tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post3411129048359266428..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Blog 5 - Prompt 2Adamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-86541204690139346882013-03-03T13:44:14.625-05:002013-03-03T13:44:14.625-05:00Regarding your intro: it's fine, and I don...Regarding your intro: it's fine, and I don't think most of us would disagree with you in general. Still, I'd like to get to *Girls* faster. It's a promising topic, by the way.<br /><br />The second paragraph is clunky. I've watched *Girls* from the start, too, and while I agree with your assessment, you bounce around too much - focus in on an event, or a couple events. I also think that you probably can't deal well with *Girls* without being explicit yourself - the (usually weird/awkward) details of Hannah's sex life are so critical, I don't know that there's any point in trying to avoid being explicit here.<br /><br />You actually do a really good job of exactly that (without being crass, not that being crass would be a big deal with this topic) in the third paragraph: "But it is this completely average looking woman who is shown having sex most often throughout the program, and she does not apologize to the audience for watching her imperfect being having imperfect sex as opposed to the over-eroticized display they are used to." This is a good start, possibly a good thesis (or very close to one). Should you revise, you want to get to this point more quickly.<br /><br />Question, apropos the last paragraph. Do you think that *Girls* (or Lena Durham, if you think of the two as being separate) is disinterested in the confluence of sex and morality? I'd argue that last week's episode, where she casually/spontaneously has sex with a messed-up teenager who takes the encounter so much more seriously than she does, might put that claim into question. For my part, I'm not convinced that there isn't a moral vision here, even if I'm a little unclear on what it is. I have no idea what you think - but it's the sort of question you should be asking (earlier, rather than later) if you continue to pursue de-eroticizization in *Girls*.<br /><br />To follow on Brian, the Anna Karenina thing seemed forced here. I think you're following Marcuse through investigating the de-eroticization that interests him - I'm not convinced that his comparison of 19th century to 20th century texts on the topic of sexuality here is very relevant.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-21383125419812165022013-03-01T17:17:19.748-05:002013-03-01T17:17:19.748-05:00I thought this was a really good essay. It was ver...I thought this was a really good essay. It was very easy to follow your argument and I think you made a great point. I don't really have much criticism for you except maybe a little more proofreading. <br /><br />" Like any other HBO, sex scenes are numerous..." - one example where you missed a word in there.<br /><br />One other thing is the Anna Karenina reference seems a bit forced maybe? In this essay I think it could have been omitted but for a revision it would be something good to develop further.Brian DeWilliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05825233917054873372noreply@blogger.com