ENGLISH 111:

GEOGRAPHIES OF HELL

Assignments: Spring 2007

This is where you'll find out of class writing assignment prompts.

Turn in your shorter and longer papers with eSubmit. You will publish your final ePortfolio to the Web (we'll do this together in class).

Assignments, Spring 2007:

Short Paper 1: Inferno Response Paper

Short Paper 2: Inferno Close Reading

Longer Paper 1: Dante's Inferno

Short Paper 3: Critical Précis of "The Myth of Sisyphus"

Short Paper 4: Agents & Subjects

Short Paper 5: Subjects & Agents

Longer Paper 2: Infernal Intersections

English 111h ePortfolio, Spring 2007

 

Short Paper 1: Inferno Response Paper

Purpose:

Instructions:

Writing a "response paper" might seem to imply that you will be writing about your emotional responses and reactions to a particular text, that you will be answering the question: "How did you feel about the text?" This is NOT what you are to do in a critical response paper. In this sort of paper, "How did you feel" is a legitimate starting point perhaps, but what is more interesting is why you felt that way.

This course asks you to be an active reader—to consider the act of reading as a full contact sport—and to create meaning from the text rather than simply absorbing the material. In this vein, a reading response paper should engage the text in some fashion. The paper should examine and begin to formulate the questions that a more formal analytical argument essay might argue.

Ultimately, your college career (like this class) will most likely ask you to devise your own paper topics—rather than responding to the questions a professor might pose about a text (literary or otherwise); you will be asked to make an academic argument—without the guidance of a "leading" question. The purpose, then, of this response paper is to help you begin to see the kinds of issues that most interest you in the texts your read. From there, you can begin to take control of your academic voice.

For this particular response paper, you will focus on a specific section of Dante's Inferno (this can range anywhere from several cantos to several tercets) . Whatever you choose to focus on, your response must be critical, not simply a description of your own personal feelings about the essay. "Critical" in this sense does not mean bashing Dante or pointing out passages you don't agree with, but rather examining the text closely in order to take a stand on an issue that crops up in the text or to articulate a questions in the text that intrigues you. Your response does not need to be a fully structured and argued essay—it should, however, pull together your thoughts about a particular issue in the text.

Some possible approaches include:

  1. Choosing a concept or theme in the text and noting all the occurrences in your particular section:

    • Is there a pattern to the instances you marked?
    • What does this concept seem to do for the text as a whole?
    • What else does the concept/theme mean in the "wider" world?

  2. What questions do you have about the text? What is confusing?

    • Where do these questions occur?
    • Can you come up with any answers from the context?
    • Is your question related to any other themes in the text? Can these help answer the question?

Use these question to help you formulate a claim--a specific, arguable response to the aspect of the text on which you are focusing. DO NOT simply summarize the text. You will want to briefly summarize your section of The Inferno to familiarize your readers with the ideas you are discussing, but the focus of a response paper is your argument. Be sure to organize your thoughts in a logical manner and to conclude quoted evidence from the text to support the claim you make.

 

Guidelines & Due Date:

 

Outcomes Targeted: 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5; 2.1, 2.2, 2.5; 3.1, 3.2, 3.3; 4.2, 4.3

 

 

Short Paper 2: Inferno Close Reading

Purpose:

Instructions:

When you write a close reading, your goal is to closely analyze the material—to focus on the details and explain why they are significant. Close reading is an essential skill for writing an analytical argument paper as it allows you to analyze the material you are discussing in your paper and to explain how it supports the argument you are making. You will need to clearly support your argument with evidence; performing close readings of your material is the first step to both determining and demonstrating your argument. This "building block" of argumentative writing does not attempt to summarize the author's main purpose. Rather, it focuses on "picking apart" and closely analyzing the way the author makes his or her argument. Here, unlike the summary or the précis (which we'll see later), you are working from the smaller details out to the larger picture.

For this assignment you will choose a specific episode from The Inferno—perhaps as few as several tercets, but not as long as a canto. Using our in-class discussions of the text, about argument in general, and about rhetorical appeals, make a claim about what what your passage accomplishes, why it is important to The Inferno as a whole and to our discussion of the Geographies of Hell in general. Go beyond the obvious "meaning" of your passage—you want to argue for your interpretation. Think about how your reader will see this passage and The Inferno differently after reading your paper.

Consider the following about your passage:

  • Why does this passage stand out from others?
  • How can you effectively organize your analysis of the passage?
  • What rhetorical strategies does Dante use to make his point?

Here are some tips for analyzing your passage:

  1. Read the passage several times. As you read, be sure to annotate. Look up words or references that you don't know.
  2. Take notes on each sentence of your passage; censor nothing.
  3. Make a list of words or phrases stand out as being important in the passage.
  4. Draw lines, make lists, charts or diagrams that help you understand the relation of these words to one another. Consider especially the relations between various words that reappear in the text.
  5. Consider the larger theme or argument. How might you tie the specific language of the passage to that larger theme or themes of the text as a whole?
  6. Ask yourself several questions about the observations you have made. How does the language of the passage bring a particular theme or idea into focus? What oppositions parallels, or inversions does the author seem to be effecting by juxtaposing certain terms?
  7. Finally, ask yourself, "What's the point?" Why is it important to a particular understanding of the text to identify these rhetorical features? So what? What's the significance of these observations and interpretations? (These last questions will help you to begin to develop an argument based on your close reading.)
  8. Organize your observations and your answers to these questions in a logical, cohesive manner.
  9. Do not simply summarize the passage. Close readings must move beyond summary.

As you are working on this assignment, consider how your analysis of your passage engages your understanding of The Inferno as a whole. You should also be thinking about how your passage and your analysis of it reflects on the ideas Dante may be trying to communicate.

 

Guidelines & Due Date:

 

Outcomes Targeted: 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5; 2.1, 2.2, 2.5; 3.1, 3.2, 3.3; 4.2, 4.3

 

 

Longer Paper 1: Dante's Inferno

Purpose:

Instructions:

For you first longer paper, you will advance an original argument of your own regarding The Inferno. In your paper you should support and develop your argument using close readings from the text, as you've done for your first two shorter papers. Remember to focus on aspects of language and the text, rather than merely the story/plot. Also be sure to keep returning to the effects of your observations regarding language, culture and perception and how these effects connect with your argument.

For this paper you will need to include at least one peer reviewed secondary source. Your secondary source will likely help you come up with the specific claim you wish to make, so decide which text you will be using early on. Our class annotated bibliography is a good place to begin looking for sources, but you are of course not limited to this list. Whichever secondary source you choose, be sure that your own argument goes beyond it—you don't want to simply re-has another critic's claim. The level at which you engage with your secondary text will depend on your argument, but you must do more than merely cite the references to your article: you need to demonstrate that you understand the arguments of your secondary source and that you have entered into a meaningful "conversation" with it.

Your choice of argument is up to you. When developing your argument, mine your previous papers and our in-class discussions for ideas. Some possible areas to consider include:

  • The Inferno as it informs contemporary virtual space: the network society, Cyberspace, or "personal spaces"
  • Conceptions of self as influenced by Hell mythology
  • Modern concepts of discipline and literary precedence
  • Essentializing vilification or heroification of cultural icons

This is by no means an exhaustive list—nor is it definitive: if you choose to work with any of these ideas, you will want to focus them to your specific area of interest. This means that you will need to be sure to explicitly articulate the stakes of your argument and the implications that those stakes suggest for individuals in particular and/or society at large. This paper will be peer reviewed and conferenced, so keep an open mind about your claim and stakes, particularly early on in the writing process—if your revision is successful, your paper should evolve substantially.

 

Guidelines & Due Date:

 

Outcomes Targeted: all

 

 

Short Paper 3: Critical Précis of "Sisyphus"

Purpose:

Instructions:

A précis is a concise summary of a text, an abstract. While part of the purpose of a précis is to summarize the material, it is not the entire goal of a précis. The précis differs from a summary in that it asks you to use quotes from the material you are working with and it also asks you to include your reaction to the material.

Prior to writing your précis:

  1. Identify the main claim of the essay.

  2. Briefly outline/make notes about the ideas and arguments in the essay.

  3. Note your reaction to the argument in the essay. This is your chance to agree, disagree, dialogue, or argue with the author.

Use the following format to write your précis:

  • Opening Paragraph: Start with the big picture, the general topic of the material you are writing about, then state the author’s main claim and suggest your own original claim—your response to the reading.

  • Body of the Précis: Briefly outline the author’s argument using several paragraphs. Here is where you will summarize—stick to the main points and avoid getting bogged down with too many details. You should use brief quotes from the essay.

  • Conclusion: Return to your own responses to and conclusions about the essay. This section does not have to be limited to one paragraph. You may need a paragraph or two to discuss your responses/arguments and a paragraph to make your conclusions.

Remember, the purpose of a précis is to help you understand the arguments made in the essay and to help you begin to formulate your own arguments about the essay as well. Keep this purpose in mind as you write. DO NOT SIMPLE SUMMARIZE THE ESSAY. You should be trying both to convey and engage the author’s argument.

 

Guidelines & Due Date:

 

Outcomes Targeted: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5; 3.1, 3.2, 3.3; 4.2, 4.3

 

 

Short Paper 4: Agents & Subjects

Purpose:

Instructions:

For your fourth shorter paper, you will make an argument about human agency, drawing on our readings and discussions for evidence. Basically, you will propose a response to the question: "Do individuals choose the way they live, or is the supposed 'freedom' of self-determination precluded by 'human nature,' divinity, 'circumstance,' etc.?" Be sure that you narrow your argument and nuance your position. What are the limitations of your claim? Where might it not apply? This is not a black or white question, but one of degrees. Also be sure that your evidence stems from your interpretation and analysis of our literary texts. Remember, these are works of fiction: they will not stand on their own as evidence to support your claim. Your analysis and interpretation of them, however, should give you plenty of solid reasoning in which to ground your argument.

 

Guidelines & Due Date:

 

Outcomes Targeted: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5; 3.1, 3.2, 3.3; 4.2, 4.3

 

 

Short Paper 5: Subjects & Agents

Purpose:

Instructions:

For your fourth shorter paper, you made an argument about human agency, drawing on our readings and discussions for evidence. For your fifth shorter paper, you will make a similar argument, but from the opposite position. For example, if you previously argued that our texts support individual agency within a specific context, you might now argue that, in fact, self-determination is an illusion and that the choices one makes have little impact on his or her ultimate condition. You may want to use the same evidence, but interpreted in a different way; you may want to use different evidence (from the same or different texts). Feel free to build this paper up from ideas you generated in short paper four, but be sure that you significantly revise any ideas or evidence you re-use. Remember: I am reading both of these papers (and in relatively quick succession); do not simply "dress up" your old analysis and try to pawn it off on me as a new argument.

As with short paper four, be sure that you narrow your argument and nuance your position. You should consciously consider the limitations and reservations of your claim. This is also a convenient place to address and respond to potential counter-claims. As always, be sure that your evidence stems from your interpretation and analysis of our literary texts. Again, these are works of fiction: they will not stand on their own as evidence to support your claim.

 

Guidelines & Due Date:

 

Outcomes Targeted: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5; 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5; 3.1, 3.2, 3.3; 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

 

Longer Paper 2 : Infernal Intersections

Purpose:

Instructions:

We have been discussing in class different theories about the extent of individual agency as it has been (re)presented in our texts so far this quarter. In your fourth shorter paper you have taken a position on the question of individual agency relative to our course texts and in-class discussions; in your fifth shorter paper you have reversed the poles of your argument and argued the opposing position.

For your second longer paper, you will pick a theme, philosophy, ontology (a theory or conception relating to the nature of being), or epistemology (a theory or science of the method or grounds of knowledge) present in at least two texts and make an argument about the point of intersection of those texts. The goal of this paper is not only to build on the argumentative foundation you have already constructed in shorter papers four and five, but also to demonstrate your ability to accentuate the nuance of your argumentative position by contextualizing your claim with the aid of multiple sources. To help you begin thinking through your point of intersection, you may want to consider:

  • How the individual is constructed at this point and how these texts enhance or distort the human experience

  • What insight and cultural implications the multifaceted viewpoint offered by these texts offers to your specific site of inquiry

  • What stakes your analysis and interpretation hold for critical inquiry beyond the specific bounds of your argument

  • The implications of your argument for the popular representations of Hell we have been studying this quarter

This list is, of course, by no means exhaustive—it is only intended to get you going. Your eventual claim(s) will be the product of your analysis and interpretation of evidence. In working through your argument, be sure to narrowly define your line of inquiry and to explicitly articulate what is at stake.

 

Guidelines & Due Date:

 

Outcomes Targeted: all