For each indicated book required for this course you will need to write an analytical review essay. There is no fixed limit for these essays, but a typical length will be 400-500 words long, not including footnotes, works consulted pages, illustrations, or other supporting materials. Essays will need to be submitted to the Course Discussion Board by Tuesday morning before class to allow the other seminar participants to read it. Essays will need to be properly footnoted using correct historical format (technically this is the older Chicago/Turabian style. Footnotes must be precise enough so that I can locate the specific page or item you reference. Parenthetical footnotes are not acceptable. You are expected to be familiar with Furman's general guidelines regarding academic integrity and plagiarism. It is understood that you have also reviewed the integrity policies for this specific course.
T he essay should focus on analysis rather than summary of the book. Your goal in the paper should be to use your critical sensibilities to connect the book's key issues to those raised in other books we have read and other intellectual experiences you have had. Because this is a thoughtpiece and reaction essay you should use only the briefest of direct quotes if you use any at all. You should assume when writing that the reader has read these works too but is looking for original perspectives as well as proof that you have reflected diligently on each work's most important arguments and viewpoints. I is also interesting when you analyze the sublety of its details and components as they fit into the totality of the volume. Since this is neither a literary review nor a leisure reading guide you should avoid commenting on the writing skill of the authors or the entertainment value of these works, and should focus on questions of historical scholarship instead.
A special warning about anything you might "Google up" or "Wikipedia-dig" to help you with your essay: 99.44 percent of everything history-related on the Internet is garbage, poorly documented, loaded with errors of fact and interpretation, and produced by people with no historical training or expertise. If you do use something from the Internet make sure you cite it especially if you "merely" looked at it to provoke or formulate your general ideas. (It is these interpretive ideas, after all, that are likely to be more original than plain factual data. Both data and interpretations must be cited, of course.) Then ask yourself if you would really trust your grade to such a source. Better yet, don't use it at all, (except on your "works consulted" page) unless you can confirm that the site was produced by someone with a PhD in the relevant subject, under the sponsorship of a research library or academic institution, and that the same site is likely to be available fifty years from now in much the same format. Keep in mind, too, that the focus of the paper is on the works themselves, not some Internet derivation.
There is no one "correct" way to write these papers, nor is there any one specific formula or template I have in mind for any single "model" answer. Indeed, there are a number of excellent but utterly different ways they could be organized, and a rich variety of themes and approaches you might use to structure them. Part of the assignment will be for you to show your own ability for developing original approaches, ideas, theses and interpretations. I look with great favor upon arguments that would not be what I was expecting. Originality must be coupled with substance, of course. Organizing themes and theses that cover a broad range of issues in these works rather than a minute subset or subsection will probably be more sophisticated in their implications, (though there are always clever exceptions). All of the usual strictures about writing clearly, having a sophisticated and multi-faceted interpretive perspective, working through the evidence systematically, documenting where you got your ideas, as well as thoughtfulness about how your own background and interests (as well as those of your sources) have shaped, enhanced, and filtered your conclusions will be relevant to the evaluation of your submissions.
That said, it is likely that a really good essay written in response to this assignment will have the following traits: it will have vivid, plausible, and original thesis, and one that will not be initially obvious to the reader but rather will have to be proven in the paper. It will have clear but sophisticated organization and argumentation. It will engage intelligently, critically, and respectfully with the most important issues raised in each one of the assigned books, articles, and other documents. The best essays will avoid simplistic generalizations about the characteristics of "THE North," "THE South," "THE Italians," "THE Austrians," etc. (A good test to ask is whether any such statements are still true when applied equally to every occupation, class, race, gender, geographic subregion, religion, or political affiliation within each region or group you are describing.) The best essays will avoid unreflectively treating specific individuals as being synonymous with their respective regions or groups, though you may pose the question of representativeness explicitly.
Below I have listed a few of my personal peccadilloes about style and grammar. Using your word processor's search function it should take no more than thirty minutes to check and correct any problems before turning in the final draft.
Note: The instructor reserves the right to change any provisions, due dates, grading percentages, or any other items without prior notice. All assignments on this schedule are covered under the university's policy on plagiarism and academic integrity. See the syllabus statement for further details. This page was last updated on 9/10/2006.