The topic for the second assignment is available here, and also over there in the sidebar. Feel free to respond to this post with questions or concerns about the assignment.
UPDATE: the version of the assignment that was linked to from Friday to Sunday morning was incomplete. The link now takes you to the entire assignment handout (the one that was handed out in class on Friday).
And, for what it's worth, Tristram Shandy's method of writing: "I begin by writing the first sentence,--and trusting to Almighty God for the second."
5 comments:
After reading the second assignment, I have one question. What do you mean when you say choose something that has broader implications beyond the close reading of one or two texts?
Anchoria refers to the following part of the instructions: "(1) Identify some part of its argument that (a) interests you and (b) has broader implications beyond the close reading of one or two texts."
In all of the books you are look at, there will be places where the author offers an interpretive argument that is specific to one or two novels or poems or plays. Such an argument will advocate a particular way of reading a particular text, but it may not speak to other related texts. Such an argument will therefore not be very useful for you in completing this assignment, as it will not give you much scope for applying the author's ideas to a text of your own choosing.
I have a couple questions. In response to requirement b (reflect an accurate understanding of the primary text), does that mean you would like a summary or background of the whole text or only the excerpt I am using in my argument (i.e. if I only want to use a prologue or one stanza..)?
As for requirement d, are you asking us to come up with original interpretations...what if I do already agree with the author's arguments? Thanks!
I have a question about the type of source we are supposed to compare our original book to for the analysis. We are supposed to pick an argument from the book we got for our presentation and compare/contrast/critique its argument based on another secondary source regarding the same general topic? For instance, my book is on print culture, so is the secondary source that I use for my analysis have to be about print culture too? Or can it be about mass production of theater or media publication, etc.?
Requirement b on the paper specifies "primary text," which seems to be the source of PMV's confusion. Your paper should involve ONE secondary text (the one you selected for your group project) and ONE primary text (something written in the later C18, but not a text your group used, and not one that your secondary text explicitly addresses).
You don't have to summarize an entire long text to fulfill requirement b, but you do need to convey enough information that your reader can follow your critique of the secondary source. Points will be deducted if your analysis of that primary text reveals some significant misunderstanding about what the primary text is saying.
Your interpretive conclusions can be something along the lines of "...and therefore, Secondary Text A is totally right!" but you will produce a more interesting paper if you find ways to push your ideas a little farther than that. E.g., "It's really interesting that the conclusions of [Secondary Text] apply to well to [Seemingly Unrelated Primary Text] because it shows that...." or "In confirming the conclusions of [Secondary Text], [Related Primary Text] suggests some further implication of the authors views: [specify those implications here]."
Post a Comment