Assignment:

For your midterm essay, write a paper of at least 1500 words (up to 1700) that focuses on ONE of  the texts we have read in the course so far, makes an argument about the text, and supports that argument. Your argument should be your answer to a larger thematic question (see possible questions from oral midterm exam, these potential paper topics, which are based on the questions from the oral midterm, or these prompts on Sakuntala/Medea).  In other words, you are a tour guide through the text, making your argument about the text, telling us how to read it and why we should read it that way by giving evidence and interpreting it (telling us why the word, images, structures make us read it in a specific way). This means you should avoid just summarizing the plot: I have read these texts already–I want YOU to tell me HOW I should read them!

While this paper should focus on one text, you should also compare different VOICES in the text (if you are making an argument about Medea, you should compare her perspective to that of Creon’s, the nurse’s, Jason’s, etc, in order to make your point). Additionally, in your second to last paragraph, you should briefly bring in one of the other texts from the class and discuss how this 2nd text’s take on your topic illuminates something about the values of the culture in the text you have focused on for your paper (for example, when discussing duty in the BG, you might bring in Medea’s ideas of what is owed to the family and to oaths to highlight a different perspective on duty as well as what the BG’s conception of duty says about the culture/society it comes out of. Or, you might compare the BG’s conception of duty to Sakuntala’s–for both, duty is defined as dharma, but the two texts present dharma in different ways).

You may want to focus on expanding an argument or exploring a question that you addressed in one of your short papers.

Short paper no. 4 is your draft of this paper. See specific prompt for it at the bottom of this post.

Breakdown of what to include:

Your paper must have a clearly stated thesis in the first paragraph and you must develop your argument in a logical, persuasive manner throughout the rest of the essay, support your points with textual evidence, and conclude with a paragraph that summarizes your findings. Thus, your paper should contain the following elements: argument, evidence, interpretation of evidence. It should have the follow elements: introduction, body paragraphs, conclusion. I have attached a further explanation of what I mean by these things, and I have attached a template you can use to fill in the blanks and create an argument.

• Introduction (last sentence or two: your argument)
• Body paragraphs (topic sentence + evidence + interpretation of evidence)
• Conclusion (restate points + so what)

Structure:

Here are two possible structures for your paper. Both are valid; it depends on your style:

1)Argument-driven: In your introduction paragraph, introduce a research question you seek to answer and give your answer (thesis statement) at the end of the paragraph. Use your body paragraphs to prove that thesis statement.

2) Inquiry-driven:  In your introduction, introduce a research question you seek to answer; use your body paragraphs to explore this question; come to a conclusion/answer (thesis statement) in your conclusion paragraph.

Format:

• At least 1500 words (no less: you will lose points if your paper is any shorter). Provide a word count: Do not hand in handwritten assignments to me; stapled/paper clipped
• Title and Page numbers
• Bibliography and citations in MLA format
• Times 12 point font
• 1-inch margins
• Double spaced; No extra spaces after paragraphs
• Fully edited: free of typographical, spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors
• Formal language: avoid “you,” “well,” and other slang words.

Resources:

Fill in the blanks to make an argument

More argument templates with examples

Notes on argument, evidence, interpretation

***

Draft for analytical paper, focusing on structure (short paper number 4): due 10/14 or 10/19.

In our short papers so far, we’ve asked questions, tried to pose answers to these questions (as arguments), and tried to use textual evidence to support/build on those arguments (evidence and interpretation). The last thing I want you to focus on before your oral midterm and analytical paper is structure, which is one of the most useful interpretive tools, but also often difficult to see if you are not used to reading for it. This can mean simple repetition, but it can also mean direct parallels being drawn (through repeated images, colors, comparisons, speech, and linguistic echoes). If a parallel is drawn we need to pay attention.

Parallels are not always positive; they may be highlighting differences (or, the difference may be calling our attention to a change in character, or a change in the intensity of the situation). For example, Sakuntala features the king spying on another character in a garden in Act I and Act VII, but the scene in Act VII has a much different tone and resonance. To do more than point out parallels, you need to think about where the passages occur. As parallels build up, they play a part in making sense of the narrative and how we are supposed to interpret it. For example, Gilgamesh and Enkidu are both described at different points as being shaggy and wild, but it means something different, and has different weight, when we see Gilgamesh described this way after Enkidu’s death. You can consider: has the meaning of an image (or whatever the parallel is) changed based on context?

Please write a response paper of 1-2 pages on the text you want to work with/write about in your analytical paper, in which you make an argument about how the text is structured (in other words, what looking at the structure allows you to see about the text’s meaning), how it deploys parallels, and to what end. Alternately, make the argument you want to make in your analytical paper, and use what you’re saying about structure to help you build/support it. Be sure to make an argument and use textual evidence  (this means quote the text) to support it, again showing me your annotations

Oral midterm examination:

For your midterm, you are going to pick one of the following questions (or a question of your choice, as long as you vet it with me) and one character from one of the texts we have read so far. Then, you will answer the question you have chosen from that character’s perspective–what would be that character’s point of view on the question? How do they enact that point of view–and are they successful in enacting it (do their actions match their perspective)? Consider what investments the character has in the issue, how the character might define concepts in the question (for example, what is “love” for Enkidu and Gilgamesh vs for Medea?), and what biases and concerns they might have.

For the midterm itself, you will present to me, one on one, the perspective of this character using passages from the text (you should bring a one-page sheet with passages from the text you plan to use). You will have 3-4 minutes to make your claims about the point of view of your character in relation to this question, so you should be prepared to be direct, to point to  and quote specific passages to find evidence and to prove that your passages support your claim by using the words/imagery/tone in the passage.

Questions (if there are other questions you want to address, suggest them to me): 

1. Right action: How does your character define what is right in complicated situations–how does your character determine what is the right thing to do? How do we learn what is right based on the character’s actions/beliefs and on the text?
2. The city/the city vs. the natural world: To your character, is the city something worthy of celebration, and why? If your character has some doubts on this issue, what are some critiques of the city, especially in light of what it does to nature and human relationship to it? What is the text trying to show about the city, and/or about the natural world, through your character?
3. Quest: For your character, what is worth seeking out, and why? How does what the character seeks define him/her? What is the text trying to illuminate, through your character and his/her quest?
4. Duty: If duty is what is “due,” then what defines what is due for your character–society, responsibility to another individual, honor? How should the character show, demonstrate, or fulfill his/her duty, and what are some complications that get in the way of fulfilling duty? How does the character respond to, fulfill, or fail to fulfill their duty/duties? What is the text trying to illuminate through your character’s relationship to (and response to) her/her duties?
5. Love: How does the text/character present love, and what is it? According to your character, does love occur between people, or does the character define love in another way (i.e., love of duty): what is worth loving, and why, according to your character, or the text through your character? According to your character, or the text through your character, what does he/she owe to what/who he/she loves, and why–what are the obligations of love?
6. Heroism: How does your character define heroism and being a hero, and why? (Alternately, how does your character define being a good leader and why?). What do you think the text is showing about being a leader/hero through your character?
7. Role of women:  What is the role of women as seen through your character’s eyes: what power/agency do the women have, and/or how do they see themselves potentially as disempowered or disadvantaged? What is the text trying to illuminate about women and their roles in society through your character? (Note: the answer to this question shouldn’t just be “women are treated as lesser”–dig deeper than that. Women have agency and authority in interesting ways in some of the works we’ve read).
8. Lesson: As we’ve seen, texts often seek to educate their readers in some way (emotionally, as future citizens of a city-state, through the education of an irresponsible king, etc). What lesson or lessons do you think are imparted through your character (through his/her actions, behavior, and general presence in the text)?

Practice beforehand: 

1. In-class practice/modeling through class debate (9/30); possible in-class practice for 10/7.
2. Group-work (10/14), where you will bring in some passages you want to refer to and, in groups of three, give each other feedback on the claims and ideas you have.
3. During midterm itself (10/21), you will sit with your group and use the time you’re waiting in to practice with each other. I’ll give 5 minutes at the top of class for the first person on the list to practice.

Due for midterm: 

• Wednesday, 10/14: Come prepared with your character, question/theme, and some passages chosen for group feedback.
• Midterm date itself, 10/21: Bring your passages on one sheet of paper with annotations (underlining, highlighting, notes in the margins, even an outline on the side of your passages), and, of course, yourself and your voice.

Grading: Since this is not a public speaking course per se, I will not be judging you on things like how often you say “um,” and if you’re a little nervous, that’s okay.  Here is what I will judge you on:

A= While you demonstrate that you understand concepts we covered in class, you also have made your own independent claim and brought in new textual evidence, or taken textual evidence we have discussed and looked at it from a different angle; you competently close read the textual evidence you quoted/mentioned to prove your claim(s).

B= You restate concepts we covered in class, but you have shown some effort to bring in a new idea and passages. You make an attempt to close read the textual evidence you quoted/mentioned to prove your claim(s).

C= You restate concepts, ideas and passages that we have covered in class, and you do it competently. You do not, however, bring in anything new, in terms of claims or passages

D= You briefly restate some ideas we have covered in class, but some claims may be inaccurate. You rarely refer to the text itself.

F= You do not state ideas we have covered in class, or are very vague about these ideas, and you make claims that may be inaccurate or too general, without referring to the text itself.

Notes:

• Note that in the case of a text like The Hymn to Aten, the “character” you choose might be the narrator.
• We may be able to make more time if some people would be around to do this in my office hours after class OR in the period the room is open before class starts (about 30 minutes before)

Assignment: So far, you’ve had to write a paper that posed questions about an ambiguous moment or moments in a text we’ve read, and a paper that tried to pose an argument based on addressing one of those questions. For this assignment, we’ll be zooming even more into textual evidence and interpretation. Write a 1-2 page paper about either Sakuntala and the Ring of Recollection or Medea, focusing on a few lines of the text (again, try to use lines that you find ambiguous/are open to multiple ways of reading; you should quote these lines), and giving your interpretation of what they mean and why they are important. Pay attention to details (specific word choices, imagery, etc) in your interpretation. At the end of this interpretation, pose an argument that you think your interpretation of these lines could support.   Please do some close reading (of no more than 4–5 lines if possible; however, you may refer back to other lines/phrases in the text in your interpretation), and annotate those lines–again, provide evidence of your annotation in the form of a photocopy or photograph or show it to me in class (and the annotation should not just be you highlighting the lines–make some marginal notes, underline certain words that are important).

(If you want more specific questions to address about either of the plays in order to fulfill the goals of this assignment, click here: More specific questions about Medea and Sakuntala. You will still need to find a passage and interpret it, but these questions might help you to focus your ideas.)

Purpose: Fundamental to making an argument convincing is the use of  evidence to support it. In the case of literary analysis this means quoting the text. However,  for the use of textual evidence to be meaningful in terms of making an argument, you need to explain how the evidence does what you claim it does. That is, you see the language (or  structure or character, etc.) as ambiguous in some sense and in need of analysis to fully explain how to understand what the text is conveying.

Yet it is important to remember that there are multiple possible interpretations for any moment of ambiguity and you are making a case for one of those. Therefore, it is necessary to show what the ambiguity is and then show evidence from the text that supports your interpretation (disambiguation) of that ambiguity. You need to explain how it does what you claim because your audience does not necessarily read the same way you do. Your interpretation is immediately clear to you because you have made the connections in your head, but you need to make them clear to someone else.