http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm
First, before writing the paper, do your analysis and interpretation as follows:
•
CONTEXT: Review information about the rhetorical situation faced by the speaker and if possible, the reception of the audience.
• TEXT: Do a close reading of the speech (or essay, or declaration, etc.), taking notes as you go along.
• PUZZLE: Identify a puzzle that you have discovered as a critical reader. This must be something that a critic who is seeking to understand the rhetorical strategy of the text will see as odd. It can be a contradiction found in the text itself, a disjunction between the text and its reception, a disjunction between the text and its professed or presumed purpose, etc.
Then, write your paper. The organization of your paper should be as follows:
1. Begin by explaining the puzzle. (2-3 pages)
a. Identify the “puzzle.”
b. Provide evidence of it from the text, and if necessary, the context.
c. Make a persuasive argument that this really is “puzzling” or “odd.”
2. Then provide your thesis statement. (3 sentences).
a. The first sentence of your thesis should be a summary statement of the puzzle you just established.
b. The second sentence of your thesis should be a rhetorical question that highlights what it is about the puzzle that is odd.
c. The third sentence of your thesis should be a preview statement of the solution you are going to develop in the rest of the paper.
A Note on Citations:
Any material you use to support your claims in the paper (like quotes from the primary text, descriptions of what the author does in particular parts of the text, historical information about the context, evidence of how people responded to the text, or commentary about the text from another rhetorical critic) must be cited in your paper.
For references to the primary text, cite the paragraph number of the passage you are referencing in parentheses at the end of the sentence in which you use it. For references to other materials, use Chicago style, with footnotes. See The Chicago Manual of Style,
16th edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010), available at the reference desk in most libraries. Since web pages appear differently on different browsers, any citations to web materials in this class should use paragraph numbers rather than page numbers.
How I will grade this paper:
To earn the top score, your paper must be written in a way that allows me to answer all of the following questions with a resounding YES:
1. Did the student say something significant, interesting, and relevant about the text?
2. Did s/he identify a puzzle with the text and convince me that the puzzle articulated was really puzzling? (Note: a student who convinces me that the puzzle s/he found is something really odd about the text is more likely to convince me that her paper has something significant, interesting, and relevant to say about the text.)
3. Did s/he provide a solution in a new reading of the text, and did his/her solution reasonably solve the puzzle?
4. Did s/he use the evidence of the text and its context appropriately and effectively to support his/her claims (about both the puzzle and the solution)?
5. Did the paper flow well, with good grammar, organization, and style?
6. Did the paper follow the basic guidelines set out for page length, citation practices, etc.?
To the extent that I am not able to answer these questions with a definite “yes” after reading your paper, your grade will differ from the ideal score.
To meet the most minimum requirement for a passing grade, you must be able to communicate your ideas to me clearly. If I do not understand what you are trying to say to me, I cannot evaluate the soundness of your arguments. So proofread your papers carefully before you turn them in.
In the past, some errors that have resulted in lower than optimal grades have included: no puzzle is developed, or puzzle is not really puzzling, or no solution is offered, or solution is located only in the context, or there is no good connection between puzzle and solution (e.g. the solution doesn’t actually solve the puzzle, or the solution is merely a restatement of the puzzle, or the solution only solves part of the puzzle), or details are not provided in the development of puzzle or solution, or there is a logical flaw in the argument about puzzle or solution, or evidence is missing that is needed to support a claim, or the writer ignores evidence to the contrary, or there are errors in footnoting or grammar.
What NOT to do with this paper:
• Your political or ideological positions should not color what you say. Although you can never be completely “objective,” your biases should not be apparent to a reader of your paper. Any judgment you make about the text should be well supported by the evidence you provide.
• You are not to write a political science paper or a history paper. Most of your paper should be rhetorical analysis and interpretation of the text.
• You are not to simply summarize the text or your feelings about it.
• You are not to simply summarize what others have said about the text.
• You are not to simply summarize all the rhetorical strategies you found in the text. The strategies you choose to describe should contribute to your description of puzzle and solution.
• Please remember that a puzzle is an interpretive problem. It is something odd about the strategy taken by the rhetor, or something odd about the response of the audience, or something odd about the interpretation of later critics, etc. It is not simply the exigence faced by the rhetor or the problem described by the rhetor.
• Likewise, the solution you offer in the paper is a new reading of the text that resolves the interpretive puzzle you described. It is not the rhetor’s solution to a stated policy issue or your proposed resolution of that policy issue.
