Literary and Cultural Studies:Writing academic texts

How do I find a good topic?

A good piece of academic work challenges existing views - by leading the debate a step further. There is more than one way do do this. You can attack general notions, you can offer insight into a subject matter that has been neglected and hint at blind spots in existing research, you can question existing debates by opening new ones, you can just as well support a position with a new argument or observation... these are thoughts for a dissertation rather than a 15 page seminar essay, yet they give you an idea of the direction you are supposed to take during your studies.

For student purposes it is enough to find a topic you will be able to advertise as interesting - your interest can be personal, yet to sell it to others you have to find arguments why others should share your fascination, and these must be independent from all personal views.

It might be sufficient to note a surprising contradictory, startling aspect - Le Morte Darthur (1485) is a Christian Arthurian epic, yet the heroes of this epic fight without even asking for a just cause; how is their extreme violence justified? - that is already all you need to go ahead and to wonder how one would answer such a question.

A topic is often inspired by research - you read someone's statements and you feel you would not arrive at the same conclusions if you had to present the case. Why did your author arrive at his or her view? Why did he or she not reach the conclusions you reached?

If you get a topic - from your professor or in an exam situation - handle it openly: Why is it interesting? What answers might be expected? What answers would you have given before you began to study? What answers would you give now? What are the answers others might give?

Before I begin...

First: check research (see the Literary Studies:Research guide for further help). Secondly think of simple and more complex answers on your question. The good essay will take different views into account, it will show that you have anticipated criticism.

How do I structure my work?

Beginners are often tempted to think of a standard solution: "One does not understand my topic if I do not give an introduction about the period, the author, the work in question - once I'll have done this introduction, I'll answer the question I am supposed to answer." The result is an essay of 15 pages filled with background information (which can be taken from Wikipedia or the greatest professors in the field without much of a difference) and scattered remarks on the original question.

First advice: drop the standard solution. Deal with the question - directly. Speak of the question and its implications, show why it is interesting to ask this question, think of the best sequence of follow-up-questions needed to answer it.

Speak about the period, the author, the general appreciation of his work... if you feel that your work is problematising any of these heads.

The opening section

• should open the question. Eventually your reader should understand why one should try to answer this question.
• should offer the answer one might give at first sight and take the step into a deeper analysis. It is good to know the more complex answer your essay will lead to at this point (and it is hence best practice to revise the introduction in the last step of your work.
• should tell your reader how you will proceed with your investigation - a passage you should write with an awareness of different options you had when structuring the paper.

Secondary literature

It is good practice to summarise scholarly views right at the beginning rather than to lead a continuous battle between your view and other views throughout the essay. If you are dealing with a big topic try to present secondary literature as a progressing discussion, not as a mixture of individual statements. Think of the debate that produced this research as an exchange of different parties.

Good headlines, good chapters

You might have a question and three items to look at - three plays by Shakespeare for instance - and you might feel tempted just to open one chapter for each of these items.

Think back: Why did I decide to take a look at these three items (these three plays, these characters of the play, these three aspects of a particular problem...)? Each chapter should be written with an awareness of what you wanted to prove with your investigation. Good headlines will tell your reader why he should take a look at this text/character/aspect - what he is going to find out when reading your chapter.

Good conclusions of the individual chapters should reflect your work: Did you arrive at the result you promised? Do things look more difficult at the end of your research? Or have they become more simple? Both can be interesting results.

The conclusion

A good essay leaves its reader with an awareness that things are much more difficult than considered at first - it inspires more work, shows you got involved in a debate.

You can just as well arrive at the conclusion that the question was asked the wrong way in the beginning - can you present the question that should have been asked at the end?

You can come to the conclusion that the answer did not get you to where you thought to arrive - and that the whole topic is problematic as not leading us any step further. Even professional authors have reached such conclusions; see for example the epilogue to John J. Richetti's Popular Fiction before Richardson. Narrative Patterns 1700-1739 (Oxford, 1969), in which the author considered all the books he had read to be not worthy a second reading - the result was quite on the contrary a wave of research proving him wrong, yet a wave turning an immense interest to his book and his conclusion.

Do not think that you have to give the only and true right answer and that's it. There might not be such an answer. Do rather think of a conversation in which your contribution might be one others will like to return to as a good starting point.

Can I risk to state my own opinion - even if it contradicts my professor's?

by all means, yes! The most interesting work is the one which leads your readers to second thoughts.

The problem is the essay in which you simply state your opinion, offer your arguments for it and think you have done your job. If your professor reads your essay with an awareness of all the criticism and questions you invited and simply did not think of - you have lost. The good essay allows you to defend any position you want to defend as it is written with an awareness of other possible views on the problem. It anticipates the criticism and deals with it.

The worst of all essays is the mild compromise - an essay in which you say: "Both sides are right once they accept the arguments of the others." The worst case is that your reader comes to the conclusion that you were simply trying to appear wise - feeling that it is wise not to get involved in any argument. The good step within any confrontation is the one that leads the participants one step further - the step which leads to a new understanding of the real problem debated here.

But if I am not interested in this stuff?

Well actually it is a mark of professionalism if you can start research with the aim to get involved. After all you are expected to do this for the rest of your life: make sure that others get interested in what you are doing. If you simply feel you are not interested you have possibly just avoided to do the amount of research which would have involved you. Once you have a certain knowledge and understanding of a subject matter you will feel tempted to take part in the exchange. (It can of course happen that you will finally tell the participants of a controversy that they have so far asked the boring questions only...)

How do professors evaluate our work?

Basically we aim at performances you can offer anywhere else publicly and as professional work - at a conference, (or less professionally:) if you had to write a Wikipedia article on the subject matter - though we know of course that you are only writing for us. We wonder whether your text would make sense outside the seminar context. (Hence do avoid references to "our seminar" and all thoughts of your professor as your reader. Think of a public audience - the reader of an article in a journal - as your reader.)

Secondly we try to evaluate your work with a look at what you were aiming at: Do you achieve your goals as explained in the outline and the summary of your texts? It is part of this perspective that we wonder whether you choose goals you could be expected to achieve - not too simple and not too ambitious ones.

A very good indicator is whether your reader can possibly summarize your work: What was the topic, what points were you trying to make, how did you defend the individual arguments.

Your professor feels in a safe position if he or she could show your work to a colleague (who will not have read the texts you are dealing with) - the virtual or real colleague should be able to make sense of your work and he or she will ideally come to the same evaluation:

• that's very good piece of work - I did not know much about the subject matter, yet I came to realise that this is an interesting topic and I am beginning to understand why people work in this field...
• that's good work, I understood it, and realise the student took a good step with this piece of work.
• that's a satisfying piece of work - the student understood the topic, the questions he or she asked were reasonable, the answers convincing though not very creative, it serves its purpose
• the topic was handled with less care than it deserved, the considerations were not always conclusive, one can accept this piece of work, however, as the student has managed to avoid gross errors
• ...

Practical hints

• Observe the Literary Studies:Style sheet
• Take a look at the Literary Studies:Research guide
• Remember the advice that helped you in your first assignements