When I got back my first draft last Thursday, I was dejected. I thought I had an argument, but when I read the paper again, there wasn't really anything there. It was just a bunch of plot summaries. My peer editors helped me pinpoint areas that I needed to work on, but what really helped were Natalia's comments. She asked me why I brought some examples up, why this and why that, etc. I thought about the answers, but I struggled and couldn't find any decent answer to her questions. It was a sign for me to change my argument altogether.
After days of pondering, I think I finally see an arguable connection in Sweet Cicely. I picked an entirely new passage, which is quite lengthy so I won't post it here. But here is my final thesis--or should I say, hypothesis:
"While the law may exercise power over the land, it is nowhere close to exercising power over the people. What truly governs them is the flame in their hearts."
I definitely plan to use Cicely and Samantha to develop the argument not only because they are the main featured characters in the story, but also because they are women. Butttt...what I'm more excited about is using Josiah, who is Samantha's husband, in the paper. I am excited because I realized a connection I can draw between him (a man, who had more rights back during that time) and the other two characters.
Good luck to everybody still working on their papers!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Yay! You seemed to have been "inspired"...or something along those lines. I read your paper, and hopefully you still keep some of your examples, because you had some good ones in your rough draft. =]
Don't feel dejected! The plot summary can help you pinpoint the focus as long as the plot summary stays out of the final draft.
Khang, I'm glad your paper seems to be falling into place. I have one question about your hypothesis, though. You write: "While the law may exercise power over the land, it is nowhere close to exercising power over the people. What truly governs them is the flame in their hearts." Is that a universal claim you're making, or is it what you see going on inside the world of the novel?
I'm also wondering what the difference between the "land" and the "people" is. Isn't Cicely stuck with having to let her executor use her money in ways she finds objectionable? Doesn't that mean she's governed by the law?
I'll be interested to read your explanations! I'm glad you're excited about your examples, too.
Post a Comment