tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post7256467656946865084..comments2014-12-09T17:25:07.561-08:00Comments on Words and Images: CrumbAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post-56530249329313850552011-11-20T11:18:27.620-08:002011-11-20T11:18:27.620-08:00One thing that bothers me here is that one of the ...One thing that bothers me here is that one of the most deeply offensive comics the movie discussed (the one with the headless woman) was a Mr. Natural comic - so Crumb may be distinguishing between pornographic and non-pornographic works in an eccentric way. I'm not sure it matters, but it did seem worth mentioning.<br /><br />Note that your introductory paragraph, while interesting, doesn't really have an argument.<br /><br />re: the second comic you discuss. I won't argue that it isn't extremely offensive - it is! - but I'd also argue that the reason why it functions as satire is by exposing people (exploitive, racist businessmen, especially of that time) as who they are. That is, we can see the focus of the comic as being about how rich, powerful, white men act, not how they *think* they act, or how they are *seen* as acting. Satire often (always) exists to expose some truth. This isn't to say that you're wrong, but I think you're missing a dimension of what makes it satire.<br /><br />Normally I'd complain that the NPR interview isn't really academic. However, it is certainly relevant. What are you *doing* with the idea of Crumb as "straight illustrator" though? Are you arguing that "straight"= another dimension of satire? Or is there something else going on here?<br /><br />What I think you're doing is arguing that, in this case, literalism is the best form of satire. That's a good approach, but it's something that could have been set up and clarified far more quickly than you do here - and it's something that arguably makes the initial discussion of Crumb as satirist and pornographer irrelevant (or maybe you just needed to develop this material in a different direction).<br /><br />The Isaac/Abraham example is a good way of demonstrating that literalism can function as satire - but it also makes the point that you're a little late formulating your argument, because now you're out of room. I would have liked to have a series of readings demonstrating the satirical character of literalism.<br /><br />The last paragraph gets vague and general again. It's not terrible, but it's also not very purposeful.<br /><br />Overall: This revision could have used a good revision. I think you have the basis of a good argument, with a solid (but underutilized) piece of research to strengthen it, but in this version, as it stands, you essentially have a long and rambling introduction, followed by an underdeveloped argument and an abrupt ending. You need to learn not only to extend, but to throw things away (or move them around) when necessary.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post-68913377734006833962011-11-17T19:56:30.663-08:002011-11-17T19:56:30.663-08:00http://wipitt.blogspot.com/2011/10/crumb_27.htmlhttp://wipitt.blogspot.com/2011/10/crumb_27.htmlChristy McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10929906540973191576noreply@blogger.com