As the summer session comes to a close, there seems to be more work than ever. I find myself rushing to get everything done, with only a few hours to eat and sleep. I'm a very nocturnal person which is why I'm working on revising my research paper till 4 in the morning. However, during the breaks I take while I write, I've come to reflect on how this class has affected me as writer. As a final post to the blog, I thought it would be appropriate to share my experiences writing in English N1B.
Today during class, Natalia mentioned the importance of detaching yourself from your writing a little. When she said this, I felt like she was referring specifically to me. (This does seem egocentric of me.) Often when I write, I become emotionally attached to my writing, and I feel like the final product is a great achievement. Somehow, the paper I had just written was a part of me, and I had just put down a part of me on paper. A finished essay is only satisfying to me if I feel that the paper went the way I wanted it to go. When writing gets frustrating, it can ruin my mood for the rest of the day. This prevents me from being productive and lends itself to procrastination. This is how I felt about this final research paper which took me awhile to even start the revision process, because I already knew how unhappy I was with my first draft. I know writing isn't supposed to be perfect, but I at least want to be happy with what I had created. Fortunately, I'm happy now with my final draft, and hopefully, it's better for my readers.
This is very different from my experience writing the reading paper. With that one, I had a clear vision of what I wanted my paper to look like in the end, and I worked it out the way I had planned. Even the revision process seemed to come naturally, because I felt like the paper was only getting better and better.
I took this class thinking it would give me more practice in constructing analytical essays since I have to write a lot of essays in Gender and Women's Studies. One of my weaknesses in writing is not having enough analysis in my paper. Many times, I receive my paper back with comments such as: "This is a good start, but I would like you to go deeper in the analysis." I still received these kinds of comments on my paper, but hopefully I've gotten better.
Anyway, I hope everyone is working hard or even done with their paper. Good luck and I hope everyone enjoys the last 10 days left of summer.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Sweet Cicely
I would just like to turn your attention to Chapter 7 in Sweet Cicely because I feel that it exemplifies one of the greatest flaws in out government system. Politicians and even ordinary people are so quick to pass the responsibility to another person. We see Samantha first approach the President who then refers her to James G. Blaine who then refers her to Senator Logan, who then sends her to William Wallace, and this pattern continues until Samantha is tired out. The problem is not that there lacks a central person who can address Ms. Dorlesky's errand, but that all these men are responsible for the corruption of the system. There is no one person Samantha can possibly turn to; even the President can't help her.
Even today, we see how easily people pass the blame to other people in higher positions. There is no doubt that our political representatives (i.e. mayor, senator, governor, president) have a responsibility to serve the people, but too often I feel that people often put the blame on politicians without looking at how they may be contributing to the problem. The country's problems will only progress for the better if more people take responsibility for the problem and collectively seek a solution. As we can see through Samantha's failed attempt to lobby politicians for women's rights, one person is not very effective. It takes a whole mass of people who are in support of each other to get something done. Our government officials can only do so much, and sometimes they do nothing at all, which gives the ordinary people more reason to take up the problems society faces.
Even today, we see how easily people pass the blame to other people in higher positions. There is no doubt that our political representatives (i.e. mayor, senator, governor, president) have a responsibility to serve the people, but too often I feel that people often put the blame on politicians without looking at how they may be contributing to the problem. The country's problems will only progress for the better if more people take responsibility for the problem and collectively seek a solution. As we can see through Samantha's failed attempt to lobby politicians for women's rights, one person is not very effective. It takes a whole mass of people who are in support of each other to get something done. Our government officials can only do so much, and sometimes they do nothing at all, which gives the ordinary people more reason to take up the problems society faces.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Progress towards a final draft
I’ve been a little caught up with all the revision for the final draft. The peer review and Natalia’s comments have been incredibly helpful in allowing me to understand some of the problems with my argument. My paper focuses on the commentary on Transcendentalism and Fourierism in The Blithedale Romance, specifically as it relates to the type of society they envision. When I was doing my research, I took it for granted that the apparent reflections of Transcendental and Fourierist philosophy within the novel were indications that he was attacking the social framework they envisioned. For example, I use the similarities between certain personal attitudes of Hollingsworth and Coverdale in Transcendentalist philosophy, which are seen as being personally and socially harmful, as indicating that the social system implied by this ideology was incoherent and incapable of being realized. On reflection, it is unwarranted to make this conclusion. Very little I wrote in my paper actually discussed the relationship between the structure of Blithedale itself and the two philosophies. My research proposal was oriented towards utopian socialism, so naturally I wanted to extend what I noticed in the novel as meaning that the variant of utopian socialism prescribed by these two ideologies is problematic, when in fact I don’t really present much evidence for it.
To remedy this problem, I’m moving towards focusing on the personal aspects of Transcendentalism and Fourierism. What I found critical in The Blithedale Romance of both philosophies was largely focused on the individual. Neither philosophy worked properly in the characters, to the extent they adopted them. I’m not entirely sure to what extent utopian socialism will play a role once I’m done, considering the change of focus. Regardless, I think I have a clearer notion now of what argument I should make.
The Declaration of Sentiments
Reading Sweet Cicely brought to mind questions about what rights women lacked in the 19th century, so I decided to look into it. Most of the stuff I kept finding was about women's rights in England, which is wasn't what I was concerned with, but after some digging around on Wikipedia, I found the Declaration of Sentiments, which was signed in Seneca, New York, and was modeled after the Declaration of Independence.
After a short introduction similar to the Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of Sentiments gives the following list of transgressions:
"Elective franchise," in the above, refers to the right to vote, but other than that I think it is pretty easy to understand. Most of them involve suffrage in some way, which indicates that women probably viewed that as the most fundamental of the rights they lacked. For the most part, I think these are legitimate complaints, although some I don't really think are legitimate rights (for anybody, not just women), such as the third-to-last item on the list, since it amounts to a claim on a particular standard of moral judgment, which is really outside the scope of political rights.
I did find this interesting, just because it gives a more explicit reference point for many of the issues being raised in Sweet Cicely.
After a short introduction similar to the Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of Sentiments gives the following list of transgressions:
- He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.
- He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.
- He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men - both natives and foreigners.
- Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.
- He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.
- He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.
- He has made her morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master - the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.
- He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women - the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of a woman, and giving all power into his hands.
- After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.
- He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration.
- He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.
- He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education - all colleges being closed against her.
- He allows her in church, as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.
- He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man.
- He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.
- He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.
"Elective franchise," in the above, refers to the right to vote, but other than that I think it is pretty easy to understand. Most of them involve suffrage in some way, which indicates that women probably viewed that as the most fundamental of the rights they lacked. For the most part, I think these are legitimate complaints, although some I don't really think are legitimate rights (for anybody, not just women), such as the third-to-last item on the list, since it amounts to a claim on a particular standard of moral judgment, which is really outside the scope of political rights.
I did find this interesting, just because it gives a more explicit reference point for many of the issues being raised in Sweet Cicely.
Hawthorne and Feminism
After turning in my first draft I realized I still had a lot of work to do. I didn't have a defined thesis and my paper had too much research and not enough analysis.
In my paper I wanted to prove that Hawthorne uses the novel to criticize Margaret Fuller and the Feminist Movement of the 19th century. Hawthorne was basically a cultural analyst. Like any author, he wrote about what he knew and was passionate about and that was his culture and society. His works essentially became the social commentary of the time.
During his time, in the 19th century, is when the first wave of Feminism spawned and it would only be fitting that Hawthorne would write about it. It becomes lucid through Hawthorne and the rest of 19th century New England was not supportive of the movement. Hawthorne uses Blithedale to criticize Fuller, who spearheaded the Feminist Movement, and the movement itself.
Arguments:
In my paper I wanted to prove that Hawthorne uses the novel to criticize Margaret Fuller and the Feminist Movement of the 19th century. Hawthorne was basically a cultural analyst. Like any author, he wrote about what he knew and was passionate about and that was his culture and society. His works essentially became the social commentary of the time.
During his time, in the 19th century, is when the first wave of Feminism spawned and it would only be fitting that Hawthorne would write about it. It becomes lucid through Hawthorne and the rest of 19th century New England was not supportive of the movement. Hawthorne uses Blithedale to criticize Fuller, who spearheaded the Feminist Movement, and the movement itself.
Arguments:
- Hawthorne is influenced by the Puritan Faith, which defines the traditional role of Women
- 19th Century New England was not supportive of the movement
- Zenobia parallels Margaret Fuller
- Zenobia fails, she falls for Westervelt and Hollingsworth; Women's down fall is emotion
- Zenobia's character would not be possible in the 19th century
- Success of Priscilla and her embodiment of Women
Argument Analysis
So my original research paper was a bit too simplistic - it mostly focused on whether Hawthorne considered prison reform was "good" or "bad." I know, especially after Natalia's comments, that I need to go much more in-depth with my research. I haven't come up with very many ideas yet, but I got one so far...
Maybe Hawthorne is trying to, instead of simply speaking out against reform, show how people do not have the right, good intentions in mind. He seems to be criticizing reformers also, and thus I think that he is bitter against people who claim to be helpful or philanthropic, but are in fact living a lie. For this, I might even have to research a bit about specific reformers such as Theodore Parker or Samuel Howe. But, as I ponder more, I think I could make a viable argument that connects Hawthorne's negative views on reform to his criticism on the people/society itself. In fact, this relates to one of my quotes that stated "that man's efforts to improve society will continue to accomplish nothing until the[reformer's] heart is purified" (Turner 705). While this is ambiguous by itself, taken into context, one can see that Hawthorne is criticizing reformers. A similar argument could be that Hawthorne is trying to tell reformers themselves, instead of warning others, that they should set some real goals that could accomplish something.
I keep looking back at my paper and realize that Natalia was definitely right, and my argument was basically saying "Hawthorne thought reform was bad." I'm going to go look into this new argument, and maybe even think of some more. Hopefully I can go more in-depth.
Turner, Arlin. "Hawthorne and Reform." The New England Quarterly 15 (1942): 700-714. JSTOR. Berkeley. 24 July 2008.
Maybe Hawthorne is trying to, instead of simply speaking out against reform, show how people do not have the right, good intentions in mind. He seems to be criticizing reformers also, and thus I think that he is bitter against people who claim to be helpful or philanthropic, but are in fact living a lie. For this, I might even have to research a bit about specific reformers such as Theodore Parker or Samuel Howe. But, as I ponder more, I think I could make a viable argument that connects Hawthorne's negative views on reform to his criticism on the people/society itself. In fact, this relates to one of my quotes that stated "that man's efforts to improve society will continue to accomplish nothing until the[reformer's] heart is purified" (Turner 705). While this is ambiguous by itself, taken into context, one can see that Hawthorne is criticizing reformers. A similar argument could be that Hawthorne is trying to tell reformers themselves, instead of warning others, that they should set some real goals that could accomplish something.
I keep looking back at my paper and realize that Natalia was definitely right, and my argument was basically saying "Hawthorne thought reform was bad." I'm going to go look into this new argument, and maybe even think of some more. Hopefully I can go more in-depth.
Turner, Arlin. "Hawthorne and Reform." The New England Quarterly 15 (1942): 700-714. JSTOR. Berkeley. 24 July 2008.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
The Conjure...Radioactive Celery!!!
I do have to admit that the Olympics were rather distracting but worth the time spent on watching. As far as the research paper is concerned, I also had issues with differentiating my own analyses from research. I also noticed that much of my research paper has some of the ideas taken from my original reading paper. Instead of simply repeating, I tried to use those observations and analyses to draw further conclusions about the similarities between the setting in the book and the historical setting for Chesnutt.
Why is procrastination so hard to fight? I was planning on revising my paper and finishing Sweet Cicely. Instead, I spent some time making radioactive celery in my kitchen. Why am I so easily distracted?
Why is procrastination so hard to fight? I was planning on revising my paper and finishing Sweet Cicely. Instead, I spent some time making radioactive celery in my kitchen. Why am I so easily distracted?
Oh Academia...
So I went to office hours on Thursday and what I found out was that my analysis really got meshed together with my research. Robert Stanton wrote an essay on Nature and the Spirit in Blithedale, which I saw as awesome support for my paper about Nature and Spirit. However, I realized that I didn't differentiate between his opinions and my own. Basically, a lot of my revision will be to streamline my paper so I'm not being repetitive and to ensure that I am expanding on the relationship between Nature and Spirit, not simply agreeing with Stanton and my other sources. Good luck everyone, only one more week left!
Nick G.
Nick G.
Hawthorne's Preface: Contradictory?
I have been analyzing Hawthorne’s preface a lot and trying to figure out exactly what he is saying. Right now, to me, it seems like he is contradicting himself. He says he put parts of Brook Farm into his novel “in hope of giving a more lifelike tint to the fancy-sketch” (1). Thus, he implies that he wants his romance to seem realistic. However, he then says he does not want “too close a comparison with the actual events of real lives” to be made (1).
How can he have it both ways? How can he make a realistic romance based on “his actual reminiscences” (1) without comparisons being drawn between reality and his fiction?
He wants to be “allowed a license with regard to every-day Probability,” or in other words, to be able to create a completely fictitious story, but he wants to simultaneously prevent “the render[ing of] the paint and pasteboard of [his characters’] composition but too painfully discernible” (2). Essentially, he wants the freedom to create fake characters--that do not seem fake--by using his real life experiences as a basis—and not inspire any comparisons between these experiences and the novel.
Somehow Hawthorne thinks that, by using Brook Farm as a basis for his novel, he is preventing his characters from being compared with real living beings and, in result, from appearing fake. Obviously, this is impossible. Hawthorne cannot make his fictitious characters seem real by using his personal experiences while still maintaining their integrity as separate entities from real-life counterparts. Specifically, Hawthorne cannot base Coverdale on himself just to make him seem more real without the inevitable comparisons being drawn between the two.
So how does this relate to my research question (“How does Hawthorne relate to Coverdale?”)? Well, I’m trying to figure out exactly what all the similarities between Hawthorne and Coverdale that I’ve found mean. My analysis of the preface is one direction I can go, but I’m still trying to relate it back to my research meaningfully.
Maybe I can analyze how Hawthorne puts himself into Coverdale to give a “lifelike tint” to the romance, but illogically wants to prevent the inevitable comparisons from being drawn between the two. Perhaps I can look at Hawthorne’s obsession with how reality’s peeking through the veil of fiction makes the fiction seem even more unreal (as Zenobia suggests during Tablaux vivants on page 106). It seems Hawthorne’s hiding behind Coverdale makes his character ultimately seem more unreal.
I still can’t figure out exactly what can be revealed from my comparisons between Hawthorne and Coverdale! As of now, I don’t even have an argument to work with, just a bunch of similarities between Hawthorne and Coverdale; I hope I can come up with something.
How can he have it both ways? How can he make a realistic romance based on “his actual reminiscences” (1) without comparisons being drawn between reality and his fiction?
He wants to be “allowed a license with regard to every-day Probability,” or in other words, to be able to create a completely fictitious story, but he wants to simultaneously prevent “the render[ing of] the paint and pasteboard of [his characters’] composition but too painfully discernible” (2). Essentially, he wants the freedom to create fake characters--that do not seem fake--by using his real life experiences as a basis—and not inspire any comparisons between these experiences and the novel.
Somehow Hawthorne thinks that, by using Brook Farm as a basis for his novel, he is preventing his characters from being compared with real living beings and, in result, from appearing fake. Obviously, this is impossible. Hawthorne cannot make his fictitious characters seem real by using his personal experiences while still maintaining their integrity as separate entities from real-life counterparts. Specifically, Hawthorne cannot base Coverdale on himself just to make him seem more real without the inevitable comparisons being drawn between the two.
So how does this relate to my research question (“How does Hawthorne relate to Coverdale?”)? Well, I’m trying to figure out exactly what all the similarities between Hawthorne and Coverdale that I’ve found mean. My analysis of the preface is one direction I can go, but I’m still trying to relate it back to my research meaningfully.
Maybe I can analyze how Hawthorne puts himself into Coverdale to give a “lifelike tint” to the romance, but illogically wants to prevent the inevitable comparisons from being drawn between the two. Perhaps I can look at Hawthorne’s obsession with how reality’s peeking through the veil of fiction makes the fiction seem even more unreal (as Zenobia suggests during Tablaux vivants on page 106). It seems Hawthorne’s hiding behind Coverdale makes his character ultimately seem more unreal.
I still can’t figure out exactly what can be revealed from my comparisons between Hawthorne and Coverdale! As of now, I don’t even have an argument to work with, just a bunch of similarities between Hawthorne and Coverdale; I hope I can come up with something.
Research Paper - Question for the Masses
I ended up writing my research paper about the connection between the members of Brook Farm and the characters in The Blithedale Romance. I came to the conclusion in my paper that there was no connection between the two groups as Hawthorne stated in the preface of the novel. The paper was complete and the argument was well supported but it doesn't really go past the point of answering a simple yes or no question.
So I've been attempting to come up with an alternative argument and so far haven't had much luck. I don't want to completely abandon my original thesis, but I need to figure out a way to make it more meaningful to the novel. Unfortunately I don't really think that the relationship between the two groups is very significant to the overall reading of the novel. I think it is something that is very valuable to know from a historical perspective but not really from a literary perspective.
An early critic of the book warned readers to skip the preface and read it after they finished the novel. So that critic apparently believed that it was better to read the novel under the pretext that it was based on Brook Farm. Does anyone have any idea why?
Does anyone believe that the opposite might be true?
So I've been attempting to come up with an alternative argument and so far haven't had much luck. I don't want to completely abandon my original thesis, but I need to figure out a way to make it more meaningful to the novel. Unfortunately I don't really think that the relationship between the two groups is very significant to the overall reading of the novel. I think it is something that is very valuable to know from a historical perspective but not really from a literary perspective.
An early critic of the book warned readers to skip the preface and read it after they finished the novel. So that critic apparently believed that it was better to read the novel under the pretext that it was based on Brook Farm. Does anyone have any idea why?
Does anyone believe that the opposite might be true?
Research paper continued + Olympics!
I was very busy this weekend, but -- I have to admit that I wasn't busy with my paper...
I was busy watching the Olympic Games!
Maybe I shouldn't use the past tense, because I am still watching the Olympic Games at this very moment (a lot of swimming competitions today).
The Olympics is such an irresistible temptation to me, and watching various competitions is certainly more entertaining and exciting than reading the book.
So I am going to share a bit on my research paper today.
On my first draft, I wrote about how Zenobia and Fuller are similar, and Zenobia's death in Blithedale is merely a portrayal of Margaret Fuller's death in reality but not a "devastating satire" of Fuller. I began with Hawthorne and Fuller's relationship, because in order to prove that Hawthonre is not expressing his hatred towards Fuller in Blithedale, I need to establish that their friendship was intimate, and was misundertood to be negative by many past critics. I devoted a lot of time on the background in my first draft, which is too much, so I need to cut down the background and expand the similarities between Fuller and Zenobia, as well as their drownings in my final draft.
So far, I found several similarities between Fuller and Zenobia's deaths.
1. Fuller drowned in a shipwreck; Zenobia drowned in a river.
2. Fuller refused help from others to save herself (which she could have survived if she accepted help); Zenobia committed suicide.
3. Fuller refused help because she wished to die with her husband and baby. She would rather die with the ones she loves than to live without them;
Zenobia commited suicide because she would rather die than to live alone without the man she loves.
4. Fuller prayed with other passengers before she died; Zenobia was found dead "in the attitude of prayer"
5. They both had ambition to achieve women's rights, but both died before they could push or witness women's movement. So, they both left their feminist works undone.
6. still searching.....
I am trying to prove that the reason Hawthorne kills Zenobia in the novel is not because he hates Fuller or feminism, but because he is portraying Fuller's life and fate (of course, not 100% similar to the reality).
I also want to show that Hawthorne might be expressing his sadness of Fuller's sudden death through Zenobia's death. For many readers, Zenobia's death is sudden, surprising, pitiful, and perhaps, heartbreaking. Perhaps Hawthorne had the same feelings when he found out that Fuller died in a shipwreck, given that Fuller was one of Hawthorne's closest friends in his lifetime.
The latter may be harder to prove, but my goal is to prove the first claim. I will put more analyses on Fuller and Zenobia's drownings.
I was busy watching the Olympic Games!
Maybe I shouldn't use the past tense, because I am still watching the Olympic Games at this very moment (a lot of swimming competitions today).
The Olympics is such an irresistible temptation to me, and watching various competitions is certainly more entertaining and exciting than reading the book.
So I am going to share a bit on my research paper today.
On my first draft, I wrote about how Zenobia and Fuller are similar, and Zenobia's death in Blithedale is merely a portrayal of Margaret Fuller's death in reality but not a "devastating satire" of Fuller. I began with Hawthorne and Fuller's relationship, because in order to prove that Hawthonre is not expressing his hatred towards Fuller in Blithedale, I need to establish that their friendship was intimate, and was misundertood to be negative by many past critics. I devoted a lot of time on the background in my first draft, which is too much, so I need to cut down the background and expand the similarities between Fuller and Zenobia, as well as their drownings in my final draft.
So far, I found several similarities between Fuller and Zenobia's deaths.
1. Fuller drowned in a shipwreck; Zenobia drowned in a river.
2. Fuller refused help from others to save herself (which she could have survived if she accepted help); Zenobia committed suicide.
3. Fuller refused help because she wished to die with her husband and baby. She would rather die with the ones she loves than to live without them;
Zenobia commited suicide because she would rather die than to live alone without the man she loves.
4. Fuller prayed with other passengers before she died; Zenobia was found dead "in the attitude of prayer"
5. They both had ambition to achieve women's rights, but both died before they could push or witness women's movement. So, they both left their feminist works undone.
6. still searching.....
I am trying to prove that the reason Hawthorne kills Zenobia in the novel is not because he hates Fuller or feminism, but because he is portraying Fuller's life and fate (of course, not 100% similar to the reality).
I also want to show that Hawthorne might be expressing his sadness of Fuller's sudden death through Zenobia's death. For many readers, Zenobia's death is sudden, surprising, pitiful, and perhaps, heartbreaking. Perhaps Hawthorne had the same feelings when he found out that Fuller died in a shipwreck, given that Fuller was one of Hawthorne's closest friends in his lifetime.
The latter may be harder to prove, but my goal is to prove the first claim. I will put more analyses on Fuller and Zenobia's drownings.
Friday, August 8, 2008
He has no chin
You can see a scan of an illustration of Paul Slide in the first edition here, courtesy of the Harvard library.
Errata for the bootleg edition of Sweet Cicely that you all have:
p. 37: But I wouldn't hear
p. 48: The young feller that gin the lecture, and his sister, wus left orphans and poor; and she was a good deal the oldest, and she set her eyes by him.
p. 177: ah
p. 182:
p. 220: No, sir! fellers must come free and spontaneous
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
SA #4: Sweet Cicely
UPDATE: Due Tuesday, August 12 (not Thursday as originally scheduled).
1. The Bechdel/Wallace test for a film or other work contains the following criteria:
Samantha seems to be trying to achieve something like this the following passage from Sweet Cicely:
a)Why does Samantha give such a long list of things she wants to talk about?
b)How does Cicely’s insistence on talking about the boy change the way we understand her political motives?
2. What is Josiah’s Plan? Why does he think it is foolproof? Why does it fail?
3. How does God take care of Sweet Cicely’s boy? What was your reaction to that solution?
1. The Bechdel/Wallace test for a film or other work contains the following criteria:
1. It has to have at least two women in it,
2. Who talk to each other,
3. About something besides a man.
Samantha seems to be trying to achieve something like this the following passage from Sweet Cicely:
And then, thinks’es I as I sot down, we will have a good, quiet visit, and talk some about other wimmen. (No runnin’ ’em: I’d scorn, it, and so would she.)
But I thought I’d love to talk it over with her, about what good housekeepers Tirzah Ann and Maggie wuz. And I wanted to hear what she thought about the babe, and if she could say in cander that she ever see a little girl equal her in graces of mind and body.
And I wanted to hear all about her aunt Mary and her aunt Melissa (on her father’s side). I knew she had had letter from ’em. And I wanted to hear how she that was Jane Smith wuz, that lived neighbor to her aunt Mary’s oldest daughter, and how that oldest daughter wuz, who wus s’posed to be a runnin’ down. And I wanted to hear about Susan Ann Grimshaw, who had married her aunt Melissy’s youngest son. There wus lots of news that I felt fairly sufferin’ for, and lots of news that I felt like disseminatin’ to her.
But, if you’ll believe it, just as I had begun to inquire, and take comfort, she branched right off, a lady-like branch, and a courteous one, but still a branch, and begun to talk about “what should she do – what could she do – for the boy.”
a)Why does Samantha give such a long list of things she wants to talk about?
b)How does Cicely’s insistence on talking about the boy change the way we understand her political motives?
2. What is Josiah’s Plan? Why does he think it is foolproof? Why does it fail?
3. How does God take care of Sweet Cicely’s boy? What was your reaction to that solution?
Upcoming presentations
Updated:
Thursday, 07/24: Wendy, Melissa
Tuesday, 07/29: Don, Tim, Si
Thursday, 07/31: Wesley, Adam, Dave, Jeffrey
Tuesday, 08/05: Nick, Rohit, Khang, Matt
Thursday, 08/07: Don
Tuesday, 08/12: Khang, Adam
Tuesday, 07/29: Don, Tim, Si
Thursday, 07/31: Wesley, Adam, Dave, Jeffrey
Tuesday, 08/05: Nick, Rohit, Khang, Matt
Thursday, 08/07: Don
Tuesday, 08/12: Khang, Adam
Monday, August 4, 2008
M. Fuller, The Great Lawsuit
Continuing my research on Margaret Fuller, I wanted to post about on is considered her greatest work. I did talk about it a little during my presentation.
Margret Fuller’s views and work is epitomized in The Great Lawsuit, which was later turned into a book called Woman in the Nineteenth Century. The piece was first published July 1843, in The Dial, IV, the leading Transcendentalist newspaper of the time. Recognized as probably Margaret’s greatest work towards feminism it is a complaint of women's rights in America. The lawsuit itself is against America and the statement, "All Men are created equal”, which suggests men’s continued oppression of women; she concluded the Men in the statement include both men and women. She suggests that much of our law and views are taken from traditional Europe. After stating her views she calls on women to take action:
In the piece she also criticizes the sanctity of marriage. She criticized most women's belief in marriage and deemed it compulsory, she realized it was often arranged for convenience and utility rather than for spiritual harmony; marriage should be a mutual union between two souls.
Of course her piece was not fully appreciated during her time and was met with criticism. She was recognized for her boldness and embodiment of ideals but she her beliefs were never taken seriously. During her time she was recognized more for the notion of challenging the social norms than recognized for her actual beliefs. The criticism of her work only comes to show the cultural and social norms that were prevalent in the 19th century.
Margret Fuller’s views and work is epitomized in The Great Lawsuit, which was later turned into a book called Woman in the Nineteenth Century. The piece was first published July 1843, in The Dial, IV, the leading Transcendentalist newspaper of the time. Recognized as probably Margaret’s greatest work towards feminism it is a complaint of women's rights in America. The lawsuit itself is against America and the statement, "All Men are created equal”, which suggests men’s continued oppression of women; she concluded the Men in the statement include both men and women. She suggests that much of our law and views are taken from traditional Europe. After stating her views she calls on women to take action:
“We would have every path laid open to woman as freely as to man. Were this done, and a slight temporary fermentation allowed to subside, we believe that the Divine would ascend into nature to a height unknown in the history of past ages, and nature, thus instructed, would regulate the spheres not only so as to avoid collision, but to bring forth ravishing harmony” (Fuller).
“The world at large is readier to let woman learn and manifest the capacities of her nature than it ever was before, and here is a less encumbered field, and freer air than anywhere else. And it ought to be so” (Fuller).
In the piece she also criticizes the sanctity of marriage. She criticized most women's belief in marriage and deemed it compulsory, she realized it was often arranged for convenience and utility rather than for spiritual harmony; marriage should be a mutual union between two souls.
Of course her piece was not fully appreciated during her time and was met with criticism. She was recognized for her boldness and embodiment of ideals but she her beliefs were never taken seriously. During her time she was recognized more for the notion of challenging the social norms than recognized for her actual beliefs. The criticism of her work only comes to show the cultural and social norms that were prevalent in the 19th century.
Fuller, Margaret. "The Great Lawsuit. Man Versus Men. Woman Versus Women." The Dial, IV (1984). 24 July 2008
"The Great Lawsuit." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 20 Jul 2008, 03:59 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 4 Aug 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Great_Lawsuit&oldid=226747555>.
If only I could write my research paper in the shower...
Is there supposed to be any difference between science research papers and English research papers? I wouldn’t expect there to be any significant difference, yet why is it so much harder to write my English research paper than science papers. Perhaps is it because I’m less familiar with English texts compared to scientific literature, or is it a lack of confidence or fear of an undesirable outcome like in the past? Although procrastination is preventable and usually bad for most people, I find myself most productive when I’m working in the wee hours of the night knowing that time is slowly running out. For this research project, I am very grateful that it was broken up into multiple segments. Having to prepare the presentation ahead of time really does help plan ideas for the paper. If it weren’t for planning the presentations before the paper was due, I would probably end up trying to plan my ideas and write the paper at the last minute. Now, with my ideas already planned out, all I have to figure out is how to organize them into a logical paper. In the end, the hardest part about the research paper is starting and ending. If only I could write my research paper in the shower, then I would have much less trouble thinking of ideas.
Prison Reform in the 19th Century
So, every time I re-read a source or try to write, I keep thinking back to what I am actually trying to argue. I've finally figured out my argument: Hawthorne portrayed Hollingsworth as a failure because he did not believe in the prison reform efforts of the time. I came to this through looking at a lot of parallels in my sources, and finding different reasons for why my hypothesis is true.
The two types of prison reform in the early 1800s were meant to reform criminals through very strict methods. They were so strict that prisoners were not allowed to communicate at all. I think that the strictness of these systems was too harsh for many people. Also, these systems died out quickly because people started to realize that reforming criminals did not actually prevent crime itself. So, because Hollingsworth's school was never accomplished, Hawthorne is showing how these types of systems will fail.
Advocates of prison reform were also very extremist. Like other reforms of the time, prison reform had advocates to only stuck to one idea. For example, people believed that the source of criminal misbehavior was the family. Thus, prison chaplains were brought in to inspire the criminals and be their new family. However, this idea of replacing an entire family with a chaplain was obviously not going to help criminals that much. But, everybody believed that religion was the only way to solve the problem. This extremism is shown through Hollingsworth - he does not want to believe in any other ideas. His failure is a warning against the extremism of prison reformists.
One of my sources described how many of the reform movements failed in the early 1800s. Dorothea Dix helped improve insane asylums and hospitals, and was able to cause a vast increase in funds to help these causes. However, even with all the money that asylums got, they were not prevented from class discrimination. Depending on one's race, he/she would receive different treatment, and some would receive it faster than others. Also, many looked down on reform movements in general because they feared that constantly giving help would make criminals dependent on others. Thus, they would not know how to take care of themselves. Transcendentalists saw philanthropy in general as a threat to self-reliance. So, Hawthorne was disoriented with prison reform because the ideas behind the reform only caused more problems - like increasing class divisions and only hurting the poor more.
Well, now that I seem to have gotten a clear topic and some evidence, off to go write my paper!
The two types of prison reform in the early 1800s were meant to reform criminals through very strict methods. They were so strict that prisoners were not allowed to communicate at all. I think that the strictness of these systems was too harsh for many people. Also, these systems died out quickly because people started to realize that reforming criminals did not actually prevent crime itself. So, because Hollingsworth's school was never accomplished, Hawthorne is showing how these types of systems will fail.
Advocates of prison reform were also very extremist. Like other reforms of the time, prison reform had advocates to only stuck to one idea. For example, people believed that the source of criminal misbehavior was the family. Thus, prison chaplains were brought in to inspire the criminals and be their new family. However, this idea of replacing an entire family with a chaplain was obviously not going to help criminals that much. But, everybody believed that religion was the only way to solve the problem. This extremism is shown through Hollingsworth - he does not want to believe in any other ideas. His failure is a warning against the extremism of prison reformists.
One of my sources described how many of the reform movements failed in the early 1800s. Dorothea Dix helped improve insane asylums and hospitals, and was able to cause a vast increase in funds to help these causes. However, even with all the money that asylums got, they were not prevented from class discrimination. Depending on one's race, he/she would receive different treatment, and some would receive it faster than others. Also, many looked down on reform movements in general because they feared that constantly giving help would make criminals dependent on others. Thus, they would not know how to take care of themselves. Transcendentalists saw philanthropy in general as a threat to self-reliance. So, Hawthorne was disoriented with prison reform because the ideas behind the reform only caused more problems - like increasing class divisions and only hurting the poor more.
Well, now that I seem to have gotten a clear topic and some evidence, off to go write my paper!
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Writing the Draft
I'm taking the same approach to writing the draft that I did with the reading paper. I just sit down with a few ideas of the direction that I want to take the paper in, then I just start to freewrite. I've found out that I develop my ideas in a much more logical way. I make one transition to another instead of always trying to write a paper that proves something. I don't know how well this method would work when I have to write a persuasive paper; but for the research and reading paper, this method has helped me expand on my ideas and intuition about the main text.
This is completely different from what I was taught in middle school and high school. Then, I was taught to outline my paper with a thesis and three sub-arguments that support my thesis. It was really formulaic and I liked that. But I always had trouble coming up with a thesis and the arguments. It was even worse when I'm halfway through with my paper to only find that my sub-arguments don't match my main thesis. I would just get lazy and finish the paper with how I had outlined it. But now, I can start off with a premise or question that I would have about the text. From there, I can add my ideas and answer some of my questions about the text. In this way, I slowly work my way to a greater/better understanding of the text.
I'm also noticing that some of the critics who write articles about The Blithedale Romance take the same approach. Richard Brodhead starts his paper noticing that Zenobia is described in very physical terms, much like what we noticed in class when we were talking about the novel. From there, he noticed more stuff about the book and kept refining his ideas about the book. By the end of his article, he came to a final thesis and understanding of the novel that was completely different from how he first approached it. I found this really cool.
This is completely different from what I was taught in middle school and high school. Then, I was taught to outline my paper with a thesis and three sub-arguments that support my thesis. It was really formulaic and I liked that. But I always had trouble coming up with a thesis and the arguments. It was even worse when I'm halfway through with my paper to only find that my sub-arguments don't match my main thesis. I would just get lazy and finish the paper with how I had outlined it. But now, I can start off with a premise or question that I would have about the text. From there, I can add my ideas and answer some of my questions about the text. In this way, I slowly work my way to a greater/better understanding of the text.
I'm also noticing that some of the critics who write articles about The Blithedale Romance take the same approach. Richard Brodhead starts his paper noticing that Zenobia is described in very physical terms, much like what we noticed in class when we were talking about the novel. From there, he noticed more stuff about the book and kept refining his ideas about the book. By the end of his article, he came to a final thesis and understanding of the novel that was completely different from how he first approached it. I found this really cool.
The Link Between Hawthorne and Coverdale
In trying to determine how Hawthorne relates to his first-person narrator, Coverdale, I came across two primary connections:
1. (My own opinion:) Hawthorne and Coverdale share similar personalities and experiences, but Coverdale’s are exaggerated versions of Hawthorne’s. This suggests Hawthorne is examining himself through Coverdale.
2. (A few critics’ opinion:) Hawthorne and Coverdale are both authors and storytellers. Through Coverdale, Hawthorne analyzes the art of romance writing and how someone can gain access to others’ minds.
Because I have to come up with an original argument, I have been struggling to figure out how to incorporate my idea (1) with the critics’ idea that I agree with (2). I have decided the fact that Hawthorne and Coverdale are both authors is just more evidence that they share similar experiences, that Hawthorne is exploring his own personality and life.
While at Brook Farm, Hawthorne spent much of his spare time in isolation, either in his room or on a quiet walk, which he had hoped to use to write but was unable to out of physical exhaustion. Coverdale struggles from a similar desire to do poetry while at Blithedale without success. Both decide to narrate their experiences at their respective socialist communities years after, with Hawthorne reflecting on Brook Farm in The Blithedale Romance through Coverdale reflecting on Blithedale. It seems that, by making Coverdale an author like himself, Hawthorne can finally culminate all of his observations of life at Brook Farm into a narrative without doing it directly autobiographically. Essentially, Hawthorne has Coverdale be an “author” as an excuse to analyze his observations of Brook Farm.
Thus, my research paper presents the following argument:
Hawthorne and his narrator Coverdale have similar personalities (self-absorbed, quiet, and reclusive), similar life experiences (both live in Socialist communities and Hawthorne uses his experiences at Brook Farm directly in his novel), and similar authorial struggles (both are romance writers trying to pry into others’ lives and both find they only have time to write about their narrative-inspiring experiences at Brook Farm / Blithedale after leaving). Thus, Hawthorne puts much of himself into his narrator and uses first-person narration as a tool with which he can examine himself. After doing so, Hawthorne becomes self-conscious of his connection with his narrator, and a month after “finishing” the novel, he attempts to cover up his relation to Coverdale by adding a preface that states Coverdale is fictitious and a concluding chapter that portrays Coverdale as ridiculous. Finally, the connection between Hawthorne and Coverdale explains Coverdale’s personality and imaginative wanderings, his attempts to understand the other characters’ “hidden” relationships, and why he suddenly professes love to Priscilla.
1. (My own opinion:) Hawthorne and Coverdale share similar personalities and experiences, but Coverdale’s are exaggerated versions of Hawthorne’s. This suggests Hawthorne is examining himself through Coverdale.
2. (A few critics’ opinion:) Hawthorne and Coverdale are both authors and storytellers. Through Coverdale, Hawthorne analyzes the art of romance writing and how someone can gain access to others’ minds.
Because I have to come up with an original argument, I have been struggling to figure out how to incorporate my idea (1) with the critics’ idea that I agree with (2). I have decided the fact that Hawthorne and Coverdale are both authors is just more evidence that they share similar experiences, that Hawthorne is exploring his own personality and life.
While at Brook Farm, Hawthorne spent much of his spare time in isolation, either in his room or on a quiet walk, which he had hoped to use to write but was unable to out of physical exhaustion. Coverdale struggles from a similar desire to do poetry while at Blithedale without success. Both decide to narrate their experiences at their respective socialist communities years after, with Hawthorne reflecting on Brook Farm in The Blithedale Romance through Coverdale reflecting on Blithedale. It seems that, by making Coverdale an author like himself, Hawthorne can finally culminate all of his observations of life at Brook Farm into a narrative without doing it directly autobiographically. Essentially, Hawthorne has Coverdale be an “author” as an excuse to analyze his observations of Brook Farm.
Thus, my research paper presents the following argument:
Hawthorne and his narrator Coverdale have similar personalities (self-absorbed, quiet, and reclusive), similar life experiences (both live in Socialist communities and Hawthorne uses his experiences at Brook Farm directly in his novel), and similar authorial struggles (both are romance writers trying to pry into others’ lives and both find they only have time to write about their narrative-inspiring experiences at Brook Farm / Blithedale after leaving). Thus, Hawthorne puts much of himself into his narrator and uses first-person narration as a tool with which he can examine himself. After doing so, Hawthorne becomes self-conscious of his connection with his narrator, and a month after “finishing” the novel, he attempts to cover up his relation to Coverdale by adding a preface that states Coverdale is fictitious and a concluding chapter that portrays Coverdale as ridiculous. Finally, the connection between Hawthorne and Coverdale explains Coverdale’s personality and imaginative wanderings, his attempts to understand the other characters’ “hidden” relationships, and why he suddenly professes love to Priscilla.
Research: The Evolution
So I quickly realized that my initial question of "What role does Transcendentalism play in Blithedale?" was very very vague and that I needed it to be a lot more specific if I was to get anywhere. So when doing my research I realized that there was a very common occurence in the plot-- Coverdale is very much affected by Nature. In fact, he seems to become more sensitive to the others around him when he is exposed to Nature (eg. when he becomes sick and has his dreams, when he takes his walks in the forest, when he is in his hermitage, etc.). I found out that Nature (note the capital 'n') was very important to the Transcendentalists and the Brook Farm was formed to get away from the confines of the city. I'm still in the beginning stages of my essay so who knows where my writing will take me.
Nick
PS. Don't worry guys this is taking me a long time too.
PSS. I find that most of the fun in writing this thing is coming up with the title.
Nick
PS. Don't worry guys this is taking me a long time too.
PSS. I find that most of the fun in writing this thing is coming up with the title.
My Approach to the Research Paper
Like Wendy, this research paper is taking a really long time for me as well. I know I have that tendency to wait for ideas to come around, so it could waste up to a few good hours where I could have been productive in something else. So I decided to jump around and instead of talking about my research first, I started writing the section where I connected the research to the text first. I see how I want everything to connect because I know the importance of the research question to my paper, so not only do I get some work done, it might make me realize what I need to research to back up my claims in the process. This entire analysis and relating back to the novel part is essentially half of my paper.
Thanks to Natalia for the short one-on-one meeting at her office hours last Thursday. She told me what parts of my writing I need to improve on. She also made me realize some things I took for granted in Sweet Cicely. Good luck on your papers everybody!
Thanks to Natalia for the short one-on-one meeting at her office hours last Thursday. She told me what parts of my writing I need to improve on. She also made me realize some things I took for granted in Sweet Cicely. Good luck on your papers everybody!
Literary Criticism in Research
Writing this paper has proved more time consuming than I thought would be. Although I’ve been researching for some time now, it’s challenging, particularly with the literary criticism, to effectively integrate the information into my paper. I’ll admit that I did a somewhat cursory reading of a couple of the papers on my annotated bibliography to judge relevance and gain some notion of what they are about, and now that I have to delve more deeply into it in order to produce my own argument, I’m finding it difficult to appreciate all of what’s there.
Especially with Berlant’s “Fantasies of Utopia in The Blithedale Romance,” I know I’m missing some of the import of the text. I think a large part of the problem is simple unfamiliarity with literary analysis. The language is often different than what I’ve dealt with before, and some of themes it addresses, including the relationship between the collective and the individual, I think may be part of an often used interpretation of the novel which I’m not familiar with, as I’ve only explored a very small fraction of what has been written about the text. Exploring the citations in her paper may be of use, although I’m not sure that would be a worthwhile use of my time given how soon the paper has to be produced. Regardless, I think an argument can be produced from what I’ve read, though I wish I had more time to explore more of what has been written about the novel.
Was Hawthorne Being Honest?
I've had a really difficult time making sense of Hawthorne's comments in the preface to The Blithedale Romance. Specifically the portion where he attempts to convince the reader that Brook Farm serves as nothing more than a stage for the characters that he invented. I've been back and forth about what Hawthorne's intentions were.
Initially I took the statement at face value. That Hawthorne honestly didn't use Brook Farm as anything other than what he described. From that I inferred that there would be few if any similarities between the characters of the book and the people of Brook Farm. I figured since there wasn't likely to be much overlap that I could use my research paper to expand on the areas where there were similarities. Natalia was first to point out on my proposal that this was probably not the best way to go because there were so many similarities between the two.
After I started researching I was surprised just how many possible similarities there were between the people of Brook Farm and the characters from the novel. So I was forced to alter my perception of what Hawthorne's intent was in the preface of the novel. Suddenly I felt like I was being lied to. That he obviously wrote his characters with specific models in mind. I figured the comments in the preface were nothing more than him covering himself because he was concerned about backlash from the people he had modeled his characters on.
Then after doing more research, I discovered a few conflicting accounts about the relationship between the people and the characters. I read many contradictory opinions of what character was based on what person, or what event was the inspiration for what part of the novel and I came to a new conclusion. That there really is no connection between the people of the novel and the people of Brook Farm, just as Hawthorne stated. I realized that regardless of what the characters of the novel were like it would be possible to map them to people at Brook Farm. I think it would even be possible to find similarities between the people at Brook Farm and the characters of any novel. So maybe Hawthorne wasn't being dishonest at all. Maybe the similarities are nothing more than coincidence and no matter what Hawthorne did people would do everything they could to come up with a reason why this character was based on that person. After all...it sure makes for a good research paper topic!
Initially I took the statement at face value. That Hawthorne honestly didn't use Brook Farm as anything other than what he described. From that I inferred that there would be few if any similarities between the characters of the book and the people of Brook Farm. I figured since there wasn't likely to be much overlap that I could use my research paper to expand on the areas where there were similarities. Natalia was first to point out on my proposal that this was probably not the best way to go because there were so many similarities between the two.
After I started researching I was surprised just how many possible similarities there were between the people of Brook Farm and the characters from the novel. So I was forced to alter my perception of what Hawthorne's intent was in the preface of the novel. Suddenly I felt like I was being lied to. That he obviously wrote his characters with specific models in mind. I figured the comments in the preface were nothing more than him covering himself because he was concerned about backlash from the people he had modeled his characters on.
Then after doing more research, I discovered a few conflicting accounts about the relationship between the people and the characters. I read many contradictory opinions of what character was based on what person, or what event was the inspiration for what part of the novel and I came to a new conclusion. That there really is no connection between the people of the novel and the people of Brook Farm, just as Hawthorne stated. I realized that regardless of what the characters of the novel were like it would be possible to map them to people at Brook Farm. I think it would even be possible to find similarities between the people at Brook Farm and the characters of any novel. So maybe Hawthorne wasn't being dishonest at all. Maybe the similarities are nothing more than coincidence and no matter what Hawthorne did people would do everything they could to come up with a reason why this character was based on that person. After all...it sure makes for a good research paper topic!
I'm sorry, but it's true -- Research Paper Drives Me Crazy!
I am exhausted.
I have been writing my research paper for hours, because I write very slowly, and I can't help writing off topic. It seems like I have gone too far away from my argument, and I lose directions. But there is always stuff that I do not want to throw out, because I consider every detail equally important and can contribute to my argument. I know, it doesn't work that way... I should selectively choose the details to prove my argument, but I just don't want to cross out my paragraphs at this moment.
So, I decide to write everything down first, and then narrow it down after I finished the paper. Maybe by then I can see the distractions and will not be so reluctant to throw stuff out.
I wish I had more time for this paper, but it's partly my fault because I am a good procrastinator who didn't start writing until Friday night, and I still have to do a lot of research after I did the annotated bibliography.
I know such a short period will not produce any decent research paper, so my only hope is to try my best to have my thoughts down, and revise the paper later. It's good that the first draft will undergo peer reviews.
OK... go back to my paper now.
Good luck everyone on your papers!
I have been writing my research paper for hours, because I write very slowly, and I can't help writing off topic. It seems like I have gone too far away from my argument, and I lose directions. But there is always stuff that I do not want to throw out, because I consider every detail equally important and can contribute to my argument. I know, it doesn't work that way... I should selectively choose the details to prove my argument, but I just don't want to cross out my paragraphs at this moment.
So, I decide to write everything down first, and then narrow it down after I finished the paper. Maybe by then I can see the distractions and will not be so reluctant to throw stuff out.
I wish I had more time for this paper, but it's partly my fault because I am a good procrastinator who didn't start writing until Friday night, and I still have to do a lot of research after I did the annotated bibliography.
I know such a short period will not produce any decent research paper, so my only hope is to try my best to have my thoughts down, and revise the paper later. It's good that the first draft will undergo peer reviews.
OK... go back to my paper now.
Good luck everyone on your papers!
On Writing
I don't have much to share this week on my researcherch or the class readings, so I thought I would share some things I learned in another course I am taking (not at Cal--it's from a different program I am doing), which is on non-fiction writing and lecturing.
The four main principles we are learning in the course are:
1. Motivate your audience
Your audience is investing their time and effort in reading and understanding what you have to say, and they aren't going to do it if they aren't getting something out of it. You should let them know what it is that they will find valuable on early in your paper, and in a lengthy paper, should periodically slip in reminders or new motivations to keep them interested. A key part of this is understanding who your audience is and what is important to them.
2. Delimit your topic
It is tempting to try to cover everything and explore all peripheral topics, but that isn't really possible. Clearly delimiting your topic helps focus your argument, guiding which facts are and are not relevant. It helps your reader, by making your paper a coherent, unified whole, and it also helps you write it by helping prevent wasting time on peripheral or irrelevant issues.
3. Balance abstractions and concretes
It is important, when writing about abstract ideas and relationships, to keep them grounded in examples, facts, analogies, etc., so your audience clearly understands what you are saying. The more abstract ideas get, the more difficult they are to interpret correctly by a reader, and providing concrete explanations of what you mean ensures they interpret you correctly. Likewise, too many concretes require an abstract idea tying them all together and preventing the reader from getting overloaded. (A side benefit is that providing concretes ensures you fully understand the material yourself).
4. Organize your argument logically
Having some logical structure to the argument you present helps the reader organize and keep track of everything you are saying. How you choose to organize your thoughts is optional to a large degree, but it is important that there is some non-arbitrary organization to your paper.
The four main principles we are learning in the course are:
1. Motivate your audience
Your audience is investing their time and effort in reading and understanding what you have to say, and they aren't going to do it if they aren't getting something out of it. You should let them know what it is that they will find valuable on early in your paper, and in a lengthy paper, should periodically slip in reminders or new motivations to keep them interested. A key part of this is understanding who your audience is and what is important to them.
2. Delimit your topic
It is tempting to try to cover everything and explore all peripheral topics, but that isn't really possible. Clearly delimiting your topic helps focus your argument, guiding which facts are and are not relevant. It helps your reader, by making your paper a coherent, unified whole, and it also helps you write it by helping prevent wasting time on peripheral or irrelevant issues.
3. Balance abstractions and concretes
It is important, when writing about abstract ideas and relationships, to keep them grounded in examples, facts, analogies, etc., so your audience clearly understands what you are saying. The more abstract ideas get, the more difficult they are to interpret correctly by a reader, and providing concrete explanations of what you mean ensures they interpret you correctly. Likewise, too many concretes require an abstract idea tying them all together and preventing the reader from getting overloaded. (A side benefit is that providing concretes ensures you fully understand the material yourself).
4. Organize your argument logically
Having some logical structure to the argument you present helps the reader organize and keep track of everything you are saying. How you choose to organize your thoughts is optional to a large degree, but it is important that there is some non-arbitrary organization to your paper.
Marietta Holley...what else is there to say?
I'm finding this research paper to be a lot harder than I expected. Unlike other research papers I've done in the past, this one actually requires that I make a new contribution to the topic and to develop my own ideas. My question was: Why has Marietta Holley's name disappeared while Mark Twain's name remains immortal for generations to come? Is there a difference between the humor they wrote that may have contributed to ones rise and the other's downfall? My thesis was that Gender is the dominant factor in determining the reputation of a literary humorist for so and so reasons. Surprisingly, there were many secondary sources that have already this question in great detail. Nancy Walker has even written a book on it: A Very Serious Thing Women's Humor in American Culture. Charlotte Templin even goes into detail the differences between Twain and Holley in Marietta Holley and Mark Twain: Cultural-Gender Politics and Literary Reputation.
The problem was not finding sources to support my argument, but I couldn't think of anything new that I could add to their arguments. I felt like everything had been said and in great detail. In the words of Kristin Fujie, "[I found] the secondary sources a little too helpful, such that they hijack your thought process completely, turning your paper into a rehash of their arguments." The kind of research papers I'm used is to the kind where you research a topic and reaffirm the information in a paper.
I started to panic, because I didn't want to just throw all my research away. I frantically tried to think of a new fresh thesis that would still find my sources helpful. This was hard since my thoughts kept coming back to information that I already knew. Well after dinner with friends, a long casual talk with my mom, and a long shower, I finally found a working thesis: Though Holley's popularity reached heights comparable to Twain's, I propose that her humorous writings were simply not taken seriously because she was a woman. Though women and men alike enjoyed her writing and found her novels amusing, they were simply laughing at her and not necessarily with her. Sure she's witty, but how far can we take literature written by a woman?
I'm not sure my sources would agree with me, but this is the contribution I'm making and I'm sticking to it! Well hopefully you guys didn't run into the same problem I did.
*Fugie, Kristin. "Navigating Secondary Sources Basic Maneuvers." UC Berkeley English N1B. 2008.
The problem was not finding sources to support my argument, but I couldn't think of anything new that I could add to their arguments. I felt like everything had been said and in great detail. In the words of Kristin Fujie, "[I found] the secondary sources a little too helpful, such that they hijack your thought process completely, turning your paper into a rehash of their arguments." The kind of research papers I'm used is to the kind where you research a topic and reaffirm the information in a paper.
I started to panic, because I didn't want to just throw all my research away. I frantically tried to think of a new fresh thesis that would still find my sources helpful. This was hard since my thoughts kept coming back to information that I already knew. Well after dinner with friends, a long casual talk with my mom, and a long shower, I finally found a working thesis: Though Holley's popularity reached heights comparable to Twain's, I propose that her humorous writings were simply not taken seriously because she was a woman. Though women and men alike enjoyed her writing and found her novels amusing, they were simply laughing at her and not necessarily with her. Sure she's witty, but how far can we take literature written by a woman?
I'm not sure my sources would agree with me, but this is the contribution I'm making and I'm sticking to it! Well hopefully you guys didn't run into the same problem I did.
*Fugie, Kristin. "Navigating Secondary Sources Basic Maneuvers." UC Berkeley English N1B. 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)