You will submit a report on the reaction you had regarding two readings. These Readings are located bellow as a two filles (reading1) and (reading 2).
So what are some guidelines? Start by offering ideas of what you think is the role of a critic. Is it where to spend your money? What to see? Do you let them tell you what is good or bad? Are critics making you feel inferior and telling you about all the symbolism you missed, or how the piece is genius but only experts (like them) will get it, or how derivative this work is when compared to Russian-Absurdist-Dadaist-Postmodern trends (as if ANYONE but the critic would argue this point)? Do you understand what the critic is trying to say? Let me know what you think critics are for, and then tell me what you thought of the two Greenday reviews you read. After you have told me what you thought of the reviews, you will then tell me WHY you have that opinion of the reviews. You will support your thesis statement with an objective view of your point of view. You will observe, analyze and then comment on a review.
You will be graded on your ability to state your point of view and then back that point of view up. This is not the defense of your doctoral dissertation, but you need to start figuring out why things appeal (or not) to you. You will also be evaluated on your understanding of the tasks of critics, and how well those tasks were completed.
You will be evaluated according to the Rubric for the Greenday Review, and please pay attention to the submission formats for your review. If you are quoting from some source somewhere, make sure to include a “Sources Cited” page or something to that effect.