Reference no: EM133556756

Discussion will be on "Disability and Sitcoms," by James Schultz.

Simply respond to the prompts below in any way you like:

Prompts:

1. I chose this article to work on this week as it can provide a model for thinking about you own final paper should you decide to return to your show or film for that final paper. In particular, note how Schultz is using research throughout the paper - research on disability, on gender, on sexuality, on television - but no research on Legit because there likely is none out there. Notice how he brings these different elements to bear on what he is saying about the show and the issue he is writing about.

For discussion - find a place in the article where Schultz uses some research and explain how you see him using it and/or how it fits in the overall argument of the paper.

For example:

In the section on Disability and Sexuality, on page 301, Schultz quotes Margrit Shildrick about the ways in which disabled people are "exclud[ed] from the very notion of sexual subjectivity" so regularly and without question that they are assumed to be asexual (301). Schultz uses this quote to help explain how Legit is doing something different with Billy and how remarkable the representation of his character as desiring and sexualized, and goes on to discuss Billy's place as a lead on the show and how he opens up more realistic representations of the disabled.

In other words, pick a place where Schultz is using research and think then write a bit about how he using it in that moment and in the broader context of the particular section.

2. James Schultz' argument in this essay holds that " [Legit] provides a narrative that successfully provides representations of disability that demonstrate agency, independence, and sexuality," but that "compulsory heterosexuality and the male gaze contribute to a normalization that interrupts the emancipatory potential of non-traditional notions of disability" (296).

There is quite a bit to unpack there, but to make it clear, he is basically saying that while the show is progressive in terms of its representation of disability, it ultimately frames disability in ways that weaken the progressive possibilities of the show. This is a pretty standard form of TV or film criticism: this show is doing this thing in great ways, but it also doing these other things that are not so great.