Annotation examples

Full bibliography can be found here: http://honors.unca.edu/mccarthy/tslbiblio


This is what I showed you the other day. Remember that the second one is a bit less formal than I want your annotations to be.

Snyder, Phillip A. “Hospitality in Cormac McCarthy’s The Road.” The Cormac McCarthy Journal 2008 Autumn 6: 69-86.

Phillip Snyder argues that the The Road advocates the radical ethics developed from the thought of Jacques Derrida and Emmanuel Levinas. [JR1] The upshot of their ethics is that we are not only ethically bound to our family, friends, and the immediate others we encounter, but also to every other person past, present, and future. Snyder borrows Derrida’s neologism, hostipitality, to argue that the boy recognizes that we are never merely a host or a guest, but both hosts and guests. The most concrete example given is the boy’s prayer--not to God--but to the people who have left the boy and his father a store of food in a bunker they discover. He understands that he is both a host of the meal at hand, but also that he is a guest in the absent person’s home. Thus, The Road suggests a secular ethics qualified by religious ritual.[JR2] 

From my paper on The Road

While ethics are in the background of The Sunset Limited’s discussions, The Road, where actions towards other human beings are perhaps the only Good left in the world, directly engages the meaning of ethical actions. In “Hospitality in Cormac McCarthy’s The Road,” Philllip Snyder argues that The Road’s ethical stance maps onto an ethics of the Other derived from the thought of Emannuel Levinas and Jacques Derrida. Derrida derives the term “hostipitality” from the French term hôte, meaning both “host” and “guest.” Derrida’s idea is best presented by the boy’s prayer to the absent people who stored food in a bunker: “Dear people, thank you for all this food and stuff. We know that you saved it for yourself and if you were here we wouldn’t eat it no matter how hungry we were and we’re sorry that you didn’t get to eat it and we hope that you’re safe in heaven with God” (R 146). Snyder argues that this prayer “illustrates the boy’s sense of responsibility as hôte as he acknowledges his hosting power in presiding over this first meal while understanding that he also remains a guest of the absent host” (Snyder 84).

Annotation as a Heuristic (inventive) Tool:

Fisher, Mark. “The Lonely Road.” Film Quarterly. Vol 62. No. 3. (2010): 14-17. Web.

Mark Fisher, the author of Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative, [JR3] argues that though Jameson says post-apocalyptic fiction can be used to imagine utopias, The Road does not offer such comfort: “The Road [. . .] is instead a symptom of the inability to imagine alternatives to capitalism’s entropic eternal present” (16).  First off, I believe that Jameson also says that the strength of SF as a genre is the inability to imagine the future but to show our present as past, which The Road certainly does.[JR4]  But he argues that it shows the past as the only alternative: “Capitalism and its lost commodities themselves becomes posited as utopia” (16). Of course, he doesn’t mention the way that rather than something greedily consumed, it is a sharing moment between father and son. Clearly, Mark Fisher and Matthew Ryan are at odds about whether The Road shows the need for sociality or represents individualistic values.  For Ryan, the book is anti-Thatcherian, for Fisher it confirms that “there really is no such thing as society, only individuals and their families” (Fisher 16).[JR5]  Fisher argues that cannibals are only the real form of collectivity and thus forecloses the possibility of collectivity. He also makes a pretty good argument that “conservation” is not a value in The Road (except that by negation we as readers realize this): “Such questions are meaningless in The Road, where conservation of resources can only temporarily stave off their inevitable total depletion, and where, in the absence of any raw materials for production, labor can only amount to scavenging” (17).

Fisher writes about language in terms of the Lacanian big Other, but I believe that the key in psychoanalysis is to realize that the big Other doesn’t want anything (and is purely imaginary). Fisher writes that “the shared, symbolic domain in which poignancy could be meaningful has been shattered,” but I would argue that the symbolic domain is still there, but in a different way. Language persists and indeed there are several instances of a re-vitalization of old forms and idioms that are adapted to their particular situation—the father can impart the meanings of certain words that have relevance to the new world. Furthermore, the word “okay” signifies agreement (see Linda Woodson “Mapping The Road in Post-Postmodernism” below). [JR6] It is as if Fisher thinks that the only way for language to work is for humanity to submit to a big Other.

Though Fisher makes quite a convincing argument for reading The Road as a hopeless novel, I would still argue that he forgets some key passages in the text where the boy imagines possible communities of aliens. This SF aspect of the novel, I think, shows that communities do not have to be merely local families, but we are responsible for the absent other as well (see “the bunker” episode and Phillip Snyder’s “Hospititality in Cormac McCarthy’s The Road”. Snyder might see these quasi-religious episodes as the hope that persists in “some kind of Gnostic religious impulse, a faith in a distant and unknowable God that has, to all appearances, abandoned the earth” (14). I would argue that it’s not the faith in god, but the faith in others and possible society.

---

 [JR1]Rhetorical context

 [JR2]How I used this in my paper on ethics and The Road.

 [JR3]Rhetorical Context

 [JR4]Arguing against Fisher

 [JR5]Making sources talk to one another.

 [JR6]More comparison of sources.

Synthesis Essay Example

Class,

Below you will find an excellent essay from one of your classmates. This essay shows a thorough understanding of each of the texts and synthesizes them in a really interesting, original way. The paragraph transitions are smooth and powerful, leading the reader to the next paragraph almost naturally. Depending on time, I may post the essay again with extensive comments, pointing out why the essay succeeds.


Synthesis Paper


     In our modern society, we live in a time where there are always influential factors that correlate with the choices we make. While we do live in a country in which we are given many liberties and rights, there is a controlling factor (not just the government) that holds authority over the way individuals are shaped and molded. In Foucault’s “Panopticism,” he argues that in order to develop and maintain an efficient society containing population increase and economic development, power should be distributed in a way metaphorically represented by a panopticon. In Berger’s “Ways of Seeing,” he claims that the power held within an image is being destroyed through our society’s means of reproduction. In West’s song “Power,” he sings of how his life is affected by the forces of power itself. We may all have “power” over something, but there is always something else that holds “power” over us. The idea that society holds a power- a power to influence our choices, opinions, behaviors, thoughts, and way of life- is synthesized and relayed throughout the three pieces of writing by Foucault, Berger, and West. Although these authors all speak of power in a different sense, they speak of the influences of power on our society.
      Power can be seen as a term with a positive connotation or as a term that is seen as the root of all evils. In both Foucault’s “Panopticism” and Berger’s “Ways of Seeing,” power is not spoken of in a negative light, but in a way that shows how power has changed or has the ability to change our society in different ways. Foucault uses a panopticon as a metaphor to represent how discipline and punishment works in our modern society. A panopticon is an architectural figure in which all inmates can be examined and observed from one spot without being seen. Foucault speaks about how the organization of a panopticon allows power to operate efficiently though disciplinary mechanisms. According to Foucault, the power of control and examination on citizens of a disciplinary society is a functional mechanism to bring about an efficient society. In this type of society, the spread of disciplinary institutions that use methods of control and observation is necessary. These institutions are present in our society today and include schools, churches, hospitals, and prisons. In these institutions, power is used on individuals to make them a productive person in society. With more and more productive individuals in a society, economic and social growth follows that will blossom the society’s development. As a society’s efficiency improves, there are more opportunities for control and observation to make even more productive individuals. Through these disciplinary institutions, power is used on individuals as they are becoming more productive. According to Foucault, “the panoptic mechanism provides the common thread to what could be called the power exercised on man as a force of work and knowledge of man as an individual. (Foucault 299) In these institutions, the process of producing productive individuals involves the power of influence. The knowledge and wisdom we gain is highly influenced by the people we surround, like our teachers, coworkers, and colleagues in our respective institutions. These disciplinary institutions shape their individual’s way of thinking, acting, behaving, and feeling. “…it still exerts a moral influence over behavior…” (Foucault 296) As a result, these newly developed ways of thinking, acting, and behaving become the norm and way of life. More and more people start to conform to these behaviors and thoughts that were originally developed from the disciplinary institutions. Because a panopticon allows everyone to come and observe any of the observers, this represents that the power of influence in our society is not fixed. Everyone has the power to examine and control… the control and examination of each other’s thoughts, actions, and behaviors. In our society, there is not a central individual who exerts all this power of influence. Everyone is significant and holds this power to influence each other because of our interactions in the disciplinary institutions. This power of influence shifts back and forth between authority figures and citizens in a society that is based on this functional mechanism described by Foucault. We influence the government to create new laws or make amendments to the law, but this power of influences equilibrates and our teachers or coworkers may influence our opinions on what amendments to vote for or against. In a sense, our society, that seems to be running like the panoptic mechanism Foucault describes, is operating to achieve an efficient society through reproducing individuals that have the same way of thinking and acting, and individuality and originality is lost.
     This same concept of reproduction of individuals can be related to Berger’s description of the reproduction of an image. We are losing the power to be the best we can be and our true selves because we are always being influenced by social factors, like a reproduced piece of art. Berger argues that “in the age of pictorial reproduction the meaning of paintings is no longer attached to them; their meaning becomes transmittable: that is to say it becomes information of a sort, and, like all information, it is either put to use or ignored; information carries no special authority within itself.” (Berger 153) An original image holds a power to reveal an idea, a ritual, or an experience. But, with the reproduction of the image, its original power and authority is removed as they enter the mainstream of life over which they no longer have power within themselves. With the reproduction of artwork and the social and political forces, our perception and interpretation of artwork becomes skewed because of the power of those forces influence our values and ideology. The way we view artwork has changed over time because of social changes. Our society has influenced us to value some things more than others as well as what is desirable and valuable. Our perception is manipulated by the power of influence that our society holds. A piece of artwork is only as unique as its rarity, not meaning. “But in either case, the uniqueness of the original now lies in it being the original of a reproduction. It is no longer what its image shows that strikes one as unique; its first meaning is no longer to be found in what it says, but in what it is.” (Berger 149) If our society has influenced us into thinking how great a specific piece of artwork is, then the demand for that artwork increases. As the demand increases, so will the monetary value of the artwork. This shows that the value of the image is not based on the meaning of its image, but because of its market value. “It [artwork] has become impressive, mysterious, because of its market value.” (Berger 152) This influential power that society holds has shaped our way of seeing. Artwork is like the effector who receives the negative effects of society’s power over us. Sometimes it almost seems as if we believe things but we have no idea why. It seems as if our interests and interpretations of things are being narrowed as much as possible because of our natural need to conform to what is the “norm.”
     Why is our society so easily influenced by this power? Since this power of influence shifts, and not one person holds a power, what would it be like if one person had all the power to influence, but was not easily influenced by other people’s opinions and thoughts? In West’s “Power,” he sings about how the idea of power influences an individual. He represents power as a burden on himself because it has made him a person of who he is not very fond. Kanye West has gained power through his rise as a rapper and no one can take down his power, except for power itself. (example essay on the class blog) In this song, West is the one who holds the power, and he raps about how it has influenced and shaped himself into developing his egotistical personality. In Foucault's and Berger’s writings, they show how society has a power to influence, but in West’s “Power,” he shows how power itself influences an individual. With his fame, he has acquired the power to influence others, as he is the social force of society that influences. Although many Americans hate him because of his poor attitude, his record sales do not fall, and this is all because he exerts the power to be an influential person in society. West raps about how this power has made him a hated person in society, and how he receives a lot of criticism and judgment. But, he does not care what people say about him, as he is impermeable to all the hatred and criticism he receives and he is not easily influenced anymore by everyone else’s opinions in society. Society’s power of influence on him was how he gained his power because it helped shape the way he thought about everything. He has gained the power to think for himself, and because of this, it makes it easy for him to not be influenced by society and the media. Although there are highly influential people in our society who bring beneficial changes in our society, they had to have gained this power through something else that influenced them. He sings the line, “No man should have all that power” to show that the power of influence is actually very powerful, and can create a negative domino effect. This is why Foucault’s “Panopticon” shows how the organization of power is actually spread out and spread evenly amongst individuals.
     In conclusion, in Foucault’s, Berger’s, and West’s pieces of writings, they all synthesize an idea of how society holds a power of influence over its citizens, and how this power is able to create a norm for the way we behave, act, and think. There is an extraction of knowledge because society ends up shaping the way we perceive things and causes us to be prone to judgment and criticism if we do not conform to be the “productive individual” that is reproduced to maintain an efficient society. We all exhibit this power to influence, but some people in society, like the media, hold it to a greater magnitude. It is actually better this way than having only one person holding all this power to influence because if this power is spread out, then at least there will be chances of new ideas emerging in our society.