APPLICATIONS

Yes, But…..

__Bertocci's claim that the men become bisexual to defeat Gozer__ is surprisingly different than __the emphasis on phallic power_ in terms of _outcome__. By this, I mean _____the outcome of the process_is__ men finding means to be sexually intimate with each other in ____Bertocci's claim___ while there is a striking difference in ___the emphasis in phallic power___ in terms of ____images of masculine triumph through aggressively heterosexual displays__. Noticing this pattern of ____having a looser, bisexual process but an agressively heterosexual outcome___ suggests that ____the fact that Gozer dissappears into a yonic space____ is also a part of this collation because it _____ focuses on an end process that rigidly divides males and females__.

Step 1, always: Data Collation

Rosen's argument about the use of paradoxes for the audience can be linked to Stewart's interaction with the audience. One surprising way they are similar is Rosen claims that satire has “two polarities” one of which is a “deep suspicion about comedy, the effects of laughter, and the gamesmanship of satire: Where is there a space for truth-telling and moral seriousness when the satirist always has an eye on making the audience laugh.” This can be linked to Stewart’s use of various different contexts, some of which the audience might not know.

Step 2, sometimes: So What

Rosen’s argument about the paradox of audience reactions to satire in connection to Stewart’s relation to the audience changes our analysis of why Stewart is effective in his satire by suggesting that he deliberately gives multiple contexts, some of which might not be understood, as a means to emphasize the truth telling in the more recognizable contexts.

Step 3, sometimes

What does X mean?

• What is the significance of X?

• What conditions, influences or events caused X to be as it is? How or why did it become what it is?

• What is the process that led to X? What were the steps in the process? How did that process take place?

• How could X have happened differently, and what might be the effects of changes to the process? What is the significance of this process?

• Who is the audience for X? What is that audience’s expectations, and how are those expectations

addressed?

• How does X work in the text? Does it convey meanings other than its literal definition? Does it mean different things to different audiences? How would the text change if “X” were replaced with a synonym?

• What caused x to happen as it did? Where did it happen, who was involved and what was the outcome? What might have caused it to happen differently? What controversies surround the event?

• What is the effect of X? How does it achieve that effect? What details contribute to the overall effect? Might it have different effects on different audiences? What choices did the author/artist make in order to achieve that effect?

• What are the various opinions about X?

• What disagreements might circulate around X?

• What are the common assumptions about X?

Is there any overlap between positions about X? What are the reasons for each opinion?

Step 4, always: Set the reader up to understand

I initially thought the many contexts just confused the viewer. But Rosen's points about the reader's suspicions of comedy can be linked to the many contexts. This reveals that Stewart actually uses the many contexts to make his satire more effective .

1050 Fall 2017: Collations-> Applications

• Start with the so what you got in step 6. This is the final goal that you are aiming at: write it at the top of the page and highlighting it. With each further step, make sure you are getting closer to that goal.

• Use the ordering that you figured out in step 5. This is the clear, logical path you are creating for the reader. Write this out with spaces between each chunk for filling in further rationale/claims/evidence.

• You know your ultimate claim, but do you need more so whats along the way? Where? How do they help lead to that ultimate so what? Write them in!

• Do you need more explanation (smoothed out brainstorming)? Why? What is the reader going to struggle to see? How can you talk the reader through these moments/guide them along the path? Write that explanation in!

• Back to the final so what/end goal. This should appear (in slightly different forms) at the beginning and end of the application (which may be one paragraph, or two, or more…). You are not writing a mystery novel—you want your reader to see where you are heading!

• Great way to start off the application and set up the reader to see what you are doing and where you are going? Re- write analytical question as statement with the so what as the answer. In the model paragraph above, “What is the significance of contrast between masculinity being connected to guns and tools and phallic building and femininity being connected to nimble minxes and prehistoric bitches suggests that Ghostbusters is attempting to use the specific element of time in order to oppose masculine permanence with feminine temporariness?” became “THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MALE PERMANENCE AND FEMALE IMPERMANENCE IN GHOSTBUSTERS IS THAT it shows women may have less power than it seems.

• Yes, this is totally not being composed in the order that the reader will read it. You do not have to do your writing in the order readers read: just arrange them that way later. The same will apply as you put together various applications to make up the whole paper—the order you come up with them is not necessarily the order in which you will present them to the reader. 

https://screencast-o-matic.com/watch/cbQOYlIuLG

The Akeley African Hall itself is simultaneously a very strange place and an ordinary experience for literally millions of North Americans over more than five decades. The types of display in this hall spread all over the country, and even the world, partly due to the craftspeople Akeley himself trained. In the 1980s sacrilege is perhaps more evident than liminal experience of nature. What is the experience of New York street-wise kids wired to Walkman radios and passing the Friday after- noon cocktail bar by the lion diorama? These are the kids who came to the museum to see the high tech Nature-Max films. But soon, for those not physically wired into the communication system of the late 20th century, another time begins to take form. The African Hall was meant to be a time machine, and it is." The individual is entering the Age of Mammals. But one is entering alone, each individual soul, as part of no stable prior community and without confidence in the substance of one's body, in order to be received into a saved community. One begins in the threatening chaos of the industrial city, part of a horde, but here one will come to belong, to find substance. No matter how many people crowd the great hall, the experience is of individual communion with nature. The sacrament will be enacted for each worshipper; here is no nature constituted from statistical reality and a probability calculus. This is not a random world, populated by late 20th- century cyborgs, for whom the threat of decadence is a nostalgic memory of a dim organic past, but the moment of origin where nature and culture, private and public, profane and sacred meet-a moment of incarnation in the encounter of man and animal. The Hall is darkened, lit only from the display cases which line the sides of the spacious room. In the center of the Hall is a group of elephants so life like that a moment's fantasy suffices for awakening a premonition of their movement, perhaps an angry charge at one's personal intrusion. The elephants stand like a high altar in the nave of a great cathedral. That impression is strengthened by one's growing consciousness of the dioramas that line both sides of the Main Hall, as well as the sides of the spacious gallery above. Lit from within, the dioramas contain detailed and life-like groups of large African mammals-game for the wealthy New York hunters who financed this experience; they are called habitat groups and are the culmination of the taxidermist's art. Called by Akeley a "peep- hole into the jungle,""2 each diorama presents itself as a side altar, a stage, an unspoiled garden in nature, a hearth for home and family. As an altar, each diorama tells a part of the story of salvation history; each has its special emblems indicating particular virtues. Above all, inviting the visitor to share in its revelation, wach tells the truth. Each offers a vision. Each is a window onto knowledge

Step 5, always: arrange for reader

So I'm explaining how the details of the collation lead to the claim that multiple contexts actually emphasize the more "true" ones (if I had a so what) OR thinking about the process that leads to understanding satire if I had focused in on a specific application question.

Stewart fires off a ton of contexts in just a few minutes: the Ray Rice domestic abuse case, the controversy over whether Michael Sam was fired for his sexuality, Stewart's own view on the Giant's defense, the Ram's hands up protest, the salute used in The Hunger Games (and, for some viewers, the ways it had been used in the Thai protests earlier that year), and celebration scenes from Fiddler on the Roof. While this certainly might confuse the viewer,even without the context, a reader would understand that some points, such as domestic violence and police violence, should be taken more seriously than others, like a dance scene or Stewart's feelings about a football team. Rosen argues that readers or viewers of satire often have "a deep suspicion" about the "gamesmanship" of satire, and its move towards comedy. By making the divisons between the serious and the comic so obvious, though, Stewart acknowledges this distrust. He invites the viewer to sort the more and less serious elements and take an active role in making meaning. By coming to the main points on their own through this sorting process, the viewers lose their suspicion and instead work with Stewart to address the key, "true" issues.

2 clicks coming up!

You know the drill :)

DEVELOPING APPLICATIONS

yes AND: Reading/ Literacy/ Ways of Reading

Name, Jo. Nothing else that he knows on. Don't know that everybody has two names. Never heerd of sich a think. Don't know that Jo is short for a longer name. Thinks it long enough for HIM. HE don't find no fault with it. Spell it? No. HE can't spell it. ..."Out of the question," says the coroner. "You have heard the boy. 'Can't exactly say' won't do, you know. We can't take THAT in a court of justice, gentlemen. It's terrible depravity. Put the boy aside." CH 11

his desirable property is in Chancery, of course. It would be an insult to the discernment of any man with half an eye to tell him so. Whether "Tom" is the popular representative of the original plaintiff or defendant in Jarndyce and Jarndyce, or whether Tom lived here when the suit had laid the street waste, all alone, until other settlers came to join him, or whether the traditional title is a comprehensive name for a retreat cut off from honest company and put out of the pale of hope, perhaps nobody knows. Certainly Jo don't know.

"For I don't," says Jo, "I don't know nothink."

It must be a strange state to be like Jo! To shuffle through the streets, unfamiliar with the shapes, and in utter darkness as to the meaning, of those mysterious symbols, so abundant over the shops, and at the corners of streets, and on the doors, and in the windows! To see people read, and to see people write, and to see the postmen deliver letters, and not to have the least idea of all that language—to be, to every scrap of it, stone blind and dumb! It must be very puzzling to see the good company going to the churches on Sundays, with their books in their hands, and to think (for perhaps Jo DOES think at odd times) what does it all mean, and if it means anything to anybody, how comes it that it means nothing to me? To be hustled, and jostled, and moved on; and really to feel that it would appear to be perfectly true that I have no business here, or there, or anywhere; and yet to be perplexed by the consideration that I AM here somehow, too, and everybody overlooked me until I became the creature that I am! It must be a strange state, not merely to be told that I am scarcely human (as in the case of my offering myself for a witness), but to feel it of my own knowledge all my life! To see the horses, dogs, and cattle go by me and to know that in ignorance I belong to them and not to the superior beings in my shape, whose delicacy I offend! Jo's ideas of a criminal trial, or a judge, or a bishop, or a government, or that inestimable jewel to him (if he only knew it) the Constitution, should be strange! His whole material and immaterial life is wonderfully strange; his death, the strangest thing of all. (Ch 16)

I initially thought the many contexts just confused the viewer. But Rosen's points about the reader's suspicions of comedy can be linked to the many contexts. This reveals that Stewart actually uses the many contexts to make his satire more effective .Rosen's argument about paradoxes for the audience can be linked to Stewart's interaction with the audience One surprising way they are similar is Rosen claims that satire has “two polarities” one of which is a “deep suspicion about comedy, the effects of laughter, and the gamesmanship of satire: Where is there a space for truth-telling and moral seriousness when the satirist always has an eye on making the audience laugh.”

This can be linked to Stewart’s use of various different contexts, some of which the audience might not know.Stewart fires off a ton of contexts in just a few minutes: the Ray Rice domestic abuse case, the controversy over whether Michael Sam was fired for his sexuality, Stewart's own view on the Giant's defense, the Ram's hands up protest, the salute used in The Hunger Games (and, for some viewers, the ways it had been used in the Thai protests earlier that year), and celebration scenes from Fiddler on the Roof. While this certainly might confuse the viewer,even without the context, a reader would understand that some points, such as domestic violence and police violence, should be taken more seriously than others, like a dance scene or Stewart's feelings about a football team. Rosen argues that readers or viewers of satire often have "a deep suspicion" about the "gamesmanship" of satire, and its move towards comedy. By making the divisons between the serious and the comic so obvious, though, Stewart acknowledges this distrust.

Stewart invites the viewer to sort the more and less serious elements and take an active role in making meaning. By coming to the main points on their own through this sorting process, the viewers lose their suspicion and instead work with Stewart to address the key, "true" issues.Rosen’s argument about the paradox of audience reactions to satire in connection to Stewart’s relation to the audience changes our analysis of why Stewart is effective in his satire by suggesting that he deliberately gives multiple contexts, some of which might not be understood, as a means to emphasize the truth telling in the more recognizable contexts.

[DATA COLLATION PATTERN] can be linked to [OTHER DATA COLLATION PATTERN]. One surprising way they are similar is [SPECIFIC PAIRING X]. Another surprising way they are similar is [SPECIFIC PAIRING Y].

This pattern changes

[PRACTICE? ANALYSIS? ASSUMPTIONS? CAUSATION (SOME REVERSAL OF THE INITIAL BELIEF OF RELATION OF TWO THINGS)? ORDER (CHANGE IN THE INITIAL UNDERSTANDING OF WHEN THINGS HAPPEN)?]

by

[HERE YOU EXPLAIN THE CHANGE].

However, each type of collation lends itself towards certain ways of phrasing so whats. These are variations on the above template, but more nuanced. You are welcome to use any of them as the so what for that type of collation instead of the master template above.

Yes AND

If group X is right that __________, as I think they are, then we need to reassess the popular assumption that __________.

X’s theory of __________ is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of __________.

These findings challenge SOME GROUP’S’ common assumptions that __________.

X matters/is important because __________.

Although X may seem trivial, it is in fact crucial in terms of today’s concern over __________.

Ultimately, what is at stake here is __________.

These findings have important consequences for the broader domain of __________.

2 BASIC FLAVORS OF COLLATIONS

Yes, and.....

critical claim

data dump

collation

Yes, but.....

having a looser, bisexual process but an agressively heterosexual outcome

Bertocci's claim that the men become bisexual to defeat Gozer

the emphasis on phallic power: tall bldgs, guns, crotch level

assumption seems to be about acceptable space/time for bi and heterosexuality--can be fluid in more private/undocumented momnets. or maybe extreme danger?

outcome

If _ the display of heterosexual power _ holds true, then we need to reassess the popular assumption that _men must become bisexual to defeat women_ because_ the end result is an eruption of male power and sexuality that defeats a woman who disappears _.

BUT

• Ultimately, what is at stake here is _sexuality rather than gender relations____, because __displays of heterosexual power__ make it clear that __ sexuality becomes a private matter as long as it results in public, visible domination of women through sexuality _.

where does heterosexulaity end? must defeat a woman,save larger public. Ok to do any sort of non heterosexual activity to achieve these heterosexual goals

• How does X work in the text? Does it convey meanings other than its literal definition? Does it mean different things to different audiences?

bisexuality needed to defeat gozer

Yes, And….

_The fact the scene is shot from below__ is surprisingly like __calling Gozer a "prehistoric bitch"_ in terms of _outcome._

By this, I mean _____the outcome__ is ____making women seem powerful because they are visually bigger (description of how it fulfills the term in the box)__ in ____being shot from below___ and the same holds true in ___calling Gozer a prehistoric bitch___ in terms of ____bitch being a term that connotes a strong woman who is attacked for her power (description of how it fulfills the term in the box) __. Noticing this pattern of ____portraying and attacking female power (a more precise definition of term from the box above¬)___ suggests that ____Gozer's masculine appearance (new detail not in original collation/dump)____ is also a part of this collation because it _____ portrays a female power while suggesting it is not appropriate (description of how it fulfills the term in the box) __.

there are 2 different things going on--an acceptable homosocial bonding but an insistence on displaying heterosexuality to other males.

By looking at the insistence of heterosexual power in Ghostbusters in conjunction with the defeat of female power, we can see that male bisexuality is privately acceptable but must result in public, divided heterosexual displays, which most readers don't see; this is important because it changes our analysis by suggesting that actual sexual practices are far less important to gender relations than the display of power through heterosexual tropes.

The A to Z Method

for Thinking, Reading, and Writing

"After haphazardly pelting Gozer's final form with fire, gaining nothing but a conflagration advancing on them, the Ghostbusters hatch a plan. The subtext of the "swing both ways" line, not to mention the unsettling possibilities of "cross[ing] the streams", just begs to be unpacked. But the men succeed, and their victory is marked by a white, sticky shower blanketing the streets below."

Adam Bertocci "Overthinking Ghostbusters"

What are the assumptions about X (a bisexual process ending with rigid heterosexual division in Ghostbusters)?

emphasis on masculine intimidation though technology and modernity

tools/talent

skyscraper

emphasis on guns/machines/prehistoric bitch

How does X work in the text? Does it convey meanings other than its literal definition? Does it mean different things to different audiences?

assumption seems to be about acceptable spaces/times for each--what can happen in male space vs public space?

Hollrah and Farmer

What are the assumptions about X (a bisexual process ending with rigid heterosexual division in Ghostbusters)?

I initially thought that Bertocci's claim that the men must become bisexual to defeat Gozer explained the sexuality in this text. But the insistence on the display of heterosexual power at the end of Ghostbusters shows that a turn to bisexuality cannot explain all. One way that they are different is that the end result is an eruption of male power and sexuality that defeats a woman who disappears into a yonic space, but they are still similar in terms of men having to join together sexually for this to happen. This suggests that violence against a female character changes the turn to bisexuality in Ghostbusters.One could argue that male heterosexuality in Ghostbusters become valuable because it is a means of defeating female power. This allows considerable latitude in male sexuality--they can indeed "cross streams" and have emotionally and physically close relationships-- as long as, ultimately, their turn to each other results in overpowering a woman. This triumph is shown through rigidly divided sexual images, though no sexual activity. In this sense sexuality becomes far less important than gender relations--in essence sexuality becomes a private matter as long as it results in public, visible domination of women through sexuality.

SO WHAT: By looking at the insistence of heterosexual power in Ghostbusters in conjunction with the defeat of female power, we can see that male bisexuality is privately acceptable but must result in public, divided heterosexual displays, which most readers don't see; this is important because it changes our analysis by suggesting that actual sexual practices are far less important to gender relations than the display of power through heterosexual tropes.

Application Take Home

• Big Chunk of Writing to Share
• "Proves" So Whats through Reasoning and Explanation of Collation patterns
• Recursive and flexible--discovery or explanation
• "Helicopter" View

process of creating depth of awareness:thoughtful questions, analytical, not templates

what are the efefcts of focusing on

what are assumptions of templates: moves not who does moving matter, where does content come from?

how else could the process of joining a conversation happen?