Angl-Am - User contributions [en]

Talk:2008 BM1-D Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 2

2008-08-14T12:44:55Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg:

Hallo,
I try to find these examples for the term paper project and I can't find them! Can somebody show me where they are!?

Thanks--[[User:Lena Stüttelberg|Lena Stüttelberg]] 16:49, 23 July 2008 (CEST)

:Hi. Do you mean this one? http://www.wiki.uni-oldenburg.de/fk3/angl-am/index.php?title=BM1_-_Introduction_to_Literature_-_Assignment_4:_Research_Paper_Outline
:It's from the last summer semester. [[User:Verena Engelhardt|Verena Engelhardt]] 19:03, 23 July 2008 (CEST)

::Vielleicht könnt Ihr die Tutoren letzten Jahres oder Studenten letzten Jahres dazu bewegen, Ihre Assignments in wiki-Dateien zu setzen und zu verlinken. Ich finde es gut, wenn die Nächsten von den Letzten lernen --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 19:06, 23 July 2008 (CEST)

:::Meinst Du das Anlegen einer neue Wiki-Seite oder das Hochladen einer z.B. schreibgeschützte doc. Datei auf den Server und dann zu verlinken? [[User:Verena Engelhardt|Verena Engelhardt]] 19:11, 23 July 2008 (CEST)

Thank you very much for the link, but are there excamples I mean real text that somebody wrote as a work in progress?--[[User:Lena Stüttelberg|Lena Stüttelberg]] 11:53, 29 July 2008 (CEST)

In that link it says that all participants will be asked to go on a meeting especially for the research paper outline, when will that be or did already do that in one of the meetings on tuesday morning?
:Dear Lena, Sorry for that piece of obsolete information - I have just canceled it. As we have included discussions about the RPO within the individual course sessions, the counseling tutorials were skipped this semester. Check the following [[BM1 - Introduction to Literature - Assignment 4: Research Paper Outline:Example|example]] of a research paper outline. Please, bear in mind that the text is meant to be a general guidance, not necessarily a perfect model. For more ideas, also look up samples from student assignments 1-3 on the respective assignment discussion pages. Best, [[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 12:17, 29 July 2008 (CEST)

Thank you so much, that example helps me a lot to just know in what way the whole thing has to be done!
--[[User:Lena Stüttelberg|Lena Stüttelberg]] 16:34, 1 August 2008 (CEST)

Are we supposed to give secondary literature for every part of our table of contents?

:Not necessarily. You have to find enough to justify your question. We are looking for a - promising - basis on which you could begin your work. --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 13:23, 2 August 2008 (CEST)

I have a problem by finding articles in the MLA about Fight Club. The page always gives me the information that there are no articles. Can I please get a hint what I am doing wrong? I remember from writting my excerpt about King Lear last semester that using the MLA was pretty simple. Hm. Last semester the page was linked from the wikki. I don't find that link anymore. Maybe my mistake is that I googled it and did not enter the page from the university wikki account? Or is it true that there are no articles?

:Have you seen the information Anna collected - at: [[David Fincher (dir.), Fight Club (1999 film)]] - the MLA is not the best tool to find articles in the field of film studies, I regret... --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 16:08, 4 August 2008 (CEST)

::Yes, I've seen these articles and they helped a little. The problem is that my topic seems to be not discussed before. It is quiet difficult for me to build a breathtaking bibliography or at least one that counts more than three references. Well, I will find a solution.

:::There is nothing abnormal in a topic with little research. You begin with a reflection why there is so little research (and if there exists research in another field with results you can use). It is actually not all that bad to open research in a field where little has been done before (as long as you can promise something interesting). --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 12:08, 5 August 2008 (CEST)

Are we supposed to write a title as a question or like Anna did it in a sentence?--[[User:Lena Stüttelberg|Lena Stüttelberg]] 17:16, 11 August 2008 (CEST)

:A good title arouses my interest - there is no further rule. --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 19:51, 11 August 2008 (CEST) - well "decently" one might add...

If we only use aa chapter of a book do we first give the name of the book and then the chapters title or first the chapters title and than the bookname?
I can't really figure out on the style sheet!

:If the book has several authors you quote it according to the style sheet (article of an author within a book) - if it is one author you can quote his book and conclude with Chapter 3, p.56-78. --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 19:26, 13 August 2008 (CEST)

In the description of a research paper outline it is said that the whole thing should have the maximum length of 3-4 pages. Are we supposed to count in the bibliography, too?

Talk:2008 BM1-D Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 2

2008-08-13T14:17:31Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg:

Talk:2008 BM1-D Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 2

2008-08-11T15:16:19Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg:

Talk:2008 BM1-D Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 2

2008-08-01T15:00:22Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg:

Talk:2008 BM1-D Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 2

2008-08-01T14:34:24Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg:

Talk:2008 BM1-D Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 2

2008-07-29T09:57:45Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg:

Talk:2008 BM1-D Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 2

2008-07-29T09:53:41Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg:

Talk:2008 BM1-D Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 2

2008-07-23T14:49:00Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg:

Talk:2008 BM1 Assignment 2: Antony and Cleopatra

2008-05-26T17:47:07Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg: /* Quotationproblem */

In fact I have only one question:
How can I answer 5 questions properly on only 3 pages (especially with that given style sheet)?
Would be very much kind if someone can explain that to me...and the lines are incorrect.when we set the starting line with 123 then I count 166 or am I wrong? (as it is important for giving the sections)
Cheerz!

--[[User:Jessika Thiele]] 22:28, 22 May 2008 (CEST)

1. I think using our textbook for the line-references would be the best solution.
2. I agree that question 5 looks rather extensive compared to the other tasks, but since every question offers the chance to earn the same number of points, I don't think that the teachers expect a very long, detailed answer here. --[[User:Alena Ruether|Alena Ruether]] 17:47, 23 May 2008 (CEST)

Da hast Du Recht! Die Aufgaben sind viel zu umfangreich und wenn man etwas rausließe, würde sich dies mit Sicherheit negativ auf die Note auswirken, da es dann nicht detailliert genug wäre.
Darüber hinaus bin ich auch der Ansicht, dass das in den Aufgaben geforderte nicht ausreichend im Seminar besprochen wurde. Ich fühle mich mit der Aufgabenstellung doch sehr allein gelassen!

I now started task 3...characterization.Am a little deep into Agrippa's speech...to me it seems kinda mixture between a dialogue (in first lines) and then it has more traits of a monologue...now on that sheet with the nice headline ''Analysing Dramatic Communication'' there is only choice between dialogue and soliloquy.quite confusing. So am I wrong and it is mainly a soliloquy? and whyyyyyy?
As I thought a soliloquy is some kind of monolgue without anyone watching.
Cheerz!
--[[User:Jessika Thiele]] 18:02, 23 May 2008 (CEST)

== EXcerpt questions ==

I do have the same problems!
And last time (first assignment)it really helped to have a look into the assignments from last semester! But I don't know how to get there! So could anybody put the link in here?
That would be very kind!
I hope that will help!
Good luck to all the other --[[User:Lena Stüttelberg|Lena Stüttelberg]] 18:41, 23 May 2008 (CEST)

:Goto "Main Page" (left side), click "materials" (right side), then "Category: Tests", then "Assignment". But that won't help you since there ain't no example of any 2nd assignments. Or is it that I just can't see it, find it, or is the whole path I just described wrong? I need some help too...

::Just viewed the next problem: the passage thats being typed into the assignments "article" (btw: she 's called CLEOPATRA!;-) ) includes Lepidus' "Happily amen!", but Lepidus would be the FOURTH character. In 3. CAHARCTERISATION there are just THREE characters to characterise. CONFUSING ALL THIS! I hope that this is to be disregarded cause Lepidus just goes on my nerves (only concerning this assignment, this is!).

I have the same problem! which three characters??? Anthony, Caesar, Agrippa, and Lepidus are '''FOUR''' characters…… and Octavia could be another….. !!!??????

At frist...the three main characters are obviously Antony,Caesar and Agrippa...Lepidus is just a minor role and his ''Happily,Amen!'' is there cause it actually completes the dialogue (seals the decision of the marriage, as you wanna hear my opinion) and...the thing with Octavia...Octavia is not speaking in there...she is just in a different way of writing cause it is a person and all persons are written that way (look into your own main text and then you will see!)Cheerz! --[[User:Jessika Thiele|Jessika Thiele]] 21:45, 24 May 2008 (CEST)

:::Next problem (beloved Task 3 again): To what extend are we supposed to "anayse the effect"?!? I surely could write ten or more pages... Time is running!

::::I kind of like the plan that we don’t have to write ten pages. My solution for keeping it short is to just grab out a few passages which I analyse and then give a short statement with the quotation to underline it.

::::It helped me a lot to read the solutions of the assignments of 2007. Just search with the search function “assignment solution” and you will get there.

Some Links:
* [http://www.wiki.uni-oldenburg.de/fk3/angl-am/index.php?title=BM1_-_Introduction_to_Literature_-_Assignment_2:_Richard_III 2007 BM 1:Assignment 2: Richard III] and the [http://www.wiki.uni-oldenburg.de/fk3/angl-am/index.php?title=BM1_-_Introduction_to_Literature_-_Assignment_2:_Richard_III/Model_Solution 2007 BM 1:Assignment 2: Richard III - Model Solution]
* [http://www.wiki.uni-oldenburg.de/fk3/angl-am/index.php?title=BM1_-_Introduction_to_Literature_-_Assignment_2:_Merchant_of_Venice 2007 BM 1:Assignment 2: Merchant of Venice] - however, I can't find the solution
* [http://www.wiki.uni-oldenburg.de/fk3/angl-am/index.php?title=BM1_-_Introduction_to_Literature_-_Assignment_2:_Hamlet 2007 BM 1:Assignment 2: Hamlet] and its [http://www.wiki.uni-oldenburg.de/fk3/angl-am/index.php?title=BM1_-_Introduction_to_Literature_-_Assignment_2:_Hamlet/Model_Solution 2007 BM 1:Assignment 2: Hamlet - Model Solution]

== Quotationproblem ==

I do have a little problem in quoting, because it is hard for me to count the lines!
There are so many sentences going on in the next lines and therefore the lines are counted in another way and it is hard for me to reconstruct how they count! Maybe somebody could help me?

Or tell me the way/trick to count the lines!
--[[User:Lena Stüttelberg|Lena Stüttelberg]] 21:27, 25 May 2008 (CEST)

I have the same problem…how are we supposed to count the lines if there are seven lines between line 20 and line 25????? Very annoying… --[[User:Marietta Sonnenschein|Marietta Sonnenschein]] 22:16, 25 May 2008 (CEST)

----

It is verses they count and a verse is full when it has reached its full number of stressed syllables - we spoke about all this in the first sessions this semester, didn't we? Those who were with us might even be able to tell what kind of verses we have got here. --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 11:02, 26 May 2008 (CEST)

Well there is no problem in couting the stressed syllables.
But the problem is how many stressed syllables belong to one line?!
I think we did not do it in our course!

Talk:2008 BM1 Assignment 2: Antony and Cleopatra

2008-05-25T19:27:33Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg: /* EXcerpt questions */

Talk:2008 BM1 Assignment 2: Antony and Cleopatra

2008-05-23T16:41:02Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg:

Talk:2008 BM1 Assignment 1: Poetry

2008-04-27T10:24:05Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg: /* feet problem */

==Test==
I won't be able to come in next time. Cheers. [[User:Corinna Brinkmann|Corinna Brinkmann]] 12:36, 9 April 2008 (CEST)

== Assignment 1, Question 3 ==

Are we supposed to interpret the metre and rhyme scheme with regard to the content or shall we only name these? Alena Ruether
:"Comment on" is a bit more than just "name" yet less then "write a full blown interpretation". --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 15:09, 24 April 2008 (CEST)

==Another Question==

But how much more, do we have to do?

I am right now working with the poem and I have some problems with the word 'comment' and 'identify'!
Does 'identify' mean we are just supposed to declare which sections or addressee we have found out?
And does 'comment' mean we shall find out the metre and rhyme scheme and afterwards say what is special about it? Or shall we also say what influence differences in metre or something else have on the poem?

I am a little scared to hand in my assignment, because it seems to me that I don't know how to begin!

:A couple of links: [[Survive Assignments]] gives you some general remarks. This is the last year's assignment: [[BM1 - Introduction to Literature - Assignment 1]] - and if you take a look at its discussion page you will even find a discussion of the solutions we then received. Yet the best preparation was to be found in our courses where we asked such questions and where we gave you opportunities to test model solutions. All you have to do is think of which answers of your fellow students you found elucidating... best, --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 18:51, 25 April 2008 (CEST)

==Question 4==

I asked Anna (how are we supposed to address you) after the last seminar whether we should write a text or headwords (stichpunkte)...

She immediately answered: Text! :-) --[[User:Karsten Woll|Karsten Woll]] 08:57, 26 April 2008 (CEST)

==Word question==

I got difficulties with the word "coopt"... i know what it means but in combination with love it seems to be a false declination... can't really figure out what it should mean in this case. --[[User:Karsten Woll|Karsten Woll]] 08:57, 26 April 2008 (CEST)

I paraphrased "coop" with "to be in": "Love was in the charet of her eye". I'm not sure, whether it is correct, but it makes sense (at least for me). --[[User:Alena Ruether|Alena Ruether]] 14:23, 26 April 2008 (CEST)

== Understanding problem ==

Is there anybody who understands the second and third quatrain?
I got some problems understanding those stanzas, because I don' t know who is talking to whom, especially in the third stanza?

Maybe there is someone who has a clue!

I would appreciate it!

"love" i guess is referring to Cupid (Armor)
so "quoth HE" is Cupid and Cupid is talking to the speaker,
in the second stanza the speaker is still talking about him falling in love!
At least that's what i'm thinking... --[[User:Karsten Woll|Karsten Woll]] 16:58, 26 April 2008 (CEST)

Well,why should it be Cupid? There are absolutely no signs pointed out that it is possibly him.
Indeed that line is special cause someone else is talking but you get the answer from the speaker himself who is talking...line13: ''Imperious God''. And Cupid is definitely not imperious as he is just one of some hundred Roman gods. Just one advice guys: Widen your horizone a little more and dont only stick to the love topic in that poem. It carries far more than simple expression of feelings! Cheerz --[[User:Jessika Thiele]] 09:42, 27 April 2008 (CEST)

Because there is a prayer to god in the couplet, I thought that because the speaker has suspitions and bold presumptions there is something not that good as it seems in the beginning!

Line 1:'... and yet unhappie hour' --> something is wrong or went wrong and I mean why should love coop behind chariots if everything is allright! I thought god is giving some kind of answer and now the speaker in line 9 asks god if he really should just look and not practise!?

Firts I thought of some kind of challenging of god, in the way of 'I should just look at you and not practise other godesses! But I don't know how to prove this idea!

But the thing is, in any case, that something isn't right! line3 'sweetest soure'

==Question of length==

Is it possible to answer the complete assignment on circa one page! If we give precise answers this should be satisfying, shouldn't it? Please answer A.S.A.P because now I got still time to do more!
Thanks --[[User:Karsten Woll|Karsten Woll]] 19:22, 26 April 2008 (CEST)

== Word question 2 ==

Does anybody know what chariot also means because I just find the translation 'STreitwagen' and that doesn't fit, I think. I mean 'Liebe wurde hinter dem Streitwagen ihrer Augen eingesperrt'?!

== feet problem ==

If there are 11 syllables are there 6 feet or 5? I thought 2 syllables = 1 feet and that would mean
11 syllables = 6 feet!

Talk:2008 BM1 Assignment 1: Poetry

2008-04-27T10:23:47Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg: /* Word question 2 */

==Test==
I won't be able to come in next time. Cheers. [[User:Corinna Brinkmann|Corinna Brinkmann]] 12:36, 9 April 2008 (CEST)

== Assignment 1, Question 3 ==

Are we supposed to interpret the metre and rhyme scheme with regard to the content or shall we only name these? Alena Ruether
:"Comment on" is a bit more than just "name" yet less then "write a full blown interpretation". --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 15:09, 24 April 2008 (CEST)

==Another Question==

But how much more, do we have to do?

I am right now working with the poem and I have some problems with the word 'comment' and 'identify'!
Does 'identify' mean we are just supposed to declare which sections or addressee we have found out?
And does 'comment' mean we shall find out the metre and rhyme scheme and afterwards say what is special about it? Or shall we also say what influence differences in metre or something else have on the poem?

I am a little scared to hand in my assignment, because it seems to me that I don't know how to begin!

:A couple of links: [[Survive Assignments]] gives you some general remarks. This is the last year's assignment: [[BM1 - Introduction to Literature - Assignment 1]] - and if you take a look at its discussion page you will even find a discussion of the solutions we then received. Yet the best preparation was to be found in our courses where we asked such questions and where we gave you opportunities to test model solutions. All you have to do is think of which answers of your fellow students you found elucidating... best, --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 18:51, 25 April 2008 (CEST)

==Question 4==

I asked Anna (how are we supposed to address you) after the last seminar whether we should write a text or headwords (stichpunkte)...

She immediately answered: Text! :-) --[[User:Karsten Woll|Karsten Woll]] 08:57, 26 April 2008 (CEST)

==Word question==

I got difficulties with the word "coopt"... i know what it means but in combination with love it seems to be a false declination... can't really figure out what it should mean in this case. --[[User:Karsten Woll|Karsten Woll]] 08:57, 26 April 2008 (CEST)

I paraphrased "coop" with "to be in": "Love was in the charet of her eye". I'm not sure, whether it is correct, but it makes sense (at least for me). --[[User:Alena Ruether|Alena Ruether]] 14:23, 26 April 2008 (CEST)

== Understanding problem ==

Is there anybody who understands the second and third quatrain?
I got some problems understanding those stanzas, because I don' t know who is talking to whom, especially in the third stanza?

Maybe there is someone who has a clue!

I would appreciate it!

"love" i guess is referring to Cupid (Armor)
so "quoth HE" is Cupid and Cupid is talking to the speaker,
in the second stanza the speaker is still talking about him falling in love!
At least that's what i'm thinking... --[[User:Karsten Woll|Karsten Woll]] 16:58, 26 April 2008 (CEST)

Well,why should it be Cupid? There are absolutely no signs pointed out that it is possibly him.
Indeed that line is special cause someone else is talking but you get the answer from the speaker himself who is talking...line13: ''Imperious God''. And Cupid is definitely not imperious as he is just one of some hundred Roman gods. Just one advice guys: Widen your horizone a little more and dont only stick to the love topic in that poem. It carries far more than simple expression of feelings! Cheerz --[[User:Jessika Thiele]] 09:42, 27 April 2008 (CEST)

Because there is a prayer to god in the couplet, I thought that because the speaker has suspitions and bold presumptions there is something not that good as it seems in the beginning!

Line 1:'... and yet unhappie hour' --> something is wrong or went wrong and I mean why should love coop behind chariots if everything is allright! I thought god is giving some kind of answer and now the speaker in line 9 asks god if he really should just look and not practise!?

Firts I thought of some kind of challenging of god, in the way of 'I should just look at you and not practise other godesses! But I don't know how to prove this idea!

But the thing is, in any case, that something isn't right! line3 'sweetest soure'

==Question of length==

Is it possible to answer the complete assignment on circa one page! If we give precise answers this should be satisfying, shouldn't it? Please answer A.S.A.P because now I got still time to do more!
Thanks --[[User:Karsten Woll|Karsten Woll]] 19:22, 26 April 2008 (CEST)

== Word question 2 ==

Does anybody know what chariot also means because I just find the translation 'STreitwagen' and that doesn't fit, I think. I mean 'Liebe wurde hinter dem Streitwagen ihrer Augen eingesperrt'?!

== feet problem ==

If there are 11 syllables are ther 6 feet or 5? I thought 2 syllables = 1 feet and that would mean
11 syllables = 6 feet!

Talk:2008 BM1 Assignment 1: Poetry

2008-04-27T10:15:52Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg: /* Word question */

Talk:2008 BM1 Assignment 1: Poetry

2008-04-27T10:15:35Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg: /* Question of length */

==Test==
I won't be able to come in next time. Cheers. [[User:Corinna Brinkmann|Corinna Brinkmann]] 12:36, 9 April 2008 (CEST)

== Assignment 1, Question 3 ==

Are we supposed to interpret the metre and rhyme scheme with regard to the content or shall we only name these? Alena Ruether
:"Comment on" is a bit more than just "name" yet less then "write a full blown interpretation". --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 15:09, 24 April 2008 (CEST)

==Another Question==

But how much more, do we have to do?

I am right now working with the poem and I have some problems with the word 'comment' and 'identify'!
Does 'identify' mean we are just supposed to declare which sections or addressee we have found out?
And does 'comment' mean we shall find out the metre and rhyme scheme and afterwards say what is special about it? Or shall we also say what influence differences in metre or something else have on the poem?

I am a little scared to hand in my assignment, because it seems to me that I don't know how to begin!

:A couple of links: [[Survive Assignments]] gives you some general remarks. This is the last year's assignment: [[BM1 - Introduction to Literature - Assignment 1]] - and if you take a look at its discussion page you will even find a discussion of the solutions we then received. Yet the best preparation was to be found in our courses where we asked such questions and where we gave you opportunities to test model solutions. All you have to do is think of which answers of your fellow students you found elucidating... best, --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 18:51, 25 April 2008 (CEST)

==Question 4==

I asked Anna (how are we supposed to address you) after the last seminar whether we should write a text or headwords (stichpunkte)...

She immediately answered: Text! :-) --[[User:Karsten Woll|Karsten Woll]] 08:57, 26 April 2008 (CEST)

==Word question==

I got difficulties with the word "coopt"... i know what it means but in combination with love it seems to be a false declination... can't really figure out what it should mean in this case. --[[User:Karsten Woll|Karsten Woll]] 08:57, 26 April 2008 (CEST)

I paraphrased "coop" with "to be in": "Love was in the charet of her eye". I'm not sure, whether it is correct, but it makes sense (at least for me). --[[User:Alena Ruether|Alena Ruether]] 14:23, 26 April 2008 (CEST)

== Understanding problem ==

Is there anybody who understands the second and third quatrain?
I got some problems understanding those stanzas, because I don' t know who is talking to whom, especially in the third stanza?

Maybe there is someone who has a clue!

I would appreciate it!

"love" i guess is referring to Cupid (Armor)
so "quoth HE" is Cupid and Cupid is talking to the speaker,
in the second stanza the speaker is still talking about him falling in love!
At least that's what i'm thinking... --[[User:Karsten Woll|Karsten Woll]] 16:58, 26 April 2008 (CEST)

Well,why should it be Cupid? There are absolutely no signs pointed out that it is possibly him.
Indeed that line is special cause someone else is talking but you get the answer from the speaker himself who is talking...line13: ''Imperious God''. And Cupid is definitely not imperious as he is just one of some hundred Roman gods. Just one advice guys: Widen your horizone a little more and dont only stick to the love topic in that poem. It carries far more than simple expression of feelings! Cheerz --[[User:Jessika Thiele]] 09:42, 27 April 2008 (CEST)

Because there is a prayer to god in the couplet, I thought that because the speaker has suspitions and bold presumptions there is something not that good as it seems in the beginning!

Line 1:'... and yet unhappie hour' --> something is wrong or went wrong and I mean why should love coop behind chariots if everything is allright! I thought god is giving some kind of answer and now the speaker in line 9 asks god if he really should just look and not practise!?

Firts I thought of some kind of challenging of god, in the way of 'I should just look at you and not practise other godesses! But I don't know how to prove this idea!

But the thing is, in any case, that something isn't right! line3 'sweetest soure'

==Question of length==

Is it possible to answer the complete assignment on circa one page! If we give precise answers this should be satisfying, shouldn't it? Please answer A.S.A.P because now I got still time to do more!
Thanks --[[User:Karsten Woll|Karsten Woll]] 19:22, 26 April 2008 (CEST)

== Word question ==

Does anybody know what chariot also means because I just find the translation 'STreitwagen' and that doesn't fit, I think. I mean 'Liebe wurde hinter dem Streitwagen ihrer Augen eingesperrt'?!

Talk:2008 BM1 Assignment 1: Poetry

2008-04-27T09:59:42Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg: /* Understanding problem */

Talk:2008 BM1 Assignment 1: Poetry

2008-04-27T09:59:28Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg: /* Understanding problem */

Talk:2008 BM1 Assignment 1: Poetry

2008-04-26T10:46:06Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg: /* Word question */

Talk:2008 BM1 Assignment 1: Poetry

2008-04-25T14:54:48Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg: /* Assignment 1, Question 3 */

Talk:2008 BM1 Assignment 1: Poetry

2008-04-25T14:54:39Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg: /* Headline text */

Talk:2008 BM1 Assignment 1: Poetry

2008-04-25T14:54:15Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg: /* Assignment 1, Question 3 */

Talk:2008 BM1 Assignment 1: Poetry

2008-04-25T14:53:51Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg: /* Assignment 1, Question 3 */

Talk:2008 BM1 Assignment 1: Poetry

2008-04-25T14:51:52Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg:

Talk:2007-08 BM1 Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 1

2008-01-14T10:59:13Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg: Excerpt, Abgabe?

== Style Sheet==

Wie werden mehrere Autoren eines Werkes aufgelistet?
Der erste Autor Nachname, Vorname, alle weiteren mit Vorname, Nachname - man trennt die Namen mittels Komma.
Vergleicht dazu nochmals das Style Sheet.
[[User:Florian Gubisch|Florian Gubisch]] 12:42, 18 December 2007 (CET)

== National License ==

I have just received my user name and password from Berlin but I am having difficulties accessing the information. When I click on the link for next week's materials and enter my information it says nevertheless that my access is denied due to server problems or my name is invalid. However, when I go to my account from the link www.nationallizenzen.de/einzelnutzer-anmeldung I can access the EBBO/ECCO site. BUT I cannot access the literature that is assigned. I type in the title of the literature but it says that it cannot be found.
I tried using the password and username which were given during the lecture but those are denied as well when I use the direct link on Wiki.
What can I do?
Thanks,

Kelly Jamison

:May be that is because the links I provided do already have the Oldenburg university access details in them - which might not match with your own log-in details. If you get into the EEBO or ECCO user-interface you should be able to find the titles with the regular search options.

:PS. As to accounts within our wiki - do please use real name accounts, i.e. [[User:Kelly Jamison|Kelly Jamison]] rather than [[User:KellyJ83|KellyJ83]] [http://www.wiki.uni-oldenburg.de/fk3/angl-am/index.php?title=Talk:2007-08_BM1_Introduction_to_the_Critical_and_Scholarly_Discussion_of_Literature%2C_Part_1&curid=2047&diff=6903&oldid=6608&rcid=6075]

:best --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 15:11, 27 October 2007 (CEST)

==Können wir auch einen bekannten Text exzerpieren, anstatt zwei Bücher zu lesen?==

Ein Buch müsst ihr lesen, eins aus der [[Exzerpt eines primär- und eines Sekundärtexts (unbenotet)|Liste]] (und selbst da erlaubt Anton Kirchhofer Teillektüren). Das andere ist ein kurzer Aufsatz und sollte drin sein.

==Werden in den Tutorien Beispielaufgaben für den "written test" besprochen?==

Wir bereiten euch auf den "written test" vor, die genaue Form steht momentan noch nicht fest. Man kann jedoch den letzten Test einsehen unter: [http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/downloads/test-bm1-2007.doc Test]

==Gibt es noch ergänzende Literatur zur Vorlesung?==

Zur Frage Geschichte des Literaturbegriffs gibt es [[http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/simons/marteaus-europa/085-set.html ein Kapitel meiner Diss]], dem ich in VL3 strikt folgte, um die Sache nachvollziehbar zu machen. Die Überschrift müßt ihr nicht weiter bedenken, das Kapitel stand unter einer REihe grundsätzlicher Erwägungen zum Umgang mit vergangenen Konzepten - hier das Link für das [http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/simons/marteaus-europa/bausteine-set.html ganze Kapitel]:

==Können wir die Exzerpte handschriftlich verfassen? und auf Deutsch?==

Die Exzerpte sollen Euch nahelegen, grundsätzlich während des Lesens mitzuprotokollieren, was Ihr da gerade aufnehmt. UNsere eigenen, die wir auf [[Excerpt]] als Muster gaben, sind in ganz unterschiedlichen Formaten verfaßt. Mitunter liest man auf dem Sofa zusammengekauert, da hat man keinen Laptop um dauern notizen zu machen, aber vielleicht ein Klemmbrett, und notiert was passiert - kostet zwa etwas Zeit, die spielt sich aber wieder ein, wenn man zu dem Buch etwas sagen soll und nun Notizen hat.

Macht das also, wie es für Euch praktisch ist. Wir werden Euch Feedback geben, ob wir denken, daß Euch das später noch mal helfen könnte.

==Wo finden wir die Texte der Liste "Literary Criticism"?==

Diese Aufsätze findet ihr in der Bibliothek (--> Tipp: Sucht nach den Hrsg. Felicity Nussbaum bzw. Eric Hobsbawm).--[[User:Christina Stindl|Christina Stindl]] 20:06, 17 November 2007

:Wir werden versuchen an diese Textze zu kommen - die Bücher sind prompt verliehen - unser Fehler, wir werden versuchen, pdfs zu erstellen.

==Different Version of the Rise of the Novel==

“Three different versions of the rise of the novel”

Version 1: The "rise of the novel" has been completed in 1700. This opinion is based on the fact that courtly "romances" were replaced by works of authors like Cervantes and Madame de La Fayette. Whilst "romances" inspired emulation (Nachahmung) of great heroes or laughter about ridiculous heroes (such as Don Quixote) "novels" offer an instructive moral in a surprising point. The topics of novels are mostly intrigues and scandalous personal affairs. Novels (i.e. short stories or what we today call novellas) were a European production. Boccacio wrote the most famous collection in the mid 14th century. Cervantes ''Novelas Exemplares'' (1613) took the next step. They established the term "novela", novel as generic term of the short genre that defeated the heroic romance. Adultery was a fashionable theme, the heroes of novels were mostly upper middle class, lower aristocracy (not Knights and their Princesses).

Version 2: The "first novel" was not the “novella” but ''Robinson Crusoe'' (1719). This statement is based on the findings of Ian Watt, who was able to view ''Robinson Crusoe'' as the first modern novel - the one that lead to titles like ''Middlemarch''. DeFoe's book was - in 1719 - rather a romance, a true history which smelled of fiction than a novel, yet it lead to a reform of novels. Novels became long stories of entirely new adventures. Richardson's ''Pamela'' was a breakthrough with the story of a young servant who had to reform her master, an aristocratic libertine. Richardson's novel influenced other novelists and numerous dramatists. Lessing's Bürgerliches Trauerspiel is the successful attempt to create a dramatic equivalent. The new novel (now a long realistic yet fictional story) and the new drama shaped the new concept of literature created in the second half of the 18th century. Ian Watt recognized Daniel DeFoe as the first one, who introduced the typical (middle class bourgeois) hero. The individual as a member of the nation became a topic.

Version 3: Within the last thirty years, it has been realized that there existed novels before “Robinson Crusoe”. Scholars began to speak of "proto novels". This discovery gained momentum as it led to the discovery of female authors - like Aphra Behn, who wrote "novels" in the 1680s - in the 1970s and 1980s.

The three versions have different advantages:
*Version 1: Served (in the 17th century) as a justification of the European scandalous short story.
*Version 2: Turned “Robinson Crusoe” into the first modern novel (English literature became the leading force in European histories of literature).
*Version 3: Turned female authors into “mothers of the modern novel” - an attack against male research brought forth by scholars like Ian Watt and J. J. Richetti (read his ''Popular Fictions'' 1968...)
It has to be taken into account that:
*these versions did not develop by chance
*all three versions are true (depending on the definitions of the terms)
*different versions pursue different goals
*you (can) define what you consider to be a novel or a romance (you can also critically write about the definitions others gave)
*there is no stability in the field of definitions

----

The text above is my revision of a version I found here before. You can take a look at my changes: [http://www.wiki.uni-oldenburg.de/fk3/angl-am/index.php?title=Talk:2007-08_BM1_Introduction_to_the_Critical_and_Scholarly_Discussion_of_Literature%2C_Part_1&curid=2047&diff=8528&oldid=8527&rcid=7706 compare] --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 18:28, 27 November 2007 (CET)

:oh my god.. I am sorry!! Considering to what you corrected, I guess it has not been the best idea to edit the "versions of the rise of the novel". I thought I got what you explained in the lecture but obviously I should look at it again. [[User:Gesa.draeger|Gesa.draeger]] 12:21, 29 November 2007 (CET)

::You should not be sorry at all! How can I see how much you understand of I lecture I give. Once you summarize it I see where I created problems, and then I can solve it. It would be the very best thing to do collectively: produce a common Vorlesungs-Skript, we read and correct it. You learn and we learn where we failed. This exchange is very much appreciated and I think it is useful to all the others. --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 15:31, 29 November 2007 (CET)

==Summary of the first Lecture on Periodisation==

With this text I try to summarize the ideas of the first lecture.

At first there were some generally known historical dates and facts presented in the lecture:

The English periods and their ideas (Middle Ages, Renaissance…) and some indications for the history of periodisation, which is mostly created in hindsight. These indications refer to the time before 1500 (a sense of unbroken continuity with Roman empire and society), from 1500 to 1650 (introduction of a three phased model: ancient-medieval-modern), from 1650 to 1750 (battle of the ancients and the moderns: proponents of the "modern age" claim to have gotten further than the ancients ever dremed they could get) and from 1750 to today (the Middle Ages are turned from a period of "gothic" barbarism and rotten monkish knowledge into a past Germany and the northern countreys can be proud of; modernity becomes a phase of intensified period-formation).

Looking for general tendencies in recent periodisations of the Anglo-Saxon canon the following three options can be noted:

* The early modern period is stretched back into the period other nations will note as their respective middle ages in order to include Chaucer, i.e. the period around 1350 as an early European renaissance (Boccacio and Dante become protagonists of the parallel Italian movement),
* to create long periods (like the “Early Modern Period”); and
* to create subdivisions under political headings (e.g. the “Tudors”).

After getting to know these “basics” we are invited to think about the sense and the effects of periodisations.

At first we wonder if structuring the past into periods really creates an accurate picture of the past, because there are some difficulties concerning periodisation.

To begin with there are different histories of literature which offer different periodisations so there is a continuous debate of how to properly understand and define different periods. Secondly a period’s definition predetermines which materials of a period are explored in which way. To make things even more difficult: periods can refer to periods of time and to styles and ideas at the same time. Once we speak of styles and ideas as the true essence of a period we can exclude materials which would fit into the time frame as being not typical of the period (or even as still belonging to the last or as already belonging to the next period). What happens for example to materials produced between 1680-1800 if they do not fit into a history of the enlightenment?

A special problem of any discourse about periods is its potential to provide ad hoc answers: An artifact has certain qualities? They can be immediately explained as qualities of the period. Does a chapter on the Elizabethan Age, however, actually “explain” Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”?

So all in all you can say that periodisation may narrow one’s view; it is possible that really interesting things which are not typical of a period will be forgotten and that you are hindered in exploring a new sense of things because you just search for typical features of the period; and all that although the structuring of the past in periods is not even stable and clear but varies all the time.
The consequence of all this is that you have to look further and that you may not be totally influenced of ideas of periodisation. Instead of this you should develop your own opinion and ideas and even crate your own periods. You should challenge the received notions and always think about what these notions are supposed to reach, why they are created in a certain way - so do not stop thinking about this and do not simply accept the given ideas.

I would be very pleased if my attempt to summarize the text would be commented. :-)

:I read through it and tried to clarify things here and there. All in all your summary proved, however, that you got the main messages. --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 17:53, 16 December 2007 (CET)

==Summary of the third lecture: The Rise of Literature, Part I==

'''Look back:'''

*History is no certain place but it is reconstructed
See:
#picture of the nine greatest heroes: Middle ages created the past in their own image
#16th century academic world created a past in which they put people into the newest fashion #19th century then tried to revive the middle ages

Conclusion: Re-invention of History is an arbitrary act, just as the setting of periods. The arbitrariness of periods can be best perceived in our own culture. We have created a debate in which we constantly label ourselves and others as proponents of ongoing, upcoming or past movements and periods. This has begun in the 1750s with the Enlightenment, the age of sensibility and romanticism as labels produced among contemporaries in order to play such roles as mainstream, the avantgarde, the defenders of traditional views etc. under all these ever changing labels.

*The construction and discussion of modern periods began around 1500
*The game of placing oneself or others under the label of a period, generation, or movement did not start until the second half of the 18th century

''Simple notion:'' Time changes, that`s why we speak of periods. The greater the historical distance, the greater is the chance that we arrive at an objective understanding of a period.

''Complex notion:'' The definition of periods is always an arbitrary act. Its purpose is to position others and ourselves in historical developments.''

'''New topic:'''

“What is literature?”

''Simple notion:'' Literature is the body of all written materials; we are naturally most interested in those texts which show a timeless power to fascinate mankind.

Literature is Everything written:
*Problem: we don't deal with everything written (ex. Phone books)

Literature is a smaller field of beautiful fictional texts
*Problem: what is beautiful? There are different views about what is beautiful

Literature is the body of all texts a culture primarily discusses, the body of all controversial texts, especially: of all texts with a deeper meaning (all those texts "which will always fascinate mankind" (and thereby create the "canon")
*Main problem of these definitions of literature: their circularaity: Once you discuss a text (as worthy to be discussed) it is a text discussed and hence literature according to the said definition.

Should not we look for a non-controversial definition?

The Answer ight be "no"
*The non- controversial definition is not of any interest!! It is exactly the controversy that characterizes literature as such.
*Different people with different intentions define literature completely differently: :*19th century Nationalists: most important works a nation honors as its text base :*Formalists: Texts which work on literary patterns :*Marxists: Texts which lead to the rise of the working class :*Proponents of the school of "New Criticism" (1920s): masterpieces of language composition :*Structuralists: the complex work
:*Postculturalists: works which resound in the universe of literary texts

''Complex notion:'' Literature is a body of materials we place into the centre of the literary debate- the discussion of “poetical” and “fictional” materials as “literature” is an invention of the last two centuries!

Literature therefore can only be defined in an evasive way as: *the nature of the literary text that is never fully understood *being too sublime in its beauty to be defined by words and concepts *being too complex in its construction to be easily understood *being to essential in its themes to be reclaimed and exhausted by any interest group

development of Literature as a science that cannot be clearly defined

'''2: Second Thoughts:'''
*we have to take into account that the materials we discuss as literature have not always been discussed as literature and have not always interested mankind!
*central terms:“literature”, “poesy”, Belletristik (german), fiction (English) can`t be used in the same context
:*yet are no synonyms / how do this different words of “literature” relate to each other? *materials we call literature could not be called literature before the 1750s *sciences were “literature”
*“poesy” comprised a number of now “literary” genres – novel was not among them and opera and ballet were ascribed to the “poetical” genres
*“belles letters” comprised a huge field of fashionable books ( Belletristik)

'''2.2: The production of the poetical genres:''' Aristotle’s ''Art of poetry''
*Aristotle was the first one who wrote about what we today conceive as "literary" genres. He himself spoke of poetical genres and did not include prose fiction (the novel) in his spectrum. The situation got more complex with the modern period. The opera became the most important poetical genre in the 17th century. Our presnt notion of "literary genres" is to a good extend based on an 18th century attempt to return to the Aristotlian pattern (and to exclude the opera). Unlike Aristotle the novel got, however, accepted as the modern epic. The whole concept of art Aristotle produced got lost. Fictionality became a far more important criterion of the poetical, now "literary" genres.

'''2.3: Fiction: Works with a deeper meaning:'''
*interpretations of literature began during the history of Romances (Pierre Daniel Huet)

'''2.4: Belles Lettres: the elegant market
*around 1760 there emerged a clash between the terms literature and belles letters *belles letters was seen as the elegant field of literature and dealing with the French market

'''2.5: Literature was the field of the sciences right into the 19th century:'''

The meaning of the terms “literature” and “art” changed tremendously over the past 300 years
*"literature" used to be the word for "learning", the sciences, scientific publications, "art" the word for human inventions and practical knowledge, man-made instruments

How can this change be explained?

Those who published literary journals and histories of literature found a wider audience for their works once they shifted the focus from the sciences and latest technical to works we today perceive as works of art and literature

The debate of Literature (initially the debate of the sciences) adopted ongoing debates of texts, their beauty, they controversial aspects, their deeper meaning and thus created a field of materials we today recognise as "literature" in the proper sense of the word. The new field needed a history the 19th century had to produce: it came to be produced as a variety of national histories serving the national school systems and the national audiences with a subject matter of intense debate

Consequences: When coming across materials published before the 1750s you have to be aware that *other discussions such as discussions abou religion were of far greater importance *“literature” as what we picture it today wasn`t the same before 1750 *materials published before 1750 might have had a far more controversial status

:again, I tried to clarify things here and there. Read the articles
:*http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literatur
:*http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literaturgeschichte

for more detailed information --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 17:53, 16 December 2007 (CET)

== Bibliographical Form ==

I find the idea of having to put citations in bibliographical form for a test unimportant. When one writes a bachelor/master/doctor thesis, one can easily look this form up and incorporate this style in the bibliography/footnotes. What also I find rather inconvenient is that at this University, the style sheet changes depending on the major you study and also on the topic. For example Literature's style sheet is completely different to that of Fachdidaktik, Music is different than English...etc. Perhaps I would find this task more valuable if the styles were universal.
In other words, I would much rather be tested on lecture materials than on bibliographical forms. I understand that this is being done to help prepare us for writing papers, which I and others really appreciate, but we have enough exposure to the bibliographical forms in our other classes (i.e. Portfolios for other basis modules and in the second half of this course)

==Prüfungsanmeldung?==

Ich habe da ein kleines Problem und zwar war ich heute in der Bibo und wollte mal nachfragen wie und bis wann ich mich für die Prüfungen anmelden muss. Da wurde mir gesagt, dass ich im Studip auf Prüfungen gehen soll und dort würde ich dann alle Prüfungen der Vorlesungen, bei denen ich übers STudip angemeldet bin, finden und könnte mich für diese anmelden. Zudem sei es so, dass man sich bis zu zwei Wochen vor Prüfungstermin für die Prüfung anmelden soll!
Da habe ich natürlich ganz stark gestaunt, da die Literaturwissenschaftsprüfung schon am 22.1.2008 ist und ich damit noch genau 18 Tage haben würde um mich anzumelden!
Also bin ich sofort, genau wie erklärt, im Studip auf Prüfungen gegangen und eigentlich müsste da jetzt auch schon die Literatuswissenschftsprüfung aufgelistet sein, jedoch ist sie das nicht!!??

Ich habe keine Ahnung, wie ich da jetzt vorgehen soll, brauchten wir uns vielleicht gar nicht bei Studip anmelden?
WÄre lieb, wenn jemand die Frage beantworten könnte !!!
Es ist ja irgendwie auch dringend...

lg
Lena

:Liebe Lena,
:eine eigene Prüfungsanmeldung findet nicht statt - Ihr müßt im BM1 über StudIP eingeschrieben sein.
:Gruß, --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 16:04, 6 January 2008 (CET)

== Excerpt, Abgabe? ==

Hey noch mal ganz kurz, wie soll das Excerpt eingereicht werden?
Getackert? Weil in einem Hefter oder eine Mappe soll es ja nciht sein!
oder einfach loche und dann mit so einemVerbindungsstück abgeben?
Ich hab keine Ahnung und hffe jemand kann mir noch so kurzfristig eine Antwort geben!?
lg
Lena

Talk:2007-08 BM1 Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 1

2008-01-04T17:30:46Z

Lena StÃ¼ttelberg:

== Style Sheet==

Wie werden mehrere Autoren eines Werkes aufgelistet?
Der erste Autor Nachname, Vorname, alle weiteren mit Vorname, Nachname - man trennt die Namen mittels Komma.
Vergleicht dazu nochmals das Style Sheet.
[[User:Florian Gubisch|Florian Gubisch]] 12:42, 18 December 2007 (CET)

== National License ==

I have just received my user name and password from Berlin but I am having difficulties accessing the information. When I click on the link for next week's materials and enter my information it says nevertheless that my access is denied due to server problems or my name is invalid. However, when I go to my account from the link www.nationallizenzen.de/einzelnutzer-anmeldung I can access the EBBO/ECCO site. BUT I cannot access the literature that is assigned. I type in the title of the literature but it says that it cannot be found.
I tried using the password and username which were given during the lecture but those are denied as well when I use the direct link on Wiki.
What can I do?
Thanks,

Kelly Jamison

:May be that is because the links I provided do already have the Oldenburg university access details in them - which might not match with your own log-in details. If you get into the EEBO or ECCO user-interface you should be able to find the titles with the regular search options.

:PS. As to accounts within our wiki - do please use real name accounts, i.e. [[User:Kelly Jamison|Kelly Jamison]] rather than [[User:KellyJ83|KellyJ83]] [http://www.wiki.uni-oldenburg.de/fk3/angl-am/index.php?title=Talk:2007-08_BM1_Introduction_to_the_Critical_and_Scholarly_Discussion_of_Literature%2C_Part_1&curid=2047&diff=6903&oldid=6608&rcid=6075]

:best --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 15:11, 27 October 2007 (CEST)

==Können wir auch einen bekannten Text exzerpieren, anstatt zwei Bücher zu lesen?==

Ein Buch müsst ihr lesen, eins aus der [[Exzerpt eines primär- und eines Sekundärtexts (unbenotet)|Liste]] (und selbst da erlaubt Anton Kirchhofer Teillektüren). Das andere ist ein kurzer Aufsatz und sollte drin sein.

==Werden in den Tutorien Beispielaufgaben für den "written test" besprochen?==

Wir bereiten euch auf den "written test" vor, die genaue Form steht momentan noch nicht fest. Man kann jedoch den letzten Test einsehen unter: [http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/downloads/test-bm1-2007.doc Test]

==Gibt es noch ergänzende Literatur zur Vorlesung?==

Zur Frage Geschichte des Literaturbegriffs gibt es [[http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/simons/marteaus-europa/085-set.html ein Kapitel meiner Diss]], dem ich in VL3 strikt folgte, um die Sache nachvollziehbar zu machen. Die Überschrift müßt ihr nicht weiter bedenken, das Kapitel stand unter einer REihe grundsätzlicher Erwägungen zum Umgang mit vergangenen Konzepten - hier das Link für das [http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/simons/marteaus-europa/bausteine-set.html ganze Kapitel]:

==Können wir die Exzerpte handschriftlich verfassen? und auf Deutsch?==

Die Exzerpte sollen Euch nahelegen, grundsätzlich während des Lesens mitzuprotokollieren, was Ihr da gerade aufnehmt. UNsere eigenen, die wir auf [[Excerpt]] als Muster gaben, sind in ganz unterschiedlichen Formaten verfaßt. Mitunter liest man auf dem Sofa zusammengekauert, da hat man keinen Laptop um dauern notizen zu machen, aber vielleicht ein Klemmbrett, und notiert was passiert - kostet zwa etwas Zeit, die spielt sich aber wieder ein, wenn man zu dem Buch etwas sagen soll und nun Notizen hat.

Macht das also, wie es für Euch praktisch ist. Wir werden Euch Feedback geben, ob wir denken, daß Euch das später noch mal helfen könnte.

==Wo finden wir die Texte der Liste "Literary Criticism"?==

Diese Aufsätze findet ihr in der Bibliothek (--> Tipp: Sucht nach den Hrsg. Felicity Nussbaum bzw. Eric Hobsbawm).--[[User:Christina Stindl|Christina Stindl]] 20:06, 17 November 2007

:Wir werden versuchen an diese Textze zu kommen - die Bücher sind prompt verliehen - unser Fehler, wir werden versuchen, pdfs zu erstellen.

==Different Version of the Rise of the Novel==

“Three different versions of the rise of the novel”

Version 1: The "rise of the novel" has been completed in 1700. This opinion is based on the fact that courtly "romances" were replaced by works of authors like Cervantes and Madame de La Fayette. Whilst "romances" inspired emulation (Nachahmung) of great heroes or laughter about ridiculous heroes (such as Don Quixote) "novels" offer an instructive moral in a surprising point. The topics of novels are mostly intrigues and scandalous personal affairs. Novels (i.e. short stories or what we today call novellas) were a European production. Boccacio wrote the most famous collection in the mid 14th century. Cervantes ''Novelas Exemplares'' (1613) took the next step. They established the term "novela", novel as generic term of the short genre that defeated the heroic romance. Adultery was a fashionable theme, the heroes of novels were mostly upper middle class, lower aristocracy (not Knights and their Princesses).

Version 2: The "first novel" was not the “novella” but ''Robinson Crusoe'' (1719). This statement is based on the findings of Ian Watt, who was able to view ''Robinson Crusoe'' as the first modern novel - the one that lead to titles like ''Middlemarch''. DeFoe's book was - in 1719 - rather a romance, a true history which smelled of fiction than a novel, yet it lead to a reform of novels. Novels became long stories of entirely new adventures. Richardson's ''Pamela'' was a breakthrough with the story of a young servant who had to reform her master, an aristocratic libertine. Richardson's novel influenced other novelists and numerous dramatists. Lessing's Bürgerliches Trauerspiel is the successful attempt to create a dramatic equivalent. The new novel (now a long realistic yet fictional story) and the new drama shaped the new concept of literature created in the second half of the 18th century. Ian Watt recognized Daniel DeFoe as the first one, who introduced the typical (middle class bourgeois) hero. The individual as a member of the nation became a topic.

Version 3: Within the last thirty years, it has been realized that there existed novels before “Robinson Crusoe”. Scholars began to speak of "proto novels". This discovery gained momentum as it led to the discovery of female authors - like Aphra Behn, who wrote "novels" in the 1680s - in the 1970s and 1980s.

The three versions have different advantages:
*Version 1: Served (in the 17th century) as a justification of the European scandalous short story.
*Version 2: Turned “Robinson Crusoe” into the first modern novel (English literature became the leading force in European histories of literature).
*Version 3: Turned female authors into “mothers of the modern novel” - an attack against male research brought forth by scholars like Ian Watt and J. J. Richetti (read his ''Popular Fictions'' 1968...)
It has to be taken into account that:
*these versions did not develop by chance
*all three versions are true (depending on the definitions of the terms)
*different versions pursue different goals
*you (can) define what you consider to be a novel or a romance (you can also critically write about the definitions others gave)
*there is no stability in the field of definitions

----

The text above is my revision of a version I found here before. You can take a look at my changes: [http://www.wiki.uni-oldenburg.de/fk3/angl-am/index.php?title=Talk:2007-08_BM1_Introduction_to_the_Critical_and_Scholarly_Discussion_of_Literature%2C_Part_1&curid=2047&diff=8528&oldid=8527&rcid=7706 compare] --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 18:28, 27 November 2007 (CET)

:oh my god.. I am sorry!! Considering to what you corrected, I guess it has not been the best idea to edit the "versions of the rise of the novel". I thought I got what you explained in the lecture but obviously I should look at it again. [[User:Gesa.draeger|Gesa.draeger]] 12:21, 29 November 2007 (CET)

::You should not be sorry at all! How can I see how much you understand of I lecture I give. Once you summarize it I see where I created problems, and then I can solve it. It would be the very best thing to do collectively: produce a common Vorlesungs-Skript, we read and correct it. You learn and we learn where we failed. This exchange is very much appreciated and I think it is useful to all the others. --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 15:31, 29 November 2007 (CET)

==Summary of the first Lecture on Periodisation==

With this text I try to summarize the ideas of the first lecture.

At first there were some generally known historical dates and facts presented in the lecture:

The English periods and their ideas (Middle Ages, Renaissance…) and some indications for the history of periodisation, which is mostly created in hindsight. These indications refer to the time before 1500 (a sense of unbroken continuity with Roman empire and society), from 1500 to 1650 (introduction of a three phased model: ancient-medieval-modern), from 1650 to 1750 (battle of the ancients and the moderns: proponents of the "modern age" claim to have gotten further than the ancients ever dremed they could get) and from 1750 to today (the Middle Ages are turned from a period of "gothic" barbarism and rotten monkish knowledge into a past Germany and the northern countreys can be proud of; modernity becomes a phase of intensified period-formation).

Looking for general tendencies in recent periodisations of the Anglo-Saxon canon the following three options can be noted:

* The early modern period is stretched back into the period other nations will note as their respective middle ages in order to include Chaucer, i.e. the period around 1350 as an early European renaissance (Boccacio and Dante become protagonists of the parallel Italian movement),
* to create long periods (like the “Early Modern Period”); and
* to create subdivisions under political headings (e.g. the “Tudors”).

After getting to know these “basics” we are invited to think about the sense and the effects of periodisations.

At first we wonder if structuring the past into periods really creates an accurate picture of the past, because there are some difficulties concerning periodisation.

To begin with there are different histories of literature which offer different periodisations so there is a continuous debate of how to properly understand and define different periods. Secondly a period’s definition predetermines which materials of a period are explored in which way. To make things even more difficult: periods can refer to periods of time and to styles and ideas at the same time. Once we speak of styles and ideas as the true essence of a period we can exclude materials which would fit into the time frame as being not typical of the period (or even as still belonging to the last or as already belonging to the next period). What happens for example to materials produced between 1680-1800 if they do not fit into a history of the enlightenment?

A special problem of any discourse about periods is its potential to provide ad hoc answers: An artifact has certain qualities? They can be immediately explained as qualities of the period. Does a chapter on the Elizabethan Age, however, actually “explain” Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”?

So all in all you can say that periodisation may narrow one’s view; it is possible that really interesting things which are not typical of a period will be forgotten and that you are hindered in exploring a new sense of things because you just search for typical features of the period; and all that although the structuring of the past in periods is not even stable and clear but varies all the time.
The consequence of all this is that you have to look further and that you may not be totally influenced of ideas of periodisation. Instead of this you should develop your own opinion and ideas and even crate your own periods. You should challenge the received notions and always think about what these notions are supposed to reach, why they are created in a certain way - so do not stop thinking about this and do not simply accept the given ideas.

I would be very pleased if my attempt to summarize the text would be commented. :-)

:I read through it and tried to clarify things here and there. All in all your summary proved, however, that you got the main messages. --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 17:53, 16 December 2007 (CET)

==Summary of the third lecture: The Rise of Literature, Part I==

'''Look back:'''

*History is no certain place but it is reconstructed
See:
#picture of the nine greatest heroes: Middle ages created the past in their own image
#16th century academic world created a past in which they put people into the newest fashion #19th century then tried to revive the middle ages

Conclusion: Re-invention of History is an arbitrary act, just as the setting of periods. The arbitrariness of periods can be best perceived in our own culture. We have created a debate in which we constantly label ourselves and others as proponents of ongoing, upcoming or past movements and periods. This has begun in the 1750s with the Enlightenment, the age of sensibility and romanticism as labels produced among contemporaries in order to play such roles as mainstream, the avantgarde, the defenders of traditional views etc. under all these ever changing labels.

*The construction and discussion of modern periods began around 1500
*The game of placing oneself or others under the label of a period, generation, or movement did not start until the second half of the 18th century

''Simple notion:'' Time changes, that`s why we speak of periods. The greater the historical distance, the greater is the chance that we arrive at an objective understanding of a period.

''Complex notion:'' The definition of periods is always an arbitrary act. Its purpose is to position others and ourselves in historical developments.''

'''New topic:'''

“What is literature?”

''Simple notion:'' Literature is the body of all written materials; we are naturally most interested in those texts which show a timeless power to fascinate mankind.

Literature is Everything written:
*Problem: we don't deal with everything written (ex. Phone books)

Literature is a smaller field of beautiful fictional texts
*Problem: what is beautiful? There are different views about what is beautiful

Literature is the body of all texts a culture primarily discusses, the body of all controversial texts, especially: of all texts with a deeper meaning (all those texts "which will always fascinate mankind" (and thereby create the "canon")
*Main problem of these definitions of literature: their circularaity: Once you discuss a text (as worthy to be discussed) it is a text discussed and hence literature according to the said definition.

Should not we look for a non-controversial definition?

The Answer ight be "no"
*The non- controversial definition is not of any interest!! It is exactly the controversy that characterizes literature as such.
*Different people with different intentions define literature completely differently: :*19th century Nationalists: most important works a nation honors as its text base :*Formalists: Texts which work on literary patterns :*Marxists: Texts which lead to the rise of the working class :*Proponents of the school of "New Criticism" (1920s): masterpieces of language composition :*Structuralists: the complex work
:*Postculturalists: works which resound in the universe of literary texts

''Complex notion:'' Literature is a body of materials we place into the centre of the literary debate- the discussion of “poetical” and “fictional” materials as “literature” is an invention of the last two centuries!

Literature therefore can only be defined in an evasive way as: *the nature of the literary text that is never fully understood *being too sublime in its beauty to be defined by words and concepts *being too complex in its construction to be easily understood *being to essential in its themes to be reclaimed and exhausted by any interest group

development of Literature as a science that cannot be clearly defined

'''2: Second Thoughts:'''
*we have to take into account that the materials we discuss as literature have not always been discussed as literature and have not always interested mankind!
*central terms:“literature”, “poesy”, Belletristik (german), fiction (English) can`t be used in the same context
:*yet are no synonyms / how do this different words of “literature” relate to each other? *materials we call literature could not be called literature before the 1750s *sciences were “literature”
*“poesy” comprised a number of now “literary” genres – novel was not among them and opera and ballet were ascribed to the “poetical” genres
*“belles letters” comprised a huge field of fashionable books ( Belletristik)

'''2.2: The production of the poetical genres:''' Aristotle’s ''Art of poetry''
*Aristotle was the first one who wrote about what we today conceive as "literary" genres. He himself spoke of poetical genres and did not include prose fiction (the novel) in his spectrum. The situation got more complex with the modern period. The opera became the most important poetical genre in the 17th century. Our presnt notion of "literary genres" is to a good extend based on an 18th century attempt to return to the Aristotlian pattern (and to exclude the opera). Unlike Aristotle the novel got, however, accepted as the modern epic. The whole concept of art Aristotle produced got lost. Fictionality became a far more important criterion of the poetical, now "literary" genres.

'''2.3: Fiction: Works with a deeper meaning:'''
*interpretations of literature began during the history of Romances (Pierre Daniel Huet)

'''2.4: Belles Lettres: the elegant market
*around 1760 there emerged a clash between the terms literature and belles letters *belles letters was seen as the elegant field of literature and dealing with the French market

'''2.5: Literature was the field of the sciences right into the 19th century:'''

The meaning of the terms “literature” and “art” changed tremendously over the past 300 years
*"literature" used to be the word for "learning", the sciences, scientific publications, "art" the word for human inventions and practical knowledge, man-made instruments

How can this change be explained?

Those who published literary journals and histories of literature found a wider audience for their works once they shifted the focus from the sciences and latest technical to works we today perceive as works of art and literature

The debate of Literature (initially the debate of the sciences) adopted ongoing debates of texts, their beauty, they controversial aspects, their deeper meaning and thus created a field of materials we today recognise as "literature" in the proper sense of the word. The new field needed a history the 19th century had to produce: it came to be produced as a variety of national histories serving the national school systems and the national audiences with a subject matter of intense debate

Consequences: When coming across materials published before the 1750s you have to be aware that *other discussions such as discussions abou religion were of far greater importance *“literature” as what we picture it today wasn`t the same before 1750 *materials published before 1750 might have had a far more controversial status

:again, I tried to clarify things here and there. Read the articles
:*http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literatur
:*http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literaturgeschichte

for more detailed information --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 17:53, 16 December 2007 (CET)

== Bibliographical Form ==

I find the idea of having to put citations in bibliographical form for a test unimportant. When one writes a bachelor/master/doctor thesis, one can easily look this form up and incorporate this style in the bibliography/footnotes. What also I find rather inconvenient is that at this University, the style sheet changes depending on the major you study and also on the topic. For example Literature's style sheet is completely different to that of Fachdidaktik, Music is different than English...etc. Perhaps I would find this task more valuable if the styles were universal.
In other words, I would much rather be tested on lecture materials than on bibliographical forms. I understand that this is being done to help prepare us for writing papers, which I and others really appreciate, but we have enough exposure to the bibliographical forms in our other classes (i.e. Portfolios for other basis modules and in the second half of this course)

Ich habe da ein kleines Problem und zwar war ich heute in der Bibo und wollte mal nachfragen wie und bis wann ich mich für die Prüfungen anmelden muss. Da wurde mir gesagt, dass ich im Studip auf Prüfungen gehen soll und dort würde ich dann alle Prüfungen der Vorlesungen, bei denen ich übers STudip angemeldet bin, finden und könnte mich für diese anmelden. Zudem sei es so, dass man sich bis zu zwei Wochen vor Prüfungstermin für die Prüfung anmelden soll!
Da habe ich natürlich ganz stark gestaunt, da die Literaturwissenschaftsprüfung schon am 22.1.2008 ist und ich damit noch genau 18 Tage haben würde um mich anzumelden!
Also bin ich sofort, genau wie erklärt, im Studip auf Prüfungen gegangen und eigentlich müsste da jetzt auch schon die Literatuswissenschftsprüfung aufgelistet sein, jedoch ist sie das nicht!!??

Ich habe keine Ahnung, wie ich da jetzt vorgehen soll, brauchten wir uns vielleicht gar nicht bei Studip anmelden?
WÄre lieb, wenn jemand die Frage beantworten könnte !!!
Es ist ja irgendwie auch dringend...

lg
Lena