Narratology is a good way to start analysis: to combine with another critical lens
For interpreting cultural texts:
Social class: poverty/inequities of Maruquita, living in the projects, “culture of poverty”; projects were planned by government forces in order to create “ghettoes”;
Race/ethnicity: Puerto Rican/Nuyorican, white, stereotypes . . .
Class responses to Eterna
Felicia: 3 stars: liked the style, not like anything I had read, didn’t like the storyline: sometimes things got boring, and I drifted off, and had to focus: interesting how many introductions it had
Kimberly: 3 stars: didn’t understand the structure, but once I read it for what it was, I understood it better; liked the poetry sections: took a break from storytelling: mixed genres: the style changes should work with the book
Raspreet: 2 stars: didn’t like it; didn’t understand it; gave up; the changes and styles make it hard to follow, so I stopped wanting to read it; would never want to read a book like this; the overall idea/theme make sense, but not quite entertaining;
Sabrina: 3 stars: it has potential; I gave up on it, but I might come back later; too much for so little time, but since the beginning was confusing, the second part goes faster; it speaks about the capital, Buenos Aires and where I’m from;
Clifton: 3.5 stars: I like things out of the norm, abstract art; touched on some cool things; something I would read outside of class; a little bit like Candide, telling a story, but also insight into different things
Briana: 2 stars: most of it was prologue; didn’t have a style: don’t like the set-up: half the novel is prologues: too much introduction, lose interest by the time the story starts, a little background is okay, but half the book is too much
Avi: 1 star: couldn’t make anything out of it; didn’t get the dialogue between characters; couldn’t follow the story; was it me? or was it the book?
Joely: 2 stars: too many prologues killed me; but I liked the experimentation, unique: so different in style that it intrigued me; didn’t intrigue me enough to give three stars; a book for smart people . . .
Brittany: 1 star: reminded me of my free-writes; thoughts scattered, makes sense to me, but maybe not someone else; selfish, not nice to readers or audience
Rachel: 0.5 star: I like to get lost in novels: couldn’t get into the book; 0.5 star for effort; not lost like I don’t know what’s going on, but lost into the reality of the fiction: plot and characters are realistic, create imaginary worlds; imagine the characters as real
Yocheved: 3 stars: liked the sense of humor, but a very academic sense of humor: reminded me of Jahn; cryptic concepts, for the sake of being cryptic; to leave out the folks who are non-academics; saying the same things over in difficult ways; for smart English people: people who share the academic background will get some of the “highbrow” humor;
Finish this line: remember to write for your imagined audience:
All destiny is . . . is a manufactured illusion historically constructed by a dominant class in order to control the imaginations of a subjected group within the culture at large. All destiny is invented by the social structures which permit imagination to roam free, yet imagined solely as individualized agency for what is possible to be thought within limits. All destiny is a narrative of convention, or a code of conduct between social parties. All destiny permits an imagined timelessness to guide the daily practices of indoctrinated individuals. Destiny though seemingly unconstrained is constrained only by the manufactured illusion of a historical invention of transcendental not-being. All destiny is in essence a totalizing effect of a metadiscourse of divinity which underlies the discourses which compose a social reality. Destiny is only conceptual, and its conceiving depends solely upon its negation: the temporally fleeting, the material, the non-spiritual, finite world. The negation, however, produces an infinite response, a positive generated from an unknown, and lived and understood as a guiding force driving time
The narratological concept of focalization is important because it establishes the important relation between the agent which sees narrative events and also the receiving end of vision. What gets seen and what doesn’t in a narrative, then, are direct results of choices in the constructions of narratives . . .
[. . .]
This article argues that focalization in Omaha Bigelow and Don Quixote makes claims for narrative truth based on changes of points of view. This is important because point of view is a subtle form of authorial manipulation that often goes unnoticed by readers of novels. The contrasts in the two texts reveal how too much focalization can be problematic for audience participation, while not enough . . .
This article demonstrated . . . restate your thesis
What exactly you learned from doing this research . . .
Future research into XXX would/could/should focus on . . . .
If I were to continue researching this topic . . .
Conclusion: intro reworded: sums up paper, closes paper; wraps up and ties things together, ties pieces of intro and body
Closing statement: solidify the point;
You could add a new idea in your conclusion: a new example to back up the point . . .
OR never include new info that you haven’t mentioned in your body
OR the further action, what you want the person to do.
Check over the title: is it an “academic” title? Remember it should have a colon, as well as the authors’ names and the titles of the texts