Modern Southern Fiction
Bruce Harvey/Fall 2012
Propose topics soon to me, via email.
GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH ESSAY
Essay Draft
A good faith effort on the draft is expected. Everybody has different draft-to-final-version habits, and so the rule
about how cooked the draft should be is flexible. It should be cooked enough so I have something coherent to give
you feedback on, but not so cooked/done that my intervention becomes too after-the-fact. You should try to give me
either ½ of the paper fairly well-cooked, or the entire paper raw here and there.
Put brief comments in brackets [here I will look at…] as needed to indicate the rough/not-worked-out
spots. Secondary citations for the draft need not be in place, but do give me a working Bibliography (secondary
materials you’ve used or are planning to use).
My feedback on drafts is often ample, and revision/elaboration for the final version should be ample too.
Submit to me via email.
Essay Final Version
The final version, about fifteen pages or more long double-spaced (but submit single-spaced), should be polished
stylistically and, of course, correct in terms of grammar, punctuation, citations, and so on. You may use whatever
citation method you prefer—i.e., Chicago style (citations as endnotes) or MLA style (citations in text). I will
discuss the merits of both in class (as needed).
The Bibliography should indicate that you have done your homework. Everyone’s topic and thus research needs will
differ, but around six articles and three or four scholarly books should suffice. The secondary material may be
historical-cultural, biographical, and/or critical, depending on your argument. I will have a sidebar w/ those who
need a refresher on, for instance, ProjectMuse or JStor (both, excellent online compendiums of scholarly journals).
Feedback on the final version will be very minimal. Submit via email.
Essay Texts and Topics
The key rule is that, whatever you write on, there must be a single object of attention: a particular text or film or art
object or issue and so on. There must be something that you “look” at and intensely study via pure thought, in
addition to the research that informs and supplements your thinking.
Do NOT choose a comparative topic (as always, there are exceptions).
TIPS FOR ESSAY WRITING (examples come from a variety of classes)
1. IDEAS EMERGE FROM THE TEXT. Abstraction will only carry you so far. It’s best, once you have a
glimmer of an idea, to read and re-read, taking notes, circling important SYMPTOMATIC passages, and making
connections with kindred passages. It sounds glib, but in a sense ALL YOU HAVE TO DO is to find a cluster of
interesting passages. Copy them to a file, and start writing around/about the passages. Yeah, you may read a bit of
theory to get some insight-sparks between the theory and the text; yeah, you may read a bit of history, to avoid
historical bloopers and add texture/density to your argument; and of course you will consult some of the received
wisdom of previous interpreters. But the intellectual dance remains a dance around the text—and it is your dance.
You always ultimately must have a main point, but if you look for a main point prematurely, you’ll end up sounding
like CliffNotes. Try to avoid exclusively standing back from a text and abstractly thinking from memory "I think I
want to write about the women in Frankenstein" or "I'm interested in the theme of xxxxyyy in
Frankenstein." Instead, look for the little oddities, etc., that lead you to track down a pattern of oddity/tension/'crisis'
in the text. It doesn't mean that you end up writing about trivia; it just means you avoid starting with abstract themes
or issues in your brain-storming/idea-generating process.
2. ARGUMENTS ARE NOT DICED-UP THEMES; THEY SHOULD HAVE SOME DRAMA/CRISIS/TENSION
(but don't get melodramatic). One does not want to say "the theme of disease has three aspects in Blu's
Hanging." We are taught to think that way in high school and in composition classes. Maybe we need to start out
that way, but it leads to limited rhetorical possibilities and limited argument sophistication. It is better to think of a
text as having an issue that it is "obsessed" by and needs to find a "remedy" for. Then you sort of play
doctor/detective. The practical way of getting tension is to take clusters of passages via TIP ONE above and get a
flow chart involving three to seven clusters or idea arcs. Maybe even start your paper with an odd quote that
manifests, as it were, a symptom. And then you uncover layer by layer the complexities of the issue/problem, and
then show how the problem is resolved or not resolved (this does not mean you use the words “problem” or
“resolution”—just that there is intrinsic tension within the topic. In an ideal world, these complexities and issues
resonate with something within you, which makes you want to chase down meaning. The reader doesn’t want to
know what your obsessions are, but I do believe personal connections to your “objective” material makes for
stronger, more incisive and interesting arguments usually.
3. DO NOT GO INTO CELEBRATION MODE, as if you writing an introduction to some high-school edition of
the text. But also watch for hyper-suspicion mode; above I say that analysis looks for symptomatic
passages/patterns, and yet looking on the text as having a “pathology” can be carried too far.
4. DO NOT RUN TO THE LIBRARY IMMEDIATELY (BUT DEFINITELY GO LATER). You must think
through some issues before you go to the library. If you "own" an idea initially, your research will have direction
and focus and you will be less likely to get lost in the morass of other scholarly perspectives. But ultimately you
must be in dialogue with other specific interpretations. Good scholarship assumes an audience that is engaged in
ongoing dialogues about authors or texts or issues.
5. EACH ARGUMENT IDEA OR ARC IS NEVER DONE IN TERMS OF REVISION. Everyone's draft-tocompletion process works differently. But usually you have to go through a draft over and over and over again,
heaping on layers of complexity, twists and turns, more "But this is not the real malaise the family suffers from. If
we go back to the first scene, the real problem turns out to be...."s. The obvious problem with this is that you may
not have time to slowly cook the paper. But that, nonetheless, is what I am asking of you.
6. PLAY WITH TITLES AND SUBSECTION TITLES early on in the process. This may seem to go against the
"don't think abstractly" rule, but trying to come up with clever titles in fact can work as a good way of
brainstorming, as long as you see them as being provisional. You might not even know what your title means
initially! Vice-versa: sub-headings can help control some of those wacky ideas that get too wacky, because you
know whether sub-contents fit the sub-label.
7. WE MUST KNOW YOUR THESIS/MAIN POINT BY THE END OF YOUR INTRODUCTION. But don't
think of a thesis as capturing the entirety of your argument. All that is needed is a nomination of the main
issue/question in play (not the answer). This allows for an inductive rather than deductive approach. (Most of my
tips are suggesting an inductive method of getting ideas and composing.) Definitely have an extra line space
between your introduction and the rest of the paper. It is OK, and probably desirable, to have introductions that are
several paragraphs long, but the reader in such cases needs to know where the introduction ends.
8. FIRST REAL SECTION OF YOUR ESSAY MIGHT BE HISTORICAL. After your introduction, depending
upon your topic/text, you might have some background information about the author, the era, the place, etc. This is
reassuring to the reader because it makes you seem knowledgeable.
9. OR YOU MIGHT SITUATE YOUR ISSUE/TEXT WITHIN THE SCHOLARLY TRADITION/DEBATE
ABOUT IT. This also gives your voice authority. I myself don't do this, or rather save such placing-of-myargument for long, long endnotes. I don't like to hear my own argument, as I'm making it, bounced against
others. However, most essays do the bouncing. Example: "A number of scholars interested in postcolonial AsianPacific fiction have focused on how indigenous populations or authors can return the 'gaze' of the imperialist. Not
surprisingly, this has been noted in Blu's Hanging, particularly by scholar x and scholar y in respect to the haole
school-teacher...." You will have other professors who will expect you to be upfront in this fashion, and that is fine,
too. I want you to do your homework, but you can show you did your homework in the endnotes, at least in respect
to specific interpretations by other scholars.
10. IF YOU DON'T, DO READ YOUR OWN PROSE ALOUD for a better style. It is easy (especially if you use
theoretical terms) to start getting pompous sounding and lost in verbiage.
11. PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT WORKS FOR YOU IN THE SCHOLARSHIP YOU READ. This may mean
specific rhetorical maneuvers (i.e., how to write an introduction), or just words that you've never used before and
that have a lot of critical-theoretical possibilities packed within (I don't mean the obvious ones such as "gaze", but
less obvious ones such as "syncope" or "scopic" or "aphasia"). It sounds dull, but you should start keeping a list of
such words.
12. DO NOT BE AFRAID OF BEING THEORETICAL, BUT DEMYSTIFY THEORY BEFORE YOU BEGIN
USING IT. Applying theory can be the direct, self-conscious application of a theoretical perspective (and perhaps
querying the utility of the perspective at the same time); or the theory can mostly be in the sort of issues/content you
focus on (gender issues, sexuality, body stuff, imperialism, othering); or it can be the use of a certain vocabulary
(gaze, other, compulsory heterosexuality, and so on). The extent to which you actually cite theorists in your essay,
if you are so inclined, is going to be highly variable according to your topic, personal style, background and so
forth. Theory (to me) is best used as a brainstorming device--a lens that helps you see things you might not already
see. Your own idiosyncratic interests and the need for a cogent, coherent argument that YOU believe in will do the
rest. That's why I repeat the mantra of "listen to the text" AND "listen to your response." You want to avoid the
ventriloquy effect of many contemporary scholarly-interpretive essays, which often all sound very much alike, all
making the same moves, all citing the same theorists, and so on.
13. ASSISTANCE AND EXPECTATIONS. I “know” literary theory pretty well, and know just enough of real
philosophy (Hegel, Heidegger, etc.) to know “theory” can be … hmmm… not as robust as it sometimes pretends to
be. This means that although I respect literary theory, I respect even more any paper that is just plain
smart/thoughtful and stylistically decent. An interesting argument or “take” on a text, even with some dangling
thoughts and murkiness: I like such more than a too tidy application of theory to a work! The lessons of the sublime
apply here, too: I look not for “truth,” but “explanatory power,” and some of the best explanations are provisional
and tentative… traces towards… not conclusions. I’m happy to aid you in seeking traces, however I can: meet
before/after class.
THUMBNAIL SKETCH OF THEORY FOR THE CURIOUS
New
Criticism
Thematic
Criticism
Issue/Political
Criticism
sees text as a
unified
machine
producing a
literary effect
Same as
New
Criticism but
looks at a
theme,
symbolic
pattern, etc:
"Hamlet and
the Theme of
Disease"
Same as
Thematic, but
would have a
political
angle—
feminism,
Marxism, etc.
More
theoretical
Marxism,
Feminism,
Postcolonialism
Same as Issue,
but argument
uses the latest
theoretical
writers on
Marxism and
literature and so
on. Oftentimes:
the quest is to
find the
“hidden”
subversive
meaning.
Deconstruction
Contextual
New
Historicism
Much like
New Criticism,
but shows how
the work falls
apart over its
binary divides
(loves cute
inversions—
Hamlet suffers
from too much
ease, not disease!).
Could see
work in terms
of its genre
history
(Hollywood
South Sea
Films) or
historical
context (Lord
Paulet and
Melville's
Typee)
Sees
text/context
as porous. A
text might be
a 16th
medical
document as
much as the
play Hamlet.
Almost
impossible to
do in a
semester.
GUIDELINES FOR ALTERNATIVE “DUMMIES/IDIOTS GUIDE”
Please see above about “Draft” and “Final Version”: much carries over to the “Dummies Guide” option.
1. The trick to a good “Dummies Guide” is recognizing the audience is NOT “Dummies,” but those who want keen
perspectives on whatever the topic is, in clear jargon-free prose, that does not “talk down.” Check out the one on
Shakespeare.
2. For our purposes, you’re writing something much shorter than a real “Dummies”: so… provide an outline of
topics/issues you would include if writing the real thing, but then dig into a several sample sections … just as if you
were providing a prospectus to a publisher. This means you can “fake” the outline largely, and choose the sections
you wish for me. At least one section needs to be critical-analytical (not just historical/contextual or authorbiographical).
3. Catchy section titles: of course! But don’t get too cute or silly.
4. You need to avoid the banal or the boring: Cliffnotes style “three symbols in The Scarlet Letter… the five main
characters… etc”. The reader is not in highschool!
5. Quotes from the text/author: some ok to elucidate a point, but don’t go overboard.
6. Wit and the unusual: welcome! Example:
“It is the hallmark of many great writers, profound and idiosyncratic, that his or her style can be parodied. We can
parody Hemingway or Henry James, and especially Faulkner. Faulkner, famously or infamously, is known for his,
‘Faulknerese.’ A quick example can be both fun and illuminating. So here’s a parody of Faulkner: ‘The waiter, his
eyes expectant with a profound immemorial not-longing, doomed by the long slow iteration of unsuccess, extended
his hand, static and quick above the table linen, to drop the dinner-check--its palpable flatness not hallowed by the
custom of his forefathers of earnest exchange or of service rendered without qualm and yet in proud receipt of solid
coin--where it lay in pregnant abeyance.” [not all that clever/composed hurriedly!] We can note, first, the
polysyllabic overkill….”
GUIDELINES FOR ANNOTATED EDITION (think trade-paperback—Signet, etc.—not Norton)
1. A biographical essay that leads/coordinated with #2. Five-ten pages.
2. A critical/analytical introduction or preface. These are best when not “complete” mini-interpretive essays, but
rather a cohesive highlighting of important issues, significant historical context or publishing history of the author,
and so on. #1 biography could be folded in. Ten pages+ (depending on whether including bio.)
3. Annotations: a sampler for our purposes, no need for being comprehensive; imagine the audience being a College
Freshperson, or general literate/book-loving reader; concentrate on less-than-obvious historical references, mythical
allusions, and so on. A page, singled-spaced, will suffice. Use any format (cue b/w text and annotations) that makes
sense.
GUIDELINES FOR CULTURAL-CRITIQUE ESSAY
1. Ditto as above for traditional paper about first version ½ cooked. Here you can be more journalistic, using a
tone/style and level of critical inspection/cultural exegesis appropriate for, say, The New Yorker.
2. As there are so many possibilities, I have no “rules” here really. Maybe you start off by reviewing the last J. Cash
CD, the one with the “Hurt” song (there’s a video, too)… and broaden out to talk about what essential “Cash”ness is
in terms of Southerness, and move on to other music. Maybe you examine some element of faux-Southerness (a
restaurant chain). The main feature: a nimble, polished and engaging prose-style.
3. As cleverness, style, and topic-interest trump all considerations: length…. 10 pages+ or so.
GUIDELINES FOR BOOK REVIEW: SCHOLARLY
1. Present a review of a scholarly/secondary book (not an article) about or related to one or several of our authors or
the issues/content in the course or your paper topic: a biography, a work of literary-cultural interpretation, an
historical or cultural studies volume, or a theoretical volume, etc.
2. Efficiency=selecting a secondary work that you already are using for your essay, if doing the critical-analytical
flavor. However, select a fairly recent volume, not more than a decade old.
3. It should be between one and two single-spaced pages, and written in a format and style kindred to what you
would find in an academic journal. The best models to emulate: just go to JSTOR or ProjectMuse and select a
journal, and read a handful of reviews. “The New York Review of Books” review are usually much, much longer;
chatty; and often more about the author than the secondary book on the author… so I would avoid as models for our
purposes. Book reviews are usually at the end of a journal.
4. Although short, this should be a showpiece: your very best, impeccable writing.
5. The review should include:
a) A summary of the argument/content of the work.
b) A critical assessment pointing out strengths and weaknesses. As a general rule, don’t get too snarky.
c) If you were really writing a review, and knew the subject matter well, you'd have also a prefatory paragraph that
puts the work in a larger context of kindred works ... but I'm not expecting that necessarily.
d) It's good to have a couple of key brief quotes to exemplify good points or bad points or crucial terminology.
e) The review should NOT indicate that you are a student; please imitate the tone and rhetoric of the professionals.
6. Submit single-space, via email, to me.
GUIDELINES FOR BOOK REVIEW: FICTION, ETC.
1. As I don’t review fiction et al, hard for me to give guidelines.
2. Go to any reputable all-purpose venue—New York Review of Books, Times Literary Supplement, etc.—and
imitate; obviously, you need to be looking at relatively short reviews.
3. Try to choose, if possible, a recent work/author… so that your review will have novelty & freshness.
4. Showpiece/impeccable style here, too.
5. One or two single-spaced pages long.
6. Submit single-space, via email, to me.
ORAL REPORT GUIDELINES
1. Efficiency here, too: cannot just duplicate your main paper, but fine to be in the neighborhood.
2. The topic can be related to one of our authors, one of our course “themes” or issues, or just related to the course in
general.
3. See the RealSouth Magazine for potential types of issues/topics.
4. Your report should imply, without trotting out, “expertise”—either by virtue of general personal knowledge (a
subset of “Blues” for instance) or research.
5. Try to avoid a dry litany of facts… it is not a “school report”. It’s a clever, perhaps even profound slice of
cultural idiosyncrasy… something the class doesn’t already know much about.
6. As always, it’s best to have your topic anchored in something you can/we can focus on discretely: that’s why I
suggest topics such as, say, the background to Cash’s “Hurt” song/video.
7. About 10 minutes long, sans notes (one notecard): audio/handouts/video-clip, as needed, are welcome (e.g., the
Cash “Hurt” video).