Editorial Collaboration Instructions:
On Thursday of this week, we will meet in person for our peer review. On Tuesday, as I will be out of town, our work will be virtual.
For Tuesday, you should have already completed the readings from Clarity and Grace and perhaps the additional LinkedIn Learning resource. Please also refer to the notes below on strategy and structure for a typical seminar paper–the focus of our work on Tuesday. Read through your peers’ paper to get a global sense of what it’s trying to do and to make a mental note of areas you might return to in your editorial comments. Then, give the paper a more thorough second pass, offering comments in the margins that will help the author improve the paper on the level of argumentation and writing. Also, be ready to deliver those comments with a longer comment of 2-3 paragraphs that frames you more specific advice. In every instance, be constructive in your criticism.
For Tuesday’s peer review task (due before class on Thursday), please email your feedback to your peer and copy me. In your feedback, please remember to be respectful and constructive.
The Term Paper
Key Structural Elements
In its simplest form, an argumentative research paper unfolds roughly as follows, though you have plenty of freedom to tweak and adapt this model as you see fit:
- A dynamic introduction that strategically frames the broader project. Here, you might combine strategies that include signaling historical or cultural context, intentionally summarizing the book with an eye on your eventual argument, offering a sense of the continuing relevance of your text, or performing a strong moment of close reading–a sort of preview of the analytical work that follows
- “Dueling” thesis statements that reflect the research conversation you’re engaging (what I call the “conversation-based thesis”) and the ways in which you hope to extend that conversation into fresh ground (your argumentative thesis). This can take 3 – 5 sentences. Even if you don’t frame your thesis in the context of the research conversation, the main point of the essay should be both clear.
- The research conversation itself: try to give a decent amount of attention to your most important sources, but bring in all of the critical voices via well-chosen and well-framed quotations and accurate and fair moments of summary. Also feel free to engage your sources here, rather than merely summarize them.
- Your argumentative extension of this research conversation: even if you don’t feel that your argument is 100% unique, you can still shed new light on a topic by adding new layers of analysis and insight. You don’t need to completely revise the audience’s thinking about a given text, but perhaps you have some thoughts on a particular character or chapter or even paragraph that you think adds something new to an ongoing conversation. This aspect of the paper is all about evidence, which often takes the form of close reading. Remember: literary evidence along doesn’t speak for itself; our close engagement with the text lends it meaning.
- A strong conclusion that takes the reader somewhere new rather than simply repeating what came before. Here, you might focus on what makes the argument (and text) relevant in the present. Why should we care?
Matters of Style:
We could ask many questions about style, and each author will have different strengths and weaknesses. In your editorial work, use the questions below to help your peer understand what they do generally well and what they could improve overall simplicity, clarity, elegance, and evocativeness.
- Does it favor strong verbs over linking verbs?
- Does the author foreground the main “characters” and action in each sentence?
- Is the author’s writing concise, avoiding strings of prepositional phrases and unnecessary elements?
- Does the writing create vivid pictures through their prose? Does the author engage the senses?
- Does the author vary sentence length and pacing, using a dynamic range of punctuation strategies to craft a strong sense of voice?
- Does the author use inter-paragraph transitions effectively to create a sense of cohesiveness and flow?
- Does the author meaningfully bridge ideas between paragraphs, crafting a global sense of coherence?
- Are quotes from literary texts and critics adequately set up and introduced–or “fully framed,” as we might say? Do we understand how a quote is used, and who or what is speaking, before we encounter the quote? Does that author help a reader who might not be familiar with the text being analyzed, situating quotes within their own narrative or poetic contexts?