation assignment:

I want you each to make one original annotation, and one response. (Please use the tag KIR020 / KIR900.)

Specific possibilities:

1) Annotate and respond critically to one claim, a claim you think important, in one of the two readings.You might challenge it based on its scope, its relation to evidence, or other grounds; you might find it ultimately persuasive, but still want to qualify it or otherwise engage with it]

2) Annotate and respond to one moment where the author makes the stakes of their argument apparent (the “motive”/“so what”?)—or fails to do so…

3) Annotate and engage with one moment where the author grounds their analysis effectively in “close reading”

4) Annotate and engage with one moment where the author’s analysis depends on something OTHER than “close reading”

—Respond by engaging with ANY one of these annotations left by a fellow student!

Remember, you can make OTHER annotations too; in particular, you can annotate privately, for your own benefit, if you choose to read online.

In the case of terms from the Marxist intellectual tradition like lumpenproletariat, one of the most reliable references is the glossary at marxists.org...

Here's the OED definition for comparison.

When terms that belong to specific intellectual traditions are involved, the question of "which reference?" becomes important. We'll talk about this question in more detail as we begin the research paper process later this month...

a term with a cluster of related meanings!

It's great that YouTube is now a venue for personal expression, comedy, and great videos, but what about great music? YouTube used to be a place for that, but now that it's not so much anymore, it seems like it's harder for people to have access to honestly great music

--Olivia

I've added a playlist containing certain key songs Hyden refers to in this piece...

This is a piece from an online magazine that published critical writing about pop culture. Please read my "page note" for your annotation assignment instructions!

Annotation assignment:

I want you each to make one original annotation, and one response (Please use the tag KIR020 / KIR900.)

Specific possibilities:

1) Annotate and respond critically to one claim, a claim you think important, in one of the two readings.You might challenge it based on its scope, its relation to evidence, or other grounds; you might find it ultimately persuasive, but still want to qualify it or otherwise engage with it]

2) Annotate and respond to one moment where the author makes the stakes of their argument apparent (the “motive”/“so what”?)—or fails to do so…

3) Annotate and engage with one moment where the author grounds their analysis effectively in “close reading”

4) Annotate and engage with one moment where the author’s analysis depends on something OTHER than “close reading”

—Respond by engaging with ANY one of these annotations left by a fellow student!

Remember, you can make OTHER annotations too; in particular, you can annotate privately, for your own benefit, if you choose to read online.

S/b "kaisico": an error I introduced transcribing the text. (Thinking about this now, my error could be seen as "revealing" certain preconceptions about written forms of dialect..)

The "Citation Spectrum"!

TS/IS implied...

Neither of the two WW poems we have read were included in Lyrical Ballads (the linked RPO online anthology contains the entire 1798 text of that volume, as well as other WW poems). They were composed slightly later, in 1804/5; both first appeared in book form in 1807.

WW’s “Preface” is important because in many senses he is “ahead of his time”: he anticipates a perspective that has become our modern perspective. By 1800, a mass, literate public existed and was growing rapidly. What relationship should the ancient traditions of art, particularly literature, have to this rapidly growing audience? How would this public come to understand its own life in and through reading imaginative writing? Discussions of literature around this time (and ever since!) tend to focus on language because literature is made out of language, and language is something used by everybody for many non-artistic reasons all the time. (This makes literature different from classical music, or painting.) And different kinds of language, historically, are associated with different groups of people. Thus, arguments about literary language (“what language should be used?”  are always associated with arguments about society (“whose language should be used?”).

Moreover, Wordsworth’s “Preface” is important because the terms it which defines poetry are terms that would prove hugely influential in the developing understanding of what poetry should do–an understanding we now capture with the term “lyric” poetry.

not like...the Colt 45! (test: posting at 12:20PM)

pathos of extinct social media beasties...

WHY U LEAVE ME YFROG Y???

I want this job....pay is probably terrible tho

OMG they imply it was FAKE how can they OMG

very cool that this is a keyword!

tagtest....this sounds cool!

my old professor! ....I remember her red pen in the margins of my papers :-)

"The Little Black Boy" by William Blake

not "Poems"? ;-)

is this meant to be comprehensive?

spelling!

even from those innocent house party days?.....yup.

lol

test note!

why not Wednesdays too????

If "Prof L" sent you here, guess what? Back at our class site, you are annotating on a WordPress website that automatically embeds hypothes.is! So no need to add Chrome; any browser should work. drops mic

...picks mic back up, looks at mic in embarassed fashion OK, it turns out that Safari may cause problems: Firefox and Chrome are recommended right now...

and this would also work for a pdf hosted at a class site: students could download and still keep the annotations!

(the paragraph from our ACE handout!)

a second example (see my previous annotation)

This is a key term for Walt Whitman....he uses it to evoke strong bonds between men, bonds including those that we'd now call homoerotic...

or "speculate": what are further consequences that a fuller account of my topic / other writers might address?

but did they REALLY believe this?

test annotation

common enemies of MAN

address

statesmen as causes of events

address

"Should my keyterm appear in my thesis?"

"responsibility"!

not "one"--that does ALL of the following...

This is the quotation from our first writing assignment!

"Celebrity: From Noun to Verb"!

"Culture"?

omg how time flies ;-)

no surprise this word get held in q marks ;-)

???

Of all the essays we have on the syllabus, Todorov's is the most traditionally academic: he works with abstract concepts that have a long history. If you are using Todorov as a source, I encourage you to annotate the article carefully; I will give feedback in response to your annotations!

One obvious starting point for annotation would be the two key terms of Todorov's title, "Ethics" and "Aesthetics."

Ross’s essay takes the form of what’s generally called a “review-essay”: it responds, in a scholarly but also personal mode, to a set of related publications.

Some such essays will focus on the arguments and debates embodied by their selected texts; Ross, instead, is ultimately most interested in Wilde himself.

While he is concerned with Wilde as a late Victorian, as a man of his own time, he ultimately wants to ask another question: what does Wilde mean to us, in 2011?

Think about this question as you read the article!

If you choose Ross as a source for your second essay, I encourage you to make annotations (you can temporarily set them to "Private" if you're not ready for me to read them); I will engage with them and offer you feedback. You might begin by locating Ross's thesis and thinking about how he handles "motive".

If you're seeing this, you're reading the "Public" annotations--please pull down the top arrow tab, and use "1213 PDG Reading Group" instead!

ok, good! let's tag it--also: this annotation seems to have floated free--you meant to anchor it to the first paragraph of the book, yes?

testing 123

This is a good comparison that could be developed more fully ("not only" / "as well" -- would it be possible to argue that KW's celebrity has "at times threatened to overwhelm" etc?

This quotation seems "dropped" in, rather than being integrated into your overall argument

remember, you need to justify a long quotation by a full analysis: what you have just quoted does considerably more than "promise...undying love," no? so, why not explain more fully? (A starting point could be the fact that the poem is ADDRESSING her; the public "overhears" it...)

Did he REALLY feel these emotions? Or is it a ploy / a tug on the heartstrings? Considering what you say after the citation, I think "showed" is the wrong word here

This is a very interesting and promising claim, and I wish it was part of your thesis! "Messy life, neat poetry", but also "Cold deeds, warm poetry"--notice how, if this were your thesis, it would naturally lead you to specific evidence...

I see that you've revised here; however, this revision remains unclear (if you read just the highlighted text to yourself, carefully, you'll see why. I think what you want to say could be said as follows: "you can't ignore either side, because the celebrity is part of the great poetry!"--yes? But you also say that the two are opposites....

Eg, here is a place where "A Fragment" seems relevant...

How does this connect to your thesis? It seems like what you feel you're "supposed to say", rather than a part of your own particular argument...

This is strange, because your essay would seem to support the opposite claim: that it was Byron's exciting life that made him a celebrity! (I should also point out that this statement seems to contradict your thesis...)

(oops!--unfortunate: I wanted to know your OWN perspective on the poem...)

Again, you quote properly, but by this point in the paragraph it almost seems that you are "avoiding" the poems--doesn't "A Fragment," for example, have something to say about the question of "achievement"?

This thesis...still doesn't quite make sense! You repeat "consider/ed" three times, and the second half of the sentence remains ambiguous (is this what you believe, or what you think B would believe?) Remember, a thesis statement is where you set out the main elements of your argument for your reader: the "and" in the middle of this thesis does not do enough to explain for your reader....