User talk:Dolevsky
Welcome[edit]
Greetings...
Hello, Dolevsky, and welcome to Wikipedia!
- To get started, click on the green welcome.
Bibliography assignment[edit]
Hi, here are the details of the MRR annotated bibliography assignment...
Good Wikipedia articles are built on a foundation of good sources. In this respect, Wikipedia articles are not much different from academic essays. In fact, if anything a good Wikipedia article is more reliant on good sources than are other academic or scholarly texts. The whole notion of verifiability, which is the first of the encyclopedia's five pillars, depends upon reliable sources.
The aim of this bibliography assignment, then, is to identify, read, and comment on the most important and reliable sources that relate to the topic of your chosen article.
In coordination with your group, you need to do the following:
- Identify the most important sources for your topic. These will be both books and articles. They will vary depending upon the kind of topic you have chosen, but to give a couple of examples this book is a key one for the general topic of magic realism, while this biography would be essential for the article on Gabriel García Márquez.
- Use databases and the Koerner library catalogue to identify these sources. Look for as many as possible in the first instance; you will later choose between them. On the whole, they will not be online sources (though of course many articles are now available online thanks to JSTOR and other services).
- Aim to come up with a long list of, say, 5-20 books and perhaps 15-40 articles. Obviously, for some topics there will be more material than for others. So for some topics you will need to do more searching; for other topics, you will need to be more careful and discerning as you choose between sources. Look far and wide and be inventive in thinking about good sources.
- In some cases, the article may already have a number of references, either in the article itself, or perhaps somewhere in its talkpage archives. You should take account of these, but you should still undertake your own search, not least to find new material that has not been considered before.
- To figure out what you need, you will also have to look at your article and consider what it is missing, what needs to be improved, where it could do with better sources, etc. In other words, you will have to start planning how you are going to work on and rewrite the article.
- Come up with a final short list of c. 2-4 books and perhaps 6-24 articles.
- Put the long list (of all the sources you have found) as well as the short list (of the sources you have decided are the most important) on your article's talk page by Wednesday, January 20.
- Distribute the sources among the members of your group. Each person should be reading the equivalent of one full book or six articles. Exceptionally long books may be divided up between group members.
- Read the sources, bearing in mind the information that is going to be useful as you work on the article. Think about what it covers and take a note of particular page numbers.
- Produce an annotated bibliography of the sources you have read. This will consist of a summary or précis of the most important aspects of the texts, which should be at least 150 words long for each article read; 600 words for each book. You should put this on your user page by Monday, February 8.
To coordinate with the other members of your group (whose names you can find here), use their talk pages. Each time that you log in to Wikipedia, you will notice that if you have a message waiting for you, there will be a yellow banner at the top of the page.
Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to working with your class during the semester - if you have any questions about the project or Wikipedia in general, please feel free to leave me a note at User talk:Awadewit. Wikipedians are here to help you! Awadewit (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
heads up[edit]
Heya, just to point out that if you look here you'll see that User:Awadewit has volunteered to give special help to your article, Magic realism. Of course, you guys are to take the lead, and above all do the research required to improve the article. But you should definitely feel free to contact Awadewit on her talk page. You'll find she's very friendly and knowledgeable about writing for Wikipedia, and will give you as much help as she can.
Incidentally, you should also (as I mentioned before) be putting our project page on your watchlist, so you can see changes like this one. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Annotated Bibliography[edit]
Pritchard, William. “Realism without Magic”. The Hudson Review. 42.3 (1989): 484-492. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3850828>
William Pritchard starts out by giving examples of books with stories such as “The Last to go” in order to show plain realism as opposed to magical realism. – He states that the “narrative tones is artful, the touch unsentimental- in fact, consistently humorous, even as things domestic go to pieces” (484). Pritchard gives us an understanding that magic realism is too ‘emotional’ and that it feels like “elephantiasis, a hyped-up frenzy of being ‘hilarious’ about everything”(491). The article also compares and criticizes the ways in how plain realism is better than magic realism, “Realism is better when it doesn’t work to hard to achieve ‘stunning’, larger-than-life effects; when it has time to care about place and dailiness; when it takes the trouble to address the reader from someplace else than from on high (and mighty)” (491). In general the article makes somewhat an interesting point that could be used to show some of the basic differences between realism and magic realism.
Conniff, Brian. “The Dark Side of Magical Realism: Science, Oppression, and Apocalypse in One Hundred Years of Solitude”. MFS Modern Fiction Studies. 36.2 (1990): 167-179. Web. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/modern_fiction_studies/v036/36.2.conniff.html
This article shows the ‘dark side of magical realism’ by using examples from ‘One Hundred Years of Solitude” and “Macondo”. “’Magical realism’ has typically been seen as the redemption of fiction in the face of a reality that is still becoming progressively more disorderly” (168). There is another side to magical realism, which Garcia Márquez also sensed: apocalypse. “In the disorderly modern world, magical realism is not merely an expression of hope; it is also a ‘resource’ that can depict such a ‘scientific possibility’” (168). This is to make the apocalypse appear inevitable. In the end, Conniff concluded that the apocalypse is the darkest side of “magical realism since the ‘magic’ and the ‘realism’ are most completely fused” (178).
Crawford, Katherine. “Recognizing Van Eyck: Magical Realism in Landscape Painting”. Philadelphia Museum of Art Bulletin. 91. 386/387 (1998): 7-23. Web. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3795460
In this article, magical realism is shown through the way landscapes and spaces are represented. In this case, an example is displayed showing how Eycks compositions create an “illusion of an ‘unseen space receding into the background” (12). The images are left towards our imagination. They let the viewer decide what’s next, as for instance in a continuous landscape with rivers and hills. Total attention should be placed in order to be creative and show a mystical side thus appreciating little details that would entail towards a certain perspective. That is how the magical aspect is represented: letting the viewer be innovative and by “the attempt to capture the local details of the observed” (21).