Ad Paper Why and How P. McKercher

1.22.01

The purpose of the first paper was to introduce the idea of semiotic analysis, to get a writing sample to use as a baseline, for us to learn a bit about each other, to confirm what we learned in Play with Words about how essential specific sensory detail is, but most importantly to begin to experience the writing process that professional writers use, which generally involves much more prewriting, drafting and feedback than most basic or student writers use. The second paper will build on this, but we'll get much deeper into semiotic analysis.

"Analysis" itself is kind of a spooky term, and thus somewhat hard to define. It is, however, the essence of what goes on in the university and the professions: you look at a lump of messy data and sort out the significant and interesting aspects. But how? This is where the creative process comes in, which we'll cover in class. For now, let's define analysis a bit more clearly. In Western thinking, analysis is done by breaking something down: classification, compare and contrast, cause and effect, or perhaps by tracing its evolution in incremental steps. (See Hacker WR C3-c for how to use these strategies to explore or explain your ideas). Analogical thinking, another way to explore an idea, is not so much breaking something down as putting it together (comparing and contrasting) with something that we understand better; for example, can we learn anything about marketing strategies for colas by studying military, gang or primate turf battles?

Fundamentally, the way to get an idea for an analysis is to generate a bunch of ideas by looking at a situation from many points of view (that's what the prewriting "toolkits" on the How to Be Brilliant handout are for) and then trying the ideas out so see if they go anywhere, which can be done very quickly through freewriting or clustering. Sometimes you'll have a great idea, but you quickly realize you don't know enough to really explore it. If you discover this early enough, you can often quickly do some reading or call/email someone to get up to speed. Other times you have to sigh and back-burner the idea, but if it's there in your journal, you can always come back to it (maybe for your final research paper), and your brain will be churning away on the seemingly abandoned project and will send you little messages about it from time to time (which should also be captured in the journal, even though these ideas seem to always come at times most inconvenient to journal writing: when you're in the shower, in bed, driving or washing dishes). One reason we don't have many ideas about a given subject is that we just don't have enough information to achieve "critical mass" (you know, in a nuclear reaction it's when enough electrons are being knocked out of atoms to knock even more electrons out of even more atoms); that's why it's important to load up on information about ads by carefully reading the Signs of Life articles.

Okay, there's the theory, here's the how -to: on Tuesday bring three to five ads to class, maybe one that pisses you off, one that baffles you, and one that strikes you as using some typical or currently fashionable scam (perhaps one that targets and/or pictures some particular group). Before class, if possible, pick the ad that strikes you as the most interesting and prewrite as fast as you can for twenty minutes using the semiotic questions on the How to Be Brilliant handout. An even better set of semiotic ad questions are on the course website. Full page magazine ads work best. Avoid ads that are a simple picture and/or short on text because there's just not much stuff in there to analyze. Notice that each chapter of Signs of Life walks you through step-by-step of how to do semiotic analysis on, in this case, and Energizer bunny ad. If you don't get an idea for the paper from the semiotic questions, you might want to find another ad, or you can use the rhetorical questions to see if that uncovers any useful patterns. In any case, everyone will bring their ad and rhetorical and semiotic prewrites Thursday, where you can try your idea/angle out on some real people, and get some ideas on how you could develop it. Then you'll write a draft, which you'll bring three copies for your writing group on the following Tuesday (you might also want to email a copy to yourself, in case you need to print in the lab; cut and paste the paper right into the email, as it's easier to deal with than as an attachment. In cases of dire economic need, I can print emailed copies if you give me some lead time).

Typical pitfalls to avoid: picking an ad that's too simple, and merely repeating commonplaces about a sinister and diabolical media (these high school papers are easy to spot because they all begin with some variation of "we are bombarded by many ads every day" and misuse the term "subliminal"). Another deadly intro: "While flipping through a magazine looking for an ad to analize [sic/ i.e.., to get anal, and/or sometimes Freudian]..." If you absolutely must, you can argue that sex sells, but read the Fowles essay in Common Culture on reserve downstairs in McHenry, or at least my summary of it on the course website). We're also trying to get away from the classic high school "theme" on the subject which is a purely pop psychological approach; now of course such an approach is ok because it draws on our expertise in human behavior, but it rarely turns up any ideas that are not obvious. Thus, use the semiotic and rhetorical questions as a way to explore exactly how the ad gets the response it does.

You do not need to describe the ad in the paper, since you'll attach it to the paper. You might, however, want to use a brief description that you tailor to emphasize whatever aspect of the ad you're going to analyze. I've also seen an effective descriptive "tour" of the ad method in which the author points out some element and then explains its overall significance. Other ideas for intros are on page 14 of our handbook. You must use one essay from Signs of Life in your essay, so another possible intro would be "Author X argues that Y is true", and then show how Y does or does not apply to your ad. I can't think of any other advice on structure at the moment, but you can always look at the student samples on the course website, as well as the articles in Signs of Life. As always, our basic question is: What does this ad tell us about what's going on in America? Thus the paper will be evaluated on how deeply you engaged the semiotic and/or rhetorical questions to explore. Because I'm interested in the writing process, it doesn't make much sense for me to read any paper without the prewriting and drafts attached. If you have any questions, please ask, as others undoubtedly will have the same question.