Spring 2001 * ENGLISH 20 * Prof. Tanaka 

STANDARD PAPER 1

COMMENTS 

 

Remember, your Paper 1 grades are not as important as your Paper 2 grades. Your final grade will be based on how much you improve. 

You must select your topics carefully. Make sure you understand the logic of the question you selected. If you are not sure of what you are doing, ask me. 

Remember, there is absolutely no excuse for not following format guidelines. If you have a question, ask me. 

Remember, I will be happy to make specific comments on papers that are already graded. However, I cannot make specific comments on papers that are currently being written or rewritten for a grade. 

Check out our web site. There are many kinds of help there. 

 

********** 

 

*REMEMBER THAT ALL THESE TOPICS ARE ABOUT LOGIC AND ORGANIZATION, NOT ABOUT THE PARTICULAR SUBJECTS INVOLVED. 

*ALWAYS KEEP THIS IN MIND. YOU MUST UNDERSTAND WHICH MODELS YOU MUST USE IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION YOU ARE ADDRESSING, E.G., CRAG, CT, ETC. AND THEN YOU MUST USE THEM. I WILL ALWAYS ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MODELS. 

*LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS AND SEE WHAT YOU CAN APPLY TO YOUR PARTICULAR PAPER TOPIC.  

*REMEMBER THAT YOUR TASK IS TO EXTEND WHAT IS GIVEN IN CLASS AND IN OUR NOTES. SIMPLY REWRITING YOUR CLASS NOTES OR MY COMMENTS WILL NOT DO. USE YOUR SOURCES TO COME UP WITH YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS. 

WHEN YOU ARE VIEWING THE FILMS, USE CLOSE CAPTIONING IF YOU HAVE THAT OPTION. ALSO, I HAVE A NUMBER OF FILMS THAT I CAN LOAN YOU FOR FREE. 

 

 

SAMPLE TOPIC 1 

Andy Tennant's Ever After starring Drew Barrymore is clearly intended to be another modern version of the Cinderella story. Discuss whether or not you believe Kushman's critique of the new Disney "Cinderella" would also apply to Ever After. (THE LOGIC OF 'COMING TO AMERICA' AND THE 'MULAN' TOPIC IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THIS, SO USE THE SAME OUTLINE.) 

 

*YOUR THESIS MUST BE IN THE FIRST PERSON AND MENTION KUSHMAN AND EVER AFTER.. 

EACH ARGUMENT MUST MENTION KUSHMAN AND EVER AFTER. OTHERWISE, THERE IS NO LOGICAL CONNECTION TO YOUR THESIS. I KNOW YOU ASSUME THE READER HAS READ KUSHMAN AND WILL MAKE THE NECESSARY LOGICAL CONNECTIONS, BUT YOU CAN'T JUST ASSUME THAT THEY WILL UNDERSTAND KUSHMAN IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THAT YOU DO. YOU NEED TO MAKE THE ASPECTS OF HIS PAPER THAT YOU WILL BE USING CLEAR FOR THE READER. THAT'S WHAT A WELL-ORGANIZED ARGUMENT DOES. EVERYTHING IS CLEARLY AND LOGICALLY CONNECTED AND EXPLAINED. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN YOUR THESIS AND YOUR ARGUMENTS. 

 

*OF COURSE, YOU CAN EXPLAIN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YOUR ARGUMENTS AND KUSHMAN IN ONE OF YOUR BACKGROUND PARAGRAPHS. HOWEVER, THE LOGICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN YOUR ARGUMENTS AND YOUR THESIS MUST BE CLEAR TO THE READER SIMPLY BASED UPON WHAT YOU GIVE IN YOUR INTRODUCTION. 

*EACH ARGUMENT IN YOUR INTRODUCTION NEEDS TO BE PHRASED AS FOLLOWS:  

*KUSHMAN SAYS THAT DISNEY'S CINDERELLA IS X; ON THE OTHER HAND, I BELIEVE EVER AFTER IS Y.  

*IN YOUR ARGUMENTS, YOU GO AHEAD AND OFFER PROOF <EVIDENCE> THAT EVER AFTER IS, IN FACT, Y INSTEAD OF X. 

*BY THE WAY, IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE ACTUAL CINDERELLA FILM, YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT AS IF YOU HAD. <YOU CAN ONLY REPORT WHAT KUSHMAN SAYS ABOUT DC.> 

 

BACKGROUND 1

THIS BACKGROUND SECTION SHOULD PRESENT KUSHMAN'S ARTICLE IN GENERAL TERMS. YOU SHOULD ALSO INDICATE THAT ROLE THE POINTS YOU ARE GOING TO DISCUSS PLAY IN HIS OVER-ALL ARGUMENT. FOR EXAMPLE, IF HE GIVES FOUR OBJECTIONS AND IF YOU WANT TO PROVE THAT NONE OF HIS OBJECTIONS TO DC APPLY TO EV, THEN YOU HAVE TO DISCUSS ALL FOUR. IF YOU DISCUSS ONLY TWO OF THE FOUR, THEN THERE IS STILL THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE OTHER TWO MAY APPLY. 

HOWEVER, YOU MIGHT WANT TO ARGUE THAT THE TWO OR THREE YOU DISCUSS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THE FOUR.

BUT WHATEVER YOU DO, YOU HAVE TO DISCUSS KUSHMAN HERE AND PUT THE ARGUMENTS OF HIS THAT YOU WILL BE USING LATER IN YOUR OWN ARGUMENT PARAGRAPHS IN PERSPECTIVE. 

ALSO, REMEMBER THAT THE POINT IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIKE OR AGREE WITH K'S CRITIQUE OF DC. THE ONLY POINT THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED WITH IS WHETHER OR NOT THAT CRITIQUE CAN BE APPLIED TO EV. THAT IS YOUR TOPIC. 

YOU SHOULD NOT JUST SUMMARIZE KUSHMAN. RATHER, DISCUSS WHAT HIS GENERAL CRITIQUE IS AND WHAT ASPECTS YOU ARE GOING TO APPLY TO EVER AFTER. YOU DO NOT WANT TO APPEAR TO TAKE KUSHMAN OUT OF CONTEXT. 

USE OUR HANDOUTS. USE WHAT YOU LEARNED IN DOING THE ALPHA TOPICS. 

 

BACKGROUND 2

IN BACK 1, YOU DISCUSSED KUSHMAN'S CRITIQUE OF DC. 

HERE YOU SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THE OBJECTION THAT YOU ARE COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES, THAT EV AND DC ARE SO DIFFERENT THEY CAN'T BE COMPARED. ONE IS A MUSICAL FOR KIDS AND THE OTHER IS AN PG-13 ROMANTIC DRAMA.

BUT YOU HAVE TWO POINTS YOU CAN USE TO ANSWER THIS: 

FIRST, EV IS YET ANOTHER MODERN REMAKE OF CINDERELLA. THEY CAN BE COMPARED BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH CINDERELLA STORIES. 

SECOND, YOU MIGHT ALSO SUGGEST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT TENNANT DID THE FILM BECAUSE HE ALSO WANTED TO DO THE SAME THINGS DC WANTED TO DO--UPGRADE CINDERELLA BY SENDING GOOD MESSAGES--<BUT ACCORDING TO KUSHMAN FAILED TO DO>. OTHERWISE, WHY MAKE YET ANOTHER CINDERELLA? 

HENCE, IT MAKES LOGICAL SENSE TO ASK THE QUESTION THAT IS ASKED BY THE TOPIC. YOU SHOULD NOT JUST SUMMARIZE EVER AFTER IN THIS PARAGRAPH. 

 

 

 

 

 

SAMPLE TOPIC 

 

Discuss the ways in which the movie, "Fools Rush In," helped you more clearly understand the underlying themes and messages of Love Story as they relate to issues of class, race and gender. 

 

THIS IS REALLY ANOTHER TOPIC BASED UPON KUSHMAN. HE TALKS ABOUT WHAT THE DISNEY PEOPLE SAID THEY WERE TRYING TO SAY AND WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAID. WHAT THE QUESTION MEANS BY "UNDERLYING" IS WHAT KUSHMAN CALLS "HIDDEN" OR "UNINTENTIONAL." SO YOU NEED TO TALK ABOUT THESE HIDDEN MESSAGES OF LOVE STORY AS THEY RELATE TO ISSUES CONCERNED WITH CLASS, RACE AND GENDER <THESE THREE ARE TOPICS, NOT "THEMES." A THEME OR MESSAGE MUST BE STATED IN SENTENCE FORM>. 

THIS IS ALSO A CAUSE AND EFFECT PAPER. IT ASSUMES THAT YOU DID NOT SEE THESE HIDDEN MESSAGES COVERING THE THREE CATEGORIES UNTIL YOU SAW FRI.  

<IF YOU DID, THEN YOU SHOULD DO ANOTHER TOPIC. DO NOT DO THIS TOPIC.> 

THE QUESTION IS DESIGNED TO TEST YOUR ABILITY TO USE ONE MODEL <FRI> TO CRITIQUE ANOTHER <LOVE STORY>. 

*YOU NEED TWO BACKGROUND PARAGRAPHS. FIRST, YOU NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE PROBLEMS YOU HAD UNDERSTANDING THE HIDDEN MESSAGES OR UNDERLYING MEANINGS OF LS. (BUT AFTER WATCHING FRI, YOU SAW WHAT SEGAL WAS DOING IN LS MORE CLEARLY. DO NOT TALK ABOUT FRI HERE, THOUGH.) FOR EXAMPLE, YOU MIGHT SAY THAT AT FIRST YOU TOOK LOVE STORY AT FACE VALUE. YOU JUST ASSUMED THAT SEGAL GAVE YOU A "REASONABLE" AND "REALISTIC" PORTRAYAL OF A WORKING CLASS GIRL WHO HAD MADE IT TO COLLEGE. YOU ALSO TOOK IT FOR GRANTED THAT SEGAL PORTRAYED JENNY'S RACIAL BACKGROUND IN A FAIR AND ACCURATE MANNER. <THESE ARE THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT YOU WILL TRY TO SHOW WERE CHANGED BY WATCHING FRI.> 

THIS BACKGROUND IS ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISHING THE CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIP.  

*THE SECOND BACKGROUND SHOULD EXPLAIN HOW A FILM LIKE FRI THAT APPEARS TO BE SO DIFFERENT FROM LOVE STORY IS SIMILAR ENOUGH TO HAVE INFLUENCED THE WAY YOU LOOKED AT LOVE STORY. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU MUST ANSWER THE QUESTION OF HOW CAN YOU USE MODEL X <FRI> TO GIVE YOU INSIGHT INTO THE DATA <LOVE STORY>.  

IF THEY ARE TOO DIFFERENT, THEN YOU HAVE NO CASE. YOU HAVE APPLES AND ORANGES AGAIN. BUT IF THEY ARE TOO SIMILAR, THEN ONE CAN'T HELP YOU TO CRITIQUE THE OTHER. SO YOU HAVE TO DISCUSS THEIR OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES AND THEN SHOW THEY STILL HAVE ENOUGH IN COMMON TO ALLOW YOU TO MAKE YOUR ARGUMENTS AS TO HOW FRI HELPED YOU TO SEE THE PROBLEMS <I.E., UNDERLYING CONTRADICTIONS AND MESSAGES> IN LS. 

*REMEMBER: THIS IS NOT A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO. YOU ARE ALSO NOT SUPPOSED TO TELL WHAT YOU LIKED OR DID NOT LIKE ABOUT EACH. IT IS A CAUSAL QUESTION AND THE SUBJECT IS LOVE STORY, NOT FRI. 

AGAIN, IT IS CLEAR THAT WE HAVE BEEN SUGGESTING IN CLASS THAT LS HAS MANY LOGICAL PROBLEMS <INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INCONSISTENCIES>. AND EVEN THOUGH I DID NOT EXPECT YOU TO CATCH THESE PROBLEMS ON A FIRST READING, I DID EXPECT YOU TO BE AWARE OF THEM AFTER WATCHING BOTH EVER AFTER AND FOOLS RUSH IN. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT WE SPENT A GOOD DEAL OF TIME WATCHING THE FILMS TOGETHER IN CLASS. 

*NOTE: IF YOU DID NOT EXPERIENCE THIS KIND OF CRITICAL INSIGHT, THEN YOU SHOULD NOT WRITE ON THIS QUESTION.