Writing Task:
You will write an essay in which you reckon with the whole of your primary text and its ideas by drawing upon your two or three ancillary texts. Remember, if you only choose two ancillary texts, you will need to engage with them with great nuance, depth, and complexity (the same is the case for three ancillary texts, but you will need to amplify this with only two). Do this reckoning not only for its own sake but also for the sake of developing an argument and idea of your own that emerges through your intertextual conversation and analysis. The goal is not to attack the essay or list its flaws, but to wind your way in and out of its language and ideas, and to let that winding become the path to your own argument and idea. Thus, your chosen text could be seen as the spine of your essay, the structure that connects the whole that you’ll return to again and again through extensive reflection, and ultimately transcend.
Advice:
As you read and re-read your primary essay, ask questions of it. Start with the obvious, what are you curious about that the author is not considering or addressing? And how do your ancillary texts speak to that question and help you to engage with it? In this essay you will ultimately form your own argument (complex claim) out of a sincere, compelling question that you’re exploring.
Skills Practiced and Grading Rubric:
Reckoning asks that you climb inside a text, take it apart, assess the form and function of each individual piece, then reassemble it with a new knowledge of both what it says and how it works. To do this successfully, you must:
⦁ locate and evaluate what you believe to be the primary essay’s central problem, argument, and idea;
⦁ engage that idea by putting your chosen primary text into conversation with two or three other complex texts in order to;
⦁ explore and analyze the implications of your primary text’s ideas; and
⦁ develop your own argument and idea in response that ultimately transcends the primary text.
Formatting
Refer to the formatting guidelines in the Syllabus, and provide MLA formatted in-text citations and a Works Cited page.
The below grading rubric should give you a sense of how I grade essays. If you don’t understand a grade from my comments, please come and talk to me about it! We’ll discuss the essay in terms of this rubric and the NYU Expository Writing Program’s “Vocabulary for Writing.”
There is a line between work that achieves my minimum goals for papers in this class and work that does not. This is the line between a B- and a C+. An essay that satisfies the requirements for the specific assignment, has an effective structure, and articulates its ideas in an interesting way meets my standards for adequate work in this course and will receive a grade of B- or above, provided its performance is otherwise competent. Essays that do not offer an idea that responds to a problem in the text and develop their ideas through a logical, progressive structure typically receive grades in the C range or below.
An A-range essay is both ambitious and successful. It develops an interesting problem and idea with grace and confidence. It includes:
⦁ the identification and articulation of a compelling problem, one that motivates both the author’s exploration and the reader’s continued interest;
⦁ an interesting argument that is sufficiently limited in scope, nuanced, and complicated throughout the essay so that the essay develops wider implications and insight;
⦁ a logical, progressive structure that takes the reader on a journey, developing, complicating, and expanding the initial argument by considering counter-arguments; strong and clear links between points, and well-organized paragraphs;
⦁ sufficient, appropriate, and interesting evidence, presented in a readable and understandable way;
⦁ original and insightful analysis, that shows how the evidence supports the idea, and that goes beyond summary or paraphrase;
⦁ sources that are deployed in a range of ways (to motivate and develop the argument and idea, provide key-terms, and so on); that have been selected carefully; and that are quoted and cited correctly; and
⦁ an ethos that is both conversational and sophisticated; that uses diction appropriate to the subject matter and the audience; that engages and stimulates the reader.
A B-range essay is one that is ambitious but only partially successful, or one that achieves modest aims well. It exhibits one or more of the following features:
⦁ an argument that may be arguable but vague, uninteresting, or fragmentary; it may be dropped in places; it may lack a close connection to a motivating problem;
⦁ a structure that proceeds logically most of the time or in general, but is periodically confusing due to missing links or large intellectual leaps; it might be overly predictable and undeveloped, with few complications; it may include disorganized paragraphs;
⦁ evidence that is generally solid but may be thin in places, or might be presented without analysis or reflective insight (as undigested quotation);
⦁ analysis that is generally insightful but sometimes either simply summary or entirely absent; that makes inconsistent or illogical connections between evidence and idea;
⦁ sources that are quoted and cited correctly (for the most part) but are deployed in limited ways—as a straw person or as simple confirmation of the author’s viewpoint, for example;
⦁ an ethos that is clear but lacking in sophistication; or that is weighed down by inappropriately fancy diction; may demonstrate some errors in punctuation, grammar, spelling, and format.
A C-range essay has significant problems in articulating and developing its idea and argument. Its features include one or more of the following:
⦁ a central insight that relies on an argument that is descriptive or confusing; that has multiple parts that are only superficially tied together; that may lack further implications (and that, as a consequence, does not offer an idea);
⦁ a structure that is confusing (making huge, unmotivated intellectual leaps) or predictable (a list or a “five-paragraph essay”); that includes few complications or counter-arguments; that exhibits disorganized, often overly descriptive, paragraphs;
⦁ insufficient evidence, often presented without analysis as undigested quotations; may be taken out of context;
⦁ sources that are not adequately situated or explained; that may be quoted and cited incorrectly; that are used simply as filler or as affirmation of the author’s viewpoint;
⦁ an ethos that is difficult to read or overly simplistic; perhaps including errors in punctuation, grammar, spelling, and format.
A D-range essay may engage concepts or sources but generally does so superficially; it may fail to address the expectations of the assignment. Its features include:
⦁ a central insight that fails to cohere, or an argument and idea that are missing or purely descriptive (un-arguable, without implication), or that rely on a significant misreading;
⦁ a structure that is confusing, demonstrating little focused development; disorganized paragraphs; plot summary;
⦁ evidence that is scanty or absent; when present, it is chiefly undigested quotation and/or taken out of context;
⦁ analysis that is absent, based on misinterpretations of the evidence, or mere summary;
⦁ sources that are absent or, if present, are not adequately situated or explained, incorrectly quoted and/or cited, and/or used as filler;
⦁ an ethos that is simplistic or difficult to read, and is probably riddled with technical errors.
A failing essay is usually significantly shorter than the assigned length; it addresses the assignment superficially but doesn’t attempt to offer any original insight; while it may cite sources, it fails to engage either sources or ideas.
An essay that is less than half the assigned length and does not fulfill the most basic expectations of the assignment does not count as successful completion of the assignment and earns a “0.” Such an essay puts its author in jeopardy of failing the course.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|