3/8: Critique for Grown-Ups

It's a new week! We're still working on the Summary-Analysis-Critique paper (P1). Drafts of this paper are due before Peer Review on Thursday. Not surprisingly, then, today's class is about two things: how to do the last of the three parts of the paper (critique) and how to fit the three steps together into a coherent essay.

Also, a quick reminder about drafts: 1. they're mandatory, 2. they're not graded, and 3. you only have to turn in the draft on Canvas if you want my comments to be separate from those of your peers. Otherwise I'll just give feedback on the draft you share in your peer group on Slack.

A little P1 recap: Your objective in this essay is to say "this person's essay does a good/bad/okay/complicated job because of reasons" and then prove that position by summarizing their argument, analyzing how the argument was made (using examples) for your reader, and then explaining how those argument moves made the essay work/not work/kind of work (using more examples). At no point in your P1 essay is your agreement or disagreement with the Arak essay relevant. You're analyzing whether or not they did a good job and why, not whether or not you were convinced personally. At the end of your P1 essay, you might mention good lessons or warnings to take away from the Arak essay about how to write or argue effectively. In other words, you're evaluating their work and identifying take-aways (like a teacher might), not agreeing or disagreeing with it.

Cool? Cool. Let's talk about how to do critique and how to write the entire essay.

Tasks for the Week: P1

Okay, so this is the first major paper. Here's a recap of the things you need to do this week:

Finish your draft.
(Do the participation quiz for this class--just on the side.)
Sign up for a Peer Review Group if you haven't already.
Do peer review on Thursday, 3/11 from 2pm-midnight.
Add to/finish/polish your draft into P1.
Turn that paper in on Canvas by Sunday, 3/14 at midnight.
In the #p1conclusions channel on Slack, briefly share your verdict on your chosen Arak essay--was it good, what was good about it, etc. (200 words or less). There will be threads in #p1conclusions (basically I'll comment the title and you can reply to it) for each essay, so you can reply to my first post about the essay or the verdict of someone in that thread.

You'll also want to check Canvas for my comments and grade on your old Narrative Essay, which will be returned this week (probably about Friday).

Critique: Being Nice but Not Too Nice

You spent last week reading, outlining, analyzing, and staring at your chosen Arak Journal article. You wrote a summary and kept it somewhere safe, made an analytical outline, and now you need to do Step 3: critique. This might seem weird, since the whole point of your paper is to justify this critique. The thesis of your essay, remember, is your assessment of how good a job the AJ article did at arguing its point.

Another way to think about this is: If you were a teacher, would you say this paper did a good job at what it set out to do? What kind of grade would you give it and--very importantly--why?

Recap: here's what the different steps ask: Summary = what happened? Analysis = how did that work? Critique = did it actually work, though?

If you did the activities from last week, you're actually prepared to discuss this: you can summarize the article, and your analytical outline shows how each of the parts of the AJ article works (even if you haven't made it into prose yet). Since you have that analysis, now you can evaluate or critique it: Did these parts work together well? Which parts? Which parts maybe didn't work well? What was strong? What was weak?

Notably, the article you examined was good enough to make it into the Arak Journal, so it's probably not terrible. Instead, it's probably pretty good, but like all essays, has some spots that could be better. So, your critique is serving your thesis that the article is Good/Bad/Okay/Complicated Because [Reasons/Examples]. Your assessment shouldn't just be "this article is great" or "this article sucks"--those positions are both boring and very unhelpful (imagine if a teacher just gave you back a paper that said "it sucks" on it, with no other notes.)

So your critique deals directly with your assessment/thesis, justifying its judgment and observations by citing your analysis and using examples from the article itself.

As such, critique is the third step of this assignment, but it might not be a third distinct part of your essay. It's time to talk about:

Putting P1 Together

Here's a basic outline for how this paper should look:

Intro paragraph: describe the very basic parts of the Arak Journal article (title, author, main argument/thesis). Then, deliver a concise but complex statement of your assessment--your thesis!
Summary paragraphs (350w or less): having established where we're going with your thesis, step back and summarize the AJ article, so your reader knows what's up.
Analysis paragraphs: once you're done summarizing the article's main points, go deeper. Take their argument apart step-by-step, explaining what each part was meant to do, why it's arranged the way it is, and how it all fits together. Use the vocabulary (and your outline) from last week to help: you can talk about style choices, rhetorical moves, approaches to audience, how they use evidence, et cetera. (Note: this will take up most of the paper). You have some organizational choices here, discussed below.
Critique: ultimately, did the parts work together? How good a job does this article do? You have two basic choices about how to do critique: You can set it apart in its own section after analysis, or you can combine it with the analysis. This depends on your personal style and how you organized the analysis.
Conclusion paragraphs (1 or 2): restate your assessment, and then turn to answering two questions: 1. what can we learn from how they organized and presented their argument? and 2. if their paper has a major flaw, what might they have changed to fix it?

Now, let's go deeper into what these sound like.

Intro: might begin with something like:

In the 2019 Arak Journal article "Title," Firstname Lastname argues that...

and then, having basically summed up their article's main points, you deliver your assessment, so your readers know where we're heading, like:

Lastname does an excellent job presenting their point, with strong use of logical evidence and clear, direct language. However, the article lacks an emotional or human hook. As a result, the article is excellent and convincing on a logical level, but might not motivate the reader to take real action on [issue].

Notice that your thesis statement doesn't have to be a single sentence (that's a high school writing myth). Instead, this little team of sentences worked together to present a clear but complex point. Clarity is more important than having some arbitrary number of sentences or words.

Summary: the natural move after your intro is to take a step back and explain to your reader more about the AJ article's main points. A short summary (no more than 2 paragraphs) will do this job, but summaries can be confusing if not written properly.

Be sure to frequently use statements like "the author of the article argues" or "[their name] then moves on to say" so that it's clear that this is a summary of someone else's argument, and not your own. Like dialogue in a story.

Do not insert yourself into the summary. While it may be tempting to begin pointing out flaws or strengths right away, this can erode the effectiveness of the summary, since you're combining "what they said" with "what I'm saying" in very close quarters. Instead, present the article neutrally, and when that's done, you can refer back to your summary when discussing strengths/weaknesses/interesting moves.

Analysis and Critique: since this is the biggest part of the paper, where you examine how their argument works and justify/prove your thesis, you should organize this based on your needs. You do not have to include every move you spot, every style choice you identified in your outline--prioritize the ones you think are important or special, and talk about those. Here's four basic forms (with patterns in parenthesis):

A. Chronological, Delayed Critique: in this approach, you analyze their argument, showing the reader each important step or move in the order they occurred. After that's done, you have a separate series of paragraphs where you critique these moves. In this form, you'll talk about most of the stuff you found in your rhetorical outline. This plan is good if the article's main strength or flaw is its organization or structure, since you're putting that organization on display by going chronologically and waiting to critique until that structure is clear.

(Analysis, Analysis, Analysis, Analysis, Big All-Together Critique)

B. Chronological, Critique in Steps: much like the above approach, but instead of waiting to critique until you're done analyzing, you critique each step as you present it. This plan is good if the article has no major flaws or strengths, but maybe several small ones, since it lets you take each one as they come up, analyze it, and then deliver a critique. It's simple and direct, but can be labor-intensive to write.

(Analysis, Critique, Analysis, Critique...)

C. By Rhetorical Move: in this approach, instead of analyzing the argument's parts in the order they occur (chronologically), you instead talk about how the author uses each of the rhetorical approaches (emotion, logic, authority, relevance) in turn. So, you might write a paragraph or two that analyzes and critiques about all the interesting ways the article uses emotion (citing examples from the text), and then do the same thing for authority, and so on. This scheme requires you to do analysis before writing, but is great if the article's main strengths and flaws are in balancing rhetorical approaches. The example thesis I wrote in the Intro section above would be well-served by this organizational choice, since it says the main strength is logic but the main issue is lack of emotion.

(Pathos Analysis, Critique, Ethos Analysis, Critique...)

D. By Category or Big Feature: in this approach, you organize your analysis based on your critique's positions. So you might dedicate several paragraphs to analyzing and critiquing the article's best moves and strengths (whether they're rhetorical, stylistic, or whatever) and then another several paragraphs to its weaknesses and how to fix them. This is a classic pro/con organization, but can be very challenging to write, since it requires that each paragraph work together very smoothly despite basically being a list. This is a good approach for articles that have extreme or "stand-out" features--something really great or really stupid--since it lets you spend most of your writing time on discussing those things. In the chronological or rhetorical organization plans above, skipping or neglecting some step or rhetorical ingredient might feel weird, but in this structure, you can emphasize a small number of points and skip other, less important ones. It's simple and direct, but requires you to have clear ideas before you start writing.

(Best Moves Analysis, Critique, Worst Moves Analysis, Critique, Conclusion With Strong "What Did We Learn?" Emphasis)

In all of the plans above, and in analysis in general, it is extremely important to cite and quote examples from the text itself, to back up your analysis and justify your critiques. It's easier to believe you if you show the reader what you're talking about.

Conclusion: usually 1-2 paragraphs, with a strong emphasis on re-stating your overall assessment (the thesis) in light of all the stuff you just showed us. Typically, you want to answer the question "so what?" in the conclusion--so, now that we've done all this analysis and you've justified your critiques, what do we do? What can we take away from this experience? What practical things should we keep in mind? How might this essay improve on its weaknesses, if any?

Give practical answers where you can--instead of "we should keep the emotions of readers in mind" try something like "it's important for arguments to connect with readers emotionally, by including things like personal stories or real-life examples." You don't have to get super-detailed, but don't be vague--imagine this is peer review.

Now that you've made your organizational choices, let's talk about:

P1 Technicalities: Quotes

There's one big Elephant-in-the-Room with this essay: using quotes and examples. You've probably learned some citation and formatting stuff before, but here's a basic guide.

Since this essay is about one article, you should include a works cited at the end of the essay with the citation for your selected Arak Journal article. The MLA citation for a journal is actually pretty easy:

Lastname, Firstname. "Title of Article." Title of Journal, issue#, year, pages.

The main issue is that the copy of the Arak Journal we have (the PDF on Canvas) is a reading copy, not the official version (print publication was delayed due to COVID), so there's no issue number. But we can just skip that! So, here's what the citation for the first article in the Journal would look like:

Huisinga, Francie. "Is It Theft? Cultural Appropriation in the Fashion Industry." Arak Journal, 2020, 2-6.

Now, what if you want to quote a line from an article in your analysis or critique (you definitely do, pretty frequently)? Use parenthetical citations, like in this example:

In one particularly excellent moment, Author Name makes the point that "text quoted from the article" (page numbers).

Pretty easy, right? That parenthetical note at the end is called an in-text citation and should contain the page numbers you got the quote from. If the author isn't obvious, you should also include the surname* of the author, like (Lastname 5). If you're using the online version, there's no page number, but it might be helpful to number the paragraphs and say that, like (Lastname para. 5) so that a reader can follow along.

Now, for a more complicated example. Let's say you're discussing how the author of the article uses quotes from scientific studies to make their point. Maybe you want to quote a sentence from the article where the author is already quoting someone else. A quote within a quote. Here's how you do that:

Sentence in the original Arak Journal article, on page 65:

In Scientific Study, Dr. Scientist explains that "quote from Scientist's text" (Scientist 2-10).

You, quoting that sentence in your discussion:

The author presents evidence clearly and directly. For example, they quote a book by Dr. Scientist, saying "in Scientific Study, Dr. Scientist explains that 'quote from Scientist's text'" (Scientist 2-10, quoted in Author 65).

Note the new parenthetical citation and how it's formatted. Also note how, when there's a quote inside your quotation, you use 'single quotes' (AKA apostrophes) on the inside.

It's a little more complicated than regular quoting, but you might need this someday, especially since we're being "meta"--talking about how someone else talks about stuff.

Don't get scared, though--using quotes/examples is critically important, since you need to back up your observations and conclusions by showing the reader important real things. Otherwise, how do we know you're not just making stuff up?

*Side Note: "surname" means "last name," but since some cultures put the family/clan name before a person's individual name, professionals say "surname" instead of "last name" to avoid confusion. So surname just means family-name.

General Lesson: Paragraphing and Transitions

We'll get into paragraphing and transitions more later in this course, but here are a few basic lessons:

A paragraph only has room for one big idea. In the case of this paper, no one section (summary, analysis, critique) should consist of a single paragraph. Each of those moves has more than one guiding idea (except maybe summary). A good idea is to organize paragraphs around explaining a single point and a single example. You'll need multiple of these to make any bigger point.

Transitions are symptoms. If the transitions in your essay are bad or clunky, it's usually because you're not organizing your points correctly. A good example is the word "thirdly". If this word ever appears at the beginning of a paragraph, you're not writing an essay, you're writing a Fancy List. "Thirdly" means you don't understand how these points fit together, but know that this one is third.

Instead, transitions should describe the relationship between the previous paragraph and the next one. Is this another example of the same thing? Try "Similarly, the author does X" as the first sentence of the new paragraph. Are you turning from one idea to it's opposite? The classic "However" works. Summing up a pattern that's emerged in previous paragraphs? "Ultimately" might help. Contrasting an idea with a solution? Try "Instead," like this very paragraph does.

A good trick is the "old/new" rule--in transitioning between paragraphs, explain how the old information relates to the new info coming in the next paragraph.

Starting a conclusion paragraph? Here's the trick: write the transition as if this paragraph appeared immediately after the introduction. This creates the "whump" feeling--the feeling that the essay is ending, by returning to the larger thesis and dropping the finer, detailed discussion of the middle. This is sometimes called a broken transition, since it deliberately breaks the natural flow, signaling that an end is coming.

Wrapping Up: Tips and Tricks

Okay, that's a lot for one day. Here's some last things to consider:

Use attribution tags in summary (the author says, they say, etc.), so we know you're summarizing someone else's ideas. Do not quote in summaries--use your own words to explain someone else's ideas when summarizing.
Do use quotes and examples in analysis and critique to show the reader what you're talking about. Generally, keep quotes small and use them immediately--a quote should have a reason to exist in your paper, so discuss what they are and what they show. Don't just drop them in wherever.
Avoid very large quotes and block quotes--quoting a whole paragraph of someone else's paper is generally a bad move, since your reader has to read the whole thing before you get a chance to talk about why you even included it. That's a lot of waiting. Instead, quote specific words, phrases, or maybe a whole sentence that demonstrates your point. If you need to do this multiple times, that's fine and 100% better than dropping a gigantic quote on your reader.
Quotes are like sushi: they spoil fast, so it's better to have multiple small servings than one giant one that will expire before you can finish using it.
You don't have to cover everything--pick the most important moves, points, problems, strengths and focus on examining those well, rather than trying to reach the wordcount by talking about everything. Everyone knows you're stretching. It's not a good look.
Conclusions are about solutions and lessons. Answer the "so what?" question.
Refer to authors by their surname or their whole name. Never just use their given name by itself--you might know the author in real life, but it's still weird and inappropriate to call them "Steve" for a whole essay.

Homework and Details

Your drafts of P1 are due before peer review on Thursday. As a rule, draft's don't have to be finished, but they should be complete. It's a good idea to have your thesis statement, summary, analysis, and critique done. The intro and conclusion paragraphs can wait until later, since it usually helps to have a little space before writing those anyway.

Remember to sign up for a peer review group by the end of today. If you don't sign up, you will be assigned to a group. You can sign up here.

The Slack discussion for this week is simple: State your thesis/assessment from P1, describe the major trends of your analysis (they did x good, x not so good, et cetera), and maybe include one neat example you found if relevant. 200 words or less.

The final, complete version of P1 and the Slack discussion are both due Sunday, 3/14. Turn in the finalized essay on Canvas, and post your verdict on Slack (and since other students worked on the same essay, see what they thought--you can react and like posts on there if you want).