Responses to First Drafts

Jenni-
The style of your paper is engaging- it’s very well written and reads like a story.

I know you were worried about it, but I actually am impressed with your introduction – it just needs a little refining. You repeat yourself a little in the first few sentences, using the words “evidence” and “tension” too often. Other than that – you simply need to flesh it out. I would recommend providing a minor but concrete example of what you’re discussing. It would help us get ready for the rest of the paper.

You go into a lot of depth about how the term “flapper” came to be, but I’m more interested in why flappers were assigned the title, “modern women.” Why did flappers become modern women (as opposed to another counterculture group of that time) and who decided that? Was it the media or themselves? Just something to consider.

I LOVE the scene of Betty slapping Waltham in the car in “IT” – it’s a great example for your argument, highlighting the fine line between modesty and modernity. You might also consider how this film (and this scene) would be received by an audience. Would they, like Waltham, be expecting more than a kiss? What does that say about the audience?

Currently, the section on sanitary products is slightly bare in terms of concrete examples, whereas the film section is rich in them. Is there any way you could include photocopies or full-context excepts of the ads?

Another suggestion is to keep track of citing your sources as you go – it could save you hours in the end, and help you keep your thoughts organized!



Alice -
(more to come on yours, but so far I've enjoyed it!)
Right off the bat, I need the basic information about the Pinkertons (which is currently around page 4). Other than that it was a national detective agency and that their name sounds really cool, I know next to nothing about them. If you break down the simple facts about who they were, how they were founded, where they operated, their influence, etc in the first few paragraphs, it will make it easier for me to understand your argument and subsequent analysis.

I loved the section about Pinkerton involvement in returning private property – it was interesting how you tied it to traditional American values of protecting their own property. I can’t wait to see the expansion!

Great integration of examples like the train robber that eventually turned over the money because Pinkertons had infiltrated every aspect of his life and his wife’s.

A question I would like to see clarified is why are the Pinkertons depicted as having more “legitimacy” (or in the case of the Samuels farmhouse – LESS respect) than any of the other vigilante groups they competed with, especially if in the end they were equally as violent? What made them get attention that other groups did not? Were those other groups always violent whereas Pinkertons BECAME violent?