Write a critical essay over "The Coquette".
calilley
coquette_paper.docxHIST 3322
Dr. Skidmore
Fall 2015
The Coquette Paper, due Tuesday October 5th
Using information from the assigned reading and lecture material, write a 3-4 page paper that analyzes how accurately Hannah Foster’s The Coquette reflects women’s lives in the early Republic. Some questions you may want to consider include:
What does the novel say about the status of women in the early Republic? Do you think this is an accurate representation of women in the early Republic? Does the novel provide a window into all women’s experiences in the early Republic, or is it limited to a specific cross-section of women (say, women of a particular race, class, or region)? How does it depict relationships between men and women? Do you think this is an accurate representation?
Grading Criteria:
· Your paper must go beyond the obvious: I am looking for critical analysis, not simply plot summary.
· Your paper must have a clear thesis. Please underline your thesis.
· Your paper will be evaluated on your attention to detail and use of evidence.
· Your paper must make connections made between the novel and other course materials (i.e. other assigned readings and/or information presented in lecture). Please cite at least one source beyond the novel.
· Late papers will be reduced by 10 points per calendar day late.
Citations:
Your paper must include footnotes, formatted in Chicago Style.
To insert a footnote, place your cursor at the end of your sentence, then click the “insert” tab, then select footnote.
Your first citation of the novel should look like this:
Hannah W. Foster, The Coquette (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987 [originally published 1797]), page number.
Subsequent footnotes should read: Foster, page number.
Citations of a lecture should look like this:
Emily Skidmore, “Title of Lecture” (lecture, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, date)
|
Criteria |
F |
D |
C |
B |
A |
Total |
|
Thesis (20%) |
No thesis statement |
Difficult to identify at all, may be bland restatement of obvious point (12-13) |
May be unclear (contain many vague terms), appear unoriginal, or offer relatively little that is new (14-15) |
Promising, but may be slightly unclear, or lacking in insight or originality (16-17) |
Easily identifiable, plausible, novel, sophisticated, insightful, crystal clear (18-20) |
|
|
Historic Context (10%) |
Historic context ignored completely |
Author provides very little historical context (6) |
Author provides vague references to the historic context with no clear connections made to the specific topic discussed (7) |
Author provides historic context, but may fail to make connections to the specific documents analyzed (8) |
Author clearly places the documents in their historic context, making connections between the specifics of the primary document to broader themes (9-10) |
|
|
Engagement with book and at least one other source (30%) |
No reference to texts |
Paper displays very little engagement with texts--may reference texts but does not discuss them or use direct evidence (18-20) |
Author describes book/supplemental materials, but does not use direct evidence, or does not use the required number of sources (21-23) |
Author engages with book and supplemental material;, and direct evidence is generally good, but not particularly strong (24-26) |
Author directly engages with book and supplemental material, deploying well-selected quotes that strongly support the paper's claims (27-30) |
|
|
Analysis (20%) |
No attempt made to relate evidence to argument |
Very little or very weak attempt to relate evidence to argument; may be no identifiable argument, or no evidence to relate it to (12-13) |
Quotes appear often without analysis relating them to the paper's thesis (14-15) |
Evidence often related to thesis, though links perhaps not very clear (16-17) |
Author clearly relates evidence to thesis; analysis is fresh and exciting, posing new ways to think of the material (18-20) |
|
|
Organization (10%) |
No discernable organizational structure. |
Unclear, often because thesis is weak or non-existent. Transitions confusing and unclear. Few topic sentences (6) |
Generally unclear, often wanders or jumps around. Few or weak transitions, many paragraphs without topic sentences (7) |
Generally clear and appropriate, though may wander occasionally. May have a few unclear transitions, or a few paragraphs without strong topic sentences (8) |
Evident, understandable, appropriate for thesis. Excellent transitions from point to point. Paragraphs support solid topic sentences (9-10) |
|
|
Language (5%) |
Major problems in sentence structure, grammar, and diction. |
Big problems in sentence structure, and grammar. Frequent major errors in punctuation, and spelling (2) |
Problems in sentence structure and grammar (usually not major). Errors in punctuation and spelling (3) |
Sentence structure and grammar strong despite occasional lapses (4) |
Sentence structure and grammar excellent. Tense is consistent. (5) |
|
|
Citations (5%) |
Citations not present |
Very few citations (2) |
Some of the evidence is cited or citations are inconsistent or not properly formatted (3) |
Most evidence is cited; citations are generally consistent throughout the paper (4) |
All evidence is cited with page numbers and citations are in a consistent style throughout the paper (5) |
|
|
|
|
Paper total: |
|
