Hey Alex - okay, so looking at this, I think I need to contradict my previous advice. If I was lecturing on this subject, I think I'd need to start by introducing Lolita fashion and defining it for the reader - i.e. where it developed from, it's cultural influence and so on. It just seems too abstracted for the reader if you're jumping into feminism (for what purpose? the reader won't know) etc. BUT - this means that chapter one can't get into the 'rights and wrongs' of the Lolita debate - it's literally just a historical/cultural overview of the sub-culture. Then you get into Chapter 2 which explores the relationship between fashion and gender performance and the thorny issue of the representation of femininity etc. However, what this structure requires is that you return to a specific artefact/example/instance of Lolita fashion that you can then dismantle/explore using the ideas you've established in Chapter 2 - so you're no longer talking about Lolita in general terms, you've identified a case-study within that which you think can be used proactively to have the debate you want. I've thought about this and if we don't get a context for Lolita fashion in Chapter 1, your reader won't care about anything else because they won't know why they're reading about the issues you're putting before them. Like I said, this means Chapter 1 isn't about the issues, it's about the development of the subculture, but it means that Chapter 3 needs to be specified around a particular use of the imagery, or a single practitioner or so on, and how this can be used to test/apply/challenge the ideas of your theorists in Chapter 2. Does that make sense?
Hey Alex - okay, so looking at this, I think I need to contradict my previous advice. If I was lecturing on this subject, I think I'd need to start by introducing Lolita fashion and defining it for the reader - i.e. where it developed from, it's cultural influence and so on. It just seems too abstracted for the reader if you're jumping into feminism (for what purpose? the reader won't know) etc. BUT - this means that chapter one can't get into the 'rights and wrongs' of the Lolita debate - it's literally just a historical/cultural overview of the sub-culture. Then you get into Chapter 2 which explores the relationship between fashion and gender performance and the thorny issue of the representation of femininity etc. However, what this structure requires is that you return to a specific artefact/example/instance of Lolita fashion that you can then dismantle/explore using the ideas you've established in Chapter 2 - so you're no longer talking about Lolita in general terms, you've identified a case-study within that which you think can be used proactively to have the debate you want. I've thought about this and if we don't get a context for Lolita fashion in Chapter 1, your reader won't care about anything else because they won't know why they're reading about the issues you're putting before them. Like I said, this means Chapter 1 isn't about the issues, it's about the development of the subculture, but it means that Chapter 3 needs to be specified around a particular use of the imagery, or a single practitioner or so on, and how this can be used to test/apply/challenge the ideas of your theorists in Chapter 2. Does that make sense?
ReplyDelete