Writing is about the creation of media. While the word media has the modern connotation of being just about news, media refers to any art that carries a message. Traditional media involves the written word, which is called text media, yet our society has moved far past the printed word. In our modern world, we communicate with words, images, video, and sound, sometimes all at once. Every podcast carries a message. Every comic in the newspaper carries a message. Every emoji combination can be interpreted to say something. This is modern media.
A poster. A song. A movie. A painting. A tweet.
THESE ARE ALL MEDIA AND CAN BE READ LIKE A BOOK.
Let's get back to writing. Modern writing isn't just about creating new forms of media that have never been previously explored--a large percentage of writing is media analysis, where an existing text is broken down into elements and interpreted in a new text. This is the genesis of most academic writing in the humanities: "write an essay on the themes of Moby Dick," "draft a character study of your role in Hamlet," "describe Vasco de Gama's motivation to voyage based on his journals," etc. Yet analysis is just as important outside of academia. Critiques, from glowing Amazon product reviews to articles decrying the latest summer blockbuster as garbage, are analyses. Comments and discussions on media pervade online forums and news programs alike. Even casual conversations like "Who would win in a fight: Batman or Superman?" or "What is the best horror movie of all time?" depends on analysis.
So analysis is important, but how is it done? You instinctively make certain judgments about a text, such as if you like or dislike it, but this is not good enough for academic writing or even winning friendly arguments about how Batman would definitely win. For that, you need to dive into the realm of formal analysis, which follows the four steps below.
So analysis is important, but how is it done? You instinctively make certain judgments about a text, such as if you like or dislike it, but this is not good enough for academic writing or even winning friendly arguments about how Batman would definitely win. For that, you need to dive into the realm of formal analysis, which follows the four steps below.
STEP ONE: SKIM THE SURFACE
Imagine that, instead of talking about a text, we're talking about a pot of soup simmering on the stove top. Your goal (as with all food) is to eat the soup, where you will internalize it and break it down. That's essentially analysis: you metaphorically eat the text.
Now before you dive in, you'll want to see what kind of soup it is. Is it chicken noodle? Tortilla? Tomato bisque? Maybe it's not a soup at all, but more of a stew or chili. You would take the ladle and skim the surface to see what's in the soup before you filled your bowl.
With a text, you do the same thing. First, look over the text and determine the type of media: is it a story, an edifier, a poem, a play, a film, an image, etc? Different media need to be read in different ways, so you need to make sure you are looking at the right details. The rest of this article will be about the most typical media: a written text (story or edifier). To see how to read and discuss other types of media, click on the links below. Look at the title and determine who the writer or artist is. Look at the length and gauge how much time it will take you to read it.
Now before you dive in, you'll want to see what kind of soup it is. Is it chicken noodle? Tortilla? Tomato bisque? Maybe it's not a soup at all, but more of a stew or chili. You would take the ladle and skim the surface to see what's in the soup before you filled your bowl.
With a text, you do the same thing. First, look over the text and determine the type of media: is it a story, an edifier, a poem, a play, a film, an image, etc? Different media need to be read in different ways, so you need to make sure you are looking at the right details. The rest of this article will be about the most typical media: a written text (story or edifier). To see how to read and discuss other types of media, click on the links below. Look at the title and determine who the writer or artist is. Look at the length and gauge how much time it will take you to read it.
STEP TWO: READ AND ANNOTATE THE TEXT
If you are anything like me, you don't like wasting time and energy. So don't do it when your read. Typically, good students read a text once to get a sense of what it is about, then start writing their analysis, going back and rereading sections over and over looking for evidence (FYI, bad students don't do any rereading, but why focus on them?). This is a lot of time wasted going back and rereading what was already read. A better strategy is to read the story once, marking up the text in a way that the reader can go back and find evidence without rereading. This is formally called annotation, but I call it cutting a text. Here is how you CUT a text:
CUT: CIRCLE, UNDERLINE, TAKE NOTE
Circle anything you don't understand
Underline what's important
Take notes in the margins
Here's a more in-depth explanation of annotation:
Remember that these are general rules. If you want to, say, highlight in pink instead or circling and highlight in blue instead of underlining, go for it. Develop a system that works, yet stick to identifying what you need explained, what's important, and comments to yourself in the future. One final note when annotating: use it sparingly. There are college students who try this for the first time and highlight the whole damn page. That doesn't help you. There are others who write a detailed, multi-sentence note by every single line. That will also not help you. Annotation should be a quick system that does not take you out of the act of reading but helps you break up a text. You will not only need to work out a system that works well for you, but you will need to practice it before it becomes second nature.
- CIRCLE WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND: You cannot break down something you don't understand, so by circling this information, you are indicating text that has to be reread, maybe with an additional resource like a dictionary or reading guide. This could be as short as a obfuscating word or phrase to entire passages where you don't know what has happened or who is talking. When eating soup, sometimes you can't digest it without something additional: tortilla soup needs tortillas, chili needs cornbread, and some texts need an additional resource.
- UNDERLINE WHAT'S IMPORTANT: Everyone has a favorite element in a stew. For some, it's the beef; for others, the potatoes; still others like the carrots or broth or even (guh) the mushrooms. Some people dive around these favorites to save the best for last, while others make sure they are part of every bite and spread the love. Either way, identifying the best parts is important. In a text, this is the underlining of what's important in a text. This can vary from text to text: for a story, you would want to underline character names, plot events, powerful imagery, and interesting lines of dialogue, while for a edifier, you would want to underline people involved, key points and evidence, and interesting quotations from experts or witnesses. You especially want to underline anything you think has to do with the theme. Some readers even customize different types of underlines: straight for plot events, squiggly for character development, double underline for thematic tie-ins, etc.
- TAKE NOTES IN THE MARGINS: Think of this as a conversation with your future self. Just as when you are eating a great meal and think to yourself I need to get this recipe or What the hell is this purple chunk?, you will think various thoughts while reading the text. If something seems boring, take note of it. If a section has you hopelessly lost, circle it and take note of what you don't understand. If a character directly states the theme, underline it and write 'theme.' If a statistic comes from a study you want to look at, make the note 'research this later.' The more notes you make, the easier it is for future you to find exactly what you are looking for. Notes don't have to be elaborate sentences either. You can use symbols, like exclamation marks for big action moments, or single words.
Remember that these are general rules. If you want to, say, highlight in pink instead or circling and highlight in blue instead of underlining, go for it. Develop a system that works, yet stick to identifying what you need explained, what's important, and comments to yourself in the future. One final note when annotating: use it sparingly. There are college students who try this for the first time and highlight the whole damn page. That doesn't help you. There are others who write a detailed, multi-sentence note by every single line. That will also not help you. Annotation should be a quick system that does not take you out of the act of reading but helps you break up a text. You will not only need to work out a system that works well for you, but you will need to practice it before it becomes second nature.
STEP THREE: WHAT DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT?
After reading a text and making your notes, you will create a written analysis. Even if your assignment calls for a video or discussion board, you must start from an idea of what you want to discuss written down. But what should you discuss about the text? Most analyses have a summary, but this is not the same as an analysis. A summary is an objective description of events in a story or arguments in a rhetorical piece. Analyses, however, are always dependent of the subjective view of the reader. There are three main facets of analysis: story, substance, and style (sometimes listed as structure).
Write about story
- Who are the characters? What purpose does each serve in the story? Describe their physical details and relationship to other characters.
- Of all the characters, who tells the story, and why does than matter? (perspective)
- Where and when is the story set? How does this contribute to the action of the story?
- What is the conflict? How does it start? How does it build? How is it resolved? Describe how all the events connect. Did the plot happen in order or were there flashbacks?
Write about substance
- What was the theme--the message of the story? How did the events of the plot tie into this theme?
- How did the author use motifs, symbols, and archetypes to reinforce his or her message?
- What genre and structure did the author choose for the story? How does this influence the meaning of the story?
- Does the story belong to a literary movement-- a certain period where most art contained the same themes and ideas? If so, how does the story tie into this movement?
Writing about style
- What tone does the author use? Was it appropriate for the text?
- Does the author have vivid or dull imagery? Give examples. Why use this type of imagery?
- Does the author use complicated diction (jargon) or simple words and slang? Give examples. What is the effect of these words?
- Are the author’s sentences simple or complex? Does the author use run-ons, parentheticals, or fragments? How much dialogue is there? How does this affect the storytelling?
- Does the style ape the style of another author? Look for intertextuality, which is the creation of intentional connections between the text you are reading and another famous literary text. If there is intertextuality, describe it in detail.
STEP FOUR: CRITIQUE THE TEXT
Now that you have zeroed in on the story, substance, or style of the text, you should ask: is it effective? Remember that all writing has a specific purpose, and what a critique does is it evaluates the story, substance and style of a text and see if it successfully serves that purpose of not. For example, the class book How to Win Friends and Influence People has a very easy to identify purpose: to inform the reader of strategies for becoming more popular. Thus a critique of this book will revolve around asking if the book does a good job of informing a reader on popularity. Are the stories and anecdotes inside relatable and make sense to a reader? Are these tips with substance to them that resonate with readers? Is the style easy enough for the reader to follow?
Before you write a critique, you must determine your perspective on the subject: this is called a critical lens. Are you writing as just yourself, reacting to if you liked or disliked the text? (reader response) Are you writing as a literary scholar, looking at if a story fits standard definitions of quality? (formalism) Are you writing as a historian, looking at how the text connects into an author's life (biographical) or to society as a whole (new historicism)? Are you writing as a member of a specific community, like the Marxists (who look at power dynamics) or feminists (who look at the role of women) or ecologists (who look at the role of nature)?
Most critiques are through a reader response lens, which evaluates a text on a personal level. As everyone naturally has certain judgments about what they read, this requires no further knowledge. Other critical lenses require research and look at specific questions. In general, though, there are three main points every critique hits:
Before you write a critique, you must determine your perspective on the subject: this is called a critical lens. Are you writing as just yourself, reacting to if you liked or disliked the text? (reader response) Are you writing as a literary scholar, looking at if a story fits standard definitions of quality? (formalism) Are you writing as a historian, looking at how the text connects into an author's life (biographical) or to society as a whole (new historicism)? Are you writing as a member of a specific community, like the Marxists (who look at power dynamics) or feminists (who look at the role of women) or ecologists (who look at the role of nature)?
Most critiques are through a reader response lens, which evaluates a text on a personal level. As everyone naturally has certain judgments about what they read, this requires no further knowledge. Other critical lenses require research and look at specific questions. In general, though, there are three main points every critique hits:
- What works well? Does the plot make sense? Are the characters realistic and well developed? Is the author’s style engaging and appropriate for the subject matter?
- What could have been improved? What should have been done differently to make the text more successful?
- Would you recommend the text to a fellow reader? Elaborate why you would or would not.
ONE FINAL NOTE ON ANALYSIS
When you write an analysis, remember that it is in argument about how a text should be read. Treat it like any rhetorical essay: start with a thesis, support that thesis with reasonable claims, and provide evidence that back those claims with the reasoning that explains how it backs those claims. Once you decide what type of analysis you want to write, go back through your annotated text. Don't reread all of it-- if you annotated well, you can use it at a resource to provide evidence for whatever point you are arguing. Simply reread or research anything you circled and didn't understand, incorporate everything you underlines, and follow the notes past you left current you. Check out the edifiers tab for help with the style, editing, and format of a rhetorical piece.