Annotated Bibliography Project
This will count as an extra important "Daily Work" assignment, Nov. 1-Nov. 8.
Our textbook, Critical Theory Today, focuses primarily on the example of The Great Gatsby in its demonstrations of various critical lenses at work. To give you further practice in recognizing how critical theory actually gets used, you will locate and read, over a two-week span, additional short critical works of any kind which apply the critical frameworks you've been learning about. You will summarize and evaluate each of these works in an annotated bibliography, tailored for our uses in this course.
Hint: it would be very worthwhile to take a look at our homepage, under "Helpful Resources."
Instructions
1) For at least 5 of the critical theories we've studied, you should find at least one good article, book chapter, or review in which you see that type of criticism at work. For instance, in keeping with our study of Chapter 4, you would search for pieces which provide Feminist (or Gender) readings of your choice of literary works. If you were especially interested, say, in the fiction of Chuck Palahniuk, you might look up Feminist or Gender Studies criticism of Fight Club.
2) Provide a bibliography entry for each of the useful critical works you find.
3) Provide a 1-3 paragraph annotation for each source. Your annotation should:
Evaluation Criteria for Your Annotated Bibliography
By Nov. 8th, you should have a bibliography which includes a minimum of one entry per theory that we've covered in class. Each annotation should include the information described under "Instructions" above, and my evaluation will take into account the good-faith effort you made to find and understand sources which apply the theories we're studying in class. I'll look for entries that are well-developed, thoughtful, accurate, and relevant. Finally, your bibliography should be proofread and formatted according to MLA guidelines.
Check-plus = exceptionally well-done. Meets all of the criteria stated above especially well: clearly, thoroughly, and accurately.
Check = meets all or most of the criteria stated above. Some may be met somewhat weakly; some extra well.
Check-minus = meets some of the criteria stated above. Some may be met poorly or not at all; some well.
Minus = does not meet most of the stated criteria, or meets all poorly to very poorly.
Sample:
Annotated Bibliography
Simpson, Homer ed. "Sibling Rivalry and the Cycle of Barbarism in Ridley Scott's Gladiator." Psychoanalytic Readings of
Contemporary American Films: A Casebook. New York: Harper Collins, 1999.
This article makes frequent use of common Freudian terms (sibling rivalry, Oedipal complex), and so it is easily identified as psychoanalytical criticism. It examines the dynamic between Commodus and his father (Marcus Aurelius), his sister (Lucilla), his rival Maximus, the Senate, and the people of Rome. Marcus Aurelius clearly prefers Maximus to his real son Commodus, and Commodus's resulting emotional wounds lead him into a pattern of destructive behavior which results in his own ignominious and pointless death. Lack of paternal love, in fact, becomes the core issue which organizes all of Commodus's behavior, both personal and social. It's interesting to see how such unresolved psychological issues in a politically powerful person can have far-reaching, harmful, even brutal social and political repercussions. (It even made me wonder about real, current-day politicians and their own psychological complexes!) Overall, the article helped me understand psychoanalytical theory a bit better, though it was way over my head in spots. Simpson mentions concepts such as "male hysteria" and "compulsive masculinity," for example, which are unfamiliar to me, and he refers frequently to theorists such as Erik Homburger Erikson, whom I've never read.
Decker, Hannah S. "Erikson, Erik Homburger." World Book Online Reference Center. 2005. World Book, Inc. 13 August. 2005.
Since, while researching Gladiator, I kept running into references to Erik Erikson, I decided to look him up in a general encyclopedia. This World Book entry was helpful because it explains concisely that while "Freud focused on the psychological and biological aspects of development," Erikson believed "that social and cultural influences also are significant to development." This helps explain to me why Simpson in the source cited above so often refers to Commodus's relationship to the Roman public, the Roman army, and the Senate. The social world he lived in was every bit as important in shaping his core psychological issues as the dynamics of his own personal family.