ENG 330: Staging/Performance-Based Analysis Essay 

First,

look through The Castle of Perseverance — to choose one small but significant extra-verbal cue in that text (i.e. some element which, in live performance or recitation aloud, necessarily causes something practical to happen involving real bodies or objects in real time and space, beyond the physical act of simply reading words aloud to a hearer — because the words would make poor sense if simply read aloud without the practical action they bring into being). You may also choose a particular turn of phrase that, in live performance, resonates meaningfully with an extra-verbal element cued elsewhere in the text. Whatever you choose, it must yield, after close reading, a compelling new way to look at part of the text (however minor). (If you are very strongly drawn to a class reading other than Castle, you can choose to analyze an element of that reading instead — as long as you interact with the reading in its original language, and as long as you clear your idea with me in Office Hours, at least three weeks before the paper deadline.)

Next,

by returning to that element or the passage that contains it, again and again, develop a close analytical reading of that single element that is ambitious, risky, complex, in-depth, and non-obvious enough that a 1350- to 1600-word scholarly argument is required to fully explain and defend it.  You’ll need to find and include research from previously published studies (I’d recommend flipping through Andrea Louise Young’s Vision and Audience in Medieval Drama to see if she covers anything relevant to your inquiry), as well as close readings from elsewhere in the text, as far as these are necessary for your argument.

Next,

figure out how to convince me of your enriched, enriching argument, in a roughly 1350- to 1600-word argumentative essay. Your work must communicate a close analytical reading in a logically organized, thoroughly researched, and rigorously focused way.  Arrange the material of your reading into a coherent, singular thesis.  Include no information or material that is not immediately relevant to that thesis.  The style, tone, and formatting of the writing should be professional and mature.  

Meanwhile,

figure out how to get your classmates on board, and to provoke conversation among them, with your work. On the last Monday of class, every student will have two minutes to summarize their essay/argument in progress. Make sure your summary draws our attention to a specific word, line, or passage to which we can refer. Craft your two-minute summary with an eye toward provoking conversation, debate, and thoughtful questioning.

How you turn in your work (look closely — this is unusual for English classes!):

For this assignment, I require students to deliver this essay in real time, at a one-on-one pre-scheduled meeting with me. You’ll need to bring two hard copies of your essay to your appointment (unless you are meeting me remotely, in which case see the instructions below). At the meeting, either you or I (your choice) will read the essay aloud, from beginning to end; from there, we’ll discuss.

All students must pre-schedule a 25-minute time slot with me — appointments will become available by the third week of class (I’ll make an announcement in class); when that happens, using the menu bar at the top of this website, navigate to my Resources page and click on “One-on-One Student Presentations”. Click on the appointment link listed there and follow the prompts to make a reservation. 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.

Please read this just before you attend your first one-on-one presentation meeting:

We’ve got 25 minutes together. As soon as you walk in, please hand me one of the hard copies and hold the other for yourself. One of us will read the essay aloud while the other of us looks on with their copy; please let me know at the beginning of the meeting whether you or I will be doing the reading (there are benefits to either choice, so if you’ve done this before, you might want to try something new!) and let me know at the beginning of the meeting what kind of feedback/critique you prefer (the choices are gentle. constructive, or unfiltered criticism).

From there, one of us will deliver the fullness of your paper in the other’s presence. During the reading I will periodically say “pause”, so that I can make notes; I may ask brief clarifying questions during those pauses. Do not read into the number or duration of pauses I request, nor into the face I’m making while your paper is underway – that’s just my face, and it’s the same for everyone. I may also stop the reading briefly to ask you to explain or clarify a point (which can only help, never hurt, your overall grade).

Once the reading is done there’ll be a longer pause, just under a minute, while I gather together my notes into something I can express understandably. The remainder of the meeting, usually about 10 minutes, will be for feedback on the essay: this 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, though I may give you a couple of handouts to take with you.

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, so we can focus on real feedback on the craft of scholarly writing and thinking, and specifically on writing and thinking about early drama.