paper 3 assignment

pdf version here

HUM 104 paper 3                                                       Bory, Denham, Ewington, Munger, Tamura

Spring 2020

For paper 3 you will make the third critical move in college and academic writing: making a claim. Whereas in paper 1 you showed how to read a difficult passage closely from a particular position, and in paper 2 you found, described, and situated what other readers and scholars say about a particular problem, in paper 3 you will look at the conversation three scholars are having about a particular phenomenon and you will join that conversation. Paper 1 describes and defines and demarcates a very particular difficulty; paper 2 explains what others say about a question or problem; in paper 3 you add your thinking to a conversation. A shorthand way of describing these critical and intellectual moves in college writing goes like this: what’s the problem? what do they say? what do I say? The intellectual move from they say to I say is what you do in paper 3.

In only two pages, you will describe the conversation that Randy Martin, Ariel Nereson, and Jacqueline Shea Murphy are having about Bill T. Jones and Arnie Zane’s Last Supper at Uncle Tom’s Cabin/The Promised Land and you explain how you would join that conversation. Summarize, contextualize, then make a claim. The last paragraph of your short paper is the place you make your move, your gesture, to add to the conversation, take it in a new direction, to ask a question and propose some possible answers. While you will not actually write the rest of the paper, that is, you won’t provide the evidence and make the arguments to support your claim (which would take several more pages), your readers should nevertheless have a clear sense of what they say and what you say. Though your paper here is only two pages, imagine that the last paragraph would prepare your readers for the (imaginary) next four or five pages of evidence to support and fill out the claim in that last paragraph.

This kind of paper requires knowledge of the problem or the work (the dance in its context), a clear understanding of what these three scholars think about it, and then–the exciting part–an invitation to your reader to follow your own thinking about the work of those scholars in a new direction. Now, your new direction might be a very modest extension of one of their ideas, or a move to highlight an aspect of one paper in the context of another, or a call to pay close attention to a detail that you feel needs more attention. You join the imaginary conversation here as a collaborator and not an antagonist; you would like the other scholars – imagine them listening to your last paragraph–to welcome you into their group.

So: close reading of the three scholars’ papers, clear summary (with the effective use of quotations), your own contribution. In two pages. As always, Times New Roman, 12 point, double spaced. Include a cover page with a descriptive title and a bibliography page. As always, Chicago style for your footnotes. (Please make your footnotes perfect.)

Use our normal filename protocols and put your drafts and final paper in the proper dropbox folders, as before; papers folders are here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nu49ick9z016z9s/AADRaNLDTZYtaclXLGSAjbUHa?dl=0

Here are the texts (in Prof. Bory’s readings folder), same as in the course schedule for the next few days. (Note these are in correct Chicago style for your bibliography. Copy them.)

Martin, Randy. “Overreading the Promised Land.” In Critical Moves: Dance Studies in Theory and Politics, 55-106. Durham: Duke University Press, 1998.

Nereson, Ariel. “Counterfactual Moving in Bill T. Jones’s Last Supper at Uncle Tom’s Cabin/The Promised Land.Theatre Survey 56, no. 2 (May 2015): 166-186.

Shea Murphy, Jacqueline. “Unrest & Uncle Tom: Bill T. Jones and Arnie Zane’s Last Supper at Uncle Tom’s Cabin/The Promised Land.” In Bodies of the Text: Dance as Theory, Literature as Dance. Edited by Ellen W. Goellner and Jacqueline Shea Murphy, 81-105. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1995.

Timeline (three review meetings, but no peer review for paper 3)

  • draft 1 due Sunday Feb 2 5pm
  • one-on-one meetings with fellows Sunday Feb 2 – Friday Feb 7
  • [Saturday required day trip to Greensboro to see the Camille A. Brown and Dancers]
  • draft 2 due Sunday Feb 9 at 10 pm
  • one-on-one meeting with your faculty section leader Feb 10-13
  • second one-on-one with fellows Feb 10-13 (only after your meeting with faculty member, so schedule those in the proper sequence)
  • final version due Saturday Feb 15 5pm
  • week of February 17, assessment meetings with faculty

You can see that your research paper, which you write beginning late February and is done at the end of March, is the whole package: explain a problem or question, find and describe the conversation about it, add your voice with a claim, support that claim with evidence. You can begin thinking about that: What text(s) or problem(s) or artifact(s) or idea(s) from the course will you choose to study and write about, with the help of other scholars, to add to the conversation.