I’ve just had a chance to read and comment on the first blog posts of the term. I’m really happy with all of your work–literally everyone turned in thoughtful, carefully considered prose–and I enjoyed getting a fuller sense of your thoughts on the readings and our class discussions. A couple of general notes and some shout-outs are in order.
To highlight some issues that many students had in one way or another:
- titles: makes sure to give a descriptive title, even an eye-catching or clever or funny one. Just calling it “blog post #1” doesn’t tell us much about your argument. Also, just put the title in the tile bar and then start writing in the body: no need to repeat it.
- don’t summarize, analyze: many of you gave really rich summaries of what X or Y thinker was doing. But we readers want more! Assume we know the basic arguments. What we need is for you to point out something we didn’t see in the argument, some assumption or thread or metaphor that we hadn’t noticed. Once you point it out to us, it changes our reading of Fanon or Hurston forever. Or at least that’s the goal…
- be bold: try to say something a little “weird” in your analysis. We all know that Emerson loves nature, that Hurston celebrates herself, that Du Bois feels confined within the “veil”; so move beyond these basics and find something we hadn’t thought of. The posts I’ll shout out in a minute do this very nicely and are good examples.
- tags: you can use the TAG function in WordPress to categorize your work. Use the author’s name or even a theme in your post (like “gender” or “subjectivity” or “racism”)
Shout-outs: I could point out excellent things that every single student did, but I’d like to call attention to three writers this time who did something special:
- Julian wrote about Hurston’s debt to the Romantic-era poet Whitman. He emphasizes an affinity between Hurston and queer writing, noting that Hurston has a flair for performance and self-celebration that leverages her conspicuousness as a black woman while refusing to be confined within a stereotype.
- Tyler also engaged Hurston but linked her writing to the very different account of “racialization” by Fanon: he puts the writers in tension, revealing some of the tensions within African-American thought about the “fact” of blackness, as Fanon puts it.
- Naydeen, like Julian, emphasizes Hurston’s orientation towards performance and art, contrasting this assertion of blackness with Du Bois’s focus on the kinds of measurable “merit-based” competition that characterizes the dominant (read: white) culture and economy.
Note that these are not cookie cutters to be imitated; they’re just good examples of how to be a little “weird” in your writing in the best sense, pointing us readers to see something new in a given text.


