Introduction to Literary Studies II
Summer 2010
Mo 11.30-13.00; SR34D2/Attemsgasse 25, top floor
Michael Fuchs
1.
Syllabus
March 1, 2010
Course Overview
March 8, 2010
The Study of Fiction I: The Story-Level
Primary:
Ernest Hemingway: “The Killers”
Raymond Carver: “Tell the Women We’re Going”
6-word narratives
Secondary:
Nünning 101-110 & 126-130
Additional:
Meyer “Plot” (69-70), “Character” (117-118), “Setting” (162-164); Kennedy & Gioia
“Plot” (13-15), “Character” (77-79), “Setting” (107-110)
March 15, 2010 The Study of Fiction II: Narrative Point of View and Narrative Voice
Primary:
John Updike: “A & P”
clips from Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Edgar Allan Poe: “The Tell-Tale Heart”
Secondary:
Nünning 110-123
Edgar Allan Poe: “Review of Hawthorne’s Twice-Told Tales”
Additional:
Meyer “Point of View” (188-193); Kennedy & Gioia “Point of View” (25-29)
March 22, 2010 The Study of Fiction III: Narrative Voice cont. and Structure
Primary:
William Faulkner: “A Rose for Emily”
X-Files episode “Jose Chung’s From Outer Space” (viewing)
Woody Allen: “The Kugelmass Episode”
Secondary:
Nünning 124-126; Bedford Glossary “Frame Story”
Jörg Türschmann “Die Metalepse”
Werner Wolf: “Metalepsis as a Transgeneric and Transmedial Phenomenon” (excerpts)
April 19, 2010
The Study of Fiction IV: Intertextuality
Primary:
Donald Barthelme “Bluebeard”
The Simpsons episode(s) (tba) (viewing)
Secondary:
T.S. Eliot: “Tradition and the Individual Talent”
Graham Allen: “Intertextuality”
Margarete Landwehr: “Literature and the Visual Arts: Questions of Influence and
Intertextuality”
(Presentation or leading of discussion possible)
April 26, 2010
The Study of Fiction V: Self- and Meta-Reference
Primary:
John Barth: “Life-Story”
Robert Coover: “The Magic Poker”
Supernatural episode “The Monster at the End of This Book” (viewing)
Duck Amuck (viewing)
Secondary:
Werner Wolf: “Metareference across Media” (excerpts)
John Barth: “Literature of Exhaustion”
Additional:
Dana Polan: “A Brechtian Cinema? Towards a Politics of Self-Reflexive Film”
Terrance R. Lindvall & J. Matthew Melton: “Towards a Post-Modern Animated Discourse”
(Presentation or leading of discussion possible)
May 3, 2010
The Study of Fiction VI: The Bluest Eye: A Case Study
Primary:
Toni Morrison: The Bluest Eye
Presentations: The Bluest Eye and Its Multiple Narrators
Questions of Race and Gender in The Bluest Eye
The Dick and Jane Primer
May 10, 2010
The Study of Fiction VII: American Psycho: A Case Study
Primary:
Bret Easton Ellis: American Psycho
1
Presentations: Who is Patrick Bateman? Narration, Identity, and the Crisis of Masculinity in American
Psycho
Cannibalism as a Metaphor
American Psycho: Setting and Meaning
May 17, 2010
A Short Introduction to Intermedial Narratology: The Study of Graphic Novels
Primary:
Art Spiegelman: Maus: A Survivor’s Tale (only part I obligatory)
Secondary:
W.J.T. Mitchell: “Beyond Comparison”
Roland Barthes: “Rhetoric of the Image”
Charles Hatfield: “An Art of Tensions”
Additional:
Thierry Groensteen: “Why Are Comics Still in Search of Cultural Legitimization”
Joshua Brown: “Of Mice and Memory”
Hillary Chute: “History and Graphic Representation in Maus”
Stephen Tabachnick: “Of Maus and Memory: The Structure of Art Spiegelman’s Graphic
Novel of the Holocaust”
Michael E. Staub: “The Shoah Goes On and On: Remembrance and Representation in Art
Spiegelman’s Maus”
(Leading of discussion possible)
May 31, 2010
The Study of Drama I: A Short Introduction
Primary:
excerpts from dramas by William Shakespeare and George Bernard Shaw (see website)
Secondary:
Nünning 76-100; Kennedy & Gioia “Drama,” “Reading a Play,” “Theatrical Conventions,”
and “Elements of a Play” (1108-1111), “Modes of Drama” and “Tragedy” (1133-1135),
“Comedy” (1141-1143); Meyer “Modern Drama” (1252-1256)
June 7, 2010
The Study of Drama II: Our Town: A Case Study
Due:
Title of your Paper to be blogged before the meeting
Primary:
Thornton Wilder: Our Town
Thornton Wilder: Our Town performed on Broadway’s Booth during its Dec 2002-Jan
2003 run (viewing)
Secondary:
Hubert Zapf: “Die verspätete Gattung: Das amerikanische Drama der Moderne”
Gerhard P. Knapp: “Verfremdungseffekt”
Presentations: The Temporal Structure of Our Town
Signifying Time (Symbols, Imagery, etc.) in Our Town
Breaking the Fourth Wall in Our Town
June 14, 2010
The Study of Drama III: We Bombed in New Haven: A Case Study
Due:
Preliminary Bibliography (e-mail before class); include at least 5 bibliographic entries
and 3 types of sources (e.g. book by one author, article in an edited collection, article
in a journal) – you don’t have to use these sources in your final paper!
Primary:
Joseph Heller: We Bombed in New Haven
Presentations: War, the Military, and Meaning in We Bombed in New Haven
We Bombed in New Haven and the Theater of the Absurd
We Bombed in New Haven as a Meta-Play
June 21, 2010
Writing Workshop: Peer Review of your Paper
Due:
bring part of your paper (ca. 1000 words) to class
mail me the part of your paper no later than Sunday, June 20, 2010, 3 p.m.
June 28, 2010
Exam
July 15, 2010
Deadline for Paper
2
2.
Course Material
All short stories, dramas, secondary materials, films, TV episodes, and film clips will be made available online as pdf no later
than 2 weeks before they are discussed in class. All pdfs are read-protected; the password is always “----” (if you’re in my
course, you’ll know – check UGO). The same password is used for media files, which are packed into .rar files – you’ll need a
rar-compatible extraction software, such as WinRAR or 7-Zip to open these archives. The videos will be put online in mpeg2
format (playable with any DVD playback software) and in some cases also in 1080p. You’ll need either a Blu-Ray-compatible
software player (PowerDVD 8 or 9, ArcSoft TotalMedia Theatre 2 or 3) or a software player such as KMPlayer and the
necessary codecs (e.g. CoreAVC or ffdshow). PowerPoints will go online before class – Sunday evening at the latest.
There are ca. 15 copies of both The Bluest Eye and Our Town available in the library. We Bombed in New Haven and
Our Town will be made available in digital form. You will have to somehow acquire Maus and American Psycho (see
website for suggested editions). As you can see from the syllabus, only part one of Maus (My Father Bleeds History) is set
reading; however, I suggest purchasing The Complete Maus – you won’t regret it.
You probably already own An Introduction to the Study of English and American Literature by Vera and Ansgar
Nünning. I will make sections from other introductory books available in digital form as additional material. Page numbers
for Nünning and all the other books are provided for all sessions. Since these are sections from several introductory books,
much of it is redundant. As such, the information from the other introductions is only additional material that you may want
to consult, since there may be times when you find a definition from a writer other than Nünning more appealing or
whatever. Plus, the sections from the other books are really short, so no harm in quickly reading them. What you find on the
syllabus under ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ are required readings/viewings; ‘additional’ material is on the one hand
additional information from other introductory books as well as additional material for those interested; these are not
required readings.
There will be viewing dates for the films and TV episodes (clips are not planned, but if you want to) at the department –
we’ll try to find a date for these in our very first meeting. Of course, if you decide to watch the film/episode(s) at home,
there’s no need for coming to the viewing. Keep the unannounced quizzes (see below) in mind, however! The lower the
number of people attending a viewing, the higher the probability …
There’s also a blog for the course. Basically, you can post anything loosely course-related; you are, however, also required
to do work online – see below. If you have any questions that may be of interest to more students, preferably don’t e-mail
them, but rather post them on the blog.
Suggested additional books:
a) General Introductions to Literature
Kennedy, X.J., and Dana Gioia. Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing. 11th Edition. New
York, NY: Pearson-Longman, 2009.
Meyer, Michael. The Bedford Introduction to Literature: Reading, Thinking, Writing. 8th Edition. Boston, MA: Bedford
Press, 2008.[9th ed. announced for Feb 2010]
b) Introductions to Narratology
Bal, Mieke. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. 3rd Edition. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press,
2009.
Fludernik, Monika. An Introduction to Narratology. New York, NY: Routledge, 2009.
Onega, Susana, and José Ángel García Landes. Narratology: An Introduction. New York, NY: Pearson-Longman, 1996.
Rimmôn-Qênān, Šûlammît. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. 2nd Edition. New York, NY: Routledge, 2005.
Schmid, Wolf. Elemente der Narratologie. 2nd Edition. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008.
c) Introductions to Drama
Pfister, Manfred. Das Drama: Theorie und Analyse. 11th Edition. Stuttgart: UTB, 2001. [English edition available from
Cambridge University Press under the title The Theory and Analysis of Drama]
d) Introductions to Literary Theory
Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory. 3rd Edition. Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 2009.
Hölbling, Walter W., and Justine Tally, eds. Theories & Texts: For Students – By Students. Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2007.
e) Histories of American Literature
Gray, Richard. A History of American Literature. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003.
Wagner, Hans-Peter. A History of British, Irish and American Literature. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 2003. [2nd
ed. announced for spring 2010]
3
f)
Glossaries
Murfin, Ross C., and Supryia M. Ray. Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms. 3rd Edition. Boston, MA: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2009.
Nünning, Ansgar, ed. Metzler Lexikon Literatur- und Kulturtheorie: Ansätze – Personen – Grundbegriffe. 2nd Edition.
Stuttgart: Metzler, 2001.
Suggested online resources:
Literary Encyclopedia (http://www.litencyc.com)  membership is US-$ 18.95 per year (currently ca. € 12.50); if you
desperately want some entries from the encyclopedia and don’t want to pay the membership for an entire year, mail me
PAL:
Perspectives
in
American
Literature
–
A
Research
and
Reference
Guide
(http://www.csustan.edu/english/reuben/pal/TABLE.HTML)
FindArticles (http://www.findarticles.com)  open access scholarly articles
eNotes (http://www.enotes.com) & BookRags (http://www.bookrags.com)  complete membership is US-$ 14.95 & 13.99
per month or 49.95 & 49.99 per year, but you can also buy notes for one work only; what makes eNotes as well as
BookRags better than CliffsNotes, SparkNotes, PinkMonkey, GradeSaver et al. is that they also provide access to secondary
material
Other
University of Graz provides free licenses to citavi for staff and students. Though it may be a little overblown for the purposes
of a single paper, if you already know that you want to pursue an academic career or already have your BA/MA/PhD thesis in
mind, it is never too early to start using it. There may be better (and even free) programs around for individual tasks, such as
integrating EBSCO links and the mere creation of a bibliography, but when it comes to the entire package, in my opinion,
citavi is way ahead of its competitors (if there are any …). If some of you are interested in getting an introduction to citavi,
I’m happy to schedule one or two additional date(s).
I’ll provide an ‘Introduction to Research Tools at the University of Graz’ meeting before the Easter break, since this ‘field’
is incredibly neglected in our curriculum and it seems that even students at the stage of writing their theses do not really
know what tools are available and how to use them. This meeting will not take place during the regular course hours and
you’ll thus also not be required to come. However, I may mention right away that already at this early stage of your university
career, I expect you to do some research as to what academics have written about ‘your’ topic and include some secondary
sources in your papers.
3.
Course Work & Grading
Grading
< 60% = Fail (“nicht genügend”)
≥ 60% = D (“genügend”)
≥ 70% = C (“befriedigend”)
≥ 80% = B (“gut”)
≥ 90 % = A (“sehr gut”)
Grading Criteria
25% term paper
20% presentation or discussion leader
20% exam
10% quizzes
10% blogging
10% participation in class
5% minutes
What goes into this calculation is not the individual grades, but the individual percent of the maximum points you got.
Ex:
41/50 (= 82%) on term paper (B)
38/40 (= 95%) on final (A)
10/10 (= 100%) on quizzes (A)
18/20 (= 90%) on presentation (A)
9/10 (= 90%) on blogging (A)
8/10 (= 80%) participation (B)
9/10 (= 90%) on minutes (A)
4
Taking weighting into consideration, these individual performances equal an A based on average grade (1.35), but on the
basis of percentages, this makes a B (89%), because the fact that this fictional student twice just barely got a B (paper &
participation) as well as three times barely an A (presentation, blogging, minutes) is taken into account here.
Passing the course does not depend on fulfilling all the criteria. You may decide not to do a presentation, not to hand in
journals, not to come to the final exam, not to write a paper, etc., but – of course – this means that you’re willingly waiving
your right to a better grade.
Term Paper (25%)
You are expected to write a paper or an essay (I will only refer to ‘paper’ in the following) on a selected narrative. “Narrative”
is to be understood broadly; it can be a novel, a short story, a drama, a graphic novel, a comic, a film, an episode of a TV
series, a computer game, a narrative poem, a narrative song, etc. You can write your paper with a partner, in which case the
paper has to be a little longer (not twice as much, since co-authoring a paper involves a lot of work that writing a paper on
one’s own doesn’t). If you choose to co-author a paper, both of you will, of course, get the same points on the paper. What I
definitely don’t want in a co-written paper is immediately seeing that certain chapters were written by person A and others by
person B, be that because of a difference in language, quality of analysis or whatsoever. If you’re co-authoring a paper, that
means that the entire paper should be on one level as far as language, style, and quality of analysis is concerned (that’s what I
meant before: co-authoring usually involves more work than writing a paper on one’s own).
There are two central approaches to going about your paper: you may write a ‘holistic’ analysis of the selected work
(analyzing characters, structure, setting(s), theme(s), central motifs and metaphors, etc.), but since this is the easier and
usually more superficial choice, you will very likely not get an A for this kind of paper (still, you can come up with an
incredible paper of this kind and prove me wrong); if you want an A, you’re rather encouraged to tackle a more closely
defined topic of a single work in more depth, e.g. “Unreliable Narration in Fight Club,” “The Meaning of Time in Faulkner’s
The Sound and the Fury,” or do a comparative analysis, such as “The Two Serial Killers in Red Dragon: Binary Oppositions,
Doppelganger, or …?” and “Overt Narration in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (film) and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.” You are,
of course, welcome to analyze works we discuss in class, but be aware that the mere reconstruction of arguments that came up
in class will not suffice for a good grade. I will not suggest paper topics. You are encouraged to come by before June 7 (the
day when all topics are to be fixed) to discuss your topic.
Since I can’t stand the unnecessary waste of paper, you’re more than welcome to e-mail your papers (if you don’t receive
a confirmation of receipt within 12 hrs, your e-mail was likely lost somewhere in the depths of cyberspace). If you e-mail your
paper, you’ll also receive the correction digitally (you can, of course, still come by to talk about your grade, etc.). Digital
copies are to be submitted as .pdf (not .doc, .docx, .rtf, etc.) or .html. If you don’t have Adobe Acrobat or Word 2007, for
which there is a free pdf plug-in available, there’s a number of free pdf converters available online – just google. If you hand
in a physical copy (either in the secretary’s office or you give it directly to me), you’ll also get the correction on paper. Handwritten papers are not accepted! Unless I’m told otherwise, I will only mark very severe mistakes and add general
comments; if you want more thorough marking (especially in terms of language), I’m more than happy to do it, but please
tell me so (mention it in the mail or something). I should strongly emphasize that I absolutely detest sloppiness, which
means that spelling mistakes, typos and such are very likely more problematic with me than most other employees of the
English or American Studies Departments – most, if not all, of you will use word-processing software, so there shouldn’t be
any typos.
The paper is expected to be ca. 2,500 words long (ca. 3,500 in the case of co-authoring a paper), but quantity is no
substitute for quality! An excellent paper on a narrowly defined topic may only need 2,000 words (less gets tough). If you
submit a physical copy, please use at least 1.5 spacing; when submitting a digital copy, this is not necessary. In your paper,
use quotes from your primary text(s) to support your arguments, but this should not amount to a mere summarizing, let
alone paraphrasing, of the source. Papers are graded according to a scheme that considers a) language, b) organization, c) the
formulation of a thesis, research questions and the related analysis, or (which will probably be the case with most of you) a
thorough descriptive analysis, d) preparation and/or originality, and e) the use of sources, correct citation (for details
concerning grading see appendix C). Points a) and e) are based on the performance of the class, i.e. if you are on par with the
best student in language and/or documenting and integrating sources, you will get the maximum points unless the
performance of the class is below a level where this approach is acceptable. The other factors are independent of class
performance. For citations, you may follow the English department’s style sheet, MLA, Harvard, or Chicago Style, and
use in-text citations and not foot-/endnotes (2 exceptions: a) digital submission in html format, in which case you should use
(hyperlinked) endnotes; b) using sidenotes on the right side of your page – see the journal New Cinemas if you do not quite
know what I mean) and stick to one style.
The deadline for papers is July 15, 2010; paper copies have to be handed in on that day before noon, digital
copies may be e-mailed until July 15, 23.59 CET (but you know, e-mails do get lost in cyberspace and if I don’t have the
paper in my virtual inbox on the morning of July 16 [since e-mails don’t necessarily arrive within seconds] and see that it was
posted before midnight, it will be counted as a late submission). You can hand in your paper until the end of July, but for
5
each week it is handed in late, 10 percentage points will be deducted from the total points you get on your paper (i.e. 10% for submission until July 22; -20% July 29; -30% July 31). Plagiarism is not accepted. No matter how you did in
other aspects of grading, plagiarism (unless very minor, i.e. one or two phrases) in your paper results in failing the
class. If you are uncertain of how to document sources or how to quote, please ask me. Both The Bedford Introduction to
Literature and Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing include sample essays and papers, some of
which can be found on my website.
Presentation/Discussion Leader(s) (20%)
You may do a presentation in the ‘case study sessions’ as well as in the ones on intertextuality and meta-reference,
respectively. Please do not summarize the entire plot of the primary work in question in your presentations, only include bits
and pieces (including quotations) that are of importance to your presentation.
In the sessions on intertextuality, meta-reference, and the study of graphic novels you may also, instead of doing a
presentation, lead the discussion. Since leading the discussion involves more work than a mere presentation (a short ‘kick off’
presentation plus leading of the discussion, which also requires some background reading), you will get some bonus points if
you do well.
Presenters and discussion leaders are expected to provide structured handouts. Slides are not necessary, may, however, be
used. Please e-mail me your handouts and slides so I can put them online for people who’ve missed the class. If you’re doing a
presentation in a non-case-study-session or leading the discussion in one of the sessions, I urge you to contact me at least the
week prior to the respective session so we can figure out whether there is something of importance that you may want to add
or I should cover (of course, if you’re having one of the case study presentations, you may also see me before the actual
presentation). If anyone’s willing to work on intertextuality (session on April 19), please see me before the Easter
break to fix the Simpsons episodes that will be discussed; concerning the presentation/discussion, you can contact me
during the break.
Especially on your handout, but also during your presentation, indicate sources of arguments that are not your own and
include a list of references on the handout.
An aspect of presentations that should not be forgotten is feedback. Students are expected to give feedback and that
includes negative feedback.
If you already know you want to do a presentation on/lead the discussion of a specific topic prior to our first meeting, you
can, of course, e-mail me right away. First come, first serve. I would prefer presentations to be done by individuals or
pairs, but depending on the size of the group, trios may also be acceptable – check my website after registration has closed
concerning up-to-date information on that issue.
Exam (20%)
The exam will consist of three parts: the first part will be terminology (based on the terminology list for the BA
Fachprüfung; a list of terms for the exam will be distributed around June 15); the second one questions about the primary
texts (What is the name of the main character in [enter title]?’ ‘Who wrote [enter title]?’ ‘When was [enter title] written?’
‘Name a work that uses the stream of consciousness technique’ ‘Name two functions of metalepses in Maus?’ – no worries,
questions of the latter kind will only be about things we discuss in class), including recognizing three works on the basis of
short excerpts or images (there will be no questions on works from which only excerpts were read and clips watched,
respectively). The third part will be a guided interpretation of a selected part of a work we’ve discussed in class. There will
be one re-take date in the second or third week of July in case you are ill (medical certificate required) or other issues have
kept you from coming, such as an accident (again, you’ll have to provide some official proof).
Quizzes (10%)
Depending on your willingness to do the readings and participate in class, there will be at least 3 unannounced quizzes
(there will be three if you do your readings and are actively participating, more if that doesn’t work too well). These quizzes
are short multiple-choice tests (ca. 5 questions) that deal with both the primary and secondary texts (including films, film
clips, etc. – in short, what is listed as ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ on the syllabus) scheduled for the day of the quiz. The worst
result will be dropped (since there are reasons for being unprepared … once). If you’re doing well on all three (or more) of
them, your quiz performance will find some reflection in your grade. There will be no repeat dates for unannounced quizzes
(you’re allowed to miss one, anyway, plus it would eliminate the idea of an ‘unannounced’ quiz). The quizzes will always take
place after calling the roll, so if you’re late …
Blogging (10%)
You are expected to blog response journals. Your output should amount to ca. 350 words per week (again, this is not about
quantity). I want to stress that you are supposed to write these entries on a weekly basis and not half of them during the
Easter break and the other half at the end of the semester. In the journals, you can write about your thoughts concerning
6
primary or secondary readings (this is the preferred option), skim through a glossary of literary terms and wonder whether
you’ve understood a term correctly, reflect on issues that came up during class discussions, etc. The entries don’t have to be
well-formulated or whatever, but one should be able to understand what you’re trying to say. Also, since I’m not lingophilic,
all sorts of artistic responses are welcome if you think (that I think) they are equal to the workload of writing 350 words. And
since these blogs are meant to stimulate discussions, you are supposed to read the blog entries of some fellow students each
week and – if appropriate – respond (responses are included in the 350-word-workload). You will receive your usernames
and passwords after our first meeting via e-mail.
Participation in Class (10%)
The success of this course is highly dependent on you. A productive and interesting class emerges from conflicts,
disagreements, and debates. In order to create an atmosphere in which this is possible, you are expected to come to class
prepared and participate in the discussions. To support preparation, I want you to keep short factsheets that include
 important information on major characters,
 local & temporal setting,
 narrative point of view/voice,
 structure,
 themes,
 salient isotopies, leitmotifs, symbols, and
 other salient features
for each primary reading. These factsheets should also include references to page numbers to facilitate finding the
information in the primary reading/s. I will occasionally check whether you have these factsheets ready (they may be handwritten, on your PDA, or whatever, but you have to be able to access them during class).
This is a Proseminar, so you are required to attend the individual sessions. Missing more than 3 classes results in an F.
Class starts at 11.30 sharp. Being late three times (which means coming after I’ve called the roll) or leaving early equals
an absence. There will be no attendance lists for the film/TV show viewings, since you can also download them.
Minutes (5%)
Small teams keep minutes for each class. The minutes are due on Friday of the same week, so that I can put them online in
time for people who’ve missed the previous class to see what we’ve done. Minutes are result-based, so do not include
information on how we came to a certain conclusion, but only the conclusion and focus on the most central points of a
session (max. 2 pp.). Minutes ought to include the name/s of the person/s taking the minutes, course number, course title,
date of the class, and, as mentioned above, the central points of discussion, which should be structured like chapters, e.g. 1.
Analyzing the Story-Level; 1.1 Plot; 1.2 Characters; 2. Analyzing the Discourse-Level; 2.1 Narrative Voice, etc.
4.
Varia
Problems
If you have any pressing needs, difficulties or frustrations related to the course, I urge you to see me. This is the first time I’ve
taught a university course and I welcome all suggestions as to how the course can be made more enjoyable (I will, however,
not drastically reduce my reading requirements).
Voice your Opinion
I am definitely not the infallible expert in the field of literary studies (if you claim you are, you’re ignorant, anyway …). If I
make any mistakes, or if I say something that seems odd, draw my attention to it. If you’re of a different opinion concerning
e.g. the interpretation of a work, voice it!
Reaching Me
Although I do have official office hours (Monday after class, Friday 10-11), I follow an open-door policy. You should be able
to find me in my office between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. on weekdays (exception: Wednesday only until 11 a.m.). Of course, you
can also e-mail me at m.fuchs@uni-graz.at – I usually respond within a couple of hours, also on weekends, during the Easter
break, etc. If you don’t receive a reply within 24 hours, your mail probably didn’t reach me.
7
Sources/Quotations
Preparation, Originality, Theories
Analysis
Thesis Formulation and Support
Organization/Structure
Grammar/Punctuation/Style
Grading Criteria
Appendix: Grading Grid
8
Sufficient (2 pts.)
Satisfactory (3 pts.)
Good (4 pts.)
Excellent (5 pts.)
Insufficient (0-1pts.)
essay has no major grammatical and
punctuation errors and very few
minor errors
minor errors do not interfere with the
understanding of the essay
uses right register throughout
a few major errors and multiple
minor errors, but almost all sentences
are clear and understandable
style is appropriate
clear, logical, and very organized
around a developed thesis
clear structure which aids the aim of
the paper
a number of basic grammar and
punctuation errors but the meaning
is relatively clear
a number of stylistic problems
follows a logical organization, but
sometimes drifts from the thesis
structural deficits minimal
many
basic
grammar
and
punctuation errors
limited understandability as a result
acceptable organization and a basic
thesis statement
structural deficits are only evident in
parts of the text or they are relatively
minor, not impeding general
reception
highly original and encompassing
thesis (or a number of them)
every point is clearly supported by
strong evidence
very few major errors
some minor errors ok as long as they
do not interfere with understanding
few stylistic errors (register, fluidity,
etc.)
many points are ambiguous
high degree of structural deficits
make reading the text difficult
relatively
encompassing
thesis,
supported with some evidence
strong and encompassing thesis
evidence to support almost every
point
no organization
incoherently structured that thesis
and/or argument are hard to follow
no support of thesis or the evidence
provided does not support (also
negatively) thesis
analysis links thesis and evidence
analysis shows a strong relationship
between evidence and thesis
analysis is clear and consistent
throughout
use of evidence is minimal, but it
does support the thesis
Or: thesis provided is insubstantial or
relatively weak
very high degree of preparation and
originality
use and application of theory is
extended and highly original
minimal or flawed analysis
Or: analysis stretches its meaning in
an attempt to support the thesis
quality of the text is due to noticeable
preparation
characterized
by
substantial
originality
highly relevant theoretical sources are
applied in a consistent manner
clear and consistent
quoting throughout
thorough research of
sources evident
no attempt to explain how the
content relates to thesis
Or: analysis has no relation to thesis
preparation is sufficient but minimal
Or: only minor originality
Or: only minor theoretical quality
noticeable preparation
a number of original aspects
(arguments, engaging with secondary
literature, etc.)
some complex involvement with
theoretical sources
clear and consistent academic
quoting
most important academic sources
have been consulted
academic
academic
quoting and bibliographical work
have only minor flaws
a number of important sources used
analysis explains how the evidence
supports thesis
Or: analysis highlights a number of
highly interesting aspects which
would otherwise go unnoticed
preparation for essay is insufficient
(no secondary lit)
quoting and/or bibliographical work
is highly flawed
quoting and bibliographical work
show a number of errors
Or: misses some central sources or
uses irrelevant or minor sources