An analysis of character sketch

Creation and development Concept left Jerry Robinson 's concept sketch of the Joker. Veidt's grinning visage inspired the Joker design. Bill FingerBob Kaneand Jerry Robinson are credited with creating the Joker, but their accounts of the character's conception differ, each providing his own version of events. Finger's, Kane's, and Robinson's versions acknowledge that Finger produced an image of actor Conrad Veidt in character as Gwynplaine a man with a disfigured face, giving him a perpetual grin in the film The Man Who Laughs as an inspiration for the Joker's appearance, and Robinson produced a sketch of a joker playing card right.

An analysis of character sketch

Well I've had this: As was noted above, the choice of details to be included in a transcript is to a large extent based on the insights developed within CA, especially those concerning the sequential organization of talk c.

[BINGSNIPMIX-3

But, at the same time, many researchers in CA emphasize that transcriptions should not be made with a specific research problem or hypothesis in mind. The ideal would be to have a large corpus of very detailed transcripts that can be used to locate and analyze specific phenomena.

For reporting purposes one could then use selected simplified transcripts c. The fact that the transcription system is especially focussed on representing the sequential organization of talk is in accord with CA's basic conception of talk-in-interaction.

At any moment, the future development of the interaction - what in transcripts is to the right and below what is noted - is to a large extent open and yet to be produced by the interactants themselves, in ways that are not in the hands of anyone of them.

Talk-in-interaction is factually always 'closed to the left' and 'open to the right'. While an openness to interactional negotiation may be rather obvious when one considers future developments, it is, in a sense, also true for the present and the past.

It can be demonstrated in many cases that, for the participants themselves, what an utterance 'means' and what it 'does' - its semantic and pragmatic import - is not fixed, once it is produced, but is liable to be defined and redefined, in short negotiated, in utterances following it.

These essential properties of conversation are consequential for the study of its organization. The fact that speakers understand an utterance by reference to its turn-within-sequence character provides a central resource for both the participants and the overhearing analyst to make sense of the talk.

So, while utterance 1 may display a specific conception of what's going on, utterance 2 will contain a similar or different conception, after which the speaker of utterance 1 may react to that in utterance 3, possibly with another version c.

In fact, in 'repair sequences' such a negotiation structure is often quite clear. But also in less outspoken cases, such processes of interactional negotiation and accommodation are going on continuously c. As was suggested in the last quote, these circumstances are an important resource for the conversation analyst, or, as I will argue later, one major 'support strategy' for CA.

The analyst should always compare his readings of the meaning of an utterance with the readings demonstrated in utterances following the target one. No definite 'prove' is provided, however, for, as Heritage and Atkinson Subsequent utterances are not to be seen as an unproblematic window on co-participants' minds.

An analysis of character sketch

Many critics of CA, however, seem to suggest that such is the basic objective of CA. To my mind, the interpretation of the meaning of utterances for participants is not an end in itself, but one possible means to an end, which is the analysis of conversational organization.

The earlier noted fact that many papers in CA do not contain programmatic explanations, has as one possible effect that readers are not informed on the specific research objectives and strategies of CA.

Such a lack of background knowledge may be one reason why criticisms of CA often make the impression of just missing the point of what CA is all about. For this reason, it seems worthwhile to pursue my explications of CA's basic objectives, before dealing with some of these criticisms.

The best way to do so, to my mind, is to connect CA's practice back to the position of ethnomethodology, from which it has been developed.

Before I will do that, I will give one more quote, this time from a transcribed lecture of Harvey Sacks 6 The gross aim of the work I am doing is to see how finely the details of actual, naturally occurring conversation can be subjected to analysis that will yield the technology of conversation.

The idea is to take singular sequences of conversation and tear them apart in such a way as to find rules, techniques, procedures, methods, maxims a collection of terms that more or less relate to each other and that I use somewhat interchangeably that can be used to generate the orderly features we find in the conversations we examine.

The point is, then, to come back to the singular things we observe in a singular sequence, with some rules that handle those singular features, and also, necessarily, handle lots of other events. Harold Garfinkel has derived the problem of social order and the notion of membership from Talcott Parsons' theory of action.

But the way in which he has tackled it is mainly derived from the phenomenological tradition, especially 'the constitutive phenomenology of the natural attitude' as conceived by Alfred Schutz.

In ethnomethodology, whatever is the case for members may be studied in a procedural fashion. The central idea is that members are continuously, in every moment of their waking life, engaged in establishing what may be reasonably assumed to exist, by connecting whatever presents itself to their attention with elements of their stock of knowledge.

This knowledge consists, as Schutz has argued, of typifications and recipes, such as action-types, person-types and course-of-action types c. Members demonstrate their competence by showing that and how they know what is the case by connecting 'indexical particulars', context-specific information, in a reasonable manner with generally available knowledge, 'what any competent member knows'.

So by fitting 'cases' to 'types', a reasonable world is constituted Garfinkel,especially p. Since ethnomethodology has an interest in the procedural study of common sense as it is used practically, it is faced with a peculiar methodological problem.

This may be glossed as 'the problem of the invisibility of common sense'. Members have a practical rather than a theoretical interest in their constitutive work 8.

They take common sense and its constitutive practices for granted, unless some sorts of 'trouble' make attention necessary. So an early strategy of Garfinkel was to 'breach' expectations in order to generate this kind of trouble Garfinkel, For ethnomethodology, common sense practices are the topic of study, but those practices are also, unavoidably, used as a resource for any study one may try to undertake.

Without the use of common sense, its object of study would be simply unavailable, because it is constituted by the application of common sense methods, such as 'the documentary method of interpretation' Garfinkel, So the problem for ethnomethodology is how common sense practices and common sense knowledge can lose their status as an unexamined 'resource', in order to be a 'topic' for analysis c.

Formulated in this way, it is a double-faced problem: This double-sided problem seems to be in principle unsolvable, one is bound to lose either the resource or the topic.Use this reader's response activity to analyze the characters in any book.

Print and collect your scrapbook pages. The Joker is a fictional supervillain created by Bill Finger, Bob Kane, and Jerry Robinson who first appeared in the debut issue of the comic book Batman (April 25, ), published by DC timberdesignmag.com for the Joker's creation is disputed; Kane and Robinson claimed responsibility for the Joker's design, while acknowledging Finger's writing contribution.

What is a Character Analysis Essay? In a deeper sense, this is a type of essay which requires an understanding of the character in question.

These kinds of essays are used to analyze characters in a literary piece. One of the aims would be to make a profile and analyze characters well. What Is . METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN CONVERSATION ANALYSIS by Paul ten HaveĀ©, University of Amsterdam Abstract Conversation Analysis (CA), a research tradition that grew out of ethnomethodology, has some unique methodological features.

Get free homework help on William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet: play summary, scene summary and analysis and original text, quotes, essays, character analysis, and filmography courtesy of CliffsNotes.

In William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, a long feud between the Montague and Capulet families disrupts the city of Verona and . Click on "Learn more about this agency" button below for IMPORTANT additional information. The primary purpose of this position is to perform day to day control and management involving the formulation, execution and/or anlysis of the organization's budget and funding requirements.

Character | Define Character at timberdesignmag.com