PROF NOTES ON WRITERS VOICE FOR PROJECT 1 NARRATIVE ARGUMENTHi

PROF NOTES ON WRITER'S VOICE FOR PROJECT 1
NARRATIVE ARGUMENT
Hi there! Here are some "prof notes" to help you with Project 1:
You will be writing a STORY. yes, a NARRATIVE.
You will be the NARRATOR!
This is a SHORT PAPER (2 pages double-spaced minimum--
yes, you can go over that, but every line you go over had better
be worth reading! If it's still good, I'm still reading. ;)
BECAUSE this is a SHORT PAPER, you cannot write an
autobiographical essay (and that's NOT the purpose). You must
choose an event, a "happening," that you witnessed and/or
experienced and that tells an argument on its own--without
hitting the reader over the head with a blatant thesis statement.
So.... that means you will NOT have a thesis such as "this
narrative argues that friends should show up in times of need
because friendship can be one of life's most fulfilling
relationships." NO -- instead, your STORY ILLUSTRATING
that argues for itself.
You want your readers to finish READING YOUR STORY AND
STOP, LOOK UP, AND SAY, "WOW -- THAT WAS A
POWERFUL STORY ABOUT ______ THAT ARGUES THE
IMPORTANCE OF ____"
As Chapter 9 encourages us, FOCUS ON SIMPLY TELLING A
STORY IN A POWERFUL WAY --to illustrate a human
experience in ways that speak powerful to others who may see it
differently if they witness the HUMAN STORYTELLING
perspective in sharing it.
DO NOT SKIP YOUR READINGS THIS WEEK!
Chapter 2 gives some EXCELLENT foundational information
about two key argument theorists (Kenneth Burke, known for
theories of identification and consubstantiation, and Carl
Rogers, known for Rogerian rhetoric). YOU NEED TO BE
TAKING NOTES ON EVERY CHAPTER, even if brief ones
based on keywords and contributors -- because guess what??--

YOU CAN USE THESE NOTES WHEN YOU WRITE YOUR
FINAL REFLECTION PAPER FOR YOUR EFOLIO IN THIS
COURSE! and save yourself lots of time in December!
GUIDANCE on what you should be taking notes on in Chapter
2, for example: how generative arguments differ from "regular
old arguments"; definition of identification, definition of
"frame," how identification can also occur due to collective
efforts AGAINST something (see Page 25), and the dangers of
identification "gone bad" (pandering, scapegoating, blame
game, exaggeration, and fearmongering); list of common frames
on Page 27 (these could help you with your own topics
throughout the semester! -- spend time thinking about which
ones in that purpose table are IMPORTANT to you and why!;
the importance of sounding reasonable, fair, and positive (see
George Lakoff, Page 28); use of metaphors, stories, anecdotes,
hypothetical examples, fables, parables; definition
of Rogerian argument and its 4 steps (Page 33); the importance
of consensus and dissensus (avoiding silencing or apathy) in our
world of communication (see Page 35).
YES, TAKE NOTES ON YOUR READING. CHAPTER 2, FOR
EXAMPLE, will help you with more than one paper this
semester! You may need to use the 4 steps
of Rogerian argument, for example, in your proposal paper
later!
I will offer bonus points at the end of the semester for proof of
careful, originally written notes. (If you are actually reading
this, then you know about this opportunity! ha)
FEEL FREE TO TEXT ME AT 2106218852 if you have a
question about your topic for P1 before posting it on Thursday.
Chapter 9 is your "map" for harnessing the power of narrative
arguments, including the methods of development that may
work best for the particular story that YOU have to tell! Read
it closely, including the examples at the end! There may be a
quiz coming up!

· Aristotle's Wrongful Death
Aristotle’s Wrongful Death
By Frank Bruni
Opinion Columnist
New York Times
May 26, 2018
History is on the ebb. Philosophy is on the ropes. And
comparative literature? Please. It’s an intellectual heirloom:
cherished by those who can afford such baubles but disposable
in the eyes of others.
I’m talking about college majors, and talk about college majors
is loud and contentious these days. There’s concern about
whether schools are offering the right ones. There are questions
about whether colleges should be emphasizing them at all. How
does a deep dive into the classics abet a successful leap into the
contemporary job market? Should an ambitious examination of
English literature come at the cost of acquiring fluency in
coding, digital marketing and the like?
Last Sunday The Chronicle of Higher Education published a
special report that delved into this debate. One of the stories
described what was happening at the flagship campus of the
University of Illinois and at Assumption College in Worcester,
Mass., casting these developments as different harbingers for
higher education.
Illinois is pairing certain majors in the liberal arts — for
example, anthropology and linguistics — with computer
science. Assumption is doing away with a host of traditional
majors in favor of new ones geared to practical skills. Goodbye,
art history, geography and, yes, classics. Hello, data analytics,
actuarial science and concentrations in physical and
occupational therapy.
Assumption is hardly an outlier. Last year the University of
Wisconsin at Superior announced that it was suspending nine
majors, including sociology and political science, and warned
that there might be additional cuts. The University of Wisconsin
at Stevens Point recently proposed dropping 13 majors,

including philosophy and English, to make room for programs
with “clear career pathways.”
While these schools are swapping out certain majors for others,
some higher education leaders are asking whether such devotion
to a single field of study — and whether a college experience
structured around that — are the right way to go.
“The future of work calls for something more radical: the
elimination of academic majors as we have come to know
them,” Jeffrey Selingo, the founding director of the Academy
for Innovative Higher Education Leadership, wrote in a column
that was part of The Chronicle’s special report. He advocated a
college education that spans “all academic disciplines.”
Selingo is the author of several books about the rightful role
and uses of college, the most recent of which, “There Is Life
After College,” illustrates how thoughtful he can be on these
matters.
But I worry that he’s suggesting an either/or where there
needn’t be one. I worry that the current conversation about
majors is part of a larger movement to tug college too far in a
vocational direction.
And I worry that there’s a false promise being made. The world
now changes at warp speed. Colleges move glacially. By the
time they’ve assembled a new cluster of practical
concentrations, an even newer cluster may be called for, and a
set of job-specific skills picked up today may be obsolete less
than a decade down the road. The idea of college as
instantaneously responsive to employers’ evolving needs is a bit
of a fantasy.
Eric Johnson, an education policy analyst in Chapel Hill, N.C.,
agrees that majors may well be “a poor way of organizing career
preparation.”
“But that’s because college is a poor way of organizing career
preparation,” he told me. “Deep, discipline-focused learning is
simply a different goal than being adequately skilled to serve
mercurial employers.”
Johnson wasn’t saying that colleges should be oblivious to job

readiness and career placement. Nor am I. That notion, too,
belongs to some fantasyland in which college doesn’t demand
the time and money that it does and in which good incomes are
easily secured.
But colleges needn’t abandon majors in general or supposedly
arcane majors in particular in order to propel graduates into the
work force. They could do better at encouraging and arranging
something that they already promote and that savvy students
already embrace, which is the considered, concerted use of
research projects, extracurricular activities, part-time
employment, internships and networking to set up first jobs.
Colleges needn’t abandon majors in order to give students
breadth and nimbleness. That’s what general-education
requirements are for. So why don’t more colleges expand or
toughen those? That would additionally help to create shared
experiences and common points of reference in a dangerously
fractured society.
Interdisciplinary majors already exist, though colleges could be
better at making that clear to students who’d benefit from them.
And students with humanities majors are already choosing, as
minors, computer science and the like.
Part of the skepticism toward traditional majors reflects a
correct feeling that at some schools, some fields of study and
course offerings are preserved largely because the faculty have
a selfish investment in the status quo. If seats in the classroom
are perpetually empty and money is sorely needed elsewhere,
colleges shouldn’t ignore that.
But it’s a balancing act, because colleges shouldn’t lose sight of
what makes traditional majors — even the arcane ones — so
meaningful, especially now. And they shouldn’t downgrade the
nonvocational mission of higher education: to cultivate minds,
prepare young adults for enlightened citizenship, give them a
better sense of their perch in history and connect them to
traditions that transcend the moment. History, philosophy and
comparative literature are bound to be better at that than
occupational therapy. They’re sturdier threads of cultural and

intellectual continuity.
And majoring in them — majoring in anything — is a useful
retort to the infinite distractions, short attention spans and
staccato communications of the smartphone era. Perhaps now,
more than ever, young people need to be shown the rewards of
sustained attention and taught how to hold a thought. That’s
what a major does. There’s a reason that it’s often called a
discipline.
“Becoming versed in the intricacies of a complex thing is itself
a worthwhile skill,” Johnson said. I agree. It also underscores
what real knowledge and true perspective are. In a country
that’s awash in faux expertise and enamored of pretenders,
that’s no small thing.
Students interested in using their education for expressly
vocational purposes should have an array of attractive options
in addition to college, which isn’t right for everyone and is
hardly the lone path to professional fulfillment. Some of those
options should be collaborations with employers grooming the
work force they need.
But students who want to commune with Kant and Keats
shouldn’t be made to feel that they’re indulgent dilettantes
throwing away all hope of a lucrative livelihood. They’re
making a commitment to a major that has endured because its
fruits are enduring.

· The Puzzle of Genius
The Puzzle Of Genius
By Sharon Begley
This is not about being smart. It's not even about being really
smart, scoring 1600 on the SATs, finishing the Sunday New
York Times Acrostic in ink in 23 minutes or mastering six
languages by the age of 10. This is, rather, about that elusive,
enigmatic, romantic thing called genius.
It is a measure of the mystique of genius that scholars have long
despaired of even defining it, much less identifying its magical
ingredients. Instead, they have settled for giving its vital
statistics, as if piles of data somehow illuminated genius any
more than "three thous, five ands, two toos" conveys the
haunting passion of Shakespeare's 18th sonnet. In his 1904
"Study of British Genius," Havelock Ellis noted that most
geniuses were fathered by men older than 30; few had mothers
younger than 25; many were sickly as children. Other
documentarians of genius report that many were celibate
(Copernicus, Descartes, Galileo, Newton), irregular churchgoers
and left fatherless (Dickens) or motherless (Marie Curie,
Charles Darwin). A new wave of researchers aims higher.
Through analyses of hundreds of history's greatest thinkers,
these scholars are teasin out what styles of thought, what
temperaments, what personalities characterize the Darwins,
Titians, Mozarts and Napoleons of history. Their work promises

to help ordinary mortals become more creative (though not
certified geniuses) and to teach schools and parents how to
nurture unusual intelligence (page 52). And it may answer the
unsettling question: why are there no Freuds, Einsteins or
Picassos today?
Judging by the hundreds to the thousands of newspaper
references to "geniuses" every month, we're overrun with them-
everyone from Casey Stengel to Jackie Gleason wins the label
(page 48). What, then, constitutes the genius that stands at the
apogee of human thought? Intelligence and expertise fuel it,
argues Harvard University psychologist David Perkins, but are
not enough. Marilyn vos Savant whose IQ of 228 is the highest
ever reported, has not exactly proved Fermat's last theorem, one
of mathematics' great unsolved puzzles. (She is, instead, a
question-and-answer columnist for Parade magazine.) And run-
of-the-mill math Ph.D.s have IQs just as high as truly great
mathematicians. Similarly, creativity is necessary for genius,
but not sufficient: the creation must shatter worlds and bring
forth new ones, as Arnold Schoenberg smashed classical notions
of tonality and invented 12-tone serialism. Perhaps most telling,
geniuses do not merely solve existing problems, like
discovering an AIDS cure. They identify new ones. It does not
take a genius to analyze dreams; it required Freud to ask in the
first place what meaning they carry from the psyche. Using that
standard, Harvard education theorist Howard Gardner (page 48)
profiles seven geniuses of the modern era in "Creating Minds"
(464 pages. Basic Books. $30), reaching bookstores next week.
Einstein, Freud, Picasso, Stravinsky, T. S. Eliot, Mahatma
Gandhi and Martha Graham, he writes, all transcended "the
solution of problems already posed."
What does it take to topple existing paradigms and discover
bold new ones? What is common to the intellect that produced
"Guernica," as well as the one that spawned the theory of
relativity? It may seem ludicrous to even ask. But in "Creating
Minds" Gardner joins a small cadre of scholars offering
evidence that one can characterize genius. And in one of those

rare instances of theories fitting real people, the descriptions
match what today's most creative thinkers say about themselves.
"Because of the arbitrariness of ideas and the vast panor ama of
things that I can choose from to write music, this is a difficult
process of sorting and processing," says composer John
Corigliano, 55, whose much-lauded works, including "The
Ghosts of Versailles" opera, combine lyricism and serialism in
an emotionally resonant fusion. "Before I started composing [a
guitar concerto] recently, my brain was feeding out strings of
pieces from my childhood, little scraps of melody that I would
hear and remember. I feed it and feed it and it all
subconsciously comes together."
Psychologist Dean Keith Simonton of the University of
California, Davis, calls this the permutation of "mental
elements"--images, phrases, snippets of memory, abstract
concepts, sounds, rhymes. Intelligence fills the brain with more
of these elements; like the child with pailfuls of Legos, the
highly intelligent person has a greater chance of forming the
novel combinations of ideas, images or symbols that constitute
a masterpiece than does someone with a mere starter set. In his
1988 book "Scientific Genius," Simonton suggests that geniuses
are geniuses because they form more novel combinations than
the merely talented. "In a loose sense, genius and chance
become synonymous," he says. His theory has etymology behind
it: cogito--"I think"--originally connoted "shake together";
intelligo, the root of "intelligence," means "select among."
Those rare souls who manage to arrange these thought elements
into a masterpiece of physics or poetry share certain personality
traits. Iconoclasm disposes geniuses to entertain permutations
of images and memories that more mundane thinkers toss out as
too loopy. Similarly, creative geniuses are willing to take
intellectual risks by merging disparate ideas, says Simonton.
Physicist Murray Gell-Mann, now at the Santa Fe Institute,
boldly asserted in 1963 that the protons and neutrons of atoms
are formed of subatomic "quarks" with fractional electric
charges, something with seemingly ludicrous implications. But

he was right. "Discarding accepted ideas of what's possible can
make it easier to take new ideas more seriously," he says
modestly. Introversion, another trait common to scientific as
well as artistic geniuses, may attune them better to the inchoate
musings of their neurons; they can hear themselves think.
Scientific genius is often marked by an interest in unrelated
fields, making novel combinations more likely. Gutenberg
combined the mechanisms for producing playing cards, pressing
wine and punching coins to create movable type. That
willingness to play in the fields of thought characterizes today's
creators, too. In the 1970s, Frank Wilczek of The Institute for
Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., deduced how the nuclei of
atoms stay together, one of those rare "knowing the mind of
God" discoveries. His breakthrough occurred "when I was
worried about a different problem"-a completely different force
of nature. "But I realized that a failed approach in one area
might be successful in another."
In genius there is a tolerance for ambiguity, a patience with
unpredictable avenues of thought; like hikers ambling down a
country lane with no particular destination or schedule, geniuses
explore at leisure the blue highways of ideas. Intellectual
rambling also allows the genius to bring side by side what
others had never thought to connect. In 1979, for instance,
physicist Alan Guth was puzzling over magnetic
monopoleshypothetical chunks of magnetic north poles divorced
from any south. He was also playing around with odd notions of
"false vacuums," freezing and unifying the forces of nature. He
hit upon no less than a new theory of genesis. "Very few people
had seen [monopoles and cosmology] together," says Guth, 46,
of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His "inflation
theory" posits that the universe began in a hyperexplosi on that
makes the big bang look like a whimper; it answers mysteries of
cosmologyon which earlier theories had been mute.
John Ashbery, 65, forged the New York school when lyric
poetry seemed to have exhausted its ability to stretch language.
His unanticipated lines and stark images in surreal passages

arise from what he calls "a vivisection of language. I sort of
collect words that suddenly seem to have a new meaning for me,
in contexts I have never thought of before. I don't plan my
writing. What comes out is usually quite surprising. I write to
find out what I'm thinking." The purity of language and the
precedence of language over cerebration derives from his visual
conception of words. "I find that my work has a powdery
quality to it, a light like the light today. shining through the
haze and heat."
If one style of thought stands out as the most potent explanation
of genius, it is the ability to make juxtapositions that elude
mere mortals. Call it a facility with metaphor, the ability to
connect the unconnected, to see relationships to which others
are blind. "The images that scientists have as they do science
are metaphorical," says Roald Hoffmann of Cornell University.
Hoffman shared the 1981 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the most
significant breakthrough in theoretical organic chemistry: a way
to predict from first principles whether a reaction will occur. He
is also a poet. "The imaginative faculties are set in motion by
mental metaphor. Metaphor shifts the discourse, not gradually,
but with a vengeance. You see what no one had seen before." In
1865 F. A. Kekule intuited the shape of the ringlike benzene
molecule by dreaming of a snake biting its tail.
Where others pinpoint metaphor, Gardner identifies what he
calls an ability to "combine different modes." For Einstein, it
was the visual-he saw in his mind a light ray-with the esthetic,
the sense of elegance that marks a " right" physics theory. The
French composer Olivier Messiaen could see the "color" of a
tone. Picasso was so intent on seeing the world as pure image
that, as a boy, he saw numbers as patterns, not symbols of
quantities: "2" became a folded pigeon wing and "0" an eye.
Alexander Fleming, discoverer of penicillin, painted with
germs: he would culture a batch of microorganisms, each a
different hue, paint them onto a petri dish and wait for them to
grow into a picture of a ballerina or a mother and child. When
T. S. Eliot was learning to talk, he -spoke in the rhythm of

sentences but without understandable words imposing the aural
on the verbal. Corigliano prepares for big commissions by
painting or writing. "In the building of a piece of music, there is
not music at all," he says. "I type out descriptions and do
drawings-sometimes just shapes."
The creative geniuses of art and science work obsessively. They
do not lounge under apple trees waiting for fruit to fall or
lightning to strike. "When inspiration does not come to me,"
Freud once said, "I go halfway to meet it." Bach wrote a cantata
every week, even when he was sick or exhausted. Though most
composers would kill to have written even one of his best
pieces, some were little more than wallpaper music. Eliot's
numerous drafts of "The Waste Land" constitute what one
scholar called "a jumble of good and bad passages [that he
turned] into a poem." In a study of 2,036 scientists throughout
history, Simonton found that the most respected produced not
only more great works, but also more "bad" ones. They
produced. Period.
They love what they do, and if that can be described as a
childlike delight in painting, or composing, or searching for a
grand unified theory of nature, Howard Gardner thinks that is
no coincidence. Creative geniuses tend to "return to the
conceptual world of childhood," he writes, and are able to "wed
the most advanced understandings" of a field "with the kinds of
problems, questions, issues and sensibilities that most
characterize...a wonder-filled child." Noam Chomsky of MIT,
whose theory of the "deep structure" of language created
modern linguistics, says, "The phenomena I've been concerned
with have always been considered obvious. You have to be
willing [to ask obvious questions]," as children notoriously do.
Chomsky's modesty echoes that of Einstein, who once wrote,
"My intellectual development was retarded, as a result of which
I began to wonder about space and time [things which a normal
adult has thought of as a child] only when I had grown up." By
then, he could join the child's wonder to the trained scientist's
expertise. Frank Wilczek's current goal? Discovering why empty

space doesn't weigh anything.
E.O. Wilson, who shook biology with the theory that genes
control culture, cannot walk past a log without turning it over to
see what might crawl out. "Every kid has a bug period. I just
never grew out of mine, " says the Harvard biologist, 64. He
based his seminal theory of "sociobiology" on his observations
of ant behavior.
Yet childlikeness can evanesce like so much dry ice. And that
goes a long way toward explaining why genius peaks early-in
the 20s in math and physics and lyric poetry, the 30s for other
sciences, music, art and writing novels. "It is a particular
combination of youth and maturity that allows the most
revolutionary work to take place in the sciences," says Gardner.
"Too much time and experience thinking in a certain way can
prove uncongenial to any innovation." Put another way, as the
once chance permutations of ideas and images harden in the
mind, the intellect becomes so set, so organized, that there are
fewer stray elements and fewer chances for spontaneous, novel
combinations. Simonton calls it "this self-defeating aspect of
creativity."
Physicist Ed Witten, 41, has been called "the most brilliant
physicist of his and qaite a few other generations. "He is the
master of string theory, a field as arcane as it is fundamental: it
promises to explain what matter is, positing that the most basic
particles are made of tiny wriggling strings. Witten can still
throw off in an afternoon what he considers "trivial" ideas-ideas
that it takes other eminent physicists two years to grasp. But the
steely eyes behind his thick glasses fix on the middle distance
when he thinks of his intellectual arc. "When I was younger I
would wake up every morning with the feeling that I was going
to have a better idea that day than I had ever had. It's kind of
sad to have lost that feeling."
It is all very well to wax lyrical about thinking metaphorically
and crossing frames of references, but in the end the only
meaningful explanation of genius may lie in the brain.

Unfortunately, "we're not entirely sure where to look," says
neuroscientist Arnold Scheibel of UCLA. The only insight is
that, although the amount of gray matter has little to do with
genius, how neurons are wired might. Smart people have more
complex, more efficient, neural highways for transmitting
information: Ph.D.s have a vast, complicated neural web, but
high-school dropouts only a sparse, inefficient one. (This could
explain why geniuses are more adept at bringing together
disparate images, thoughts and phrases: their brains look like
Ma Bell's network.) In 1985 Dr. Marian Diamond of UC
Berkeley and Scheibel found that Einstein's brain had four times
more "oligodendroglia"-helper cells that speed neural
communication-than the brains of 11 gifted people she also
studied. But were better neural networks the cause or effect of
Einstein's genius?
Biologists are having better luck identifying innate qualities of
temperament that foster genius. The genius's drive to create
prolifically may be biological, Gardner suggests, "ari s[ing]
from a temperament that seeks arousal." An innate deficit in a
brain chemical does seem to drive people compulsively to seek
physical or intellectual highs-climbing a mountain, scaling a
mathematical peak. Similarly, researchers have identified
biochemical quirks that seem to explain why some people avidly
seek out risk, another defining quality of genius.
Yet the world does not lack for risk-takers, for iconoclasts, for
obsessive workers. Where, then, are the geniuses of today? Only
Chomsky, Witten and a few others of their exalted rank compare
to the geniuses of a half century ago. Simonton wonders
whether the extreme specialization of today's science is at fault:
a narrow specialist has less chance of making the novel
combinations that add up to genius than does a scientist
knowledgeable about several disciplines. Or maybe genius
requires an intellectual crisis, as befell physics around the time
Einstein was working as a Swiss patent clerk. Perhaps
physicists need the $11 billion Superconducting Super Collider
atom-smashing machine to create a crisis of inexplicable

findings -and spur genius. In art, as long as the modern world
worships an ability to shock more than it does insight and
Titianesque talent, greatness may be eclipsed by
outrageousness. And everywhere, as long as egalitarianism
rejects the mystique of genius in favor of the notion that
everyone has it in him to be an artist, there will be no
successors to Picasso or Mies van der Rohe.
And what could be emptier than a world without genius?
English 1302 Project 1: Narrative Argument
100 points/2 pp ds, 2 research citations ©2016 Stacia
Campbell, Ph.D.
Relevant Reading: Chapters 2&9 of Argument Today textbook
ASSIGNMENT:
Using your chapter readings,
class discussion, and instructor’s
guidance, WRITE A NARRATIVE
ARGUMENT of at least two pages
double-spaced MINIMUM (not
counting header, blank lines, or
title lines, but actual original text
written by you!)

SPECIFICATIONS:
Your story MUST BE PRECISE, based on events
EXPERIENCED OR OBSERVED IN 5
minutes to ONE HOUR of time, no more. Yes, you can do this!
It’s not an
autobiography that you are writing; it’s a short and POWERFUL
narrative
argument—a story that argues on its own through the powerful
way that you tell
it! Think of it as a “slice-into-life-up-close-moment-memoir”!
Revisit the “Quick View” on Page 174 of your textbook, noting
that “narratives
are generative because they invite an audience to identify” and
“are useful for
challenging or reinforcing existing cultural frames.” Also note
the sequence: 1)
scene setting, 2) complication, 3) evaluation, 4) resolution, 5)
(optional “lesson”
or call to action). See Pages 176-179 for great tips on these! See
Pages 179-180
for style and design tips!
Brainstorming Question: WHAT STORY COULD YOU TELL
THAT WOULD

“ILLUSTRATE HOW REAL PEOPLE EXPERIENCE THE
WORLD” (174)—providing a
way to be persuasive through detail-rich storytelling when
perhaps reasoning
would not succeed? What powerful assertion could you make
through a single
non-fiction story?
RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS (THERE ARE TWO):
1) INTERVIEW AT LEAST ONE PERSON WHO CAN
SOMEHOW “TESTIFY” TO
YOUR EXPERIENCE OR OBSERVATION (it could even be the
person who
experienced what you saw happen!)
Find a way to incorporate a quote from this person SMOOTHLY
into your
conclusion.
2) INTRODUCE IN YOUR OWN WORDS AND
INCORPORATE A WORKING WEB
LINK TO A VIDEO THAT RELATES TO YOUR STORY
SOMEHOW (you decide
that interesting connection as the author!)

Don’t forget that you will need to create a CORRECTLY
FORMATTED WORKS CITED
PAGE with the interview and the video as entries! (Visit Pages
396-397 and 405 in
our Argument Today textbook if you are having trouble
remembering how to do a
Works Cited page from English 1301! You are accountable for
this skill being
already developed when you begin English 1302; see a tutor if
you need a review!)
Reminder: Your Works Cited page is a SEPARATE double-
spaced LAST PAGE with a
centered header “Works Cited” (always!) and DOES NOT
COUNT toward length!
GRADING CRITERIA:
1) Engaging narrative content that “argues for itself” (without a
thesis
statement)
2) Minimum length met and minimum research requirements
met
3) Incorporation of narrative elements including title, scene
setting,
characterization, dialogue (in quotes, even if internal thoughts
of you as the

narrator), conflict, pacing techniques, and resolution.
4) College-level sentence structures that are free of serious
grammar errors
such as run-ons and comma splices, and reveal attempts at style
and
sophistication (intentional syntax, parallel structures, evocative
word
choice, etc.)
5) Correctly formatted Works Cited page with at least two
entries per
assignment specifications
6) Bonus gauntlet for “outstanding” level = an intriguing title,
powerful
sensory detail, at least one original metaphor of your own, and
evidence of
strong temporal, spatial, and logical transitions.

PROF NOTES ON WRITERS VOICE FOR PROJECT 1 NARRATIVE ARGUMENTHi

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to PROF NOTES ON WRITERS VOICE FOR PROJECT 1 NARRATIVE ARGUMENTHi

Similar to PROF NOTES ON WRITERS VOICE FOR PROJECT 1 NARRATIVE ARGUMENTHi (20)

More from DaliaCulbertson719

More from DaliaCulbertson719 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

PROF NOTES ON WRITERS VOICE FOR PROJECT 1 NARRATIVE ARGUMENTHi