ENG 331: Edition Critique and Recitation

NOTE: This is a new assignment as of winter 2024. If there are any elements of the instructions that are at all unclear, please contact me and let me know immediately so I can fix them!

There are two parts to this assignment.

PART 1:
TALK TO ME FOR 7-10 MINUTES ABOUT A PROPOSED CHANGE TO, AND RESULTING CRITIQUE OF, A CLASS EDITION WE’VE READ SO FAR

Browse through the ENG 331 “secret collection” of early texts and transcriptions, which I will share with our class by email (and only by email) at the beginning of Week 3 (the collection is password protected; I’ll only share the password in class discussion). Try comparing some of those early texts/transcriptions to the corresponding class readings that we covered in Weeks 1-3 — that is, the early Robin Hood material, the Coventry Pageant of the Shearmen and Tailors, the Digby Killing of the Children, Fulgens and Lucres, or the Digby Mary Magdalene (leave out the Chester Innocents). As you compare, look for specific differences between the class edition and its source. You’re looking in particular for some element of the source text, in its early printing, manuscript, or transcription, which the class edition gets wrong, or doesn’t get quite right, or flattens, or reduces unnecessarily.

To prepare for this assignment, you must (a) identify, and make the case for, a specific correction in ONE of our assigned class editions of Robin Hood and the Potter, Robin Hood and the Monk, the Coventry Pageant of the Shearmen and Tailors, the Digby Killing of the Children, the Chester Innocents, Fulgens and Lucres, or the Digby Mary Magdalene (no other texts allowed!) that would make the class edition truer to, or a better communication of, the original early text. From there, you must (b) work fully through the deep, complex ramifications of your small correction, especially in relation to what the editor of the class edition has identified as the edition’s purpose or rationale (which you can usually find in the editor’s introduction to that edition, if there is one) — that is, to critique the edition, by means of a close study of one of its details. (If your correction does not have any such deep, complex ramifications, then go back to the source and find a new, more meaningful, correction.)

Then, at a one-on-one meeting with me in Week VI, you have to speak to me for 7-10 minutes in a way that convinces me of the validity of the correction and that educates me about, and argues for, the deep, complex ramifications of that correction. You can do this by means of a traditional argumentative essay if you wish (if so, you can just read the essay directly to me or have me read it to you; 900-1000 words should take about 7-10 minutes). But you don’t have to. You can also just talk to me for 7-10 minutes, to make your case informally (informal doesn’t mean disorganized! bring notes!) — for this assignment, I’ll be grading you on how convincing your case is, not on how formal or “academic” you sound. No bells or whistles, please: use your whole 7-10 minutes to actually focus in on the element of the text you’ve chosen. Practice at home and make sure you do not go over 10 minutes; if you do go overtime when we meet, I’ll have to cut you off.

You are aiming, with this assignment, to change permanently the way future students in ENG 331 will interact with the edition you’ve chosen. The top scorers on this assignment will have their corrections added to a list of corrections, to be shared with future students.

PART 2:
RECITE, IN PERSON AND IN REAL TIME, 24 TO 48 LINES OF A CLASS TEXT WE HAVEN’T READ YET

Browse through the readings we haven’t discussed yet (that is, from Week 4 and on) to find a 24-48 line passage that catches your eye. Commit it to memory and practice reciting it, over and over. Then, at the same one-on-one meeting with me in Week VI, recite the passage aloud, from memory, with as few mistakes or omissions as possible (ideally, none!). You will be graded primarily on the accuracy of your recitation, and secondarily on how clearly your reading communicates basic comprehension of the words you are saying. You can opt to recite any lines — monologue or dialogue — but I won’t be able to prompt you with cue lines during your recitation.

You will not be graded on your acting! But you should try to act the speech well if you can: I’ll offer the top 3-6 performances the chance to perform again in front of the whole class, and will give extra credit to any of those students if they take me up on that offer.

How to set up a one-on-one meeting (look closely — this is unusual for English classes!):

For this assignment, I require students to present their work in real time, at a one-on-one pre-scheduled meeting with me.

All students must pre-schedule a 30-minute time slot with me — in Week III, I’ll let you know that appointment reservations are available, and on what days they are available. Once I’ve invited appointment requests (and not before then, please!), send me an email with four preferred 30-minute time slots within the range specified on the course schedule, in order of preference (time slots must begin on the :00 or :30; do not put anything in the email except the four time slots; list exactly four preferred slots, not a general “I’m free between” estimate). I will respond within a week with your confirmed appointment — that appointment is now your deadline. There will be no further submission of work, nor any further feedback, than what we exchange during our meeting.

    1. The live, real-time presentation of your work will allow you to clarify any points of confusion and correct miscommunications in real time — and if I’m confused by what you’re saying, I may stop you briefly and ask you to explain (an explanation that can only help, never hurt, your overall grade). Students, including shy ones, often report that this format allowed for the most helpful, understandable essay feedback they’d ever received.

    2. Your 30-minute meeting (unless you’ve done this before) begins with a 2-minute introduction from me. I’ll say something like this: Welcome to your one-on-one meeting! We’ve got about 27 minutes together, the first two of which are used up in the introduction I’m currently giving. After I’m done, you’ll present Part 1 of the assignment, for 7-10 minutes. I may ask brief clarifying questions during that presentation. After that, you’ll present Part 2. Do not read into the face I’m making while your presentations are underway – that’s just my face, and it’s the same for everyone. Once the presentations are done, I’ll take a long pause to gather together my notes into something I can express understandably. The remainder of the meeting, usually about 12 minutes, will be for feedback on your work. I’ll likely push back on the argument you presented in Part 1; be prepared to defend it. This conversation takes the place of what a prof would normally write in your margins, but every point I bring up will be up for conversation and clarification from you. Be sure you’re aware that this feedback session is the only feedback you’re getting from me: there isn’t any written follow-up. Also be aware that I will not assign a grade at this meeting; rather, I’ll assign provisional numerical grades after every five student meetings or so, then go back and review those grades repeatedly, to make sure all is fair, and to take the pressure off of the individual meeting time. One last question: please let me know, before we begin, what kind of feedback you believe you’ll work best with — gentle, constructive, or unfiltered (know that unfiltered feedback from me can be very harsh, but is the most honest). Any questions or concerns beyond that? Then let’s begin.

    3. After the intro, we’ll have about 13 minutes for the reading/delivery of your work (10 minutes for Part 1, 3 for Part 2). Practice ahead of time! If your presentation goes too far past the allotted time, I may have to cut you off.

    4. The subsequent 12 minutes (or more) are for feedback on your work. I have found that opening a one-on-one dialogue with students is far more effective, in my classes, than jotting comments in the margins. You’ll get to ask me to clarify points and discuss your recitation and argumentation with me in depth (which also offers you an opportunity to improve your grade).

    5. The remaining 3 minutes are for the transition to the next student. It is by necessity a quick transition — so let’s both do our part to remain within the time limits I’ve set! That said, there always ends up being a bit of a lag, usually my fault — if you show up for your appointment and I’m not ready yet, it’s because we are behind schedule. Please be patient — everyone will get their 30 minutes (and please, when scheduling other appointments around this one, allow an extra 15 minutes for possible delays).

    6. Part 1 of this exercise is far better in person than remote, but I can host remote meetings if need be — but we cannot do Part 2 remotely. So, if you need to meet remotely, see below for the relevant accommodations, and then let me know one hour before your scheduled meeting that I should expect you remotely (we’ll use the same link I always use for remote meetings, which you can find under “Resources” above, or just by clicking here).

    7. If you miss a scheduled one-on-one appointment, for any reason, you may submit Part 1 alone, extended into a traditional 1250-word essay (see the relevant accommodations below), by email attachment, by 11:59pm on the day your appointment was scheduled, and I will treat it as I would any late paper with no in-person component, deducing 3 points (out of 100) and withholding feedback and commentary. If you cannot get it in by the end of the day your appointment was scheduled, I will treat it as a doubly late paper, penalizing it by 6 points (out of 100) and withholding receive feedback or commentary.  Emailed late assignments will be accepted no later than 11:59pm two days after the last day of in-person essay meetings; after that, the assignment mark falls automatically to 0.

  • PART 1

    Choosing a true correction to a class text, one with real significance to our understanding of the original, which you can really prove to be more correct than the edition, is the most important thing to do for this essay; essays that do not do so will likely score in the 60s or lower.

    Grades above 79, meanwhile, are reserved for essays that truly convince me about deep, complex critical ramifications about the edition that I didn’t believe or know before (an essay that does so isn’t guaranteed an 80, but you can’t get an 80 or higher without doing so).

    Beyond that, here are my main criteria for grading any argumentative work, including Part 1: 

    1. Specificity. Base your argument in close reading, teasing out ambiguities; after that, choose one very small thing as the primary subject of your hypothesis.

    2. Rigor. Say only what is actually true; establish and defend that truth with (and only with) stringent logic.

    3. Focus. Organize your argument according to the logical progression of its argument; cut anything that is not structurally necessary to that argument.

    4. Stakes. Argue something that you actually believe and care about — find what matters in the specific item you’ve taken as your primary subject.

    5. Complexity. Never simplify; always ramify. Look for, and incorporate, evidence that disproves or troubles your hypothesis.

    6. Depth. Dig into your narrow primary subject. Uncover what lies beneath what lies beneath the obvious. Read against the grain.

    PART 2

    I’ll have a copy of the class text open in front of me as you recite. Whenever you get any words wrong, add words that are not there, or leave out words that are, I will deduct points; larger errors mean larger deductions. Whenever you speak a sentence in a way that does not clearly show and communicate a basic understanding of the meaning of your words, I’ll deduct a smaller amount. A recitation that gets every word exactly correct and that clearly communicates the sense of each sentence will score an 85; higher scores may be awarded for style or creativity.

Possible modifications to the memorization, recitation, and reading aloud parts:

Some students may be unable to memorize and recite, or even to deliver their work aloud. Knowing your capabilities is your responsibility: you must decide in the weeks leading up to the assignment whether the memorization, recitation, and reading aloud is a reasonable possibility for you. Knowing the difference between challenging and impossible/inaccessible is also your responsibility: I encourage you to challenge yourself — and to leave room to surprise yourself (don’t say “memorization has never worked for me” until you’ve at least tried it a little!) — but only you can determine whether these elements of the assignment are truly inaccessible to you, and you must determine that ahead of time, not after the fact.

If you determine that memorization and live recitation is unavailable to you for Part 2, or you are otherwise unable to do Part 2 (for instance, if you must attend our meeting remotely, since Part 2 cannot be done remotely), then you must instead extend Part 1 of the assignment from 7-10 minutes to 10-13 minutes — and you must present that extended assignment as a formal, traditional argumentative essay (about 1250 words). Print out two hard copies of that essay and bring them to your one-on-one meeting; one of us will read the essay fully to the other, then we’ll talk about it afterward.

If you determine that reading aloud or otherwise speaking your argument aloud for Part 1 is unavailable to you, then you must present that extended assignment as a formal, traditional argumentative essay, print out two hard copies of that essay and bring them to your one-on-one meeting, and ask me to read it to you. Then we’ll talk about it afterward.