tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post7125745618198954953..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: House of Lies--Final ProjectAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-1925664087814363392009-04-26T21:43:00.000-04:002009-04-26T21:43:00.000-04:00"This book repeatedly questions the authenticity o..."This book repeatedly questions the authenticity of images in film while simultaneously designed to operate as a film; therefore, by combining these two components this book deliberately draws attention to the lack of credibility of House of Leaves itself." This claim, which comes early in your paper and which might be described as the principle argument of the paper, is representative of both its strengths and its weaknesses. Its great strength is that you take considerable care in addressing the details of the claim; your use of examples is good, and your research, while limited, is well-chosen.<br /><br />The corresponding weakness it that most of the paper sticks very close to material that we went over in considerable detail in class. Not all of it, of course - but you closely enough tracked several discussions that I would have liked to see you develop an explicit relationship with our collective engagements with the problem of authenticity in relationship with the pseudo-film character of the novel. Were you extending or developing ideas we worked through in class? Or do you see yourself more as questioning or critiquing them? Either way, making it explicit might have helped you figure out where the paper could have been trimmed a little bit, and where it was most worthy of expansion. For my part, I feel like you were effectively elaborating on material we went over in class through the use of well-chosen research. Making that orientation to the topic explicit could have helped you expand your research a little, while cutting down a little on the material which basically repeated class discussion.<br /><br />Your writing was clear and cohesive throughout - certainly your best work in a technical sense, although I don't recall ever having any really complaints about your work technically speaking.Adam Johnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11588769281227456640noreply@blogger.com