Missouri Western State University
College of
Liberal Arts and Sciences
Department
of English, Foreign Languages and Journalism
English
210.04: Approaches to Literature
Fall, 2006
Professor: Dr. Mike
Cadden
Class Time and Place: 4:30—7:20 W in
Eder Hall 210
Office: 222-F Eder Hall
(SS/C)
Office
Hours: 2:00—3:00
PM T, H; 1:00—4:00 PM W; and by appointment.
Office Phone:
271-4576
E-mail:
cadden@missouriwestern.edu
URL:
http://www.missouriwestern.edu/eflj/faculty/cadden.asp(This syllabus is on
my website)
Course Description:
ENG 210, a general studies course,
is a sophomore level literature course that introduces students to different
literary genres. This section of ENG 210 focuses on versions of three basic
stories: “Beauty and the Beast,” “Cinderella,” and “Little Red Riding
Hood.” We’ll read different folk tale
versions of each tale, discuss films, read novel versions, consider poetry
based on the story, look at children’s picture book versions, and try to figure
out what each version does to, with, for, and against (in the case of parody)
the basic story we have in our heads as members of this culture. I look forward
to exploring these three familiar tales with you this semester.
Required Texts:
Levine, Gail Carson. Ella
Enchanted.
Lowry, Lois. Number the Stars.
McKinley, Robin. Beauty.
Tatar, Maria, ed. The Classic
Fairy Tales.
Evaluation:
General Class Participation: 10%
Report: 20%
Three Unit Exams: 70%
Attendance:
The MWSC Policy
Guide states that “each instructor will determine and make known to the
class the requirement for attendance” (45). If you don’t come to class you will
obviously jeopardize your class participation grade. I will not quantify how
much presence equals what grade. I will be judging your total participation performance,
not just your presence. I can also tell you that the exams draw heavily from
class work. Also, since you are responsible for all announcements in class, you
run the risk of missing important information regarding other assignments; I
will not accept absence as an excuse for ignorance. In short, if you’re not
here, you’re going to suffer through other assignments directly and indirectly.
Academic Honesty Policy and Due Process:
Academic honesty is required in all academic
endeavors. Violations of academic
honesty include any instance of plagiarism, cheating, seeking credit for
another’s work, falsifying documents or academic records, or any other
fraudulent activity. Violations of
academic honesty may result in a failing grade on the assignment, failure in
the course, or expulsion from the University.
When a student’s grade has been affected, violations of academic honesty
will be reported to the Provost or designated representative on the Academic
Honesty Violation Report forms.
Please see the 2006-07 Student Handbook and
Calendar on page 21 for specific activities identified as violations of this
policy and the student due process procedure. This handbook is also available
online at http://www.missouriwestern.edu/handbook/index.pdf.
If you are unsure about how you are using sources, please check with me.
Policy on Students with Disabilities: Any
student in this course who has a disability which requires different contexts
for either evaluation or expression should contact me in the first few weeks of
the course so that those needs can be considered.
Calendar:
August 30: Introduction to the course; Arlene
Sardine--an example of textual play; preliminary view of Disney images.
September 6: Beaumont’s
"Beauty & the Beast" (Tatar 32); Angela Carter’s “The Tiger’s
Bride” (Tatar 50) and “Urashima the Fisherman” (Tatar 66); Grimms’ “The Frog
King” (Tatar 47)
September 13: Robin McKinley’s Beauty.
September 20: Have viewed Disney’s Beauty and the Beast by
today: dramatic presentation of story; Beast Poetry (online); children’s
picture books.
FYI:
Banned Book Reading: Spratt Hall 214, 7-8 PM, Tuesday, 9/26.
September
27: Test #1.
October 4:
Grimm’s “Cinderella” (Tatar 117); “Yeh-hsien” (Tatar 107); Perrault’s
“Donkeyskin” (Tatar 109); Jacobs’ “Catskin” (Tatar 122), “The Story of the
Black Cow” (Tatar 125).
October 11: Gail Carson Levine’s Ella
Enchanted.
October
18: Disney’s Cinderella and Ella Enchanted; Cinderella poetry (online);
children’s picture books.
October 25: Test #2.
November 1: Grimms’ “Little
Red Cap” (Tatar 13); Perrault’s “Little Red Riding Hood” (Tatar 11); “The Story
of Grandmother” (Tatar 10) and brief tales by Thurber and Calvino (Tatar).
FYI: 11/3 is the last day to
withdraw from MWSU classes
November 8: Lois Lowry’s Number
the Stars.
November
15: Angela Carter: Handouts of “The Werewolf” and “In the Company of Wolves”;
Poetry (online); Children’s Picture books.
November 29: Test #3.
December
6: Presentations of paper synopses; evaluations; final instructions for papers.
Extended Final Paper Due Date:
Thursday, December 14, 8:30-10:20
AM
Participation (10%): This
will include a few things and will be assessed at the end of the semester. “To
participate” is not the same thing as “to show up.” While attendance is
necessary for participation, it isn’t enough by itself. Nor is participation
the same thing as constant talking; one might talk constantly and actually
detract from the course. There are ways to participate in such a way that the
course is worthwhile for everyone:
Exams (70%): You’ll
have three exams. Each exam will
have a writing component; they will not be multiple choice tests. I will
provide you passages from our readings for you to comment on and choices of
questions for paragraph-length (or longer) responses. You should therefore take
notes that aren’t limited to data or facts but record the nature of our
discussions and issues that we try to tackle. There may be, in addition to the
written portion, some short answer questions. In any case, since the tests don’t
simply quiz on terms or on matters of plot and character, it will be very
difficult to do well on the exams if you are not in class.
Paper (20%): You will
prepare a paper of ~6 pages that examines an example of some form of textual
play and present those findings to the rest of us at the end of the term.
Your first job is to identify a
likely candidate for a report. Perhaps you've stumbled upon a collection by
Alan Garner called Politically Correct Bedtime Stories: Modern Tales for Our
Life & Times. You notice that it "updates" many old fairy
tales in politically correct ways. After determining that Garner isn't actually
serious, you decide to discuss this text as an example of intertextual play. Or
perhaps you've seen a film recently that, you are told, is "really" a
sequel to another film--or book—that you hadn’t experienced, but you enjoyed it
anyway. Why? Shouldn't you have been
confused? Was it really a "sequel,"
after all? You decide to examine that
question. Perhaps you notice an advertisement that alludes to a text you know,
but the ad's allusion to that other text is rather subtle. Did it really have
to connect with the audience? Why or
why not? Perhaps you see a film version
of a book you've read--or a printed version of a film you've seen. You notice
that the experience is principally different, even though you think they are
pretty true to each other in many ways?
Why does that change of "genre" so affect your reception? Perhaps you see a version of a tale for one
audience remade for another; how has that been accomplished if it is
successful? How has it failed if it
has? You get the point. In any case,
you might find an instance of genre crossing, parody, imitation, allusion, or
serialization. Your job will be to share it with us and explain it as well as
you can.
This report will be divided
between an explanation or account or summary
of the text in question (what is it?), the analysis
of the textual play at work (how does it work in relation to another text?),
and a brief discussion of significance
(why is it interesting or important?). To paraphrase, the report will be
divided between what, how, and “so what?”
I want you to make this division
clear in the paper.
I. Summary: As briefly as
you can, explain/summarize the texts in question. Provide information that
helps us understand what you’ve examined and what texts are involved. Who
authored the texts? Where were they
found? (A word or two of how you
stumbled on this might be interesting.) What sorts of texts are they?
II. Analysis: Explain what
it is that you think is going on with the texts in question. Make clear whether
the texts work off of each other in one of three general ways: imitation (the version is ultimately
not different in any important way), alternation
(the new version takes the subtext in a new direction because of changes or
redirects the same thing for a new audience context), or opposition (the new version denies or mocks or challenges the
original through its changes). In other words, make your thesis crystal clear. Once you’ve established a general
relationship, provide very specific examples or arguments for that. What are
you claiming is the relationship between the texts and what specific features
can you point to in order to support this claim; in other words, marshall your
evidence for what amounts to an argument
here.
III. Significance: So
What? What implications are
there for the way we might respond to anything else? Does your example imply something about how ads work on us? How movies get more bang for the buck? How audience is determined? How different genres are limited in what
they can do? What conclusions can you draw
from what you've discovered across/between/in the two texts?
Let me know if you want to discuss
what you're finding; come on by the office. I am quite interested in hearing
about the possibilities for your report!
I strongly discourage folks from waiting until Thanksgiving to start
looking and thinking about options. I want you to collect a number of
possibilities so that you might make a good, thoughtful decision.
Grading Criteria for Writing in Dr. Cadden’s English
Courses:
A: 90-100 pts.
B: 80-89 pts.
C: 70-79 pts.
D: 60-69 pts.
F: 59 pts. and below
The
high end of each range (~7-10) should be considered “plus”; for example, 88 is
in the B+ range.
The middle of each range (~4-6) should be
considered a solid letter grade; for example, 75 is a solid C.
The
low end of each range (~0-3) should be considered “minus”; for example, 92 is
in the A- range.
“A”:
General Qualitative Description:
Excellent, Superior, Outstanding.
Conception: Your idea should contain
some new, perhaps surprising, element, some angle that is uncommonly thoughtful
and insightful. You are not rehearsing other people's ideas, and you are going
beyond an average reading. You expose and challenge the explicit and implicit
assumptions of the text. If you are incorporating research, you will have
WORKED your sources--using what supports your argument, and acknowledging and
dealing with what challenges it.
Organization: Your organization should be
flawless and should match your content. You should anticipate, address, and
work through opposition to your argument and build a strong case for your own.
You should employ evidence with regularity and in appropriate circumstances. If
you are incorporating research, you will spend some time positioning your
argument in the context of the larger conversation.
Style: Your presentation should be artful. You have
obviously paid attention to the way your language sounds as well as what it
says. You have found a way to make your presentation style match the content of
your paper (other than a groovy font style!), perhaps through a sustained
metaphor, or a particularly apt example that you carry through and refer to in
the entire paper.
Grammar and Mechanics: Your paper should be absolutely
clean and free of grammatical and mechanical errors of a rudimentary nature,
though you may have a few problems with complex functions of grammar. You
should never avoid complex language in order to avoid errors, in other words.
“B”:
General Qualitative Description: Above
average, Good, Commendable.
Conception: Your idea will be better than
average, but you may have overlooked or not
acknowledged or interrogated the assumptions
that inform it. The claim/idea is ambitious and, for that reason, may have
gotten away from you. You will be rewarded for being ambitious even if you fall
a bit short.
Organization: Your organization will be
strong, but the signaling might still be a bit
Awkward; you may find yourself using a lot of directional
phrases because your argument doesn't flow naturally. (Ex. "As I said
earlier..." "Firstly, secondly, thirdly...") Here too the organization will match the
content rather than being formulaic.
Style: It's clean, readable, there's a consistent sense of
voice, and there aren't any places
where a reader has to go back and reread a sentence just to
understand its structure.
Grammar/Mechanics: Very few (almost no) errors of a
rudimentary nature.
“ C”:
General Qualitative Description:
Competent, Average, Fine.
Conception: Your idea for
your paper should reflect that you have read, thought about, and paid attention
to the way we have talked in class about similar issues. Your main point should
be clearly stated and defended with appropriate evidence. You should remain
focused on your topic throughout your paper, and you should have thoroughly
examined the aspects of your topic from your perspective. Your ideas should be
internally consistent. There won’t be anything terribly surprising, daring, or
unusual here.
Organization: Your paper should have a
logical, clearly identifiable organization. Each
paragraph should address only one aspect of your topic, and
when you change aspects, you start a new paragraph. Transitions between
paragraphs should be competently handled. Your strategy, that is, how you
manage the interweaving of your idea and your organization, should be standard
and straightforward. For instance, if you follow a traditional pattern of an
introduction that includes a flagged thesis statement ("in this paper I
will..."), then proceed with evidence and close with a restatement of the
initial problem. That's a standard, straightforward organization--a C strategy.
Style: Your style should be clear and readable.
Grammar and Mechanics: Your paper should not contain
many distracting errors in grammar or mechanics. Minimally, you should have run
a spell-check program, and you should know the difference between a complete
sentence, a fragment, and a run-on.
“D”:
General Qualitative Description:
Incompetent, Inadequate, Below Average.
Conception: Your idea will be immediately obvious to a
casual reader--a no-brainer—yet it will be presented as news. It will likely
also be not quite clear what it is that you are really saying. Split focus on
more than one thesis or issue is likely.
Organization: Perhaps you
split your focus (which means you start out talking about one thing and shift
to another) which means that you are covering several or many issues in short
paragraphs. You jump from one idea to the next with no logical strategy or
transitions. If there is no plan, or if you don't stick to the plan, this is
faulty organization. It may be evident that there wasn’t ever really a
structural strategy at all.
Style: Unclear language, usually. This may also be a
matter of using the wrong words for your ideas. Simply put, the language is in
bad shape.
Grammar/Mechanics: Consistent problems in sentence
structure with little sign of proof-reading.
“F”:
General Qualitative Description:
Unacceptable.
(The most common cause of an F is a failure to adequately
address the assignment. For instance, if I specify that this assignment is to
be researched, or if it is to address a certain topic in a certain way, you
have to at least complete the assignment.)
Conception: No clear idea governs the words
on the page.
Organization: No plan is evident, much less
achieved.
Style: Incomprehensible most or all of the time.
Grammar/Mechanics: Consistent problems with
rudimentary mechanical matters.
*******************
The four major areas
of concern discussed above (conception, organization, style, and mechanics)
will be considered separately, when that is possible. I may find that it is
difficult or even impossible to assess conception if the style and mechanics
are at the “F” or “D” levels. It may well be the case that your organization is
a real problem while conception, style, and mechanics are all quite good. The
ultimate assessment, then, will be the combined consideration of all four
areas. Any challenges to my assessments need to employ the above issues in
those challenges.
I cannot assess
effort. Note that I do not say that I will
not assess effort; nobody can assess effort unless, perhaps, he or she is there
watching you work. I assume that you all
work very hard on your writing. I can only assess the final product.
I do not give grades
based on your perceived needs. If you need a “B” in the course to keep your GPA
up for a scholarship, loans, or admittance into a program, then be sure you
perform at a “B” level.
I do not give grades
on the basis of your sense of identity or personal academic history. I assess
each piece of work on its own merits. Just because you consider yourself an “A”
student does not mean that you will do “A” work each time; just because you
consider yourself a “C” student doesn’t mean that you won’t do “A” work. Try to
separate your performance from your identity.