Hi, I’m slightly altering this section which should bring out this discussion a little more. However, I don’t want to go too much down this line as it will take me away from the focus of the chapter. Point taken though.
I’m referring here to my focus being on a specific part of the public debate about television, that of the work of television critics. This is a discourse which broadcasters, to varying degrees, also play a role which needs to be taken account of. I will see if I can slightly rejig this to make it clearer.
hi, in light of some of the changes I’m undertaking in relation to the chatper I will have to rewrite this abstract. As I do so I will take into account your comments. best
Paul
Given your description of critics as “public arbiters of taste,” and your invocation of Bourdieu here, perhaps this paragraph needs to be fleshed out a bit to discuss theories of taste and the “certain values” you point to here in more detail.
Would it be helpful to move this part to the shorter, previous section on digital technology? I feel it could make a stronger point there since it is less about city life and more about technologies and how Sherlock deals with factual knowledge.
I feel the first part is too detailed on the ASDP/anxieties, when compared to how technology is analyzed in the second part (It makes me assume this was your division in writing as well?) What I like about this part is the close-reading of Holmes his methods as well as Sherlock’s. I feel this could be more included in the second part too so that the essay becomes nicely balanced. I also feel that these comparisons between the original and the adaptation (in terms of urbanisation/scientific methods etc) are at the heart of the essay, hence the comment.
I feel that the explanation of John’s phone, which is described earlier at the start of the introduction, comes a bit late. Perhaps you can refer to the intro in a sentence or so? Perhaps it’s just me being inattentive for a moment, but I had to rethink what you were referring to because I only read it as a short example.
Dear Anne and Melanie, I found this a particularly rich essay to read, it’s nicely written and touches upon some relevant aspects of the series and its original. Below I shall give a few comments in their respective paragraphs.
Like Louisa, I feel the argumentation and ‘agenda’ of the essay is not shown enough here. You are very specific in this paragraph, but perhaps a bit too much; it makes it difficult to pinpoint the main argument that should guide the reader through the essay.
Agreed that the discourse in the popular press is key, and I’m happy to see this contribution to the anthology. One note here, on the sentence that begins “It is part of the public(ally?) mediated debate…”: Are you referring to official press/promotional materials here in your discussion of how the program is framed for the viewer and debates are guided? Or are you referring to how the critical discourse in the popular press performs this function? It’s unclear here.
Recent Comments in this Document
July 7, 2011 at 5:32 am
Hi, I’m slightly altering this section which should bring out this discussion a little more. However, I don’t want to go too much down this line as it will take me away from the focus of the chapter. Point taken though.
See in context
July 7, 2011 at 5:28 am
I’m referring here to my focus being on a specific part of the public debate about television, that of the work of television critics. This is a discourse which broadcasters, to varying degrees, also play a role which needs to be taken account of. I will see if I can slightly rejig this to make it clearer.
See in context
July 7, 2011 at 5:18 am
hi, in light of some of the changes I’m undertaking in relation to the chatper I will have to rewrite this abstract. As I do so I will take into account your comments. best
Paul
See in context
July 5, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Given your description of critics as “public arbiters of taste,” and your invocation of Bourdieu here, perhaps this paragraph needs to be fleshed out a bit to discuss theories of taste and the “certain values” you point to here in more detail.
See in context
July 4, 2011 at 11:32 am
Would it be helpful to move this part to the shorter, previous section on digital technology? I feel it could make a stronger point there since it is less about city life and more about technologies and how Sherlock deals with factual knowledge.
See in context
July 4, 2011 at 11:28 am
I feel the first part is too detailed on the ASDP/anxieties, when compared to how technology is analyzed in the second part (It makes me assume this was your division in writing as well?) What I like about this part is the close-reading of Holmes his methods as well as Sherlock’s. I feel this could be more included in the second part too so that the essay becomes nicely balanced. I also feel that these comparisons between the original and the adaptation (in terms of urbanisation/scientific methods etc) are at the heart of the essay, hence the comment.
See in context
July 4, 2011 at 11:24 am
I feel that the explanation of John’s phone, which is described earlier at the start of the introduction, comes a bit late. Perhaps you can refer to the intro in a sentence or so? Perhaps it’s just me being inattentive for a moment, but I had to rethink what you were referring to because I only read it as a short example.
See in context
July 4, 2011 at 11:20 am
Dear Anne and Melanie, I found this a particularly rich essay to read, it’s nicely written and touches upon some relevant aspects of the series and its original. Below I shall give a few comments in their respective paragraphs.
See in context
July 4, 2011 at 11:19 am
Like Louisa, I feel the argumentation and ‘agenda’ of the essay is not shown enough here. You are very specific in this paragraph, but perhaps a bit too much; it makes it difficult to pinpoint the main argument that should guide the reader through the essay.
See in context
July 2, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Agreed that the discourse in the popular press is key, and I’m happy to see this contribution to the anthology. One note here, on the sentence that begins “It is part of the public(ally?) mediated debate…”: Are you referring to official press/promotional materials here in your discussion of how the program is framed for the viewer and debates are guided? Or are you referring to how the critical discourse in the popular press performs this function? It’s unclear here.
See in context