The idea for Monster in the Closet came about during one of our initial group brainstorming sessions. The concept itself was suggested by Elizabeth, and I really liked the idea and found it intriguing and funny – I felt there was potential from a great sketch to be made from the idea. As a group we had decided to work independently on the actual script writing, with the bulk of our collaboration consisting of brainstorming sketch ideas, as well as sharing our scripts with one another for feedback. I felt that the concept of a feminist in the closet and a very traditional, somewhat bogan, father with outdated views on feminism coming across her was a goldmine of comedy potential, and I had good fun exploring the idea in the sketch. Once I decided to pursue the idea the script was written very fast, as I found the jokes and humour to flow easily once I had a firm concept and direction established.
Receiving feedback from Cal and Stayci was invaluable. They reaffirmed that my script was heading in the right direction, despite needing a few minor adjustments and tweaks. I had found that having looked at the script multiple times and for prolonged periods, there was some jokes that I either doubted or was too fixated on including, therefore having a third party either laugh at the jokes I was unsure of, or question ones I had become attached to was highly useful. Being able to hear others read the script aloud enabled me to notice things that I hadn’t previously realised – such as repetition of lines, or jokes that needed some polishing. As such, in my second draft I was able to further shape and mould my characters so their intentions and opinions were clearer, in addition to firming up jokes and altering lines where required.
Shifman and Lemish (2010) discuss the rise of feminist humour as that which not only challenges traditional views of gender, but also exposes how ridiculous some long accepted gender roles are.These techniques are definitely utilised in Monster in the Closet. The use of the father as a stereotypical father figure more obsessed with football than his child is a deliberate criticism of the traditional expectations and values held in some families — both with reference to feminism as a societal concept, and more specifically in this sketch how the conversation around women’s rights exists in the home. In discussing feminist humour, Shifman and Lemish (2010) also refer to the explicit focus on gender in feminist comedy, and the way in which this comedy type focuses on the “social reality,” often targeting men in its criticism of society. This is definitely utilised throughout Monster in the Closet, both in criticising the reaction of men to open discussion around feminism and, in poking fun at the reaction of some men and media outlets to women’s football and female athletes in general.
An additional technique utilised in Monster in the Closet is the use of situational irony, in combination with assertions with a grain of truth. This is largely used in the subtle criticism of The Footy Show (AFL), a running joke throughout the sketch. Although it is a joke that will not necessarily be picked up by every viewer, the references to Wayne Carey, Sam Newman and Eddie McGuire and their opinions on women’s football is a very deliberate and important inclusion. As three of the more prominent media figures in the AFL, it is incredibly ironic that McGuire and Newman have had and continue to have prolonged and impassioned conversations around the existence of women’s football, with the assertions that they shouldn’t be the spokespeople for women’s football having a very real grain of truth behind them.
Swink (2017) suggests that much of the humour in a comedy sketch is dependent on what the audience brings to it and their interpretation of a sketch, as well as the form of feminism that they adhere to. According to Swink (2017), an audiences position in regard to feminism can greatly correlate with their position on and interpretation of a sketch. This is certainly true with Monster in the Closet, with many of the jokes and nuances being somewhat dependent on viewers being not only knowledgable on feminism, but also having a somewhat detailed knowledge of AFL and the prominent figures within the industry,
One such figure referenced within the sketch is Wayne Carey—this is a very pointed and deliberate reference to Carey’s past, in which he has been convicted of indecent assault of a women in addition to reports of domestic violence, as well as various other allegations of violence and brutality. This joke is very much dependent on the viewer having some knowledge of AFL and some knowledge of Carey and his passed discretions, but for those who understand, this is certainly a relevant and amusing reference. Ultimately, comedy is used in this reference to reinforce the absurdity of such men having strong and prominent opinions regarding women’s sport.
Furthermore, comedy is used to portray just how delicate men can be when it comes to the discussion of feminism. Although the reaction to Erin the Feminist in the sketch is exaggerated and unrealistic, it strongly mimics the reaction many men have to feminism. Many men will not even enter into a discussion around feminism due to fear of change, and an inability to see how feminism is a positive for all, not just for women. In this sense, comedy is used to showcase just how ridiculous some arguments are when it does come to issues around feminism, gender and equality.
The type of feminism used in Monster in the Closet is hard to define, as the feminist herself has minimal lines and only comes in at the end. Having a woman hiding in the closet and waiting to discuss feminism is obviously a fairly extreme portrayal of a feminist, and as such she would likely be a more extreme form of radical feminist. As a whole, however, the actual inequalities and issues discussed and referenced in the sketch occur in what we can refer to as “the public arena” (Beasley, 1999, p. 52). The sketch advocates for, at a baseline, equal rights and opportunities for women and men, falling largely under the banner of liberal feminism.
Ultimately the development of Monster in the Closet has involved taking on feedback both from my group and from Stayci, Cal and the class as a whole. The opportunity to complete a table read and garner that feedback was invaluable to the sketch’s development, and the inclusion of pop culture references and understanding who the sketch was intended to be for really assisted with refining my characters and the humour used in the sketch. The collaborative process undertaken throughout the script’s development was essential to it’s success, and the themes and techniques used throughout enabled it to be as impactful and humorous as feasibly possible.
References
Beasly, C 1999, What Is Feminism Anyway?,1st edn, South Win Production Ltd, Singapore.
Shifman, L & Lemish, D 2010, ‘Between Feminism and Fun(ny)mism’, Information, Communication & Society, vol. 13(6), pp. 870-891.
Swink, R.S, 2017, ‘Lemony Liz and likable Leslie: audience understandings of feminism, comedy, and gender in women-led television comedies’, Feminist Media Studies, 17(1), pp.14–28.
MICHAEL (child, approx 7) is in bed, staring at closet door with fear on face.
Michael
(yelling) Dad.
Pause. Noise inside closet like something is moving around
Michael (cont.)
(yelling louder) Dad!
Footsteps heard approaching bedroom.
Door opens and DAD sticks his head in, turning on light.
DAD wears a white singlet and Collingwood FC pyjama shorts. He has a VB in his hand.
Dad
Michael, The Footy Show is on what do you want?
Michael
(afraid) There’s something in my closet.
DAD rolls eyes, shakes head.
Dad
Michael, there’s nobody in your closet. Go to sleep buddy, Daddy’s watching his show.
Michael
No Dad there is! I heard them there’s a monster in there!
Dad
Michael I promise you there is nothing in your closet! Go to sleep – Eddie is about to give his opinion on (sarcastically) women’s footy and I cannot miss it
DAD takes a sip of beer and switches the light off, shutting the door.
MICHAEL pulls covers up and lies back down in bed.
All is quiet momentarily, until a noise is heard once more from the closet.
MICHAEL sits straight up, back against the headboard and arms around his legs.
Michael
(loudly, afraid) DAD! DAD! DAD!
MICHAEL continues yelling. Footsteps heard stomping to room. For flies open, light comes on. DAD enters.
Dad
Alright mate thats enough. Sam and Eddie were just beginning an interview with Wayne Carey about (sarcastically) inequality in
DAD scoffs, uses air commas.
Dad (cont.)
“women’s sport” and I don’t want to miss it.
Michael
(speaking fast, desperate) There is a monster in there Dad! I heard it you need to check please dad please!
DAD rolls his eyes, walking towards closet.
Dad
Michael there is nobody in the closet! Now Daddy has had a long day and has a slab of frothies
DAD gestures to VB can in his hand.
Dad (cont.)
to get through.
Michael
Please just check Dad please I swear there’s something in there.
DAD sighs. Walks across room toward closet.
Dad
Michael you’re going to feel so damnstupid when I-
DAD opens the closet and immediately jumps back, mouth open in shock, dropping VB can.
ERIN emerges from the cupboard. She wears a shirt printed with ‘Equality for All’ and holds a clipboard and pen.
Erin
Hi. I’m Erin! Do you have a moment to talk about gender equality?
Dad
(yelling) You were right Michael! There WAS a monster in the closet!
DAD grabs MICHAEL’s hand and pulls him from bed
Erin
Did you know that women make up only 5% of the CEO’s on the Fortune 500 list?
Dad
(yelling) Stop Stop he’s only a young boy!
DAD and MICHAEL back into a corner, MICHAEL behind DAD. ERIN slowly approaches
Erin
How about that each week in Australia one woman will lose her life to domestic violence? Women aren’t safe in their own homes.
Dad
Please! He’s just a child!
Michael
Dad is that true? That’s horrible
Dad
See?! You’re polluting his mind with your agenda! Monster!
DAD grabs MICHAEL’S hand and they run from the room, screaming. Erin looked around the room, baffled.
SAM (child, approx 7) is in bed, staring at closet door with fear on face.
MICHAEL
(yelling) Dad.
Pause. Noise inside closet like something is moving around
MICHAEL (CONT.)
(yelling louder) Dad!
Footsteps heard approaching bedroom.
Door opens and DAD sticks his head in, turning on light.
DAD wears a white singlet and Collingwood FC pyjama shorts. He has a VB in his hand.
DAD
Michael, The Footy Show is on what do you want?
MICHAEL
(afraid) There’s something in my closet.
DAD rolls eyes, shakes head.
DAD
Michael, there’s nobody in your closet. Go to sleep buddy, Daddy’s watching his show.
MICHAEL
No Dad there is! I heard them there’s a monster in there!
DAD
Michael I promise you there is nothing in your closet! Go to sleep – Eddie is about to give his opinion on (sarcastically) women’s footy and I cannot miss it
Dad takes a sip of beer and switches the light off, shutting the door.
Michael pulls covers up and lies back down in bed.
All is quiet momentarily, until a noise is heard once more from the closet.
Michael sits straight up, back against the headboard and arms around his legs.
MICHAEL
(loudly, afraid) DAD! DAD! DAD!
Michael continues yelling. Footsteps heard stomping to room. For flies open, light comes on. Dad enters.
DAD
Alright mate thats enough. Sam and Eddie were just beginning an interview with Wayne Carey about (sarcastically) inequality in
DAD scoffs, uses air commas.
DAD (CONT.)
“women’s footy” and I don’t want to miss it.
MICHAEL
(speaking fast, desperate) There is a monster in there Dad! I heard it you need to check please dad please!
DAD rolls his eyes, walking towards closet.
DAD
Michael there is nobody in the closet! Now Daddy has had a long day and has a slab of Australia’s finest
DAD gestures to VB can in his hand.
DAD (CONT.)
to get through.
MICHAEL
Please just check Dad please I swear there’s something in there.
DAD sighs. Walks across room toward closet.
DAD
Michael you’re going to feel so damn stupid when I-
DAD opens the closet and immediately jumps back, mouth open in shock, dropping VB can.
ERIN emerges from the cupboard. She wears a shirt printed with ‘Equality for All’.
ERIN
Hi. I’m Erin! Do you have a moment to talk about gender equality?
DAD
(yelling) You were right Michael! There WAS a monster in the closet!
DAD grabs MICHAEL’s hand and pulls him from bed
ERIN
Did you know that women make up only 5% of the CEO’s on the Fortune 500 list?
DAD
(yelling) Stop Stop he’s only a boy!
DAD and MICHAEL back into a corner, MICHAEL behind DAD. ERIN slowly approaches
ERIN
How about that each week in Australia one woman will lose her life to domestic violence? Women aren’t safe in their own homes.
DAD
Please! He’s only a boy!
MICHAEL
Dad is that true? That’s horrible
DAD
(yelling) See?! You’re polluting his mind with your agenda! Monster!
DAD grabs MICHAEL’S hand and they run from the room, screaming.
Last Fuckable Day is a Comedy Central UK sketch from comedian Amy Schumer that features Schumer alongside actresses Tina Fey, Patricia Arquette and Julia Louis-Dreyfus. The sketch shows Schumer stumbling across the three actresses enjoying an elaborate meal, inviting Amy to join them in celebrating Julia’s “Last Fuckable Day”. They go on to explain this as when the media decides female celebrities are no longer considered sex symbols or “believably fuckable”, instead destined to cover up in long sleeved sweaters and play mundane, asexual roles. Whilst portraying this as a problematic media habit, the sketch also suggests how celebrated this time can be, as the women are no longer under pressure to maintain unrealistic and unachievable standards in regard to their appearances. The sketch additionally highlights this experience as being unique to female actors, and not something experienced by men.
The sketch works in a number of ways. Ferguson (2010) lists ten principles of comedy, stating that although they may not all exist in every sketch, it is almost guaranteed that if something makes a viewer laugh it is likely making use of at least one of these techniques. This is certainly true with regard to Last Fuckable Day, which utilises a number of Ferguson’s principles. The use of exaggeration in the portrayal of the experiences of ageing female celebrities is certainly effective; although women in the entertainment industry do have somewhat of an expiry date in the entertainment industry, the concept of a name for this time and a coinciding celebratory party is largely embelished. The use of situational irony is also highly effective in this sketch. The women shown to be commemorating Julia Louis-Drefus’ Last Fuckable Day are arguably some of the most recognisable and well known of their age group in the industry. The use of these highly recognisable and successful women, combined with the idea that they could have an expiry for their success, is somewhat of a ridiculous notion. The idea that such wildly successful entertainers could be faced with an expiration day However, through the use of a number of techniques, Schumer is able to convey that whilst on the surface ridiculous, there is a nugget of truth to this assertion.
Schumer communicates the existence of this phenomenon is through what Ferguson (2010) describes as the use of bare truths, in combination with repetition. Sally Fields is referenced a number of times in the sketch, with her Last Fuckable Day being identified by the moment she went from playing Tom Hanks’ love interest in Punchline to his mother in Forrest Gump only “twenty minutes later” (Schumer 2016). Fields is again referenced later in the sketch when Louis-Dreyfus climbs into a boat, on the seat of which is engraved “Sally Fields Was Here”. This repeated use of Fields is effective in demonstrating what Schumer is trying to say about the ageing of women in entertainment. The very real example of her roles in relation to Tom Hanks offers a bare truth of just how very rapidly an actress can go from being a sex symbol to simply somebodies mother. Though these mechanisms are somewhat subtle, they are effective in being both amusing to the viewer whilst simultaneously driving the point home regarding female expiry dates in the entertainment industry and the sexism and ageism that faces these women.
The themes present in Last Fuckable Day are extensive. There are the obvious themes of sexism and inequality that are present in much of Schumer’s work, in addition to the discussion of ageism in the entertainment industry. Though these are the prevalent themes in the sketch, there are other topics touched upon briefly such as sex positivity — “are you that girl from the television who talks about her pussy all the time” (Schumer 2016)— as well as the double standards within the entertainment industry that shape and alter the careers of so many women. The sketch also briefly touches on the expectations on women to look a particular way in regards to their appearance and grooming.
Comedy effectively drives the intended message of this sketch. The concept of ageism is one that is not often discussed, and can be particularly difficult to break down in a way that is understandable. Although having being issue in Hollywood since its establishment, it would seem only recently that the concept and term ageism, and in particular the inequality that surrounds it, has been bought to the attention of audiences. Schumer does not seek to explain the concept explicitly, however demonstrates ageism and inequality in action through comedy; she highlights both what it means to those in the entertainment industry and how ridiculous it is. Mizejewski et al. (2017, p. 7) discuss comedy as a “form of speech that breaks [societal issues] open,” and this is certainly seen in Schumer’s sketch. Complicated yet topical issues of sexism and ageism are made palatable and easy to digest, with comedy the vehicle that drives these issues home.
Comedy offers a platform in which behaviour that would often be seen as unacceptable from women, such as swearing and sex discussion, is allowable and even encouraged (Mizejewski et al. 2017). Schumer utilises this freedom, engaging freely with sex jokes, swearing and exploration of other taboo topics, using them to highlight the issues faced by women in entertainment when it comes to their age and the impact it has on their careers. Without comedy, it is fair to say this sketch would not be nearly as effective or successful in making its argument.
By framing the discussion of ageism and sexism as a discussion of a women’s “Last Fuckable Day,” Schumer makes the topics accessible and light. It becomes one that is relevant to larger audiences due to the light humour combined with the vast amount of references to other celebrities of a range of ages and entertainment categories — such as Selena Gomez, Larry King and Bruce Willis — whilst still maintaining the point that this is a real issue faced by women, and one that is not similarly faced by men in the industry to the same degree.
Ultimately Last Fuckable Day is a highly effective sketch that is simultaneously entertaining and amusing, whilst also casting light on issues faced by women in the industry over the course of their careers. The sketch utilises a number of comedy techniques and devices, keeping audiences entertained and engaged over the duration of the sketch. It is enlightening, original and amusing in its tackling of societal issues that can otherwise be difficult to convey to audiences.
References
Ferguson, T 2010, The Cheeky Monkey: Writing Narrative Comedy, 1st edn, Currency Press, NSW, Australia.
Mizejewski, Linda et al., 2017. Hysterical! : women in American comedy, Austin: University of Texas Press, USA.
“Those who are enabled by a system often will and do deny its very existence”
Sara Ahmed 2018
The world is no longer a friendly place. We no longer smile at one another as we pass by in the streets, instead we avert our eyes; pretending we are walking alone and that nobody else is around. To someone watching from above we must look ridiculous; like moths floating through space, colliding with each other and the world around with seemingly no reaction or acknowledgment.
It’s dark almost always — in both the light and in our hearts. We are directionless, lost in a dark void with nothing to anchor us our propel us forward. The sound of laughter pierces the air like a siren, it is unwelcome and foreign. Fake and manufactured and not entirely familiar anymore.
Those with the power to change circumstances appear ignorant to the reality that is this modern and alarming world. Do they simply not see, blinded by the advantages this dystopian world has rewarded them? Or do they avert their gaze, choosing not to bear witness to the landscape of rampant anxiety and fear that plagues our world?
For how to do you gain the attention of those with the power to change things, when the very thing they would be changing is that which gives them this power? There is no reward for them from speaking out and utilising their platform. There is no advancements in their standing to be gained from saying their piece, yet we demand it. We require it — our very existence and success is directly linked to their standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.
Like the moths, our direction is dictated by the light being cast upon us. We do not have the power to turn it on, yet it is what we need and what we crave to survive and to thrive. We are entirely dependent on those who are tall enough to reach the light switch. Yet there is no guarantee they like the light.
Prior to this semester, I understood the role of the critic to be limited to the Sunday paper movie reviews. I understood that reviews of books and movies and TV shows exist online and in other publications, but my understanding of what exactly makes a review was limited. I thought of reviews in a professional capacity, believing that for a review to have authority it must appear in some for of publication, be that a newspaper or magazine or an online, known publication.
What I’ve come to understand this semester is that reviews can take a number of forms — they can be podcasts, videos, Tweets, Facebook comments, App store reviews just to name a few. All of these review forms are valid, and all work in the same way when it comes informing the choices consumers and audiences make. The role of the critic is not limited to writing articles analysing and rating the latest releases, but also involves informing audiences of the cultural implications of their subject, discussing both the benefits and the issues that may be associated with their content.
In a similar vein, I never truly realised the impact the critic can have. I think the moment where this really set in for me was watching the Jonathon Gold documentary. Seeing how significant the impact an article from him has on a business reflected for me the amount of good that can be done by critics. The connotations of the word “critic” are often seen as negative, but I’ve realised this isn’t always true and critics can, like Jonathon Gold, write about the positives in something, and that this can have just as much impact as writing about the negatives. There is no need to find something inherently good or bad in a subject; it is just as valid to discuss both the good and the bad, rather than taking a side.
Realising this was such a valuable part of this course. I realised that in my own work, whether it be formal written reviews or just comments to my friends, I feel a compulsion to take a side regarding the materials value. I have a tendency to either be completely on board with something or else completely against it, and I’ve realised that this habit is incredibly limiting. The critic has the unique role to find value in things where others may not be able to — yes I didn’t love Mama Mia 2 as a whole, but I enjoyed the music and I found Colin Firth endlessly entertaining, and recognising this is important. Finding this value is a significant aspect of being a good critic, it shows that we as critics have not made our minds up about things prior to experiencing them. It shows that our reviews are thought out and have depth, rather than just looking at something on the surface and making up our minds. Criticism can act as cultural criticism, and is not just limited to reviewing movies and restaurants; its impact can be far more significant.
Something else I’ve found incredibly valuable is understanding the review writing process, and actually looking at how I write. Being aware of how I write, and how I get from jumbled thoughts to a finished, polished review has given me trust in my process. Previously I’ve always found it somewhat stressful to be looking at dot points that don’t link or make any sense in the initial stages of my planning and thinking that I have to turn that around into a review. Now having looked at my process and understanding that I do things that way in order to arrange my thoughts, and to figure out where I’m going with my review, I can see that that my process is just as valid as anyone else’s, and that I go about my reviews this way so as to get the most out of my thoughts and analysis.
Since better understanding and trusting in the way I write, I’ve made adjustments in order to get the most from my writing. Knowing that my initial drafts will mostly consist of word vomit, I make the effort to not read over what I write, trusting I’ll go back in later drafts to chop and change where needed. This has allowed me to polish my pieces as much as possible, meaning my role as the critic has been fulfilled as much as I can expect.
I think the best part of the semester for me was simultaneously the most challenging — opening up my writing for review from the class. The idea of volunteering my work for potential public criticism was intimidating to say the least, something which was certainly not helped by my tendency to always assume everyone will hate what I’ve done. The reality, however, was wonderfully insightful and helpful. Having a group come to my work with a pair of fresh eyes allowed them the ability to see areas of my work I wasn’t sure about and had spent time agonising over, and suggest solutions that I previously hadn’t considered. They were able to highlight parts of my work I had done well and that they felt were effective and impactful, and help to bring other areas up the that same standard. Although it was an intimidating notion, actually sitting with a group and reading through my work was incredibly beneficial.
I thoroughly enjoyed this semester, I feel that the skills I’ve attained from Everyone’s a Critic were some of the most useful I’ve gained from a studio, and that I will be able to apply them to my future career no matter what path I go down. I think my understanding of the role of the critic is so much more rounded now, and that I can attest to their work being more significant than just liking or not liking something. The cultural impact of the critic is notable, and this is something I can appreciate fully now.
This week I was unable to attend the Thursday class, which was super disappointing as I was really keen to hear perspectives on radio and podcast which is what I believe we were discussing.
I really have been enjoying the class discussions we’ve been having on Monday’s, and I feel like they’re greatly benefiting my writing and the way I approach my reviews. I feel like I can read over my writing with a more critical eye now, and see the things that I can change or improve.
I’m also really enjoying the concept of this upcoming assignment. I think it’s super important to think about and be conscious of our writing process, as it allows us to see how to get the best result out of our writing. I’d also be really interested to see how others go about writing their reviews and what their process looks like in comparison. I think it’d be a super interesting opportunity to gain insight into the way people operate and what works for them, as it may be helpful to trial and adopt some of these strategies into the way we write individually.
At this point I’m just brainstorming ideas for what exactly I’m going to write on and how to go about it, but I think it’s a really fun assignment concept.
I really valued the feedback I got from the class this week regarding my writing. I think it’s so valuable to be able to share and discuss work in such a constructive and helpful group, and I definitely see the benefits of it myself, even if it is a little scary and intimidating at first.
Some of the more helpful feedback I got was regarding the tone of my writing – which I was able to keep consistent and comedic throughout. I think this is something I really focused on as I find it so annoying and confusing in other peoples writing when the tone switches and changes over the course of the piece.
I also didn’t notice the way I’d over used small repetitions for comedic impact again and again throughout my work. Although these are super effective when used once or so, I definitely overused them in this particular piece and hadn’t notice it until it was pointed out in class.
I also think the small keywords that were suggested to be utilised more were really helpful. It can be really hard to pick out what is and isn’t working when you’ve looked at a piece of your own writing for too long, so to have the class be able to bring a fresh perspective was incredibly helpful. I think going back in and emphasising the “plastic” “miniature” nature of the collectables not only enhances my writing style and tone, but also helps to convey my points regarding the environmental and hypocritical aspects of the Coles collectables.
Ultimately I found the feedback session so valuable and absolutely something I’d engage with again in the future. I think the fresh perspective and opinions it provided was super valuable and constructive, and it made me look at my writing with fresh eyes.
I think having Alex in to talk to us about film criticism this week was such an invaluable experience. Her perspective on what makes good criticism was completely unique to her as a person who has lived and worked that industry for so long. I particularly enjoyed watching “I’m You, Dickhead” and analysing that as a group, as I found it so interesting to hear everyones thoughts and what they took away from it, most particularly with regard to some of the more problematic aspects of the short film. I hadn’t even noted the way the film regarded women and how this was a problem — this is not to say I hadn’t noticed it, because I had, but mores that I had just accepted it as a normal part of Aussie humour, and not something particularly noteworthy.I thought this was a really valuable exercise as I think it’s important for critics to note these things, as they won’t change if they aren’t highlighted and bought to attention.
Other notes I took from Alex included:
What is (and isn’t) good film criticism?
Things to think about:
taste
privilege and bias
audience
scale and detail
history
context v opinion
Think about your voice – who are you writing for?
History – fill the gaps but don’t be dry
Who cares about what you think – why do they care about what you might think
what perspective can i give that is useful for someone who doesn’t know me
“I’m You, Dickhead”
Differing perspective
Extreme representation of dangers/misuse of technology
Commentary on responsibilities of technology
Makeup really bad – super orange, moustache is trash
Today I got to confront my not so secret grammar shame. I actually found it so reassuring to discuss things that I’ve always been unsure about, and to gain the skills necessary to use grammar and punctuation in a way that will enhance my writing, rather than detracting from it. Prior to today, I considered myself the self appointed queen of the comma, however now I feel I can extend my repertoire to include semicolons, colons and dashes.
I’ve always been a huge reader, and I think that grammar and punctuation can make or break good literature, whether it be a poem, novel, tweet or academic article. Although I can’t always use grammar and punctuation confidently, I think we can all usually tell when someone has used it incorrectly, and it can majorly detract from the overall impact of a piece of writing.
Below are notes I made in class today that I’ll most definitely be referencing in the next assignment and beyond.
Passive/active voice — passive voice is when you’re not particularly present in what you’re saying
Subject in the beginning, subject is the focus, higher clarity
common examples of too many words:
Asfor example – one or the other
Respond back
At the present time
Basic fundamentals
Greatly
serial comma – separates meaning
“the stripper, JFK, and Stalin”
colon : indicates a list
semicolon ; take pause, different from a full stop. Whatever comes after a semicolon can stand alone as a complete sentence, but there is some value to adding it to the bit before. Refines what came before.