Major Paper 1 Draft – Theresa
July 22nd, 2011
Warning: Undefined variable $comments in /home/idemborg/paigemorgan.net/teaching/engl200d/wp-content/themes/inove/single.php on line 18
Leave a comment Go to comments
Warning: Undefined variable $comments in /home/idemborg/paigemorgan.net/teaching/engl200d/wp-content/themes/inove/single.php on line 18
Leave a comment Go to comments
This is a good draft. Especially a great use of Stein’s paper on money. I think that you could use Locke more effectively. It seemed like in a couple spots he was used to define what money is (which no doubt is important), but that for the real “heart” of the paper you used Stein. Granted it might not be possible for the direction you wish to take, but using Locke in a more persuasive manner could help you as you continue to revise and expand.
I was looking over my paper today (it’s really hard to edit a draft right after it’s written–that nagging sense of “it’s missing something” but also not knowing how to improve it) and I think I’m going to add a last section: the solution to the disconnect is to relate what we traded to acquire the money and what we can acquire with the money to each other.
And I’ll remove some of the last few Locke quotations I used–they are not as relevant as I thought they were, and I was kind of quotation-dumping. I’m using Locke to point out the evolution of value into money as an abstract idea. What sort of persuasive manner were you thinking of?
Your essay is very interesting and I like how you used Locke and Stein to answer the question of what makes money challenging to use. Your thesis is very clear and it’s purpose is articulated through out the paper. I think that in your second to last paragraph where you say “The solution to conceptualizing the value of money is barely a solution; maybe you can elaborate and expand on Locke more here. This paragraph is a bit short and to the point but by expanding on it you can use Locke more effectively as Phillip suggested.
Wow. Great draft, the only things I would consider changing would be the length of the first paragraph, it seems to be lacking a firm introduction and goes straight into quotes. You said above that you might take some out which may be a good idea but you could still use most of them just by changing the formatting a little bit. Using Locke to back up an idea instead of quoting to explain your idea would make it a slightly easier read at the beginning.
I also like how you are secure enough in your argument is that you don’t have to have one paragraph dedicated to one author and another paragraph dedicated to the other, you can weave the two in the best way that supports your theory.
notes from meeting
Understanding what money is: Locke
–>points well to the next section (Stein)
Very linear essay is easy to follow
*how can I avoid being repetitive
Introduction = question –> conclusion = answer
Clarify that it is point A to point B to point C
Expansion of section 3 paragraph 2
-introduction: address differences in situation Stein
and Locke write about
Locke: how money and property /could/ work well
Stein: (credit crisis Great Depression)
give readers a sense of how perspectives will differ
how analysis will bring two together
how ppl deal diff. w/ idea of money when handling in
different situations
don’t have to solve the problem, but can come up with ideas
goal: illustrate problem clearly
(more specific than “money is hard to use”)
P.2 on the dbl spaced: Locke’s agreement of little piece
of metal being certain thing
“muddles the value of property” : shifting the topic (avoid
distraction…”this that I’m talking about has this conseq.”
Locke’s shift near the end: money valuable for socialization
and commerce (besides just property) – more conretely illustrate
what money loss value (represent property, or represent why we’re
in contact w/ other ppl)
–> ties into Stein because she’s talking about differences
between two groups using money (gov. vs. family) – they use money differently
govern. promotes use of money socially – keeps community flow
introduction: I can use it as an example, capture stein’s method
of addressing money/value (surrealism)
carrots = carrot, money = money
otherwise use the introduction more analytically to introduce the papers
themselves more seriously
Purpose of introduction: communicate to reader what the paper is about
-doesn’t have to introduce the subject in general
Idea: two intros? fluffy –> analytical –> body 😀