Papers

Useful Links . . .

• My sample paper
  • To illustrate MLA format and layout, not content. This sample paper is taken from the opening of my 2007 book, Concordia Discors
• The BU Library's "How to Evaluate Sources" site
• The BU Writing Initiative (for help in writing papers)
• The Purdue Owl (for grammar, usage, MLA format, all aspects of paper writing)

General Considerations

In partial fulfillment of the "H – Humanities," "W – Harpur Writing," "I – Information Literacy," and "T – Critical Thinking" requirements, students in this course will be submitting:

• A three-page paper on Plato's Gorgias
• A two page (+/-) annotated bibliography plus abstract in preparation for. . .
• A six-page paper relating to Athenian democracy and persuasion

Format

Please adhere strictly to MLA format in all respects. The Purdue Owl and my sample paper* should help.

* Make your papers look like, not read like, my sample paper!

MLA format is well explained on the Owl. Here follow some supplemental "do"s and "don't"s, some of these possibly specific to this course:

1. Double-space, 12-point Times New Roman font throughout, all sections, no exceptions. Margins: 1 inch R, L, top, bottom, all pages.
2. Each page needs to have a running, auto-numbered page indication in the header, upper right, ½ inch below edge: last name + page number. Learn how to use headers; do not manually number each page.
3. Use one, not two, spaces between sentences.
4. No added space between paragraphs.
5. Do not add empty paragraphs at the ends of sections.
6. To indent, use your word processor's tabs or margin indents. Don't type spaces.
7. The bibliography counts toward minimum length. Do not, though, introduce a hard page break before your Works Cited.
8. When typing bibliographical entries, use your word processor's margin indenting function to create a hanging indent, where the 1st line of the paragraph is flush with the left margin and subsequent lines are indented.

• Do not use paragraphing / carriage returns (Enter↵) followed by spaces or tabs to format hanging indents. Let your word processor handle the line breaks.

Structure of Content

"Say what you're going to say, then say it, then say what you've said." Tthough an oversimplification, that isn't so far off the mark. In fact, the papers you'll be writing for this course will benefit from such a structure to supply proper framing, clarity, and coherence.

Put differently, you should try to fit these sorts of essays into a pre-set outline similar to the following:

1. Introduction.
   1. Topic area.
   2. Question / problem.
   3. Thesis statement.
   4. Approach.
2. Main body.
   1. Argumentation.
   2. Evidence.
3. Conclusions.
   1. Main-points (brief recapitulation).
   2. Further implications and / or reflections.
4. Works Cited.

Maybe that structure doesn't fit your plans perfectly, but anything that strays too far from it will lack . . . well, structure. It's always advisable to make an outline when starting out, for which see the Owl.

Conversely, it should be possible to "backwards-engineer" (retro-fit) an outline to go with any well-written expository essay. The Owl calls that "reverse outlining."

Example of a mini-paper (this illustrates structure of content, not format):

INTRODUCTION:

(TOPIC) It is striking how often Athenian orators accuse others of claiming to love the audience being addressed, which in most cases either was, or represented, the citizenry of Athens. Yet it is equally striking how seldom orators actually make such claims in surviving evidence. (QUESTION) Why, then, that disparity in the evidence? (APPROACH) Applying the theories of Valentin Vološinov to the evidence offered by fifth- and fourth-century BCE sources, (THESIS) I shall argue for what I call the "demophilia topos," a ploy whereby orators focused suspicion on opponents by imputing to them a willingness to express an emotionally charged relationship with the Athenian body politic (the demos).

MAIN BODY:

(EVIDENCE) Let us begin with a passage from one of Demosthenes' Exordia (sample speech prefaces): "Though they say they love you, it is not you they love, but themselves" (53.3). That kind of warning not to trust a speaker's alleged love talk is frequent in the evidence, but is matched by virtually no example of an orator's actually engaging in such talk. (ARGUMENTATION) If this kind of love talk was as rare or possibly nonexistent as it seems to have been, what is the point of the warning? By making out that his opponent's rhetoric featured just those sorts of oratorical valentines — I call it the "demophilia topos" —, a speaker could make an audience uncomfortable with his opponent's real-life attempts to establish a good rapport with listeners — could "spin" it, in other words, as insincere, even dangerous, manipulation. [etc. etc.]

CONCLUSION(S):

To sum up, the demophilia topos represented a strategy to control the discourse, an example of what Hesk would term anti-rhetorical rhetoric. Just as it could raise red flags to appear too emotionally connected to one's audience, so could it pay off rhetorically to make one's opponent appear just that way. (For the longer paper, this may be the place to draw larger connections, to generalize more broadly, though in valid ways.)

WORKS CITED

Research

Inasmuch as these papers fulfill the "I – Information Literacy" GenEd, requirements are going to be very specific as to research. Your starting point will be the BU Library's "How to Evaluate Sources" site for pointers on finding secondary sources (modern research sources), print or online, suitable to your topic for either of the two papers.

Wikipedia, Bing, Google searches, even AI search results sometimes offer help but have to be used with care; they are no substitute for in-depth exploration. You need to learn how to avoid sources lacking proper authority; also, biased sources.

Proper authority. You need to use sources whose authors are listed as authors of the source in question and are recognized as authorities in the field in question: peer-reviewed books or articles, online resources accessed through the Library or housed on university (.edu) platforms — that sort of thing.

Bias. You need to watch out for biased sources, those with a vested interest in presenting things with a certain slant, or with an ideological commitment coloring their take on a question, for instance, websites committed to promoting a product or an ideology, or that reveal racial, religious, sexual, gender-based, or other prejudice.

Anything that you rely on you must cite, so be careful what you rely on!

Some specific pointers:

• Wikipedia. Those articles, though often informative, too often are poorly vetted (evaluated for quality of scholarship), poorly researched, and poorly written. Plus, they're never attributed; that no author is ever listed means that no one takes responsibility. We all use Wikipedia, but I won't accept it in citations or bibliographies. (Still, if you rely on it but don't cite it, that's plagiarism)
• Google or Bing searches, AI search results, etc. etc. Like Wikipedia, universally used, sometimes informative, never acceptable as authorities

Do use: databases supplied by the BU Library, sources listed on the Persuasion Resources page, sources that check all the boxes as per the BU Library's "How to Evaluate Sources" site.

Citation, Works Cited

Your essay must use MLA-style in-text citations as per Owl, not footnotes; avoid discussion inside parentheses. The Works Cited section must also conform to MLA standards as to type of source, information to list, etc., again, as per Owl. For formatting "Works Cited," see above; also, my sample paper.

Citing Preprints, Research Projects (= working papers)

These days, scholars often post final, near final, or in-process versions of their research in anticipation of publication. They do so to sites like the following:

• The Binghamton University Orb (Open Repository @ Binghamton)
• ResearchGate
• Academia.edu

Yes, those pages are dedicated to my stuff; I'm sharing for the purpose of illustration. In any case, items uploaded to sites like the afore-listed are mostly preprints and research projects (aka working papers).

• Preprints are versions of a publication shared on a site other than one controlled by the publisher, and before the actual publication date
• Research projects and working papers are just what they sound like: stuff, as yet unpublished, that a given scholar is working on

If you find something on sites like the aforementioned, you still need to cite the item by the publisher's venue, if it's got a publisher. If it does, you will see that listed. If hasn't yet been published, you need to cite with full citation info, but replace the date the with "forthcoming"; for journal articles, leave the pages part blank:

Scholtz, Andrew. “Making Sense: Envy in Libanius’ Declamation 30.” American Journal of Philology, vol. 146, no. 1, forthcoming.

If the item in question is a working paper, a data set, something, in other words, without a clear sense of publisher, let me know. Those can be tricky to figure out.

Use of First Person

I encourage the use of "I" and first-person pronouns generally in papers. ("I shall argue that. . . .") I don't penalize the avoidance of same ("It will be argued that"); for me, it's all a matter of individual preference.

Paper 1 on Plato's Gorgias

Topic

Because the first oral presentation will be a "pitch" for the topic of your first paper on Plato's Gorgias, this "Topic" section is the same for both the presentation and the paper. Obviously, the presentation, being a preview of the paper, will not involve the same depth of research as will the final product. Conversely, the paper will involve research additional to what you've done for your first presentation. Specific research req's for the presentation are covered on the Oral Presentations page; for the paper, on the Papers page.

For topic, keep it small-scale! You are certainly free, even encouraged, to address some detail pertaining to our exploration of Plato's Gorgias or to either of the two SWA prompts for the dialogue. Or you might want to speak and write on something else having to do with the work. Please avoid, though, any topic, whether connected to an SWA or not, that is overly global or broad in scope. So, for instance, that first SWA, "Does Socrates Treat Rhetoric Fairly" — it was good as a conversation starter. But to address it properly in a paper would require more pages than we have time for in this course. Ditto for the second Gorgias SWA. So, . . .

For the first presentation and paper, speak/write about something, anything relating to the text of Plato's Gorgias, provided that it (a) grabs your interest, (b) has to do with the text and with the topic of persuasion, and (c) concerns no more than a detail of that text: a quotation, a theme that surfaces at a certain point, a brief but key passage, that kind of thing.*

* Please don't try to explain or summarize the whole dialogue or a lengthy section of it. Likewise, avoid topics that are too broad for treatment in five minutes or three pages, as in, "The Meaning of Life in Plato's Gorgias." Finally, avoid statements, whether thesis statements or statements of any kind, that draw sweeping or unwarranted conclusions, for instance, "Socrates' use of the lovers metaphor in section 481d of the dialogue supplies proof positive that Platonic philosophy is god's truth / utterly ridiculous." That has to do with critical thinking.

Part of the critical-thinking dimension of the assignment is that you'll need, at a minimum, to develop an argument. This last could consist of a critique of an argument found in a secondary source or in the dialogue itself; that critique could, in other words, be your topic. Or you could develop an idea of your own regarding Plato's text. Either way, evidence of critical thinking on your part is a must; please review the Critical Thinking page.

I don't require you to clear your topic in advance with me, but I'm happy to talk about it with you; stop by my office during office hours or make an appointment. Still, you'll have a chance to test-drive your topic in your oral presentation. That allows you to retool it if need be.

Length

Approximately 850 words all told, or three double-spaced pages, Times New Roman font. "Works Cited" counts toward length.

Research Requirements (this paper)

You'll need to cite a minimum of four sources.

• One will be Plato's Gorgias
• The others must include at least two secondary, outside sources, that is, modern scholarship meeting the standards described above (Research) but not assigned for class or found on the this bingdev site
  • Only one of those two sources may be a dictionary or encyclopedia entry from a valid source like the Oxford Classical Dictionary, Brill's New Pauly, or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (But not the the Encyclopedia Britannica; it's too basic, too general)
  • The other must be a book, book chapter, or journal article (whether print or online), or else a webpage or website providing an in-depth look into a key aspect of your topic
• The fourth required source can be a reading (ancient or modern) assigned for class, a bingdev course webpage, indeed, any source, including outside ones, pertinent to your topic. If a modern source, it has, again, to meet standards described above
• You are not confined to four sources. You are, though, asked to use ones pertinent to your topic and, if modern, meeting research standards

Structure

As this paper will be very short, I would not advise devoting too many words to the introduction or the conclusion. This last might work best as just a sentence or two in the final paragraph — something to round it off. You may not even need a formal conclusion. You will, though, need an introduction to clue us into what to expect.

Paper 2 (plus annotated bibliography) Relating to Persuasion in Athenian Democracy

Topic

What does a given ancient reading, one assigned for class, either part of the semester, though not the Gorgias, have to say about an issue relating to persuasion and ancient Athenian democracy? What light does one of the "lenses" we've studied (modern theoretical readings) shed on the matter?

Our topic here is not persuasion's role in Athenian democracy; that would be a 300-page book twenty years in the making. Nor is it "Everything That Reading X Has to Say about Democratic Persuasion." Again, too broad.

Rather, it's what a particular reading has to say about a particular issue with democratic persuasion — and not so broad an issue as to render this paper unmanageable. And of course, what light one of the lens readings sheds on that issue in that particular work.

How to Narrow Down Your Topic. . . .

There are two ways of getting started:

1. Choose one of our ancient readings assigned for class (not the Gorgias), one that interests you in ways relating to the overarching theme of Athenian democratic persuasion. What is it that interests you about that text. What is the specific issue that you're drawn to? Write on that.
2. Start by choosing a specific issue in Athenian democratic persuasion, one that interests you. Which ancient text assigned for class (not the Gorgias) seems to have something interesting to say about that issue? Write on that.

The next step is to ask which lens — which modern theoretical reading — you'll be deploying in hopes of gaining a better purchase on the issue. You don't have to select a lens that, you feel, gets it right. (I'm always interested in insightful critiques of scholarship.) It does, though, need to relate to the topic; you'll need to explain how it gets it right / wrong / something in between. That's much of the critical-thinking element of the exercise.

Meet with me so I can help you choose a topic.

Part of the process of selecting topics and texts is for you to meet with me. This is required; make an appointment or come to walk-in office hours. All topics will need to be approved by me by a deadline noted on the schedule of assignments.

Sequence of Tasks

This paper will require the following things to happen:

1. A meeting with me by a certain date (see the schedule of assignments) to brainstorm topics.
2. An email to me, sent by a particular date (schedule of assignments), listing:
• Your focus (ancient) text
• The issue it and you are addressing
• The lens you'll be using
3. Submission of an annotated bibliography with title and 100-word abstract. For due-date, the schedule of assignments.
4. Submission of a six-page paper by a particular date (schedule of assignments).

Research Requirements

This persuasion-democracy paper project requires the use of a minimum of six sources:

1. Your focus text, that is, the primary (i.e., ancient) text that's to be the focus of your paper. It can be any ancient text assigned for class (though not the Gorgias).
2. At least one other assigned primary text, this time, from that part of the semester in which your focus text doesn't appear. This will offer contrast or perspective on the issue. (For parts one and two of the semester, see the schedule of assignments.) If your focus text comes from Part 2 of the course, it's fine to use Plato's Gorgias for that other primary text.
3. One lens, that is, modern theoretical reading, from either part of the semester.
4. At least three other outside secondary (modern) sources, ones not assigned for class but valid as per previously mentioned standards.
   • One, and only one such source may be recycled from the Gorgias paper
   • As with the Gorgias paper, only one source may be a dictionary or encyclopedia entry

• You are free to cite other assigned reading or pages from this website, but those sources won't count toward the minimum research requirements for this paper.

Annotated Bibliography, Including a 150-Word Abstract

This will be a written document probably two to three pages in length (a bit hard to predict), MLA format. Include your name, a title, page numbering, hanging indent for bibliographical entries, etc. etc., as per above. The abstract — 150-word limit — should come before the annotated bibliography. For this you don't need to include "Abstract" or "Bibliography"/"Works Cited" as headings in the document.

What's an abstract? An abstract is a summary providing a preview of your paper: its focus (in this case, focus text and issue), its thesis (the solution to a problem, the answer to a question — whatever you plan to argue for), its approach (for this paper, probably your lens, though you may want to mention how additional ancient texts offer perspective). This will be a short one: no more than 150 words. A pretty good example of an abstract and its constituent parts is the "Introduction" supplied above.

What's an annotated bibliography? Well, it's a bibliography (what the MLA calls "Works Cited"), that is, a list of sources, both primary (ancient) and secondary (modern, scholarly), used to research your paper. As for the "annotated" part, each entry is to be supplemented ("annotated") with a paragraph describing how the source in question relates to your issue and, as best you can, briefly assessing its strengths and / or weaknesses. More on annotated bibliographies on the Owl.

• Please try to keep your annotations relatively brief; write enough, but not more. On that Owl page, please ignore the part about summarizing. Rather, cut to the chase: Why does the source matter to your project? See if you can assess the source. If it's modern, what seem to be its strengths? Weaknesses? How does the source, whether ancient or modern, relate to the issue you're addressing?

The Paper Itself: Length

Approximately 1,700 words all told, or six double-spaced pages, Times New Roman font. Bibliography counts toward length. No hard page break before the bibliography.

Assessment (of papers, annotated bibliography)

The following is a checklist. I don't have a precise point breakdown for each bullet.

• Several of the following criteria (e.g., proper defense of an argument, well-organized content, etc.) apply more to finished papers than to the annotated bibliography plus abstract. For this last, I'm mostly interested in whether you seem headed in the right direction. Numbers 2. and 8. are, though, fully applicable.

1. Does the submission show evidence that the writer has studied and processed the instructor's comments on SWAs and other prior submissions? Is there improvement?
2. Does the submission fulfill requirements as to
   • Topic, focus, scope, and length?
   • Formatting and layout, use of MLA, etc.?
   • Research? Is the research adequate to the writer's needs and the requirements of the assignment? Does the writer make good use of sources? (For the bibliography-abstract, has the writer come up with a promising selection of soruces?)
3. Does the writer formulate, develop, and properly defend an argument?
4. Does the writer make appropriate use of lenses? (Assigned modern theory texts — required for second paper project only)
5. Does the writer evaluate reasoning deployed in primary and / or secondary sources?
6. Does the writer deploy reasoning and reflection that are nuanced and aware of alternate perspectives?
7. Is the submission well-constructed, well-organized, well-expressed? Is it clear, can I follow it?
8. Does the submission show evidence of having been proofread for spelling, punctuation, grammar, word usage, etc.?