Emma RichardsonEnglish Department

The Mississippi School for Mathematics and Science

Columbus, Mississippi

 The “multi-genre” response to texts is an opportunity for you to respond to a work of literature in a “non-print” way. You can call on your interests and talents in the arts and/or technology to demonstrate that you understand the major theme(s) of the work and/or understand the stylistic devices used by the author to create the work.

The “multi-genre” response will be presented to the class, and it will supplement an oral presentation of your ideas.

It is important that your “multi-genre” project be tied directly to the text. For that reason it is good to include with the project a quotation or set of quotations from the text.

Multi-genre projects which students have done in the past include:

Sculptures (for example, a figure made of wax that appears to be melting which makes concrete Hamlet’s metaphorical statement, Oh that this too, too solid flesh would melt or figures made of Styrofoam encircled by an embroidery hoop which make concrete Polonius’s metaphorical statement, Those friends thou hast and their adoption tried / Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel, or the egg made of plaster of Paris and carved with figures depicting Gerard Manley Hopkins’ line, Thrushes’ eggs look little low heavens)

Models (for example, Mr. Sowerberry’s snuffbox in the shape of a coffin made of balsa wood or the scene from Cold Mountain—replete with running water—which shows the dead bull damning the flow of the stream)

  Drawings—two dimensional ones are best (for example, the poster of “Pied Beauty” with glasses attached by a cord which show imaginatively what Hopkins was looking through when he wrote the poem or the poster of Hamlet and Fortinbras with the heads that “open up” to reveal the thought processes of the two men)

The multi-genre response to a text will be assessed according to the following criteria:

› Appropriateness to text› Uniqueness› Evidence of “time spent”› Aesthetic quality

The 4 response shows clear evidence that it is tied directly to the text; it is a singular and innovative response; it shows evidence that much time has been spent in its rendering; it has exceptionally high aesthetic quality.

 The 3 response shows clear evidence that it is tied directly to the text; however, the response is not unique; while it makes an attempt at uniqueness, its execution does not show innovation; it shows some evidence of time spent in its rendering; it has good aesthetic quality.

The 2 response makes an attempt to be tied to the text; it is “pedestrian” or “predictable” in its rendering; it shows little evidence of time spent in its creation; it has little aesthetic appeal.

The 1 response is not clearly tied to the text; it is not unique; it shows little evidence of time spent; it has little or no aesthetic appeal.

I am indebted to Gabriel Liegey, Network Technician at The Mississippi School for Mathematics and Science, for preparing this PowerPoint presentation.