We’ve been talking all semester about how to read texts through particular critical lenses: New Criticism, Reader Response, Deconstruction, and even more complex perspectives like Gender/Sexuality, Post-Colonialism, and New Historicism. Read on below for instructions on drafting and information about deadlines and grading.

Your job for this final paper is to prove that you have mastered one of these critical lenses by writing a critical analysis of either Shelley’s Frankenstein or LaValle’s Destroyer. Your goal is to make a narrow and compelling argument about the text utilizing a clearly identified critical lens. Your argument should be grounded in textual evidence as well as supporting sources. You have three options for this paper:

Option A) Write a well-researched, argumentative 5-7 page analysis that aptly uses one of the critical lenses we learned as a focus;

Option B) (more exciting) Write an argumentative 5-7 page analysis that explores a new critical lens that is both more contemporary and more relevant to the ways we do textual analysis (see more below); or

Option C) (even more exciting) Produce a digital project on a topic of your choice that enhances or reframes the novel/graphic novel with secondary sources, intertextual references, and/or a new composite narrative (see more below). Submit a 3 page rationale with source citations.

Invention

Option A: Course Theories

Your first step should be to choose a critical lens. You can do this by figuring out exactly what most draws your interest within the novel:

• Do you want to focus on something structural, like its approach to rhetoric, storytelling, and the power of books (New Criticism)? Does this demand close-reading and attention to structure, paradox, metaphors, and imagery?
• Do you want to understand the ways in which readers and critics have reacted to this novel/graphic novel (Reader Response/New Historicism)? Are you interested in a historical tracing of the reception of this text or, alternatively, in critiquing the text’s construction of its ideal reader and/or the narrator?
• Perhaps you want to pursue one character’s particular identity formation and performance (Gender/Sexuality/Race)?
• Maybe you want to push farther into the political role of race and ethnicity as represented by the setting (Post-Colonialism)?
• Are you drawn by the ways binaries are presented and then destroyed/questioned in the texts (Deconstruction)? Are you fascinated by contradictions in the text?
• Is trauma, psychosis, and neurosis more your game (Psychoanalysis)?
• Or would you rather look into the historical sources and social politics that have influenced our writer and characters (New Historicism)?
• Do you want to understand the role the (social, political, or natural) environment plays in the text, or how Destroyer functions specifically as an adaptation? See option B, below.

2. Next, with your critical lens in mind, go back to the texts and begin reviewing sections that best illustrate the lens you’ve selected. As the good reader you now are, make sure to question the text, talk back to its ideas, and make plenty of notes about why you find those passages interesting and what they add to your argument.

3. Re-read the theory text(s) from your chosen lens in Dobie and short lectures. Make notes and mark sections that might be useful as supporting evidence. Go to Google Scholar or One Search and find literary analysis articles that might support your claims. Keep in mind that your articles don’t need to be exclusively about the texts–-they might be broadly about, for example, women writers, adaptations, Gothic literature, graphic novels as literary texts, or anything that you find useful for your own argument. If you need help narrowing down your keywords, let’s talk it over in office hours!

4. Begin free-writing and drafting. Keep in mind that although you will want your paragraphs to discuss a series of thoughtful observations about the texts, you need to push further and find a complex argument you wish to pursue. There should be a clear, central thread organizing your paper. 

5. Once you have a working outline, find at least two articles you can use as either support for your ideas (e.g. the idea of hubris in relation to scientific discovery has been discussed by Author X, where she claims “….” and then show how this relates to your argument) or as a point of contrast  (although Author Y has argued that the character of Dr. Baker is “….”, she can be understood as this other brilliant idea that you have…). You also need to refer to the specific theory you’re using by referring to Dobie/lecture notes/outside sources.

6. Budget time for revision! Your paper is not ready yet. Read your work out loud; print it and read it with a pen in your hand; give it to a friend. Plan for separate rounds of revision: at least one for mechanicals like proofreading and grammar; at least one for argumentation, organization, and logic.

Option B: New Theories

• Step one involves exploring new avenues for engaging with the text. Note that this will involve some additional independent research on your end. Here are some ideas:
  • Disability Studies (questions cultural constructs of able bodies)
  • Ecocriticism (focusing on nature and the Earth)
  • Adaptation Studies (involves making a more careful analysis of Frankenstein in context with Destroyer)
  • Critical Race Theory/Black Studies (explores the particularities of racial oppression and white supremacy)
  • The Post-Human (what does it mean to be human? are humans the only valid subject of analysis?
• Follow the steps 2-6 above: your essay should include at least two secondary sources (literary analysis articles) and one critical theory source (I can help you find some if you have trouble, but the terms above should get you started)

Critical Readings to get you started (may require barcode login or access from within York College)

Option C: The Digital Project

This is the more flexible, though still research-driven, approach. In this option, you will produce a digital artifact (e.g. a blog, a well-organized annotated GoogleDoc, a Twine game) the helps readers engage with the novel or graphic novel on a deeper level. The sky is kind of the limit here in terms of what you might create, but here are some suggestions:

1. You might consider the pop culture and literature references made in Destroyer, or the texts mentioned by Victor and create a resource to be read alongside the novel; 
2. You can create an annotated list of songs mentioned by LaValle; 
3. You could make a timeline of Frankenstein adaptations by topic; 
4. You could curate reactions/commentary about the novels from sites like Good Reads
5. You could remix these stories by making your own Twine choose-your-own adventure!
6. Something else I haven’t thought of!

In your rationale for the project, you will identify that intellectual labor you see your project offering, how it helps future readers, and the external sources you used to produce it.

In terms of presentation, digital projects are considered satisfactory when they show some combination of these attributes:

• they readable/watchable/listenable (i.e. the text and ideas are clearly written and easy to follow)
• They are appropriate (i.e. they use a format and medium that suits its topic and approach)
• They are attractive (i.e. they are designed and presented in a way that leads the audience to trust the author and their arguments, examples, and conclusions).

Composition

Your paper should be 5-7 pages in length (at least 1800 words), and use at least two academic articles and one critical theory reading as supporting sources. You can write about just Frankenstein, read it in context with Destroyer, or just study Destroyer’s successes and failures as an adaptation of Shelley’s novel. Whatever you do, your argument should be focused, clear, and persuasive, and should be narrow enough to work within the page requirement.

Two weeks before the final paper is due (Sunday May 1), you will be asked to submit a prospectus for instructor feedback (counts as Short Analysis #5). Your prospectus should be app. 3 pages in length and contain:

Option A and B requirements: 

• A (smart, interesting) tentative title for your paper  
• Your thesis statement or research question and what literary theory you’re using to anchor your analysis
• One paragraph explaining your goals (what do you hope to argue and prove?) for the paper and the exigency/so what factor (why might learning this improve our understanding of either the text, characters, our own culture, or history?)
• One paragraph synthesizing at least one outside source (explain the argument, evidence/conclusion, and why the text will be useful to support your own argument) — this can be tentative at this point–you might change your mind!
• Three topic sentences for three paragraphs following your introduction (should be one argumentative claim that helps build your argument). You may add some bullet points about what the paragraph will discuss in detail, but that is not a requirement.

Option C requirements:

• A (smart, interesting) tentative title for your project
• A description of what you will create/develop and how your prior knowledge/expertise allows you to do this
• One paragraph explaining your goals (what do you hope to argue through this interactive/creative work?) and the exigency/so what factor (how will readers/users learn more about the novel through your work?)
• One-two sentences explaining whether you see this work aligning with the goals/aims of a particular literary theory
• An annotated bibliography of at least one outside source that you plan to use to build your project
• Optional but recommended: a proof of concept — a small piece of the work your drafting

Note: in any of these options your thesis/proposal must be approved before you move on to the final project. If your proposal is not satisfactory, I may ask you to revise and resubmit.

Deadlines

• Prospectus due April 30 (SA #5)
• Required one-on-one 20. min conferences with instructor: Week 14 (by appointment)
• Full Draft due for peer review to class, May 8
• Final Draft due by midnight Monday, May 15

Assessment

Because this is the final work for this class, you won’t be able to turn in additional revisions. Please note that I only offer feedback on drafts, not for final drafts.

In order to fulfill the requirements of the class and to considered satisfactory*, your work must attend to the following:

• Rough draft of paper or rationale is turned in on time** and is at least 4 full double-spaced pages*** (2 pages for Digital Project rationale). If you’re working on Option C, please also add a link to your digital work-in-progress
• Peer review is completed thoughtfully and critically (and on time)
• Final paper offers a cohesive and persuasive analysis of Frankenstein/Destroyer using one critical lens as a focal point. Paper’s central argument is sufficiently backed up with textual evidence, topic sentences, analytical discussion, and outside sources. Paper is well organized, clear, and proofread for errors. Student attends to MLA citation guidelines and carefully incorporates sources without dropping them in the middle of paragraphs. Conclusion recaps the overall argument without repeating it and demonstrates the value of the student’s analysis to the study of the plays. 
• If working on a digital project, see the evaluation requirements under Option C, above. In addition to your link, you must also submit a 3 page rationale that addresses the goals of the work and how it enhances our reading of the text. Last page should have an annotated bibliography of at least two supporting sources. (You can revise your Proposal for this portion)

* Any work showing evidence of plagiarism will automatically be deemed unsatisfactory and may result in an F for the course.

** Late submissions of drafts will be accepted but I can’t promise feedback.

*** In order to be considered satisfactory, draft must be complete (no fewer than 4 pages/900-1000 words). Instructor feedback will be provided on BB during Week 15.