Instead of asking you to submit a third response paper next week, I will be asking everyone to revise one of the first two response papers that they already submitted. Therefore, your independent assignment for today is to read over one of your two response papers and make a plan for how you would like to revise it. What problems can you identify in the first draft? What needs to be clarified or rewritten? In the comment section under this post, explain one significant change that you intend to make to make.
For your reference, here are three strong response papers on A Room with a View from a previous class.
ENG 4440 Model Response Paper #1
The problems I can identify in the first draft would be that I need to condense some parts of the introductory paragraph to make it simpler. I could also provide more of an in-depth analysis of what Forster’s stance is on marriages. As mentioned before, I definitely need to rewrite my intro paragraph to make it simple since it is pretty wordy. I also want to include whether or not Forster is simply adhering to novelistic convention or not, as well as if he believes that all women should get married.
Good set of issues to work on!
I haven’t fully articulated the concept of what Heath writes as trying to make. I haven’t grasp the concept of the continual usage of the word, “middle” and relating it to the feminist message in Forster’s book. For my next draft I would like to fully explain Heath’s concept in the article. It’s already established that I have a clear understanding of the novel but not Heath’s argument entirely. In order to make this paper better I would need to have a little more clarity.
Why is the term “middle” important for Heath? And what do you think the central concept of his article is? It sounds like you are asking yourself the right questions here.
The problem with my first response paper is that I need to make my point clearly, articulate better, and overall be more organized and concise.
This seems like a good plan. But which point are you hoping to articulate better?
My initial plan to revamp my first response paper is to correct the simple grammatical errors that I made with italics and capitalization. I will go more in depth with my thoughts on Trillings perspective. I realized that I did not go in depth with my responses so I will do more critical thinking and better explain my thoughts.
Okay, this is a good start. But you should think about and specify which ideas in Trilling you want to explain more carefully. What do you think Trilling’s main point is?
Plan to revise response paper of A Room with a View.
• At the upper right-hand side add the professor’s name and course name and number and date.
• Title of the paper at the center.
• Correct dramatical mistakes.
• Explain more into details why I agree with Kennard.
• Put article name in quotation and in italic.
• Include text from the reading and quote them to make argument stronger.
• Use the last name of the author instead of the first name.
• Use quotes from the author to point make stronger argument to why I think Forster is antifeminist.
• Add another a third paragraph
This are some important steps. All of this will make your paper stronger. When you offer quotations, be sure to analyze them to explain how they support your argument.
My paper on Mrs. Dalloway was hard for me, particularly because the novel itself was difficult for me to get through and I also don’t think I was able to fully grasp Meisel’s ideas in my first reading of the scholarly article.
Some few points I’d like to clarify for my revision include providing a more thoughtful explanation of how time affects and alters Clarissa and Septimus’ sense of self. I feel that I had the right idea in stating that Meisel claims that the ‘parts’ of our past time come together to form our present self. The paper would perhaps be strengthened if I am able to provide a clear explanation of the way Meisel believes we achieve coherence
This is a very good and concrete plan about what you need to address. Meisel’s argument about how characters achieve a sense of coherence and the relationship between the self and the passage of time is tricky. I’d recommend reading it again, or the parts you found confusing again. I bet it will seem clearer the second time around.
the send paper Mrs. Dalloway
First, I want to take a closer look at Perry Meisel’s article. Then I am able to make a detailed analysis and find more suitable examples in the article to support my views.
Final step, check the grammar, wording, etc., and try best to improve it.
These are good steps. But you might think about what specifically in the Meisel article you want to consider more carefully this time around.
The problem that I can identify in the first draft is to make my thesis more clearer and find more supporting details to support my argument. I need to give a more thoughtful explanation and check my grammar. Also I need to capitalize the title of the novel.
These are all important areas to work on. But how are you going to make your thesis clearer? Which questions are you going to explore further? You could be more concrete about what you’re going to say in the new draft.
In order to improve my first research paper, I want to attempt to answer the question that you asked me in your feedback about the text. I also want to read through my analysis again to see if there are any sentences that I would like to improve.
These are good steps, but this is a bit vague. And just to be clear, you need to revise one of your response papers. (No research paper has been assigned for this class).
Sorry, I mistyped. I meant response paper.