Conference Draft Commentary

Professor Van Kley provided two rounds of commentary. Below is his initial commentary after reading my conference draft:

Great start, Amrit! Your argument, structure, claims, and evidence are all coming into focus. The project has developed quite a bit. A few areas of discussion for our conference conversation:
x) The introduction could use a bit more space to breath. Try to make your motive more accessible and powerful.
x) transitions could be a bit clearer here.
x) there’s one spot where I got a bit confused by the paragraphing decisions.
x) It looks like you might have room for expansion. Let’s talk about potential avenues for growth when we meet.
x) also, consider incorporating visual evidence here (screenshots)
The following is Professor Van Kley’s additional commentary and suggestions for a new format that we devised during the conference.
Current Structure:
1. Introduction
2. critical summary
3. visuals
4. “plot”
5. social invention and suppression
6. problem of his success
New Structure:
x. Introduction
x. Eggener and powell want us to look at diverse voices…
x. The song aims to represent a local perspective. The opening of the piece cites the perspective of locals (ground view…buildings/streets = recognizable features)
x. He actually recognizes multiple perspectives, giving you a sense of the diversity of those perspectives x. But maybe this isn’t as good as it looks: The gap between lyrics and video suggest the song isn’t really about local perspectives at all…
x. TRANSITION, We might also be suspicious of whether or not the piece do to allow for change? Reminder about how social invention has to listen to diverse voices….Powell…
x. WK’s status as belonging to both perspectives might keep you from listening to other voices
x. conclusion
Starting position: The song aims to listen to diverse voices from Pittsburgh…to do CR Argument: But, it falls short in silencing some of those perspectives, which limits its ability to create positive regional change.