Your first paper for this class will be a reaction paper on the documentary(?) called “Baraka” by Ron Fricke (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103767/). It must be 1200 words long MINIMUM but there is no upper limit or maximum (proper formatting is mandatory but it is up to you which formatting style you use).
Remember, this is meant to be a formative assessment! So, as the giant interdimensional heads ask on Rick and Morty, show me what you got!
Make sure to:
(i) follow some formating/citation method/style,
(ii) organize your ideas into a coherent analysis/reaction,
and (iii) intersperse your intellectual/personal background into the paper.
HANDY-DANDY GUIDE TO WRITING A REACTION PAPER
If you were to ask 10 people, “How do I write a Reaction Paper?” you’d probably get 10 different responses. No one seems to know exactly how to do one, yet almost everyone is assigned one at some point in his or her academic career. Here is a guide to what faculty are usually “looking for” in a well-written reaction paper.
Remember, however, that every faculty member is different: some will want you to spend more time “analyzing” or “evaluating” the piece, others on giving your personal reactions to it. The best rule of thumb is to ask your faculty member for clarification. You might even consider giving him or her this guideline and asking him or her to revise it to reflect his or her expectations. I want this paper to focus on your philosophical reaction to the piece.
I. SUMMARY/SYNOPSIS – What are you reacting to?
GOAL: Show that you have your own understanding of what the thesis, main ideas, and supporting ideas in the piece you’re writing about. (THIS SHOULD BE SHORT!! Strive to achieve this in 300-400 words MAX if you are aiming to hit the word minimum of 1200. It can be longer if you plan on writing a longer paper). Think of this section as the table of contents plus a quick synopsis of the piece ( 2 paragraphs max, as a general rule).
EASY PART:
Identify all of the basic information: about the piece that you can, including:
• the author of the piece, the title of the piece, the title of the book or journal from which it was taken (if relevant), the publisher, and the year of publication;
HARD PART:
-GIVE ME YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE DOC’s THESIS…
-So, according to you (and what you’ve learned thus far in your life, academic career, and the world around you) what is Fricke trying to say (as it relates to the general subject of the course) in his documentary?
• the topic or subject of the piece—for example, “human nature and exploitation” or “the earth and human spirituality.” In other words, tell the reader what the piece is about in a word or a phrase; This might not be the easiest thing to do for Fricke’s film) This should tie into or be your thesis.
Two other things to include:
• the author’s purpose or motive for writing the piece—for example, “to expose the dangerous conditions factory workers in the United States faced prior in the early decades of the twentieth century” or “to show how residents can unite to improve their neighborhood”; This is usually connected to the author’s thesis.
• the author’s (your) primary supporting ideas.
II. Your Reaction/Description–Elaborating on your thesis. Give the reader (of your paper) a reason to understand your interpretation of the piece.
Goal: Unpack your thesis. Using your own understanding and evidence from the documentary itself (eg, actual scenes from the doc), give the reader of your paper REASONS for believing your interpretation.
- Here are some questions you might consider answering:
- Why does your interpretation make sense?
- What ideas, concepts, traditions, theories, historical events in science, humanity, religion/spirituality, etc, can you use to give your interpretation some weight?
- It helps to figure out if the piece reminds you of other readings/movies/documentaries/podcasts you’ve done for this class, other classes, or in your life. Compare and contrast the piece to those pieces/ideas.
III. Analysis/Evaluation–What are the strengths and weaknesses of the piece?
Goal: Show that you understand what the author does well and what he or she does not do so well.
Specific questions you might take up include:
• was the piece convincing? why or why not, specifically? is it well-researched? are the sources the author uses reputable? why or why not?
• did the author overlook or leave out anything important? what?
• did the author overemphasize or overprivilege anything? what?
• is the author one-sided (even if he or she takes your side), or does the author presented a balanced view?
• did the piece hold your interest? Why or why not?
• what would you ask, or tell, the author of the piece if you could?
• what questions does the piece raise for you — about the material, about other things?