In my US History class we were asked to read a book, Neal Gabler's "Life: The Movie", which I disagreed with strongly. We're also supposed to write an essay on it. I know that both our professor and our TAs (who will be grading our essays) think very highly of the book.
This is the prompt for our essay:
quote:Entertainment has always pervaded every area of culture, but it had a distinct effect on the written and printed word (books, magazines, newspapers, tabloids). Discuss the role of entertainment in shaping the written and printed word, as well as the role of the written and printed word in shaping entertainment? How and why did the industry (in its variants) succumb to the need to entertain?
I'm in the process of writing an essay describing how fully I disagree with the idea that the written and printed word have "succumbed" to the need to entertain.
I'm getting sort of nervous about it, though, because my essay will not actually answer the prompt at all. Also, because I don't trust our TA to appreciate an essay that so clearly disagrees with his own sentiments. And I have to admit, he would have a point. Neal Gabler is nationally recognized journalist, a professor, and is much older and wiser than I am. It is sort of presumptuous of me to disagree so completely with everything he says.
So I also have the option of writing the paper the TA wants to read, that answers the prompt. I feel wrong doing it, but I certainly can. It'll be much easier, since all I have to do is reiterate the arguments in the text. I don't know what to do.
I don't want this thread to just be about my situation, though. I'm more curious about what people think is a better strategy in general. Also in how much right students have to disagree with their professors and assigned texts. Obviously they have some, but just as obviously sometimes you want to hit them over the head and say, "He's the professor, he's smarter than you, so just shut up!" What distinguishes those situations?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Also in how much right students have to disagree with their professors and assigned texts.
You can disagree with whatever the hell you want. If you support it right and argue it well and intelligently then they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in grading you badly for it. That's the whole point of college: learning to think for yourself and analyse things intelligently.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
If you can qualify your own argument with evidence and have solid counterpoints for most of Gabler's arguments, then I think you should write what you believe. I can see your dilemma - you disagree with the premise of the question, so your essay won't be an answer to it per se. You also say that your TA isn't likely to appreciate an essay from another viewpoint. Assuming you've done your best with the essay and you've backed up your argument, it boils down to whether writing what you believe rather than what you are expected to is important enough to risk your marks. Ideally your marks would not be in jeopardy in the first place.
I've done both before - writing to blatantly disagree, and just spitting out an expected formula. Thankfully I had teachers who appreciated a completely different viewpoint, but I can't say that I've outright attacked the premise to a question.
I believe that students have every right to disagree with their professors and assigned texts. In fact, it should be encouraged, because the ensuing debate will probably teach students more than a monologue by the lecturer ever could. If students disagree with their lecturers, they should state their case so the lecturer can provide counterpoints or back his/her statements up with evidence.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
One option is to split it both ways - throw a bone to your audience, but don't say something that you truly don't believe.
I haven't read the book, but it seems clear to me that at least some of our written media is meant to entertain as it informs, like the trashy tabloids that you see everywhere. While you may disagree with the main thesis of the book, there must be some subpoints in there regarding the media that you *do* agree with. It's difficult to be completely and utterly wrong on every point in a book-sized written work.
So you can disagree with the main thesis, while still agreeing with some points the author makes. You can point out some facets of the industry that has "succumb to the need to entertain" while disagreeing that the industry as a whole has. That way you address the prompt, but you also get in your say.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It depends on the professor. I've had professors who encouraged a well-written and presented paper, regardless of the topic or position. I've also had professors who have flat out told the class that their view on something was Right, and any other way of thinking was simply ignorance, and deserved a poor grade.
I was willing to suck it up and write the paper the prof wanted me to in those classes, because I valued the grade more than arguing with a brick wall.
It's up to you to determine how your professor ranks in the good paper vs. agree with the prof category, and how willing you are to write what they want to hear to get the grade.
As an added bonus, in the job world, your boss will often times want to hear a specific thing, regardless of the "facts" or "evidence" or "common sense", and if you want to keep your job, this could be a good exercise Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm getting sort of nervous about it, though, because my essay will not actually answer the prompt at all.
This would worry me, because this gives the grader sufficient reason to downgrade you.
The reason I think this might be an issue is that the question is worded to presuppose the succumbing point of view.
Depending on your reason for disagreeing, there should be a way to answer the prompt while still expressing the areas of disagreement.
For example, if your reason is that it wasn't succumbing to external need but rather driven by the industry itself, you can pitch it in terms of succumbing to internal pressure. If, on the other hand, your contention is that significant portions of the industry haven't changed in order to entertain, you can describe the more general trend of succumbing, note the exceptions, and then try to use those exceptions to examine why the rest of the industry changed. That is, if all the segments that didn't succumb have certain attributes in common, you can examine whether those attributes are the distinguishing factor.
I would really hesitate to ignore the prompt, but I also wouldn't avoid clashing with the underlying assumptions in a way that still acknowledges the prompt as a whole.
Ideally, of course, your paper disagreeing with the assumed premise of the prompt would be graded solely on its insight, writing quality, and analysis. I don't know that you can count on this being ideal, though.
My last paper I wrote in law school set out a thesis that I knew the professor disagreed with. I got an A, but I wouldn't have tried it with every professor I had. Most, but not all. And this was a promptless paper (i.e., "write a paper on something we discussed this semester").
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm trying to figure out when the printed word wasn't primarily used to entertain. The Gutenberg Bible, maybe?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:I'm getting sort of nervous about it, though, because my essay will not actually answer the prompt at all
Enjoy your D-!
This is how you write the essay.
"According to Gabler, blah blah blah. Gabler supports his views in the following ways: blah blah blah."
Don't be a martyr. Just give them what they want. You can write an essay about views you disagree with, without actually pretending to hold those views yourself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What I usually did in this situation was say "Gabler feels that X demonstrates..." -- and then I'd follow that up with, "However, I believe Y, for the following reasons."
Sometimes this could result in an unfair grade, because what you're doing is not only demonstrating your understanding of Gabler's philosophy but offering up your own for criticism (which increases your exposure and therefore your risk). But often it helps you reconcile your own beliefs with the assignment.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I recently was in a nearly identical situation (history class and everything). The professor had made his position very clear and I very clearly disagreed. I wrote a paper more or less lambasting my professors viewpoint and he gave me the highest grade in the class.
I would say that your first responsibility in the paper is to answer the prompt. But I don't think you have any responsibility to agree with your professor. If that makes any sense. Hopefully theres a way to answer the prompt, yet disagree. Or you could talk to your prof or TA and see if they think your current essay would be acceptable. Or you could write two essays, one answering the prompt, one with your actual opinion.
Yeah, I dunno what you should do. Good luck though!
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: I would really hesitate to ignore the prompt, but I also wouldn't avoid clashing with the underlying assumptions in a way that still acknowledges the prompt as a whole.
I agree with this. You should absolutely write your thougths, but put it in the context of the prompt. If nothing else, you can give Gabler's arguments that support the prompt and then state why disagree with them.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Do you have any chance to talk with the professor or TA and ask them if the paper you want to write would fall within the bounds?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I agree with Miro. Talk to the prof. If he sounds reasonable, write your own opinion. If he says that you should answer the prompt, the whole prompt, and nothing but the prompt, do so, get the grade, and never take any of his classes again, since you won't learn anything of value.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
What is your point, blacwolve?
If it is that the media have not succumbed to the desire for entertainment, you are pretty much screwed, yeah (not an easy position to defend.)
If, however, it is your belief that the media have always used entertainment to sell products, say so. You have ample evidence to support yourself.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
First off you must ask yourself if the confines of the book and the professor's question are intended to be an all-encompassing all-defining statement, or if they are simply dealing with one aspect of media?
You certainly can't deny that the 'entertainment' aspect of all media has not corrupted what passes serious media in this day and age. Look at our obsession with 'celebrity culture'. Look at how news wants to create an impression rather than give hard unbiased news. The thing is, Bad News sells, so if there isn't any 'bad news' then you have to spin whatever you have into titalating headlines. That absolutely is an aspect of all media today.
But, it doesn't define media, especially print media, in its totality. There are truly serious though much less popular print media truths out there.
So, my question to you is, is your objection to the assignment merely you see some other aspect, or is it the professor insistance that his 'aspect' is the one and only all-defining aspect?
If he is merely present an aspect of modern media, then he is only asking you to comment on that aspect. Though I'm sure after commenting on that aspect, no harm could be done in reminding him that there are other aspects of media that have not succumb to entertainment over substance.
You can not deny, as far as I can see, that entertainment over substance has corrupted many forms of media today. But as I said, that one aspect does not define all media in its totality. Even if I can't think of an example, I have to hope that there is some serious unbiased journalism out there somewhere.
Just a thought.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
So? What happened?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I wrote what they wanted to hear, and got 48/50. It's a good thing, too, because I hadn't at that point clearly articulated to myself what upset me so much about the book.
However, based on some of the comments on my paper, I don't think I would have gotten a good grade had I chosen to disagree with the premise of the book.
A large part of my problem with the book was that the author consigned things to two exclusive categories "Art" and "Entertainment" and made a value judgement that "Art" was good and "Entertainment" was bad without ever clearly defining what was "Art" and what was "Entertainment". And I put those in quotation marks because what he choose to go into each of those categories was sometimes self-evident, but often not. For example, I would include Shakespeare in both of those categories, but he put Shakespeare firmly in the "Art" category and in fact seemed quite put out that people were entertained by his plays.
Anyway, I intend to burn my paper when I get home in an utterly immature but completely satisfying attempt at rebellion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Anyway, I intend to burn my paper when I get home in an utterly immature but completely satisfying attempt at rebellion.
Wait until you receive an official grade report, just in case they recorded your grade wrong.
I'm paranoid, but it's paid off before.
Also, it sounds like you made the right decision, and it sounds like the book had some serious flaws.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Anyway, I intend to burn my paper when I get home in an utterly immature but completely satisfying attempt at rebellion.
Wait until you receive an official grade report, just in case they recorded your grade wrong.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)