It’s hard to exactly pinpoint when the idea for this final
paper really began. In some ways, it’s been building throughout this entire
semester, becoming refined in each of the smaller papers we have written on Alice in Wonderland. From talking with
Professor Burton in the paper conferences we've had after each one, I did start
this paper with the intent of talking about existential meaning in some way.
But I think the real beginning came as I went back to one of my favorite books,
The Count of Monte Cristo and wrote about why I love it so much. I think a lot of times, being English majors, we forget
this important detail as we get so focused in getting an essay done—that we
love books. In this whole process, the only thing that kept me from despairing
over my attempt to compare Alice in Wonderland to The Count of Monte Cristo was
the constant reminder of why I love the book: because of its fascinating
ending.
My initial thesis
was a bit of a flop. I was trying so hard to make the theme of existential
meaning work (from my second paper) that
I didn't really see my texts. I also really wanted to talk about Alice. I posted it on facebook (which was new for
me!) and our blog- and got little interest besides a comment which made me
wake up and realize my lack of attention to the texts. Also, Tori and Kimberlee
helped me see that I was trying to write two separate papers, rather than just
one with its set up. So I went back to the Count of Monte Cristo and came up
with a new question about the extent
of God’s action in Edmond Dantes life and posted it on Goodreads. I actually got some great feedback and used one of the
reviewers' answers in my final paper.Their answers to my question made me excited about the book again, and helped me explore other ideas, and from this crazy, colorful web of ideas, I found a much better thesis! I decided to compare The Queen of
Hearts and Edmond Dantes, which ended up being a fun and interesting
comparison.
 |
| The wonderful comment incorporated into my final draft |
As I started writing it, I hit some issues. Mainly, because of the fact that I had always
avoided the structure of a Comparison/Contrast claim and now struggled to
figure out how to write it so it flows rather than becomes a tug of war between
the two texts. Jose gave me some really good advice: he said that I needed to
use the same tone and make the texts dependent on each other.
I started researching
and found an amazing source that talked about God and 19th
Century French society. This source basically saved my paper on so many levels.
It backed me up on a hunch I had about instability in France relating 19th century French encyclopedia in
English, but Tori encouraged me to try the chat with a librarian app on BYU’s
Library page, and I eventually I tracked one down!
to
religion, and helped me make a direct connection to society and religion in
France. I could not find a 19
By the time we wrote our
little small paper and did a peer review in class, I had hit another snag—reluctance.
I had researched and focused so much on
the historical background of both England and France in the 19th century,
that once again, I lost track of the texts and my love for them, and began to
really despise the essay. In talking with Tori in class, her encouragement and
thoughts about how to get out of the historical hole I was in got me start to
climb out of it.
When it came to finishing it up and actually writing a final
copy, it was stressful and frustrating as always (not going to lie), but this
time I had more confidence and assurance that I could produce something great. And,
in the end, I think I did. You can check out my final paper here: The Delusion of Power. Let me know what you think!
What I learned from this experience:
-Remember why you love the text, don’t let the research or
other little aspects of writing overshadow that fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment