The goal for your posting is to focus on 2-3 ideas that interest you in the readings, and to connect between at least 2 of the readings. You want about 750 words, and a clear sense of an opening point or thesis, a set of examples from texts that you analyze to support your thesis, and a conclusion. Use a Works Cited page at the end, and be sure to cite paraphrases and quotes in MLA format.
Here are some possible approaches–I’ll add to the list after the facilitators for the week post the additional critical reading to Blackboard by Wednesday, 1/21. Your posting is due Saturday, 1/24 by 5pm, either on your MU Commons site or on Blackboard Discussion Board if you’re having trouble with the MU Commons.
1.) Apply Vanhoutte’s thesis about W;t to the play, and compare/contrast its reading of given scenes or moments of the play to your own interpretation. Do you agree with Vanhoutte’s response to this play?
2.) Ask the same questions of W;t and/or “Cancer Journals” that I had you ask of Tig Notaro’s broadcast, then compare/contrast how these performances address self-expression and the experience of cancer. How does each performance try to reach its audience? What are 2-3 of each author/performer’s key points about their cancer experience? How does their choice of artistic form affect how you as a reader or viewer respond?
3.) Using the “Influence of Psychological Coping” article, argue which approach you feel the main character in W;t or Audre Lorde are taking to their experiences with cancer–are they “fighters,” “depressives,” or some other category? What do you think of the argument that attitude toward disease doesn’t affect mortality or recurrence, and thus people should not be pressured toward one attitude over another? Do you see evidence that the attitudes of characters or authors of the performances you’ve seen can change from moment to moment or day to day?