(Demonstrators protest on the National Mall in Washington, DC, for the Women’s march on January 21, 2017. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds / AFP/Getty Images)
- This Post concerns the analysis of the women’s march in the article “Pink ‘Pussyhat’ Creator Addresses Criticism Over Name” through the eyes of the primary text “What are Multimodal projects?” from ArolaSheppardBall.
The two texts are polar opposites. The ArolaSheppardBall piece is a very specific academic work concerning the use of multimodality and different forms of modality. Whereas the article concerning the women’s march is from a news source, and the article concerns the use of various opinions from different demographics. Because these two works are so diametrically opposed the hardest part was figuring out what kind of annotation to produce. The Haltman text had more depth to it, so annotating from it was a bit easier. Since the modality text is very straight to the point and matter of fact it reads like an instruction manual more than a scholarly text. In light of this fact creating an in depth analysis of my supplemental text based off the modality text was difficult. You might find most of my annotations lacking a certain amount of depth found in my first reading response, although I tried to dig as deep as I could.
What I learned from this reading response was that not all scholary texts are as detailed as one might expect, as you can see comparing Haltman and the ArolaSheppardBall text. I also learned that my critical thinking skills can be stunted when given two very discordant pieces of work. The texts taught me that the types of modality you choose can really affect the meaning of what you’re trying to create. The types of modality chosen each convey something different to each person who experiences that, so it’s up to you to find the right balance of modalities and affordances to coordinate the correct interpretation.