Monday 13 February 2012
Thursday 2 February 2012
I Was Sold.
Take 2.
Article by Laura Miller:
And the Winner is…
The drama and the dish behind the literary prizes that shape what America reads.
Summary
Whilst the main title allows the reader to reminisce about the climactic moment when an award winner is announced, the subtitle reveals the intent of the article; to inform about the spectacle behind literary prizes. Implying her intention to shed light on the various awards’ authenticity and reliability, she gives the background-comparison-argument treatment to awards like the Nobel, Pulitzers, National Book Awards (NBA), National Book Critics’ Circle (NBCC) and Booker prizes across several fields. Specifically, she ‘expounds’ on the infighting and scandals of the Nobel, the Pulitzer’s board-and-jury controversies, showbiz nature of the NBAs, NBCC’s “sensible judges” and the entertainment value provided by the Booker prize. In conclusion, Miller offers a seemingly non-prejudiced opinion of an ideal prize to watch.
ReflectionPerhaps the result of my fatigued attempt to review the article at 2 a.m., and probably more because of the writer’s sly writing strategies, I was utterly convinced by Miller’s article, until I critically read it a second time. Titled and written in a direct, informative style, the article comes across as very well planned, structured and researched. She not only attempts to persuade, but demonstrates a keen knowledge in the history of awards like the Nobel and Pulitzers. Disguised in this seemingly neutral, well substantiated approach however, lies some very witty devices with which she manages to trick the reader, or at least myself, into agreeing wholesale.
Compiling the essential portrait of each prize Miller was depicting, one suddenly realizes that the article is not that neutral after all. Whilst she exhibited the emotional and financial investment that editors, publishers and writers placed in each of the major awards (in disguise as praise but not high praise in itself), the overall stance towards these awards (i.e. Nobel, Pulitzer and NBA) was actually one of criticism. Their infighting, controversies and showbiz publicity surely alluded to a discredit and compromise of reliability.
In ‘reviewing’ the NBCC, to which Miller ‘proactively’ discloses her judging links to, she unashamedly praises its “discerning judges” and appeal to “taste ..or.. sensibility”. Her guile in utilizing “Full disclosure” to create a sense of neutrality and authenticity ought to be applauded. Subsequently, she engages in a veiled attack on the Booker, when the quote she uses on the Booker being an editor’s favorite, culminates in the sole reason of it being “the wackiest… most contentious”! In combination with gambling and high profile blunders by its previous judges, the Booker’s reputation probably took the hardest hit.
Whilst Miller’s review of the PEN awards wasn’t exactly the most flattering, she at least musters some form of compliment, citing the non-requirement of an entry fee. Her intent? She probably crafted this article with partiality towards smaller, relatively less publicized awards like the Whiting Awards, seemingly characterizing none of the criticisms she laid on the previous awards.
All in all, the sheer believability of the initial read has me up in standing ovation. Aside from a lack of background information(affiliation of editor, publisher and writers to awards) regarding the quotes she uses, the article betrays little about its deceptive prejudice against the major awards. Tactically, strategically and structurally devious. Laura Miller for a $35,000 Whiting Award anyone?
Saturday 28 January 2012
Thoroughly Entertaining and Informative.
Article by Laura Miller:
And the Winner is…
The drama and the dish behind the literary prizes that shape what America reads.
Summary
Whilst the main title allows the reader to reminisce about the climactic moment when an award winner is announced, the subtitle reveals the intent of the article; to inform about the spectacle behind literary prizes. Shedding light on the background of prizes like the Nobel, Pulitzers and the National Book Award, she compares them across several fields such as their judges, genres and track records. She reveals intriguing aspects of publicity, controversies and politics behind these prizes, finally concluding with a personal opinion on a favorite prize to watch.
Reflection
Titled and written in a direct, informative manner, the article comes across as very well planned, structured and well researched. She not only attempts to persuade, but demonstrates a keen knowledge in the history of awards like the Nobel and Pulitzers. She first contextualizes the article for the reader through a description of the Nobel’s academy and its controversies, infighting and scandals. She then goes down the American-perceived tiers of literary awards, elaborating on awards such as the Pulitzers and National Book Award (NBA).
In portraying the Pulitzers, she reveals that it did not fall short in controversies either, exemplified by Sinclair Lewis’ non-acceptance of the award in 1925, saying “All prizes… are dangerous…”, only to accept the Nobel four years later. Whilst William Gass was quoted as accusing the Pulitzers of essentially class warfare, one questions if he, like Lewis, was ever the subject of rejection. Miller continues to elaborate on the battle between the juries and board, arguing that as the board candidates are usually in the journalistic profession and have the final say, the award usually ended up being given to journalistic style writings.
Miller continues to give the background-comparison-argument treatment to the NBA, National Book Critics’ Circle (NBCC) and Booker prizes, offering quotations of publishers and editors in substantiating her propositions. For example, the quote from a San Francisco Chronicle editor on how “The Pulitzer is judged and approved by journalists… comes to friction and poetry… more skeptical about them than… National Book Foundation.”. Whilst one has to be impressed with the amount of quotations accumulated for the article, it is probably worth investigating the backgrounds of such publishers and editors for any agendas linked to the awards endorsed.
Refreshingly, the writer is forthcoming in disclosing her links to the NBCC awards when complementing the NBCC, even disclosing the less than ideal aspects of the judging processes. This creates a sense of neutrality and boosts the article’s authenticity. Chiming in with a personal choice of an award also gives a personal touch, something with which concludes what has been an entertaining, convincing, well substantiated article that succeeds in its informative objective.
Tuesday 24 January 2012
Summary/Review of Alan Stone's Article "Best Picture: How Far Will Hollywood Go?"
Summary
Alan Stone wrote this article as a reaction to the award of Oscar’s Best Picture, to Paul Haggis’ Crash, instead of Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain, insisting that it was the latter’s defeat, rather than the former’s victory, to the supposed surprise of everyone. Citing Annie Proulx, whose short story inspired Brokeback Mountain, the writer contends that it was the voters who could not see beyond their boundaries to award her movie instead. After a short summary on the movie, the writer expounds on the cultural divide in reactions between the gay community and mainstream audiences, and how the movie evolved from American tolerance into derisive humor. Alan Stone then reviews Crash, before giving a summary on what the movie storyline was about. Parallels are drawn with Driving Miss Daisy, another “undeserved Oscar” winner. Finally, he concludes that the Crash’s Best Picture was evidence of the limits to which Hollywood was willing to transcend stereotypes, finally shedding light to the meaning of the title, “... How Far Will Hollywood Go?”.
Reflection
Reading the title, it gives a portrayal that there was something wrong with the recent award of Best Picture, without betraying too much on what it was. I felt that the writer did well in setting the context, in which the reader is led into a sense of expectation and inevitability of Brokeback Mountain’s victory in the award’s category, before dropping the anvil with Jack Nicholson’s (you could almost always remember his grin) announcement of Crash’s victory. And this is where questions need to be asked. The writer’s choice of Annie Proulx’s quote, coupled with the mention of John Wayne, would set the tone of stereotype and boundaries with which the writer centres his article upon. Yet, it is perhaps quite glaring that her comments were almost surely biased against the actual winner, for obvious reason that she was the originator of Brokeback Mountain.
The writer then quotes “Industry Insiders” citing “homophobia and other resentments” without caring to mention who these insiders were. To seal his agenda against Crash, he reveals that the show was premiered too long before the awards to be considered, as if that criteria in itself should be considered during nomination. Surely enough, he insists that the makers of Crash had played a masterful hand in handing out complimentary copies of the DVD as it was the kind of movie that “gets better the second time you see it”. Once again, a very subjective comment on the movie. His use of hedge phrases like “could be” and “might well” do not make the article convincingly neutral, which by now takes a persuasive nature.
A rather well hidden manner with which the writer utilises to win the reader over was the structuring of his article. With Brokeback Mountain, he furnishes a summary on the show, before a rather lengthy review of it. In this review, he uses key words such as taboo, tolerance, masculinity, and derisive to describe the show’s inability to push beyond stereotypical and cultural boundaries, to its detriment. In contrast, the writer starts off his descriptive of Crash in a very subjective critic of the movie, insisting that the show was in essence a copy of old ideas past, with its artistic intricacies only traceable upon second viewing. His correlation with Driving Miss Daisy, another “undeserving Oscar winner”, seems insufficient to substantiate his comments. After subjecting the reader to such negative expectations, he then writes the movie summary proper. One has to question how any objective reading of this section is now to take place.
Finally, the writer concludes with what he has been trying to convince the reader all along; that “Proulx was right”, “the Heffalumps in the Academy... want to be assured not threatened.” And that Crash’s victory was sufficient evidence of how to be successful, a film needed to “stretch clichés but not break them”. Points I feel, whilst should not be excluded from consideration, and perhaps require more substantiation, even when the subjective nature of movie reviews are taken into account. All in all, the article quite possibly succeeds on an emotive, persuasive account, but probably fails to stand up to more critical, objective analysis.
Thursday 12 January 2012
A Well Written Article.
Seminar 2 Homework.
Article: The Case Against Awards; Why the Wrong Person Always Wins
By Jonathan Chait
- My Response
The writer’s choice of title seems extremely apt, straight to the point and creates interest in the article. Using the highly publicised event of Kanye West’s interruption of Taylor Swift’s receipt of a MTV Video Award, he relates it to Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize. These two examples instantly give credence to the title and highlights the key point he is trying to make. He soon draws on several examples, not least of those from personal experience. Finally, he returns to the Nobel Peace Prize, with which he had started the article with, to reiterate his message that one should not place too much emotional investment in awards.
I found his personal experience on his teacher’s NASA selection intriguing. As he rightfully pointed out, the people at NASA were rocket scientists (lol).. therefore should and would have had concrete reasons for the teacher’s selection, no? Taking nothing away from what I personally feel is an excellent article, I felt that there was a tad too much generalization on how awards are merely a measure of tastes and preference. He could have possibly shown some rare cases of some award “successes”. Though one must note that if his argument is to be believed, then even those “successes” would have their own detractors. Another point deserving of reflection would be the emotional investment in the outcomes of awards. Here, the author is saying that even as some of the awards can be ridiculed, that the people most critical were also those that allowed themselves to be emotionally attached. Simply put, we should not take these awards too seriously.
Key words. Wrong Person always wins. Imbroglio. Subjectivity. Emotional Investment.
I felt that the author was very successful, if not because of the abundance of examples he provided, then perhaps because the article probably appeals to the masses, when you consider that statistically, more people do not win awards than do. Again, potential gaps lay in anticipating comments on what some critics may deem as examples to the contrary.
I felt that the takeaway point of the article was that the criteria for prizes is not always judged on meritocratic terms. The writer cites personal preference as of having a higher determining factor. I also found the content about emotional investment in awards and their effects rather interesting
Martha Nochimson: Feminist Defender or Female Persecutor?
Seminar 2 Homework
Article by Martha Nochimson: Kathryn Bigelow: Feminist pioneer or tough guy in drag?
- My Response.
The author intends to “expose” a blindspot with which the wider audience (and the powers that be that award both the Director of Guild of America and Oscars) are deemed to suffer from – the hyping up of masculinity. Her title seems to set the tone of criticism with which the reader may expect as the reading progresses. However, her article actually starts off by launching into a damning tirade against Kathryn Bigelow. At mid point, she anticipates the reader’s probable objections due to the lack of substantiating evidence thus far, and furnishes her criticisms with two paragraphs of why her opinions were valid. She then follows that up with what I feel is a one-sentence reluctant commendation of what was "good" about the movie. At this juncture, it begins to seem apparent that all these criticisms seem to point to the fact that there were other more befitting directors for the awards. In conclusion, she generalizes that the whole phenomenon actually stemmed from a dominant patriarchal culture within Hollywood.
Personally, and I have to tread very carefully here, more reflection would probably be required in the examples the writer has cited to substantiate her argument. For example, the selection of one female war veteran’s critical review, with which she chooses to show the artificiality of the movie’s depiction of war. In what combat role did this veteran play? Was the selection of a female combatant appropriate when the comparison should have been drawn with the main character (male) and not the director? Acclimatisation to civilian life after excessive war violence is known to be a major problem amongst many combatants. Having watched the show myself, this was seemingly the main theme of the show, which the entire article fails to address.
The writer’s subsequent choice of two other female directors for the award seems to indicate that the writer has mistaken the award to be one for “best female director”. Overall, she passes herself off to be over-enthusiastically, and unconvincingly pushing the feminist perspective to an audience, and dragging a supposed expert of war in Quentin Tarantino down with it. All in all, I feel that the writer has contradicted her feminist position by persecuting Kathryn Bigelow based on something she should actually be celebrating – her gender.
The key words I would use to capture the gist of the article would be “testosterone”, “tunnel vision” and “confused adulation”. Whilst the initial response was one of belief, the article failed to stand up to further reflection. More importantly, it fails to convince the reader that the true winner was patriarchy in Hollywood.
This article is one example of how controversies may arise with awards and prizes. Critics will always abound, and these prizes can always be used to push agendas when deemed appropriate.P.S I am criticising the writer's article, NOT the female gender.
Monday 9 January 2012
Article: "For Putin, a Peace Prize for a Decision to Go to War" - A Critique
The article's title, sarcastically pointing out the irony of a peace prize being awarded for going to war, instantly reveals the writer's cynicism towards the authenticity of such a prize. Without any direct criticism of the award, the article seemed to allow an independent diagnosis by the reader. However, through its structuring, the writer was in fact seeking to coerce the reader into a position that fell in line with the bemusement displayed by the title. Any possible persuasion to the contrary would be circumvented by information which vilified Putin. For example, whilst the reasons behind the committee's award to Putin were revealed, this was soon rebuffed by a single sentence "exposing" Russian human rights abuses in Chechnya. Despite starting off with the words "In fact", evidences were not put forth to substantiate the statement. To further discredit the award, the writer then chooses to reveal its insignificance, even amongst its recipients, even going as far as to cite problems amongst its founding members. In summary, the article is in fact a discrediting, damning rebuke of the peace prize, intended to persuade its audience of the prize's political roots.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/world/asia/chinas-confucius-prize-awarded-to-vladimir-putin.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)