American Doxa: Identity-Memory-Text

28 February 2009

Moving on (in the middle)

Filed under: Schedule / Update — ghink @ 12:16 pm
Tags: , ,

 
 
M 2-Mar      Essay 1 workshop
(Read/review notes)

Note: Post one question or specific topic for discussion in thread below.

Read: (over weekend)
         Text for analysis; resources: notes; sections in Gardner; Purdue OWL pages (see below).

 
 
W 4-Mar                   Due: Essay 1
(on e-learning)

Extra Credit: (optional)          Process Memo (see below)
 
 

Good Bye Lenin!

scene from Good Bye Lenin!

 

 
Practical Essay Resources:

 
Assignment Description

 
Document format example: Hink Essay 1.rtf
         — MLA document formatting

 
Notes for analysis.

 
Notes on composition.

 
GardnerWriting about Literature:

“Active Reading” (4-10)
“The Writing Process” (16-27; 31-3) – esp. re: Thesis, Organization, Revision; Intro/Concl.
* “Writing About Literature” & “Quotations” (34-41)
“Explication” (44)
* Chp 4. “Writing about Stories” (57-60; examples follow)
or Chp. 5 “Writing about Poems” (82-8)
** Using material: quoting, citing, MLA format (116-28)

 

 
Purdue OWL

*Writing About Fiction: “Close Reading & Pitfalls” and “Thesis”
Writing About Poetry
“Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Summarizing”

MLA Style
         — Formatting Quotations
         — In-text Citation
         — Works Cited page

“Outline” (Writing Process section)
Revision (Grammar and Mechanics section)
Writing Concisely (Revision)
Appropriate Language (Academic Writing section)

 
 
 
Extra Credit (optional): Process Memo

1-page min/max (“cover sheet)” included with essay, describing:
– interpretive process
– composition process (particularly revision)

Variable credit by quality/extent of reflection/insights, not length (0-2 points).
Typically 2 single-spaced paragraphs, 1-page (max). Formal ORG/structure not necessary.
And not simply a narrative description, but reflective — precisely (and concisely) pointing out specific insights about both stages, (interpretive process and composition). Concise phrasing is key: leave out repeated or unnecessary points, (i.e. every element should be significant).

Tip: seemingly two simple options for ORG (not a major issue, but suggesting structure):
by stages, (respective p’graphs about text interpretation and essay composition);
or integrated, describing key insights about your essay, (with comp. in relation to interp., or vice versa perhaps).
 

2 Comments »

  1. Can the essay be a combination of first and third person writing or just strictly third person?

    Comment by ryang87 — 1 March 2009 @ 2:58 pm | Reply

  2. Should our entire paper focus on the substance of the piece or can we discuss structure? What if there’s something in the piece that seems to run counter to Barthes? Can we contrast or should we only discuss what is concurrent?

    Comment by Andrea Morgan — 2 March 2009 @ 11:42 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.