|
Assignment Guidelines
Seminars
Seminars
should be between 25 and 30 minutes long. Evaluation will be based both
upon the content and presentation of your seminar, with about two-thirds
of the mark deriving from the former. The portion of your mark devoted
to presentation is particularly based upon overall coherence and structure.
The key aim
of these seminars is to generate interesting discussion.
While you do need a thesis, try not to produce an argument so tightly
conclusive that it precludes or stifles all discussion afterward. Please
do not read a prepared "paper," unless
it really is your intent to bore your fellow students senseless. Use notes
(probably in point form) to guide you through your presentation.
You may structure
your presentation in whatever way seems to you best: it is possible, and
frequently very effective, for example, to structure your paper so as
to allow for, or encourage discussion at various points within your presentation;
alternately, you can run straight through your paper, saving discussion
for the end. Consider preparing questions relating to central themes or
points with which you can provoke debate. Try to maintain eye contact
with your audience as much as possible, and focus upon keeping your audience
engaged. At the same time, remember that an oral argument is more difficult
to follow than a written one, and that your presentation must be correspondingly
clear and coherent. Don't be afraid to repeat really important points.
You are free
to use visual aids as you see fit; if you require assistance with photocopying,
data projection, overheads, or other audio-visual materials, please talk
to me well in advance.
Your thesis
for this seminar is entirely up to you. You may discuss all, some, or
only one of the themes scheduled for the class during which you are to
give your presentation; please, however, let me know about a week in advance
what you plan to focus upon.
Please note
that you must complete either this seminar, or an oral book
review (with written review essay) before the beginning of the second
term.
Book Review (oral)
Much
of what is noted, above, about seminars applies to your oral reviews.
As with the seminar papers, you will be evaluated both on content and
presentation, but with content mattering somewhat more here than with
the longer seminar papers. You are required to hand in a brief (one page)
summary of your main points at the conclusion of the class.
Your review
should be short (about 10 minutes) and, preferably, not read directly
from a written text. Quote from the work when you feel it will add to
your discussion, but do not depend upon citation too much, or you will
bore your audience. It should include the following elements:
1) Important identifying information (author,
title, publisher, date, etc.)
2) A brief precis of the work's primary focus
and themes: why has this study been published? It can also be useful
to provide (if possible) some context for the book: how does it relate
to the theoretical trends and critical debates of its own time, or of
our own?
3) A brief summary of some of the main arguments
of the parts of the work that you have read. You should not
take your audience step-by-step through the study. When you have completed
the notes you write while reading the work, go back and reorganize them
into a logical structure that will highlight those aspects of it that
seem to you most interesting.
4) You may, if you think it relevant or useful,
comment on the apparatus of the work. Is it well-indexed? Are the notes
full, complete, and easy to access? Does the work contain useful bibliographies
or appendices?
5) Your overall evaluation of the work. Do
not forget this portion of the report: your opinions are vital.
6) You evaluation of the work's usefulness
(with this course in mind, but in a more general sense as well).
It would be particularly useful to highlight those aspects of the work
having a bearing upon the subject(s) of that week's class. It can also
be useful to relate your work to themes or other works that have been
covered in previous classes.
When evaluating
your book please be critical, and be honest. If you don't like a study,
say so, but explain why. No marks will be deducted for having an opinion
that differs from my own, but you should be able to explain clearly the
reasons for your critical evaluation, whether positive or negative. Note,
in this context, that I have not included only those works which I myself
most value or like.
Please note
that you must complete either this oral book review (with written
review essay), or your seminar, before the beginning of the second
term.
Review Essay
Your
review essay should be about 4 to 5 pages in length (approximately 1000-1250
words), and is based upon your review presentation. It is, however, a
"formal" piece of writing, with a proper introduction, developing
argument, and conclusion (it should, in other words, be more than your
point form notes roughly turned into grammatically-correct prose). Examples
of formal review articles can be found in many scholarly journals, as
well as publications such as the London Review of Books
and the Times Literary Supplement.
The review
essay is due two weeks after your review presentation.
Hypertext Edition
Review (oral)
The
format of your oral hypertext edition review should be similar to that
employed for your oral book review, with the exception of the fact that
you are, ideally, providing a simultaneous on-screen "tour"
of important features of the hypertext edition itself. Some of the issues
that your review should address include the following (note, however that
this list is not exhaustive):
1) Who has edited, facilitated, or is otherwise involved in the preparation
and online publication of this edition? Beyond the (obvious) identification
of editor(s) and authors, you should also note the institution hosting
the site, and any institutions involved in the preparation or presentation
of the edition (for example, U of Virginia's IATH, or UNB's Electronic
Text Centre, the Digital Library, etc.).
2) Does the site employ or identify a particular theoretical rationale
for its particular approach to its subject text(s)? How is that rationale
(if such exists) reflected in its architecture or in its textual approach?
How forthcoming si the site about the reasons for the decisions that
have been made with this regard?
3) Is this a critical edition of an author, oeuvre, or text(s)?
What kind of an edition is it, viewed from a conventional bibliographical
perspective? How well does its textual approach marry with its employment
of hypertext?
4) Should this be classified as a "Hypermedia," a
"Hypertext," or an electronic text site? Does it focus
upon machine-readable text (i.e., sgml, xml, html) or text images? What
other forms of media does it employ? What balance (if any) is maintained
between these? Why have these decisions been made?
5) How does the edition establish its scholarly credentials? Is the
site academically credible? If so, why? Why not? What forms of scholarly
apparatus does it use? How do these differ from those associated with
conventional print editions?
6) What forms of markup or coding language have been employed for the
text? If the text is available to the reader in HTML, has SGML or XML
been used for initial coding? If so, does the reader have any access
to these versions of the text? What, from the reader's perspective,
is the impact (if any) of the use of SGML or XML markup?
7) With particular reference to the user interface and site architecture,
how well does this edition "work"? Does perspective it provides
on its text(s) match the editor's stated intentions? What does the edition
offer that a conventional printed edition could not?
Research Essay
Ideally,
the research essay is founded upon your oral seminar presentation, but
your topic and thesis may, in fact, build upon any of the themes we are
examining, and any theme relevant to the relationship between textual
theory and hypertext. The research essay should be approximately 20 pages
in length (about 5000 words), and is due on March 1.
This should
be, of course, a formal essay, with all that this implies. It must, in
other words, be structured around a focussed and coherent central thesis.
As a research essay, it should, of course, also employ relevant secondary
sources. I am setting no specific requirements for the number of such
sources that must be employed, but it is important to demonstrate some
awareness of the critical and theoretical context around the work(s) and
themes you are examining. Note that such works may include texts focussed
either upon the author or work you are editing, or upon textual and hypertextual
theory.
Prospectus
The
Prospectus for your edition is, in essence, a plan for the hypertext.
It should be no more than about 4 to 5 pages in length (1000-1250 words),
and should include the following features.
1) A brief introduction to your Prospectus (no more than one or two
paragraphs).
2) List of primary texts that form the nucleus of your edition. Include
any pertinent bibliographical information (including, for example, reference
numbers from standard ennumerative bibliographies where these exist)
to identify which text(s) you are editing.
3) A brief discussion of your textual approach to your primary materials,
with some reference to recognized textual theories.
4) A brief discussion of, and rationale for, your planned interface,
architecture, and coding approach to your edition. (This should probably
be the largest single section of your prospectus). This should, where
relevant, include reference to applicable hypertext theory.
The Prospectus should be formatted as a "report" (rather than
as an essay), with the elements of the paper divided appropriately into
sections. Before submission, your Prospectus should be briefly vetted
and signed by a member of faculty who has some expertise in the field
relevant to your edition. Please inform me in advance of the name
of this faculty member..
Hypertext Edition
Your
Hypertext Edition will be built around a critical edition of a work of
your choice. This choice is one of the most important you will be making,
and you should give it some long thought. There is no set length for the
text that you choose to edit, but you would be well advised to restrict
yourself to something relatively short: a medium-length poem, a one or
two act play, a short story or an essay will be more manageable than a
novel or epic poem. When choosing for length, consider also
1) The number of versions, editions, etc. of the work which you will
need to collate and/or edit.
2) The amount of scholarly annotation that the work will likely require.
3) The number and size of other texts, excerpts, etc., which you may
also want to include in your edition.
For practical
reasons, you should probably avoid texts that have already been reprinted
or edited a large number of times (for example, you should probably avoid
Eliot's The Wasteland or virtually any of Milton's poetry). It
would also be a distinct advantage to choose a text that is reasonably
well represented in the UWO library system (particularly Special Collections).
Generally, choose a text for which it will be relatively easy to access
primary materials. Issues of copyright and reproduction rights will also
factor in if you wish to publish your final edition online.
The overall
structure, architecture, and approach of your Hypertext Edition is, of
course, up to you, bearing in mind always that the rationale for the decisions.that
you make will be one of the things evaluated by myself when "marking"
your edition. As a general rule, keep your interface as simple as possible:
not only does this make your edition more accessible across a wider number
of platforms, but it will also help you avoid the trap of spending too
much time trying to get the "flash" just right. At the same
time, it is the interface that will make this a hypertext: the
choices you make here should be determined by what you, as a scholar,
are attempting to reveal about, or through, your text.
Your edition
will probably include many (if not all) of the following components; others
not listed below you may be able to devise on your own. Components that
are obligatory are marked †.
1) An introduction, providing a brief synopsis of what you are attempting
to "do" in this edition, and providing some context for it.†
2) An annotated and edited text or texts. Annotations can be keyed
with the text in a variety of ways, and may also be "layered"
in different ways.†
3) A lengthier explanation of the rationale for your edition, placing
it, and your editorial decisions about it, within a larger context of
past scholarship that relates to the text, as well as to textual and
hypertextual theory.†
4) Textual notes, the length and complexity of which will obviously
depend upon the textual history of the work.†
5) Textual variants, which can be keyed to the text in a number of
different possible ways.†
6) Text images.
7) Parallel texts of versions and editions of the poems, if this seems
useful.
8) Additional texts, excerpts, etc. providing context for, or otherwise
shedding light upon, your text.
9) Biographies, chronologies or other sources of contextual information.
10) Hypermedia elements, including potentially images, sound, music,
etc.
11) A simple and brief discussion of workflow and encoding and/or editing
guidelines for the edition.†
12) A bibliography or list of works consulted/cited.†
Penalties for Late Work
Essays
should be brought to class and handed in on the date specified above.
Late essays will be penalized at the rate of one percentage point for
each working day that they are late, to a maximum of ten points. Essays
submitted more than two weeks late will not be accepted unless accompanied
by an acceptable reason for the delay (e.g., a medical certificate). Late
essays may be submitted to me in person, or at one of the Department of
English Essay Drop-off Boxes outside the English Office (UC 173); essays
slid under my office door will not be marked.
Please keep
a copy of your essay.
Presentation of
Written Work
The guidelines
for layout that appear in the more recent editions of the MLA
Handbook for Writers of Research Papers are recommended
for both your review and research essays, although the Chicago Manual
of Style is also acceptable. Written work should be submitted double-spaced,
preferably typewritten or computer-printed. Use one side of the paper
only, with 1 inch margins for all four edges. Use a font size that will
permit no more than about 250 words per page. Submit the work fastened
by a paper clip rather than staples; do not have it "bound."
Text should be justified only to the left margin.
The review
essay should be include, directly below the review title, a bibliographical
citation for the work being reviewed, in proper MLA or Chicago format.
Documentation
All
documentation (including that which appears in your hypertext edition)
should follow the guidelines set out in one of the more recent editions
of the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers
(use the fourth edition or later) or the Chicago Manual of Style.
Please be sure to include a list of "Works Consulted".
|
