Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
.jpg)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(35)
-
▼
April
(22)
- A tale of Baghdad: the Caliph and the fisherman
- The Arabesque
- BBC interview on the early`Abbasid Caliphate
- Excellent BBC interview on the Arab Conquests
- Baghdad
- Collaboration space: Eunuchs
- Collaboration space: Military slavery
- Collaboration space: The Jews of Cairo and the Geniza
- Collaboration space: Cities
- Collaboration space: Assimilation, accommodation, ...
- Collaboration space: The state, administration, po...
- Collaboration space: The Arab conquests
- Collaboration space: Ibn Khaldun
- Collaboration space: the Prophet, Meccan trade
- Choosing your own topic
- Citation format
- The Writing Center
- End of break, midterm, and now papers:
- Midterm Essay Questions Discussion Thread
- Midterm essays
- Midterm details, study suggestion: Identifications
- Midterm discussion thread
-
▼
April
(22)
Followers
First of all I accidentally put this on the essay thread itself because I was unaware.
ReplyDeleteSorry for my negligence
but here we go:
I just have a question again on the process or rather the step from turning the original question into the context and formulating another question. I see in your example you imply the basic restatement of the broader question as the context, then do we really just formulate a smaller question? For example in this question you've posed broadly that the Dome of the Rock represents an important piece to the period as the context. You're then supposed topic for a question is continuity between periods so would you perhaps phrase it like this: In what way does the Dome of the Rock represent a continuation in the manifestation of political power in architecture between the late antique period and the early islamic?
then again I suppose you could just as easily pose: In what way does the Dome of the Rock represent a conscious statement by an islamic political leader, the Caliphate, on religious issues of the Late Antique period?
or could you pose some amalgamation
In what way does the Dome of the Rock represent a growing Islamic state in the Islamic style but a religious architecture apart from the same period?
Am I getting anywhere near the point?
I also have a question about the very asking of a question in an essay. Do you really want me to literally end one of my sentences with a question? Even before I knew about thesis statements back in third grade I was told not to do that.
Aware or not, excellent questions, any one of which could set you up nicely as you embark on an essay. Your proposed questions are so on target that it's obvious you got the point and aren't wallowing in confusion. Correct me if I'm wrong, seems to me your question stems in part from the realization that there are several ways to handle any question, several directions you could take, and that you're double-checking to be certain I'm not suggesting a single way of approaching it. If so, you're right - this isn't a recipe; in fact part of the point is that there are many paths to essay—writing salvation. And the last thing I hope y'all will conclude is that this is some new requirement or that your grade will be affected if you don't jump through these hoops. It's just another way for advanced students to take their game to a higher level, completely up to you whether you want to try it or not. .
ReplyDeleteThere are two things this broad guideline permits advanced students to do. First, it allows you to write an introductory paragraph without rewording the original question and leaving it at that. Second, if you broaden your topic (slightly - don't go overboard) it becomes easier to organize an essay that has a beginning, middle, end, and argument (or point) . Especially the latter: by relating the original question to something else you can write something of your own instead of repeating what you've learned.
It's interesting that you were taught not to write a question in introductory paragraphs. I see the point: it's easier to teach students to write if they're prevented from going off in any direction they choose. It's also a good way to teach organization, which is probably why it's the standard advice. And for most fields - and a fairly large number of historians - writing the thesis up front is SOP. So the last thing I'd suggest is that it's somehow the wrong way of doing things. All that being said, I think you'll find that many of the best historians distill their problems into questions, as doing it this way has several advantages, principal among them clarity and argumentation. That question at the end of one of the first paragraphs makes it clearer than anything else what a piece of writing is about. It also puts the structure on the outside, making it easier for readers to follow and assess the development of an argument. To my mind the most significant advantage is that it allows a writer to put the conclusion in the conclusion. All this works best in a field that sees itself a problem- rather than model- or hypothesis- centered. In fact I don't think it works at all well for scholars who advance and test hypotheses, or for that matter any field that deals with propositions that are either correct or incorrect. History as a discipline advances by formulating problems, interpreting evidence, and advancing arguments, little of which is a yes/no issue.
Expressing a complex issue as a simple question is hard to do, no doubt. I occasionally torment PhD students by asking, "what is the question to which your thesis is the answer?" But I don't do it often as it can drive them insane or into another line of work. When it comes down to it, most historians (and perhaps most scholars) are better at solving problems than formulating them, which may be why elegantly phrased questions are so admired. For these reasons, the last thing I'd ever inflict on students is a requirement to start off with a question. But you folks are young, why not try thinking and writing this way? You might surprise yourself.
Sure, I'll take the challenge thanks for the response. I guess it's one of those thing where going to the unknown no man's land is fine as long as when I get out of the trench I don't get hit by an artillery shell right away but it sounds like you're totally okay with allowing a little exploration so why not. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteCharles