Student Name English 113B



Download 30 Kb.
Date19.05.2018
Size30 Kb.
#45302
Student Name

English 113B

Date
Shana,
Let me first say that I was really impressed with some of your complex opinions regarding anthropology. Your paper displayed a higher level of thinking in comparison with the other, although it too was enjoyable. Some of your opinions however can be better understood. I found myself re-reading sentences sometimes because I didn’t understand them the first time. This could be attributed to unnecessary verbosity or discontinuous sentence correlation. I feel that in your case the sentences do not support each other to make one point, as the sentences of one paragraph should, however they many times tend to present a whole new topic instead of supporting the one originally presented in the paragraph.

It is my perception that the function of an introduction is to introduce or present material that will be later expounded on throughout the body of the paper. Although your introduction did not divert from the overall topic of the subjective anthropological rhetoric it did not completely fulfill its objective. After reading the introduction I was not certain as to what exactly you were going to elaborate on. This may simply be a preference of style however I always feel as if a simply, precisely structured introduction allows the reader to organize the points of the paper and therefore better understand the writer’s objective.

I really do not have any more suggestions besides better organization of your supporting thoughts and a more structured introduction. Like I said in the beginning I really enjoyed reading your paper. GOOD JOB!!!

Student Name

English 113B

Date


First impression: Very, very interesting. I was immediately drawn into your point that O’Rourke’s sexual encounters with Aoi constitute a critique of traditional methods of representation. I’m not sure I agree, but the idea is certainly compelling. I do, however, agree with your thesis that objectivity is an “impossible feat” (likely because it closely mirror the ideas in my own paper). Obviously, the refusal to embrace subjectivity is the root of all problems associated with writing about the “Other.” Un-bias analysis is an impossibility; thus, honest ethnographies can only derive from situations where the ethnographer acknowledges and thereby defangs objectivity.

I really like your quote in the first paragraph; it clearly explains O’Rourke’s intentions, indicating that “desire and self-interest” are the fuel for his documentary ambition. He basically establishes himself as self-serving scumbag—I mean, sure, he is abiding by self-reflexive, post-paradigm principles, but he is using them to justify exploitation. Ethnographers have a duty not to harm their subjects (and regardless of cultural relativism, prostitution is harmful). I realize that his argument would be that he is just acknowledging his true feelings, his desire for Aoi, but please… Let’s grow up. We can’t always do or have what we want, because sometimes what we want to do or have involves nefarious things. Restraint, then, is a key facet of adulthood. Perhaps you should address this argument—that yes, O’Rourke’s ideas are good in theory, but his execution of the same ideas results in exploitation. Of course, this opens up a whole new dilemma: What is more important, adherence to self-reflexive methods or the welfare of subjects. I think that ethnographers have a duty to help their subjects—not harm them. Thus, for me, O’Rourke is truly a sexual predator.

Also, I like how you mention that he reminds the viewer of his presence by occasionally commenting in the background. What is ironic, however is that he, the “voice of reason,” the voice of morality, the exploiter, is pleading with her to leave prostitution. Please… I just can’t get past how ridiculous that is. How is he a moral compass? Of course, as you write, O’Rourke supposedly intends his irony to comment on Western ethnographic techniques. But I don’t know about that; I guess I’ll just have to see the film.

Anyway, I really liked your essay. It is probably the most interesting one I’ve read so far. You have lots of great points—points that provoke thought and discussion, though I would like to see a little more judgment on your part—that is, whether you agree with his methods. You explain them, yes, but you don’t really delineate right and wrong.


Student Name

English 113B

Date

The introduction of your paper does a good job of introducing the topic you are going to be discussing. Whether art can be obscene and censorship. When you say “as of right now, I feel people should be allowed to practice their freedom of speech.” What do you mean by as of right now? Does this mean something can change your mind? If so, what is it that could change your mind? Also, what you constitute a more “responsible” format? I think these are questions that if answered in your introduction can help better explain your opinion on the matter.



Using the case of Mike Diana is a good example of why people think the obscenity is justified in the zine articles. Diana thinks art is something that cannot be obscene, good example to make that point. In the second paragraph at the ever end you say that no one wants to be accountable for children and that Hillary Clinton is right in her book, It takes a village to raise a child. It would be helpful to explain briefly what the book suggests and why it is so right.

The third paragraph does a nice job of explaining the complexity of art and who is it that determines art. You also make a good point that if adults cannot distinguish between art and obscenity then how can a child. This is a good argument for the reason why children should not be exposed to such zines.

The conclusion to your paper is effective but, a little brief. Maybe you can discuss what would constitute a more “responsible” paper. In the conclusion maybe give your opinion on whether you think it is alright for something to be obscene as long as it is a form of art. The topic of your paper is something that can be debated which made for an interesting paper.
Student Name

English 113B



Date

In this essay the writer uses strong and sophisticated vocabulary and that makes the paper extremely powerful. I thoughtthe title of the essay was really interesting “One mans trash is another mans treasure”. Just the title by itself made me become interesting in the paper. I made me want to read the paper as soon as possible. As I read the paper I noticed that the writer was extremely descriptive and has strong writing skills. In my opinion the introduction paragraph is a little too short. The writer can definitely expand on the paragraph. I thought this essay was great except I felt that it was a little too short. If the writer would have made it a bit longer the essay would have been much stronger. Another thing that I noticed about the essay was that at times the writer was to broad, She could be a bit more specific. In the essay the writer didn’t really ask any questions and I think that’s perhaps something that she could work on. When I read an essay or even a paragraph when there are questions asked it makes me think about what I have read a lot more than if there are no questions. It also makes people analyze the paper more critically and compare it to other situations. And that makes the reader understand the paper much more. The body paragraphs were excellent it was detailed and well written. It gave me a clear understanding of the writers thoughts. I felt the conclusion paragraph was too short it’s a good paragraph but the writer should put more thoughts into that paragraph. But overall the essay is descriptive and the writer does a good job through out the paper. And that makes the paper very strong.

Download 30 Kb.

Share with your friends:




The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2022
send message

    Main page