I decided to use the edited version of “Seeing” that we first read in the Best Essays text so that I could pair it with the Schlosser reading. Some of them loved Dillard; others hated her; two didn’t even read her; and quite a few found her decision to write a nature piece questionable. They decided that the purpose of the text was to point out the ways that people see and experience life... to which I begged for more information: “Good! Can you say more? Are there different ways of seeing as you go through life?" The discussion branched into the 2 ways of seeing that Dillard mentions (analyzing and “letting go”), and how/when/where we use either (Dillard 126). I asked if they believe a person could “always” be in one frame of mind or the other, if there are certain things which force one to be analytical besides schoolwork? Are there ways of “making” a person see one way or the other, or were there things that begged you to remain oblivious?
They decided that schoolwork demanded that they be analytical (duh!). So I asked them about the two different kinds of people who go to movie theaters (those who talk throughout, and those who go to “zone out” and embrace a willing suspension of disbelief) and the experience of either movie-goer. In The Lord of the Rings films, for example, there are several allusions to Biblical scripture, but you don’t have to analyze them to enjoy the films. I asked them about movies which force the audience to think analytically the entire time (Films like The Sixth Sense, and they brought up Inception): what is it about the film, or how does the director direct it in such a way as to force you to “see” analytically? We talked about pathos, logos, and ethos a bit, and how authors/directors/companies use rhetoric to catch your attention, sell products, instill social expectations, etc., and then picked up the Schlosser text, and discussed how they could relate his article to what we had already been discussing.
We looked at the great lengths that the researchers went through to create a product that would sell: forming think tanks, hiring child psychologists, looking into dream therapy, etc., etc., and so they not only knew their product; they knew their audience, and how to rhetorically shape their ads (more likely to appeal to pathos and ethos than they are to use logos with children). I brought up the 1995 Budweiser frogs commercial, and, to my dismay, they were all too young to have seen or remember it. However, one of the students volunteered “furbies,” another the “Chia pet,” and others shouted memorable commercials that they remembered, and how they made them think of what should and shouldn’t be bought. How did those commercials effect the way that they saw children around them? They hadn’t thought of that before. What about the commercials made them memorable? What caught the eye? Why did they “need” what was being shown?
I left it at that, and gave them a reading by Aaron Devor on Gender Roles and public perception, and told them to watch for commercials that they believe are successful, and then be ready to discuss why they're successful in class.I've got a stack of literacy history papers to mark, and then I'm off!
Sounds great.
ReplyDelete