Paper #1: Commentary on Criticism
Length: 3-4 pages. Due in exactly two weeks (October 1), in class.
Your first paper will be a commentary on ONE critical essay on Thomas More’s Utopia.
The point of this paper is to introduce you to, or reacquaint you with, what writers do when they
publish literary criticism.
You will pick ONE of the essays listed under “OVERVIEW: The Critical Traditions” in the back of the
Norton Critical Edition, either the third edition (which I ordered) or the second. If you do not have one
of these editions, let me know ASAP. This section is pages 179 – 284 in the third edition. You can use
ANY of the excerpted essays EXCEPT Seebohm, Kautsky, Chambers, and Lewis. (So your options are
Ames, Hexter, Surtz, Frye, McCutcheon, Fox, Baker-Smith, and Nelson. Pick ONE.) DO NOT USE ANY
OF THE FICTIONAL TEXTS AT THE END!
In your commentary, you will summarize the essay’s main argument, and then develop a critical
assessment of it.
Summarize the arguments made in the essay. Quote only when the essayist has a particularly pungent
phrase. Paraphrase fairly and carefully. When you quote or paraphrase, include specific page references
to the essay you are commenting on, as in the following: “Fox argues that More was influenced by
descriptions of the New World by travelers such as Amerigo Vespucci (228-29).”
As for your critical assessment: being “critical” of the essay does not necessarily mean that you have to
point out weaknesses, although you could do that. Instead, a critical assessment tries to understand
where the essayist is coming from (what s/he values in literature, what enabling assumptions s/he
brings to the inquiry, etc.). Critical assessment means looking at what kind of evidence the critic likes to
use and what orientation the critic brings to the work. What does the critic emphasize as s/he makes a
case for a particular interpretation of the work? It could be one or more of the following:

for evidence, does the critic look at the historical context of Utopia? (a “historicist” orientation?)

at the author’s biography? (a biographical orientation?)

at the text’s literary art, and how style, structure, tone, and genre create that art? (a “close
reading”?)

at psychological theory, and the writer’s psyche? (a psychoanalytical orientation?)

at the way the book was received by its first readers? (a study of “reader reception”?)

something else?
Is it one of these, or a combination?
If you think the critic is wrong, say so. I’ll be particularly impressed if you can refer to the text of Utopia
to evaluate the claims of the critic.