OFFLINE

Hello there,I didnt start as supposed to with Zisser's paper since I was busy with doing another assignment that I have to submit by tomorrow. Im really stressed out and if you dont mind helping me, I have couple of questions I will be forever greatful if you help me to understand:

1) What my answers should include? only posts from the articles or me explaning in my own words what she and her gang say think ? or both???

2) What did she mean by the last three questions of the first question in part one?

im not done, expect more, but this is it for now..

please anyone

???

OFFLINE

First of all, breathe!

Great. Now, to your questions:

1. You are expected to answer using what has been said in class, and supporting your answer with proof from the theoretical text, as well as your own interpretation of the logic of the text. So a little bit of everything.

2. Aristotle and Tomashevsky have different positions about the importance of free and bound motifs to the plot. Aristotle doesn't call them "free and bound motifs", rather he talks about components that are important to the plot (bound) vs. those elements that their removal will not change the plot (free). You need to explain what each of them thinks, as opposed to the other, and why they think that way (use their texts as well as class notes).
As for the Freud part of the question, you need to read up in class notes about Freud's discussion regarding the conscious and the unconscious.

I hope this helps. You can find notes from myself, Mika and I think Omri as well in the dropbox, these are our class notes, if you can make sense of them, feel free to use them to help you with answering the exam.

Good luck. Remember, breathe!

OFFLINE

Hey, I have a following question to the above, I hope someone can help me, I'm starting Zisser only today.. aaahhh

In the first part, first wuestion, it says "explain the relation between free and bound motifs OR kernel and sattelite events" - should i explain both, or just 2, or what I decided..?

I wasn't sure...

Thanks for the help!

OFFLINE

remember: anything you say has to be verified with evidence from a text!

if you use just free and bound motifs then you can get away with just using tomashevsky, but if you use kernel and satellite then you'll need to cite chapman. as it's the same thing, citing chapman is probably a waste of time.

maybe it'll score you brownie points with zisser, though

OFFLINE

Hey Adam, thanks!!
I had no idea Chatman joins the party... this forum is a LIFE SAVER.. !

In regards to Aristotle, if you know, he is not explictly talking about free and bound motifs, but rather representation of the plot, "the unity of the whole"... and then he goes on to give examples. Thats the only bit I manages to found to support my claim, it might be a stupid question to ask, but I need support, do you think its enough?..

OFFLINE

that's pretty much all i found, too - the idea is to show the connection, and as aristotle isn't a formalist you have to make do with what you find that's "close enough"

OFFLINE

So Tomashivskys first answering is not the same as the answer of the second question with Aristotle?and what "what accounts for these different positions?" and according to Freud.. I dont have to quote things from his article? the class notes will be enough?

OFFLINE

no, it's not the same. 1 B is concerned with the motifs and their role in the chronological order of the plot / story (i'm not entirely which is relevant here)

you cannot quote nots, only articles. and you have to use those quotes to provide evidence for ANYTHING you say. if you make a statement, reference and cite its source. if you quote, cite.

OFFLINE

tomashevsky thematics: page 72 - he talks about exciting force / peripety (movement of one situation to another), then tension,      climax = antithesis of the exciting force, synthesis  = ending and finally exposition

this matches up with aristotle's beginning middle and end

OFFLINE

Dear Adam im talking about A not B...

Sorry for not makin it clear...

thanx anyway

OFFLINE

Ok so its like this...

In part one A I answered the relation between bount and free motifs according to Tomashivsky, aint it the same answer fr the second question in which she involve aristotle?and when I answer that second question of Tomashivskys part I have to quote again from the article?

Second-- Zisser asked "what accounts for these different positions?" what this suppose to mean?

and last but not least Freud question :$...? what articles of Freud and what the question means..

sorry

OFFLINE

1. if you've already said something and provided evidence IN THE SAME ANSWER (meaning the whole of 1A), then you don't need to prove it again.

2. why do they feel differently?

3. you're on your own for finding freudian proof, because you can choose anything you like that's relevant and there are a bunch of sources