Respnse essay-PhD doctorate only

English 200: Response Essay II

In this, your second response essay, you will pick a different disciplinary perspective from the Humanities commons (English, history, philosophy, religious studies) and select one academic paper of your own choosing, from outside the class reading list; write about selected text from chosen disciplinary perspective.

As before, this response should engage with the text as a piece of the academic conversation, and your paper should itself constitute a piece of this conversation.

And as before, I’ll be looking for a clear, sharp-eyed engagement with the text, an inquiring mind about the validity text's argument, and a substantial contribution the academic conversation about electronic texts and online discourse. Your paper should center on a specific, arguable, novel claim that you are making about the text and its subject or the author’s treatment of that subject. This claim—your thesis statement—should tell the reader something they wouldn't know from a casual reading of the text, and it should be specific enough that it requires specific support—which you will supply in the paper as well. When the reader finishes your paper, they should understand something new not only about your chosen article but about the world around them.

Specs (also, what’s new about this paper):

New subject:

--Respond to a reading of your own choosing, from outside our class reading list (either past or future papers.) Papers must be subject to my approval. Showing up to conference with a paper responding to an article I’ve never seen will probably end badly (not that I’d deduct points from the grade per se, sidestepping the vetting process just nearly always results in poor papers.)

New discipline:

--Pick a new disciplinary perspective, not the one you used in Response Essay 1. (We’ll be discussion in class how to apply different perspectives to different topics.)

Slightly longer:

--Minimum five full pages, six recommended, not counting the Works Cited (one page increase from last paper.)

Elevated research standard: --Minimum three external sources (that is, besides the article you pick from our assigned readings), four to five recommended. While the number of sources you are required to use does not change, I will be expecting evidence of more thorough reading of those sources than you showed in Response Essay 1. (This is part of the reason for the one-page increase in length.)

Sources do not necessarily have to be scholarly, but they should be authoritative (that is, while cutting-edge topics are not always covered in scholarly works, the source should be as authoritative as it can be / needs to be for your purposes. Citing lay-audience reportage on scholarly findings is not permissible in this paper.

Unchanged format:

--Sources should be cited in MLA style, the paper should correctly demonstrate in-text citation, quoting, and paraphrasing, and the same documentation policy for revisions (see syllabus) applies.

Same voice:

--Because this is an academic paper and does not involve personal narrative, do not use the first person pronoun “I” (or its plural counterparts, “we,” “our,” “us,” etc.) Likewise, avoid the second person “you.”

The interval between now and the start of the next round of conferences will be spent covering more readings in new topics, discussing research processes, and lectures on more nuanced points in response writing.

Response essay 2 assignment announced: March 16th

Response essay conferences sign-up day (probably, but see dayplanner confirmation): March 28

Response essay conferences (probably, but see dayplanner for confirmation: Mar 30-TBD.