Discussion Board Personal Response 3 and Final Classmate Responses

Your third and final Discussion Board posting is due, as usual, no later than 6 PM on Friday, 5/28.  It will be an Opening Paragraph and Paragraph Outline for an analytic essay on a Tristan character, episode or motif in ONE work read since the midterm exam OR a NARROWLY FOCUSED analysis comparing the treatment of the character, episode or motif in TWO of these works.  This opening paragraph and outline may end up being helpful brainstorming for the essay portion of the final exam, if there is an appropriate prompt on the final exam.  Alternatively, it may serve as brainstorming for your final paper.

Reminder: the final paper is due the last day of class (Thursday 6/3) in hard copy, or no later than 6 PM on Thursday of exam week (6/10) as an electronic .doc file -- NOT a .docx file!! -- with the filename "[yourlastname]380paper.doc".

Be sure that your intro paragraph does ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

• clearly identifies the work(s) you are analyzing by author/director and title;
• includes any background necessary to set up your argument (e.g. date, which may help identify the target audience);
• describes how the motif, character or episode you are investigating is handled in the traditional (medieval) Tristan story;
• characterizes and describes how that particular motif, character or episode is handled in the modern work(s) you are focusing on; AND
• EXPLAINS what the author(s)/director(s) handling of that motif, character or episode reveals about his/her underlying message, his/her target audience and his/her understanding of the medieval legend.  In other words, WHY does s/he handle the motif, character or episode in that way, or what his/her treatment of it "adds up to."  THIS IS YOUR THESIS -- THE INTERPRETATION YOU ARE ARGUING WHICH IS THE CENTRAL POINT OF YOUR ESSAY.  It MUST be clearly indicated in your opening paragraph, or you will not receive credit for this assignment!!!

Your CLASSMATE RESPONSE for this week will be due no later than 6 PM on Tuesday, 6/1.  For this classmate response, you will pick ONE of your classmate's intro paragraphs and offer him/her constructive feedback upon it, including at least ONE additional citation which they could fruitfully use in their argument.
 

PROMPT:  analyze the use of a Tristan element (character, episode or motif) in a work discussed since the midterm exam (or you may discuss in no more than two works, but only if you keep a very tight focus on a single element).   Explain how the handling of this specific character, relationship, object, theme, motif, or event from the Tristan story helps us understand something interesting and significant about the non-medieval work in which it appears.  While the primary focus of your analysis should be a single (or at most two) specific literary works, you will also need to refer to the traditional (medieval) handling of that motif.  (NOTE: You need not quote any specific medieval text to establish how the motif is typically handled unless there is a specific reason to do so, as there would be, say, for an analysis of how Wagner has reinterpreted Gottfried).  Your analysis should explain something interesting and significant about the way in which the author understands and/or reinterprets  -- offers a translatio of -- the legend and its meaning.  As you consider potential topics, be aware that it's not enough simply to note the similarities and differences between the baseline story and the way the work you are focusing on handles that element.  You also have to have something to say about the specific differences which you note -- what they "add up to."  Typically, you will briefly describe how the motif you are focusing on is traditionally presented before turning your attention to significant differences in the way it is handled in the work you are focusing on.  It is these differences which will give you a key to help understand the work/author in question.

A good way to begin is to ask yourself the following questions:  Does the work you are analyzing have an overall message (or purpose), and if so, what is it? How does the author seem to understand the story s/he is presenting?  What point is the author trying to make?  Does the author have any particular agenda s/he is trying to advance?  Is the text a relatively faithful retelling, or does it significantly "reinvent" an element in the traditional Tristan story?  How does THIS particular treatment of the character, relationship, object, theme, motif, event or technique you are exploring fit into the work's overall message or the author's overall agenda or intent? What does this character / relationship / object / theme / motif / event "mean" to this author or in the context of this work?  Finally, WHY might the author have chosen to treat this character / relationship / object / theme / motif / event in this way (e.g. due to a specific audience, a shift in social values, a different genre or artistic medium, etc.)?  These questions will help you develop an interpretive framework for your analysis; they will remind you that you should consider not only the WHAT (provide an accurate description of content) but the HOW and the WHY.

Keep in mind that the introduction you are writing should be expandable into an essay that is analtyic and interpretive rather than merely descriptive.  Yes, the argument you are mapping out would be based upon specific details from the text, but you must do more than offer an accurate description of content.  You must move beyond the astute observation to analytic interpretation of what you have observed.  Description and summary, however detailed and accurate, are not a logically organized interpretive argument.
 

The first paragraph of your paper should not only identify your topic, it should make clear precisely what you will argue ABOUT that topic.  This information is your thesis, the central message of your paper; note that you may not be able to boil this thesis down to a single sentence.  Keep in mind that a thesis is not simply descriptive (a statement of facts) -- it takes a position on a debatable point based on textual interpretation -- one which could conceivably be argued another way.  For example: "the treatment of Isolde of the White Hands in Prince of Dreams" is a fine TOPIC for a paper.  But simply describing how the work you are focussing on handles that character is purely descriptive, not interpretive and analytic.  To move from a topic to a thesis, you must explain what message the author's handling of the element conveys and/or why the author (or each of the two authors) may have chosen to use it in this way; this "what" and "why" are integral parts of the interpretive thesis you will argue in your paper. As part of the "what" and the "why," your introductory paragraph should include any background information which is essential to your argument, but do not pad it with random "factoids" -- accurate facts that are not directly relevant to what you will argue in your paper.

Rather than trying to boil the complexities of your argument down into a one-sentence thesis (which may not be possible), concentrate on writing an introduction which clearly articulates the central message of your paper -- the interpretation you are advancing about the work which is its focus.  Do NOT hold back this information for your conclusion or save it to be revealed gradually, one idea at a time, in the body of the essay -- it should be fully articulated UP FRONT, letting your reader know where the essay is going and how you would prove the validity of your interpretation (argue your case).

A good introduction sketches out the parameters (but not the details) of the argument you will make in support of your thesis. (Save specific examples and quotation for the body of your essay.)  It can be particularly helpful to include this "roadmap" of your essay in in-class writing (e.g. on an exam), since doing so forces you to think through the logical structure of your argument rather than charging off in a wrong direction. Even if you do not include this information in your introductory paragraph, thinking through where you are going before you write will add clarity to your paper, helping you to set up a paragraph structure dictated by the logic of your argument (rather than e.g. the order in which textual evidence or scenes occur in the text/film you are writing about).  It can also help your reader to see where your paper is going.

Do NOT begin your introductory paragraph with truisms, statements of personal philosophy, generalities, or examples from modern life; get to your point, which is an interpretation of the primary text(s). You have a limited amount of space in which to make your case; don't waste it on a "hook."  (You already have my full attention.)  Avoid using the first or second person (I, we, you) in constructing your argument, which should be presented as objectively as possible.  The implication of first-person references is that your paper is just a statement of  personal opinion, and thus no more valid than opposing opinions; why should the reader care what you think?  Instead, aim for a tone of objective neutrality, which is rhetorically more effective than a statement of opinion ("I believe"; "I think") in convincing the reader of the objective validity of your argument.