|
A few thoughts on paper expectations |
K.E. Brashier |
Several years ago in my readings for pleasure, I came across a passage that demonstrates rather well how not to write a paper on Chinese cosmology, a passage that is as follows:
"You have seen the literary articles which have appeared at intervals in the Eatanswill Gazette in the course of the last three months, and which have excited such general -- I may say such universal attention and admiration?"
"Why," replied Mr. Pickwick, slightly embarrassed by the question, "the fact is, I have been so much engaged in other ways, that I really have not had an opportunity."
"You should do so, sir," said Pott, with a severe countenance.
"I will," said Mr. Pickwick.
"They appeared in the form of a copious review of a work on Chinese metaphysics, sir," said Pott.
"Oh," observed Mr. Pickwick -- "from your pen, I should hope?"
"From the pen of my critic, sir," rejoined Pott, with dignity.
"An abstruse subject, I should conceive," said Mr. Pickwick.
"Very, sir," responded Pott, looking intensely sage. "He crammed for it, to use a technical but expressive term; he read up for the subject, at my desire, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica."
"Indeed!" said Mr. Pickwick; "I was not aware that that valuable work contained any information respecting Chinese metaphysics."
"He read,
sir," rejoined Pott, laying his hand on Mr. Pickwick's knee, and looking
round with a smile of intellectual superiority, "he read for metaphysics
under the letter M, and for
Mr. Pott's features assumed so much additional grandeur at the recollection of the power and research displayed in the learned effusions in question, that some minutes elapsed before Mr. Pickwick felt emboldened to renew the conversation.
-- Charles Dickens, Posthumous papers of the Pickwick Club, chap. 50
I suspect you will be able to do better than Mr. Pott. To that end, allow me to show you what I look for in a good paper.
1. Quality of question – The topic of your first Hum paper is up to you, but my personal preference is that your paper begin with a question about your chosen theme within the first paragraph or two. I will then ask myself as I read your paper about the quality of that question. Was it a true question that the paper proceeded to puzzle through, or was it merely a very general theme reworded as a question and "slapped on" at the top? Was the question too focused or too broad, too simple or too difficult? Were these materials suitable for addressing it? Even if I help you select a general question, I still encourage you to flesh it out and develop a specificity to your own approach. That specificity should likewise be identified within your opening paragraph or two.
2. Quality of the answer -- Was it fully answered using all the resources of the primary source (including the translation's introduction) and, when suitable, other materials from the course? Did the paper digress from the question? Was I convinced by the logic of the answer?
3. Use of evidence – Was the available evidence fully utilized? Was it correctly interpreted? For example, were literal passages taken metaphorically or vice versa? Was it under- or over-quoted?
4. Paper mechanics -- Grammar, structure, style, turn of phrase. Be forewarned that my first degree is in journalism, and I am picky. I also notice well-worded ideas, thinking "I'll have to steal that sentence for my lecture!" And indeed, sometimes I do.
5. Content -- Was the paper merely descriptive or was there a true sense of analysis? Did it address why instead of just what? Was it "the same old stuff" or an original, worthy perspective? Did I learn something or at least look at something in a different perspective? Did I see evidence of progress in the writer's thinking?
In general, I am looking for your own thoughtfulness. Names, dates and places are still vital because accuracy is never to be devalued, but that type of data will disappear from your minds over the years, whereas the understandings you evolve -- and the mental mechanics you develop as you pursue those understandings -- will not. Look for how discreet facts indicate unspoken relationships between them. Look for patterns and structures, cause-and-effect associations, taxonomies of ideas. Finally, never assume that "It's all been done before, and I am not capable of surpassing the existing scholarship." There are numerous ideas we are discussing in conference that are novel and that remain unexplored.
Five small and three big paper hazards
After reading hundreds of papers, I have noticed that certain errors are frequently repeated. I offer the most common ones to you here so that you can avoid them. Small hazards include the following:
1. The difference between "its" and "it's."
2. Run-on sentences, also known as comma splices. (This sentence is a comma splice, it is not using a conjunction "and," "but" or "or" after the comma to join the two independent clauses.)
3. Missing page numbers.
4. Inappropriate use of semi-colons. (Semi-colons can only be used if the structure of the two independent clauses is very similar.)
5. Agreement between subject and verb or between noun and determiner. (For an example of the latter, the sentence "The effect religion has on one is to foster their sense of the divine" is wrong.)
I tend to circle errors without taking the time to correct them because the error is usually obvious. Be forewarned: I took a degree in journalism before I ‘saw the light’ and went into Chinese humanities, and so I am picky about writing techniques.
Aside from these technical errors, I regularly see certain larger mistakes, namely the following:
1. Lack of a clear statement of the problematique or full formulation of the question near the beginning of the paper. (Note this statement or formulation is not merely a topic but a topic with attitude. It should indicate a meaningful direction, a meaty trajectory.)
2. Lack of explicit organization. (I still advocate the debater's structure: Tell them what you will tell them, tell them [in three or five points], and tell them what you've told them.)
3. Lengthy regurgitation of material from the text being analyzed leaving little room for actual analysis. (In this course, you may assume your reader is familiar with the work.)
Once you have finished your paper, you might get into the practice of rereading this list of hazards to ensure you have avoided them. I also recommend getting a friend to read your papers before turning them in. Good luck.