Sorry it was tough getting my draft! I sent it out on Tuesday but I guess only Professor Hobbs and Brendan got it? I apologize for that.
These drafts, like last week's, were great to read!
Andrea- I love the use of Chestnutt's, Harper's and Hopkins's fiction as evidence for your claims on this transition-period black marriage. Like Jenni, you made the fiction really come alive as evidence here and I think it just worked perfectly, especially in comparison with the real-life stories. If you want to include the film though, I agree that it might be a bit tight for space. What about having Chestuntt + Haper + the film, rather than three pieces of fiction? They all seem too great to cut for me, but it would be a nice parallel to have two films covered. I think you could go either way.
The Du Bois-Cullen marriage was fascinating. It's a great example of marriages that were set up because they "ought to be" and for appearances. I would mention perhaps, even in just a sentence, that strangeness and importance of the that Cullen's sexuality was ignored and he married her anyway. Maybe this could've been an "uplifting" marriage as Du Bois had dreamed of, but certain complications (re: his sexuality, them being a terrible match as partners) got in the way.
It was great that you included the audience reaction to Pryor's performances! The comedy routines you include are both poignant, and entertaining, so I think including a couple more (short) ones like these would be great. The "surprise" value of your paper that you turn it back around and say that Well...these guys joked about it cause it was funny, but they too really just wanted stability and love, and no kidding.
Your paper is really well written and very compelling! I'm looking forward to getting to read the final one.
Tom:
Your paper is really interesting-- and has been particularly fascinating to read in conjunction with my own research on new conservatism. Here are just a few comments:
-I would mention that one of the reason Nixon won so resoundingly in CA in 1960 was that he was from CA.. That is definitely one part of the explanation of why SC and OC counties voted the same in 1960...1964 of course is a different story, and is your story, but I still think that detail is important.
-You certainly do not have to be completely chronological, but sometimes it's a bit confusing when you go from LBJ beating Goldwater, back to talking about when Goldwater won the primary in CA. When you go back and forth between time periods, just be really clear with your reader as to what's up.
-I think you did a really great job explaining why it was so important that Goldwater beat out Rockefeller... and I think you did a much better job than I did in my paper laying out a perfectly concise and clear description of what the New Right was all about!!
I think should tie this: "conservatives found a platform that resonated with modern middle-class Americans" back to an argument about why this was particularly compelling for Orange County residents.
-You have a ton of really great analysis of Prop 14 in the last part of your paper, and it seems like your argument is going to come together really nicely!
Chris-
I was a tiny bit confused by this early sentence: "immigrants faced hoops so hostile"
-You have lots of fascinating anecdotes that bring a lot of life to the paper ("Ah Charley" and facts like this). Your descriptions of the Stanfords and their life is likewise great!
-Watch out for the overly flourish-y verbal descriptions in the first paragraph a bit..."quashed the tide of Chinese".."surged into the Bay Area of California"..etc.
-Your paper has a wonderful narrative quality to it: you can really tell a story, and you have organized this beautifully. Your careful research has absolutely paid off---it is easy to tell that you put a lot of time into finding all this information. Paragraph after paragraph... so much rich detail (and a great title to boot...no pun intended)c
No comments:
Post a Comment