Comparative Literature 203: The European Novel: What's in an (Author's) Name? Fall 2010 Abstract guide Our goal for this course is to engage thoughtfully, deeply, and creatively with our texts. To this end, all of your papers will reflect your engagement with our texts without (or with extremely minimal) recourse to secondary materials. There will be four formal writing assignments for the class: three short “abstracts” (1-2 pp) and one longer paper (5-6 pp). These assignments are all sustained close-reading assignments. Ideally, each paper will be an extension of the conversations that we’ve had in class and/or on various assignments. Your essays should reflect your individual engagement with our texts. They are not “research” papers or “reports”; you do not need to consult secondary sources. (You should use secondary sources only for verifying factual information, and only if this factual information is necessary for your argument – eg: confirming that Foucault's essay in part responds to Barthes'). The purpose of these papers is NOT to show that you’ve read the texts – I take it for granted that you’ve been doing the reading – or to reiterate an “expert” opinion. Goals: to attack a single issue thoroughly (instead of trying to solve the mysteries of the universe in a short paper); to be attentive to the interaction between the stylistics and ideas of a text (the way that how the author tells a story through particular rhetorical choices influences our reading of what the text "means"). The abstract is so named (or misnamed) because you may be writing with an eye toward your longer paper. You will be doing a close reading of a short passage from one of the texts that we are studying. This may end up being the starting point for the longer paper, but need not be. The abstract is not, however, merely an informal paper proposal. While you may be thinking about it as a starting point for a longer essay, please also be aware that it will be graded as a close reading in its own right. For this assignment you will: 1) Select and photocopy a short passage from one of the works we are studying. Your selection should be no more than two continuousparagraphs or half a page long, whichever is shorter. Attach this to your assignment. 2) Highlight (or underline or circle) two or three SHORT pieces of language (preferrably single words, but 3-4 word images are also fine) on the photocopy of the text you’ve chosen that together add up to a constellation of meaning that we may have missed on a casual reading. These short units should form a pattern that convincingly suggests the story's interest in a particular idea. Your chosen language should not just add up to a summary of the major theme of the text as a whole. Often, the more removed or seemingly "off-topic" your pattern of language is, the more you'll have to work with in thinking about how this strange pattern modifies or asks questions about the text's ostensible main idea. 3) Do a close rea.

1. Comparative Literature 203: The European Novel: What's in an
(Author's) Name?
Fall 2010
Abstract guide
Our goal for this course is to engage thoughtfully, deeply, and
creatively with our texts. To this end, all of your papers will
reflect your engagement with our texts without (or with
extremely minimal) recourse to secondary materials. There will
be four formal writing assignments for the class: three short
“abstracts” (1-2 pp) and one longer paper (5-6 pp). These
assignments are all sustained close-reading assignments.
Ideally, each paper will be an extension of the conversations
that we’ve had in class and/or on various assignments. Your
essays should reflect your individual engagement with our texts.
They are not “research” papers or “reports”; you do not need to
consult secondary sources. (You should use secondary sources
only for verifying factual information, and only if this factual
information is necessary for your argument – eg: confirming
that Foucault's essay in part responds to Barthes'). The purpose
of these papers is NOT to show that you’ve read the texts – I
take it for granted that you’ve been doing the reading – or to
reiterate an “expert” opinion.
Goals: to attack a single issue thoroughly (instead of trying to
solve the mysteries of the universe in a short paper); to be
attentive to the interaction between the stylistics and ideas of a
text (the way that how the author tells a story through particular
rhetorical choices influences our reading of what the text
"means").
The abstract is so named (or misnamed) because you may be
writing with an eye toward your longer paper. You will be doing

2. a close reading of a short passage from one of the texts that we
are studying. This may end up being the starting point for the
longer paper, but need not be. The abstract is not, however,
merely an informal paper proposal. While you may be thinking
about it as a starting point for a longer essay, please also be
aware that it will be graded as a close reading in its own right.
For this assignment you will:
1) Select and photocopy a short passage from one of the works
we are studying. Your selection should be no more than two
continuousparagraphs or half a page long, whichever is shorter.
Attach this to your assignment.
2) Highlight (or underline or circle) two or three SHORT pieces
of language (preferrably single words, but 3-4 word images are
also fine) on the photocopy of the text you’ve chosen that
together add up to a constellation of meaning that we may have
missed on a casual reading. These short units should form a
pattern that convincingly suggests the story's interest in a
particular idea. Your chosen language should not just add up to
a summary of the major theme of the text as a whole. Often, the
more removed or seemingly "off-topic" your pattern of language
is, the more you'll have to work with in thinking about how this
strange pattern modifies or asks questions about the text's
ostensible main idea.
3) Do a close reading of the passage you’ve chosen, showing
how the language of the text that you have identified (step 2
above) shows us something about the themes and structures we
have observed.
As we've discussed (and as is apparent from #2 above), a close
reading is not a summary or a run down of the larger themes
that appear in the text you’re examining; nor is it a summary of
what your text says about authorship. Instead, you will be
arguing a theory of your own devising about a pattern of details
in your text that seems to suggest something about your text's

3. take on authorship (or any of the issues related to authorship we
have been discussing -- e.g.: names, appropriation of other
texts, the status of the reader, etc.). You want to reveal
something beyond the superficial level of the text, something
that can’t be contained in a point-by-point summary of what
“happens” in the text. Avoid summary. Instead, make a claim
about the pattern that you've found, and support it with analysis
of the details that you’ve found (the words and phrases that lead
you to your claim); discuss how these details lead us to think
about the questions, concerns, and contradictions that lie within
the text.
Your argument should be quite focused. Make sure that you’re
arguing a specific point, not attempting to handle a large theme
or topic. Topics such as "The Death of the Author in Barthes" or
"Existentialism in Sartre" are much too general. More
importantly, topics like these tend prove points that do not need
to be proven: that Barthes' essay discusses a theory of the
author's death or that Sartre's novel has existential themes. You
will want keep your focus trained on the "small picture" instead
of the "big picture." Because your essay will be focused on the
way that ONE pattern of small details works in the text, you
will want to avoid any topic that creates a need to list a bunch
of examples instead of staying rooted in one special case. Your
essay should show how the very specific language you're
handling (from the particular passage you're reading) adds
unique nuance to the larger themes; make sure that you're not
simply saying that your passage is just one example of a general
tendency in the text.
You want to be VERY aware of what can be done well in a short
essay. Cramming what should be a book-length project into 1-
2pp will either lead to an extremely superficial reading or a
nervous breakdown. Again, your goal is to argue an implicit
point, not to catalogue examples. Your argument should give a
particular reading of what your author is questioning about a
major issue through very specific evidence. (As examples, if

4. you were to retool the too-general topics above into questions
that could be handled in a short essay, you might consider how
the sexualized language in the opening paragraph of Barthes'
essay mitigates the notion of death in the essay's title. Or, you
might consider how and why one or two of the editorial
footnotes in Sartre's novel assert the "reality" of the fictional
text.)
“Evidence” is in the form of quotation. However, you do not
want to pad your paper with huge blocks of quoted text. You
should call attention to specific nuances in the text, quoting
specific, SHORT (a word, a short phrase, a line) examples of
strange or telling language. ALWAYS cite where you’ve found
your evidence. You may need to refer to text outside of the
short passage that you’re examining, but make sure that your
focus is squarely on the passage you’re looking at. Whenever
you quote something, make sure that you’re interpreting it --
never ask a quotation to “speak for itself” or use it to
summarize an author’s main point. Again, you want to be
showing how the author’s particular choice of language reveals
something not immediately apparent about his/her attitude about
the material he/she is discussing.
Please type all materials. I will not accept handwritten papers!
It is your responsibility to get your assignment to me by the
stated due date, even if you are not in class.
Grading Criteria
Although the criteria for a successful humanities paper are
difficult to isolate and quantify, they may be described. I am
looking for:
1) A theory: a main claim that dominates the paper.
2) Use of evidence: quotations (preferably brief) from the text.
This type of writing is based on reading specific works, not on
life experience.

5. 3) Readability: satisfactory use of the English language. An
essay that I can read through without serious difficulty.
An essay meeting these first three criteria will get at least a
“C.”
4) A revealing theory or main claim. The theory does not restate
a point made in the text itself; instead, it claims something
about the text.
5) Consistent interpretation of textual evidence. Comments on
quotations should not involve paraphrase or summary. Easily-
overlooked details are connected with implicit constellations of
meaning.
6) A coherent, organized argument. The argument flows
smoothly and does not stray from the topic at hand. It is evident
what the point is at any place in the essay. Each subordinate
point supports the main claim.
A paper that meets these first six criteria will get at least a “B.”
This is a good, solid paper that has some flaws and/or lapses.
An “A” paper fully meets all these criteria while exhibiting
consistent control, lively intellectual engagement, and original
thought. Containing few if any lapses, it may also possess
elusive qualities such as elegance, wit, or passion.
For Abstract 1, work on a selection from: Genette, Barthes,
Foucault, Sartre, OR Hesse
Abstract 2: Voltaire, Kierkegaard, OR Pessoa
Abstract 3: Mérimée, Elliot, Kafka, OR Borges