One of your objectives<\/a> in DIG 215 is to \u201capply specific discursive and theoretical concepts to the analysis of representations of death in 21st century popular culture.\u201d To this end you\u2019ll compare two cultural productions\u2014novels, comics, games, movies, television shows, podcasts, and so on\u2014that somehow exemplify what we might call late postmodern horror<\/i>.<\/p>\n Late postmodern horror in this context refers to contemporary narratives that do all the things Pinedo ascribes to postmodern horror plus<\/i> reflects the ubiquity of media and technology in everyday life. Late postmodern horror is often characterized by the following:<\/p>\n This comparative analysis can take one of three forms:<\/p>\n Whatever the form, the final version will be posted to our class blog under the category \u201cComparative Horror.\u201d The crux of this analysis is your application of relevant theoretical concepts. We\u2019ve encountered quite a few of these concepts in our readings and class discussions: Pinedo on postmodern horror, Creed on monstrous women, Cohen on monsters, Gothic tropes, horror verit\u00e9, etc. I expect you to dig around and find other appropriate concepts as well.<\/p>\n This is a comparative <\/i>assignment. It asks you to place two works in conversation with each other, the idea being that this dialogue reveals something about both works that would have remained obscured if either work had been considered by itself. The two works should illuminate <\/i>each other. One of the works may be the same material you considered for your Snapchat Horror Story.<\/a><\/p>\n The two works should be distinctively different from each other, either in form, aesthetics, narrative, or theme. For example, two episodes of Black Mirror <\/i>are not distinctively different from each other for the purposes of this assignment. An episode of Black Mirror <\/i>and a videogame would be though.<\/p>\n For your Comparative Horror Analysis to count as Satisfactory<\/strong>, it must meet the following criteria:<\/p>\n For your Comparative Horror Analysis to count as Sophisticated<\/strong>, it must meet this criteria (in addition to the Satisfactory criteria above):<\/p>\n Comparative analyses can be difficult to manage in terms of organization. I recommend approaching each text separately and then providing a synthesis at the end. In other words, say almost everything you have to say about one work, then move to the second work, rather than bouncing back and forth between the two works. That\u2019s not to say you can\u2019t try the latter approach, but it does require a greater degree of care and control to pull off successfully.<\/p>\n Your job is not to judge the two works, or to rank one as better than the other. This is not a review. Rather, consider how each work approaches similar issues through different techniques, or conversely, uses similar techniques for different aims. Or, some other variation of the dynamic between form and content. In any case, consider each work on its own terms. Pay attention to media specificity<\/i>, or, how the work takes advantage of the affordances of its particular medium.<\/p>\n When it comes to publishing your analysis, keep in mind best practices for your chosen medium. For videographic essays<\/strong>, I recommend uploading your video to YouTube<\/a> or Vimeo<\/a> and then embedding the video into a blog post. For podcasts<\/strong>, I recommend uploading your audio to SoundCloud and embedding the audio<\/a> in a blog post. You should similarly embed images, audio, and video into your multimedia essay<\/strong>.<\/p>\n By the way, what’s a videographic essay? Basically it’s a scholarly work analyzing film or video, using the same form\u2014moving images and audio\u2014as the object that’s being studied. For an extremely well done example, take a look at this videographic essay about Alfred Hitchcock’s use of space<\/a>. Here’s another videographic essay, about the film Ex Machina<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
Guidelines<\/h2>\n
\n
Criteria<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Suggestions<\/h2>\n
Possible Sources<\/h2>\n
\n
\n