Whether in English, or in my native language of Japanese, these experiences have established the "chronic annotator" in me; they are why I will only ever annotate sources directly in their original form, leaving my words in the empty spaces. 

Though the annotation process is slightly different for Scholarly Secondary Sources, many of my "chronic annotater" instincts and habits still apply. 

⇓

The key: Comprehending the message of the author and absorbing why it is they chose to write the work they did. Ultimately, this will aid you, the reader, in your understanding of the topic, catapulting you to think further for yourself.

Thus, in my reading process, I emphasize most 

UNDERSTANDING and QUESTIONING. 

I will be using Rosalind Galt’s Pretty: Film and the Decorative Image, and specifically Chapter Six, “Forms: Soy Cuba and Revolutionary Beauty.” 

My first direction led me to the UCI Libraries Page. 

Here, I initially take note of the title, the author’s name, the cover, and its publication year. 

Scrolling down, you are provided with more details – these clue you in to the contents of the book. I view this initially viewing like piecing together hints in a mystery; I start to conjecture and hypothesize the standpoint of this author and the intent of the piece. 

My next step is to find out who is writing this text. This, I believe, is exceptionally important. 

The author’s expertise and viewpoints dictate every word they write, every word they don't, every observation they make, and every hypothesis they conjecture. 

You need to know through which lens the author is writing, and so it is crucial to understand their background. I will typically just start with a simple Google search.  

The top results are both University Faculty Profiles: these are Reliable Sources. 

I always make sure to fact check, however, with at least two sources either way. This comes from my background in journalism. The facts always must be straight and sorted. 

Here, we see she comes from a film background. Thus, we can piece together that her analysis of Soy Cuba in this chapter is going to be highly focused on the film aspects of the piece. Though she may utilize historical context about the Cuban Revolution, placing the film in the context of which it came from, her valuable tokens of insight will be in her sharp observations of the film techniques. 

I will start by looking at the title.

Upon looking at it, I realize that I do not fully understand the word “FORMS.” The word has multiple definitions, multiple meanings in different contexts. Knowing that Galt herself comes from a film perspective, I search for Forms in the context of Film. 

Another abbreviation I use in my annotating process is Q. 

As stated prior, I believe that the purpose of a scholarly secondary source is not only to inform and educate you, but to compel you to further the conversation and the research. Thus, I believe it is important to leave a record of the questions you have as you read. After finishing the source, you are then able to traverse backwards, making note of questions that were answered throughout the text and saving the questions that were left unanswered. 

Now, let's get into the body of the text:

From the first sentence, I gather a picture of what the section will be discussing. I take note of the two incommensurable subjects that the author lays out, taking note of them so it is fresh in my mind. In the margins, I jot a theory I have about the author’s use of the word “perceived." I also note the word “difficult” which conveys complexity and tension, noting that this must mean the article will go through multiple interpretations and viewpoints that surround “difficult” histories. 

As I scroll through the 23 pages to the bottom of the section, I take note of what I see. 

• There are labeled subsections, “Soy o No Soy Cuba?” “Revolutionary Closeness / Transnational Distance.” 

• She provides snapshots of the film, including:

  • • 3 pictures of the Enrique Story and, 

    • 2 of the Pedro Story. 

All of these elements provide me with an introductory understanding to what the author will be discussing. 

23 pages later at the bottom of the page, I read the concluding statement. It discusses “integration” of cinema and geopolitics, two key focuses that I want to spot throughout the source. Then, I spot the argument Galt hopes to make: “the pretty’s potential as a revolutionary aesthetic,” which I translate in my notes for my own understanding. 

By looking at the starting and concluding points, I now know what to search for as I read. 

Galt will be looking at the perceived incommensurability (and perhaps the actual commensurability) of both prettiness and political radicality and Latin American and European models of cinematic Marxism, which will then ultimately lead her to concluding that “pretty” cinema, or films made to be aesthetically pleasing and visually enticing, can actually be strong tools to spark revolutionary spirit.

As I read, my yellow highlights typically consist of words and phrases that I believe will be of use when I write my essay — these can be ideas I explore or direct quotations I can pull out. I use square brackets [  ] when there are sections I want to focus on, but they either simply help my knowledge or provide context; these sections do not need to be quoted in my essay, but perhaps could be paraphrased. I typically underline names and places so that I can go back and research them more thoroughly, and use an exclamation point symbol (!) when something surprises me or I read content that I did not know before. 

When I reach the thesis, I do a very thorough analysis in a different color so that it stands out. 

First, I take note of her action verbs: “I question,” “arguing,” “reexamining,” “read anew.” These words showcase the nuances of her approach to this essay and her intent of writing it: she is questioning a common assumption about the film, reexamining it in a new light, creating a new argument, thus culminating in a new reading and interpretation. 

This is when I look at her two very direct argumentations, which I underline in red. These include her statements about the “anti-pretty discourse” which has “constrained our historical perspective,” and her argument that Soy Cuba “weaves a revolutionary vision out of… beautiful cinematic form.” 

header image: BluPrint