|
E491: History of Literary Criticism Journal Requirement Instructions Al Drake | 520 Hum. M/W 12:00-1:00 | ajdrake@ajdrake.com Four separate sets of journal entries (word-processed or handwritten) will be due on the dates below, either in class or (if word-processed) by email the same day. Responses should be based on the study questions available for each author. Here is the list -- numbers in parentheses mean "respond to any x number of study questions total on this author," and the author hyperlinks take you to the relevant study questions. Week 04 (09/15) Set 1: Plato (4); Aristotle (4); Horace (4); Plotinus (4). Week 08 (10/13) Set 2: Augustine (2); Aquinas (2); Dante (1); Sidney (4); Du Bellay (2); Corneille (2); Pope (4); Johnson (4); Hume (4); Kant (6). Week 12 (11/10) Set 3: Lessing (2); Schiller (4); Hegel (6); Wordsworth (6); Coleridge (4) Shelley (4). Final Exam Day (TBD) Set 4: Marx-Engels (4); Arnold (4); Baudelaire (4); Nietzsche (4) James (4); Mallarmé (2). *Here's how I suggest you use the study questions: skim them before you read the text to which they refer, just to get the sense of what you might look for. Then read the questions more carefully while you are reading the assigned text, marking the ones that seem most interesting so you can write about them for your journal entry on the relevant author. (I have provided page numbers where appropriate, often citing phrases to help you anchor your response. Moreover, the questions almost always refer to the text sequentially, from beginning to end.) *I suggest that you do journal entries on a word processor so you can save a copy for your own use in developing paper topics. But if you handwrite, please write legibly and make yourself a photocopy. Bring journals to class on the due dates. Please staple the whole set together -- don't use paper clips, binders, etc. *Label the authors and questions so I know what you're addressing. *You can do more than the specified number of questions if you are feeling industrious, but the extra questions don't mean you should should skip some other author -- the point is to read all the texts and respond somewhat to all of them. *Responses will vary in length to suit the complexity of the question. Sometimes a few good sentences will be appropriate, while other responses may require a short paragraph. There's no need to respond exhaustively -- just thoughtfully. Here is a good sample response to a question on one of our texts, Plato's Republic, Book 2: 9. Why does Socrates argue that "God [...] cannot be responsible for everything"? What kind of attributes do Socrates' Gods (or his God) have instead of the ones given them by Homer and ordinary Greek mythology? (51-52) Socrates is worried that the poets' stories about the gods' bad behavior will serve as models for the Republic's impressionable citizens. Homer portrays the gods as always up to some scheme that suits their love interests or their desire for power and "payback" -- they don't always behave morally or temperately. Socrates' unchanging and straightforward god, by contrast, does only good things, so he is a perfect model: Socrates wants a stable Republic. *My questions should help you develop ideas for papers, participate in discussions, and learn more from comments in class. Responses should show an honest attempt to come to terms with the material. They aren't "answers" to rigid test questions, and they don't have to be perfect -- it's fine if they are just thoughtful first responses based on a first reading. Some of our material is difficult, and one learns such material, paradoxically enough, by both "slow exposure" and unpredictable, exponential leaps of insight and connection-making. Expecting 100% comprehension of, say, Kant or Hegel on first reading isn't realistic -- deep learning just doesn't happen that way. *The journals take the place of a midterm exam. Cumulatively, they will count for 30% of the course grade. Here's how the grading for the journal requirement as a whole will go: A: all journal sets turned in complete and on time; responses are specific and consistently thoughtful -- neither vague remarks nor simple yes/ no statements. B: all journal sets turned in on time, but incomplete in terms of numbers or quality of response. C: one journal set missing, but all others completed satisfactorily and on time. Alternatively, all sets turned in, but responses don't show much effort to understand the texts. D: two or more journal sets missing, and/or responses clearly not thoughtful enough to suggest serious engagement with text. F: student has failed to turn in any journal sets. Anyone who does this would probably have to earn an "A" in all other components (attendance, final, paper) just to pass the course. Not a good idea....
|