Those of you who requested the automatic extension for Paper 4: the paper will now be due on December 17 by 9 p.m. (via email).
Even if you gave me a paper copy in class, could you also send an electronic copy so that I will have it? The reason: each year the English Department calls for instructors to submit entries to its Graduate Student Essay Contest, and I would like to have copies on hand for that.
I’ll be in on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday for meetings this week, so if you’d like to stop by, just let me know.
Today for our discussion of journal publication, we have a special guest, Heloise Abtahi, the managing editor of ESQ. She’ll be with us for the first half hour or so.
Next week, we will have our in-class conference in the Bundy Reading Room.
Conference papers should be 15 minutes long, or about 7-8 pages. This paper, which is a short version of your longer paper, is sent to your respondent. You don’t have to send it to me.
Respondents will prepare a 3-5 minute commentary (can be bullet points) discussing strengths, areas for more development, and future directions.
The full version of the paper is due to me on 12/10, unless you take the extension.
- “Sex and power in Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the D’urbervilles”
Respondent: Kara Falknor
- The Fixing of Women in McTeague
Respondent: Amy Goldman
- “Paper 2 on The Monster”
Respondent: Jordan Engelke
- “Beyond Sex and Greed: Obsession with Ideological Representations of Gender Economy in Frank Norris’ McTeague”
Respondent: Allyson Herkowski
- “Romanticism vs. Naturalism: Naturalism’s Fight for Independence”
Respondent: Amy May
- “Solidarity in Viewing the Commodified Female Body Confined: Emilio Pardo Bazan’s ‘Piña’ and Maria Christina Mena’s ‘The Gold Vanity Set'”
Respondent: Curtis Harty
- “The Sympathetic Brute in L’Assommoir, McTeague, and Of Mice and Men”
Respondent: Richard Snyder
- “Zola’s Cybernetic City: Experimental Space in L’Assommoir”
Respondent: Cyn Zavala
- “Instinct vs Institution: Gender and Sexual Determinism in McTeague and The Awakening”
Respondent: Lissa Scott
Some of you had asked about seeing sample proposals responding to calls for papers.
Here are some for papers on Edith Wharton that were accepted and will be given at MLA 2016: https://edithwhartonsociety.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/mla-2016-ews-panel-and-abstracts/
These and the panel proposals that you can see at https://call-for-papers.sas.upenn.edu/ and elsewhere have the characteristics of proposals that we talked about in class:
- Briefly identify the critical context for your proposed paper: the controversies or arguments surrounding it, the critics who’ve addressed it, etc.
- As part of this context, you may want to address the theme or topic of the panel or conference.
- Explain how your paper will address some issue raised in this critical conversation.
- Provide enough of your argument to show the direction that the paper will take.
- Indicate the conclusions you will probably draw.
Due to a mixup on the syllabus (I thought Kara had an article choice, and she thought, rightly, that I was going to post something to Blackboard), the article is posted late to Blackboard, and it is one of mine since that’s all I had in .pdf form. Here’s the citation:
“Women Writers and Naturalism.”The Oxford Handbook of American Literary Naturalism, ed. Keith Newlin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. 223-241. Print.
I thought you might enjoy this interview with Shelley Fisher Fishkin about her new book on American authors’ homes. She talks a lot about Paul Laurence Dunbar in the middle of the piece.