1.1 Who should read this?
Students who want a refresher on humanities papers, or students who have had difficulties with papers in other courses. These suggestions are aimed at non-humanities majors and returning students. This handout addresses common errors and difficulties in humanities essay writing. Although the examples are drawn from course material, none of the suggestions is specific to the content and methods of this course. Note: ESL students may require assistance these guidelines cannot provide.
2.1 What is required?
A critical thinking paper: a thoughtful answer to one of the paper questions or to a question of your own devising (which you have cleared with the professor or teaching assistant), based on your own interpretation of specific passages in the text. Your interpretation should be defended with logical arguments. Clarity and organization in the presentation of your argument matter, both to the persuasiveness of your paper and to your grade. In short, you should be applying the skills you learned in your writing/critical thinking core courses. (If these skills have become a little rusty, fear not. Just keep reading...).
2.2 What did all of that mean?
If, in your other courses, you have been finding essay writing a challenge, the preceding formal description will probably tell you very little because it's the sort of advice you only understand after you know how to do what's asked. In general terms, we're grading for the following:
Familiarity with the text
Organization
A defensible thesis
Evidence
2.3 Familiarity with the text.
This means that you know the poem well enough to form an argument out of your interpretations of particular passages. You're so familiar with the text, you can sift through entire books for the lines that are relevant to your question. 'Familiarity with the text' means more than a general knowledge of the plot. Telling the reader that the Greeks are fighting the Trojans or that Agamemnon is the leader of the Greeks does not demonstrate familiarity of the order expected. (To put it bluntly: your knowledge of the Iliad should considerably surpass what can be obtained from Cliff's Notes.)
2.4 Critical Thinking: A defensible thesis.
You need to think about the question set, and come up with an answer and a defense of your answer. You need a thesis, or -- to be blunt, again -- the paper needs to make a point. By the time you've finished your essay, you should be able to answer the question 'What's your main point?' in a couple of sentences which your peers (best friend, room-mate, Mom/Dad etc.) can understand. If you can't make your thesis clear to your Mom, you need to revise the paper.
2.5 Problems with the thesis.
A defensible thesis needs to be more than intelligible. It needs to be clearly articulated, specific and original enough to be worth developing, and of some inherent interest to a reader familiar with the text.
A. Obvious.
Despite its subjective ring, 'interest' is probably the easiest task of the three. If you get interested in the question yourself and put some time into thinking about it, you will almost certainly come up with an argument that is not obvious or trite and thus -- for the purposes of this course -- produce something 'interesting' .
Example An obvious thesis: 'The Iliad tells us that Troy is going to fall.'
B. Too many.
Truly brain-dead theses are comparatively rare. It is actually much more common to see the reverse problem: an opening paragraph which tosses out three or four possible thesis statements, all perfectly viable, followed by a paper which skips from one to another without thoroughly developing any. This usually means that no significant preliminary work was done before writing. In other words, initial 'brainstorming' and final draft happened at the same time. If you are having this problem, you need to put the extra hours into preparation: decide which argument has the most potential, and come up with enough supporting points to make it the center of a 2-3 page paper. It is of course much more work to develop a single argument in depth, than to treat several superficially. It is this work that is being rewarded with the 'A'. You should be able to underline one or two sentences that state your thesis somewhere early in your paper.
C. Vague.
A thesis statement can be too general, vague or ill-defined to defend. For example. the thesis 'the Iliad focuses on human suffering' is too general for a short paper. A much more narrow argument in defense of this general point could however be made in 2-3 pages.
Example A specific thesis statement, defensible in a short paper: 'In Diomedes' aristeia, in book 5, the poet de-glamourizes death in battle by describing the devastating effects on the survivors, both combatants and non-combatants'.
Most people understand that a question may be too large to address properly in two-three pages. It is much harder to self-diagnose a vague thesis, or one in which crucial terms are inadequately defined (or not defined at all). The thesis 'battle scenes in the Iliad follow a pattern' looks as if it addresses a small enough question for a short paper, but it makes no particular claim. The thesis 'single combat scenes in the Iliad all contain elements X, Y, and Z, in this order' is defensible. As a rule, your thesis statement should not be transferable to any other paper written in response to the same question. It should fit your paper only. For example, most answers to the question 'do battle scenes follow a pattern' will be 'yes, battle scenes...'. Agreement or disagreement with the proposition in the question is not a thesis statement. Repeat: you cannot get a thesis out of restating the question. You need to state the main argument behind your yes-or-no answer.
The decision to devote space to defining terms is a judgment call. You have to decide whether or not you can count on agreement about the meaning of key terms in your thesis. As a general rule, abstract ethical concepts (e.g. responsibility, innocence) require more preliminary discussion (explain how you're using these terms, and why your chosen definition is an appropriate choice for the particular text) than literary terms with a more or less agreed definition (e.g. foil, flashback, formula).
D. Subjective.
Your own gut reaction can be a terrific point of departure for a study of any text. A strong reaction means that you're interested, engaged and curious, which is a great place to start. A paper which does not go beyond describing the emotions you feel in response to the poem is at best a response paper, not a critical thinking paper. It is not the sort of paper required for this course. You need to reach a reasoned, critical judgment. It is not enough to like or dislike something in Homer.
So what do you do? If you feel very strongly about an issue (e.g. that Helen is totally responsible for the war), you first want to sift the purely personal ('my aunt Helen bugs me') from the elements in your response that have a basis in the poem (e.g. Helen regrets her decision to follow Paris at Iliad 3.172-5). This can be very hard to do. Sometimes an apparently objective argument can be entirely dependent on a personal frame of reference. For example, in response to the question 'does Iliad Book 6 idealize Andromache', a student once argued: 'no, she's a whiner, totally self-centered and a burden on Hector'. Evidence was not a problem. Andromache says many things that can be interpreted as whining and selfish, and she is arguably a lot less 'help' to Hector than Sarpedon and his Lycians. But the frame of reference for this answer is basically a late 20th century feminist conception of desirable qualities in women. The question actually asked whether Homer holds Andromache up for praise or blame, that is, how does she behave in comparison with the figures she is set against (Hecuba, Helen) in book 6. It is quite possible to argue that she is much more selfish than Hecuba, hence not 'idealized' in the poem. It is equally possible to reject the premises of the question, for example, on the grounds that it requires endorsing a sexist standard of female behavior. But you need to make an argument for the criteria you are using. The problem with this answer ('Andromache is a whiner. This is not an ideal.') was that its premises were neither stated nor defended.
2.6 Organization.
Put in the work to organize your paper so that it is possible to follow your argument. The thesis will have supporting arguments, each taking roughly a paragraph. Topic sentences (= sentences which introduce the argument of each paragraph) are very useful to the reader because they explain what to look for in the evidence that will be cited in each paragraph, and they help the reader make the connection between your supporting arguments and your main thesis. In case of doubt, topic sentences tell the reader what you think you're arguing. (At very least, this will make it easier for your reader to make useful suggestions for improvement.)
2.7 Problems with organization.
Most organizational 'problems' are really just first-draft phenomena. They're unavoidable short-cuts you take when you're first getting your ideas down on paper. The solution is quite simple: think through your argument once in a first draft or outline, and then write the draft to hand in. The most common of these problems are:
A. First paragraph filler.
'Homer is a great classic, admired for centuries by everyone, great leaders and humble laborers, the learned, the ignorant, the short, the tall...'
Do not waste your first paragraph on Homer's place in the universe. You need all of your 2-3 pages to defend your thesis. Paragraphs that don't advance your argument are so much opportunity lost (and they contribute nothing -- zip, nada, zilch -- toward your grade). In fairness, these paragraphs are usually warm-up exercises and often very valuable. There is nothing wrong with writing your way into the topic; just don't hand in the warm-up.
The first paragraph should introduce your thesis, not Homer, the Aeneid, Roman literature or epic. Sometimes you will need a set-up paragraph in order to lay critical groundwork before the thesis paragraph (for example, fitting this particular question into a larger context, perhaps an ongoing scholarly debate with well-established 'sides'). In papers for this course you do not need a set-up paragraph to introduce the author and work or to draw in a reluctant reader. See 3.3. Most students should probably begin with a paragraph which introduces the paper's thesis. This does not mean that you must state the thesis, baldly and without preamble, and leap directly into your main body, but it does mean that introductory material should steer the reader toward your topic and question.
Example An introduction to the thesis in 2.5C might start with the large question 'is the Iliad is an anti-war poem', mention the conventional view -- held, for example, by the Romans -- that the Iliad celebrates heroic exploits in battle. You might explain why the question should be raised, e.g. because it has contemporary relevance, because so much of the poem is devoted to fighting, because this 'conventional' view is, in your opinion, wrong. At this point you will probably want to introduce your position, and perhaps tell the reader what parts of the text you will be discussing (i.e. introduce your evidence) or how you will organize your argument. Like the thesis, the opening paragraph should not be one-size-fits-all. It should fit your paper, only.
B. Homer organized my paper.
Remember that you're presenting your argument, not the plot of Homer's Iliad or Virgil's Aeneid. You do not as a rule want to adopt the order of events in the poem as your principle of organization, even if this is the order in which you researched your topic. This order serves someone else's purposes, not yours. Your paragraphs should not start by telling the reader where we are in the plot (e.g. 'Next Zeus sends a dream to Agamemnon. This shows...'). If you draft good outlines you will never have this problem.
C. Last paragraph thesis.
It happens to the best of us. You skipped the outline, warmed up in the first paragraph, thought your way through the topic as you typed, and reached a defensible thesis by your conclusion. Better late than never. The paper now needs to be rewritten, because it's basically a slightly verbose outline. If it's 4:00 a.m. that's probably not an option. It's time for emergency repairs. This is what you need to do:
Cut the introduction. Do not flinch. Delete. This introduction does not introduce your thesis. You didn't have one when you wrote it. (Honestly, this can and does happen to us all. Many writers write the introduction last for precisely this reason.)
Move your last paragraph and make what adjustments you can. Remind yourself that no conclusion is less of a problem than no thesis.
Apply some minor version of this method ('thesis goes up front') to individual paragraphs. If you started the paragraph with your evidence, then defended your interpretation of the evidence, and wrapped up by explaining how it all relates to your main thesis, put a short version of your 'this illustrates [main thesis phenomenon]' sentence up front. Yes, the reader is going to find the transition rough, but at least (s)he will have a signpost to help. It is more important to communicate your argument than to achieve good flow within or between paragraphs. A reader who can't follow your argument will not be persuaded by the force of your style.
2.8 Evidence.
Evidence should be properly cited and properly used. Proper citation is easy: give book and line numbers where possible (e.g. Iliad 3.145-8) and otherwise, page numbers (e.g. Argonautica p. 75). Proper use is less obvious. You need to cite evidence to support all major points. You need to identify the lines on which you base your claim, and you need to explain how the passage you cite supports this claim. For example, if you were arguing 'Paris is not pulling his weight in battle' you might cite Iliad 3.45 (Hector to Paris: '...but there is no strength in your heart, no courage'). You would then have to explain why this line should be read as an accurate, reliable description of Paris. (It might be false criticism intended to rouse Paris to valor, like Agamemnon's criticism of Diomedes at Iliad 4.370ff.) You might discuss similar remarks Hector makes in other circumstances, or argue that he is a credible authority because he is Paris' brother, or because of his status among the Trojans. In sum, you need to put together a strong argument for your interpretation: give all the reasons you can find, and try to anticipate (and counter!) objection.
When your interpretation of a passage requires a fairly lengthy defense, you should, as a courtesy to the reader, cite the passage in full. In papers as narrow in focus as these, you will rarely need to cite more than five lines of text at a time. (N.B. Needing to fill two pages is not an adequate reason to ignore this guideline.) Please remember to single space and indent quotations.
A word about the 'obvious'. Be cautious when you use this word. If a claim is truly obvious (e.g. 'Hector is obviously Trojan'), it's not worth the space it takes up. If you mean that your reasons for a claim are 'obvious', be very certain that you have made it clear to the reader, somewhere, just what these are.
A word about the even more obvious. Do not summarize the plot of an epic poem under the guise of 'citing evidence'. Evidence supports an argument. It usually belongs in the middle or end of a paragraph, after you've introduced the argument you want to make. Plot summary tends to appear at the beginning of a paragraph. Evidence is identified by book and line number; plot summaries have no fixed address. Consider, for example, how you would cite the reference for the following: 'Agamemnon, having assembled the collected forces of Greece, sailed to Troy where he waged war against Priam and the Trojans for nine years'. This is plot summary. It is very important for you to know the plot, but it should not appear in a paper.
A few words of general advice...
3.1 Start early. The less accustomed you are to writing these papers, the longer they will take. You're learning new skills, and there's no short cut. If possible, devote a few hours to thinking about the question a day or two before you write. Since drafts are expected for recitation sections, you'll have an incentive to get started early. Bear in mind that a critical thinking paper can be as unpredictable as a problem set: you can't always tell how long it's going to take to come up with a good answer.
3.2 Prepare. Preparatory work should involve re-reading parts of the text, probably more parts than you will actually cite in your paper. Next, you need to make an outline. The outline can start off as a brainstorming session, but by the time you're done, you should have a main thesis and supporting arguments to turn into the paragraphs of your main body. Do not skip the planning stage. Bear in mind: stream-of-consciousness papers are disorganized, and you're being graded partly for organization.
3.3 Write for your audience. Your audience is a professor and a graduate assistant. They have read the primary texts and probably a good half dozen papers on your topic. You can assume that these papers all took an entirely different approach. Main issues of the topic, however, are probably at the front of your readers' minds, because they have been thinking about them. For this audience, you can take short cuts on background material. For example, you don't need to explain Helen's relationship to Menelaos as background for your reader. You may want to mention this fact in support of an argument, e.g. that the Iliad invites comparison between Menelaos and Paris. You can also assume interest in your topic, and so you do not need elaborate rhetorical strategies to lure the reader into reading your paper. Ideally, you want to draw your reader in with a thoughtful thesis. You also want to make it very clear to the reader which question you're answering. This is sometimes very hard to tell. Identifying the number doesn't help if you've rethought the question, rejected it premises and formulated an entirely different question of your own (which you should clear with the instructor or TA). Your readers will assume that you are answering one of the paper questions until you tell them otherwise.
3.4 Write standard English. Your audience does not know local slang very well and they have a great admiration for intelligible prose. Good grammar and syntax will help the readers follow your argument. They will laud you for being lucid, and your grade will benefit.