Some Guidelines for Writing a Good Paper
HOW TO READ
In order to write a good paper, you need to begin by reading both widely and deeply. That is, you both need to read a wide range of materials and you need to read some materials very carefully. Being a good history student requires you to do a lot of reading. It also requires you to read in many different ways. It demands that you keep scrupulously careful notes on your reading. You need to know the source of any information you have.
If you think of the different works you would use for a history paper, you should recognize that not all of them should be read in the same way. For instance, when you look up basic facts (such as, “What was the population of Chicago in 1900?”) in an encyclopedia or other reference work, you need to make accurate notes and keep careful record of your sources, but you don’t usually need to consider why that book contains that information, or how that information was initially gathered.
On the other hand, if you were reading a primary source, such as the personal memoirs of someone who directed the 1900 census, you would need to be asking: why was this person writing this? Who was the intended audience? (Why and when was the memoir actually published?) Is there an overall argument that runs through the various anecdotes? What does this text reveal about the census director’s assumptions? (For instance, does he imply that immigrants always have large families, or that some groups of people were especially difficult to count because they moved so often?) In other words, when reading a primary source, you need to pay attention both to what is stated and how it is stated.
Finally, if you were reading a history book (or article in a scholarly journal) about the 1900 census, you would probably read it once just to learn some of the information it contains (for example, the name of the Census Director or the date of any riots or protest occasioned by the Census). You would then probably need to re-read it, in order to pay careful attention to the historian’s overall argument and his or her sources. What evidence does the historian use to support his or her assertions? Do you personally find the argument persuasive? Can you tell—probably from the introductory chapter or paragraphs—which other works of history or social theory have inspired this historian? REMEMBER: Historians argue with each other over how to interpret evidence left by the past. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking a historian’s argument is “just facts.”
HOW TO WRITE
Paper writing is more than a process of summarizing what you have read. Historians spend their time and energy arguing over ways to interpret texts, facts, and events in the past. In your paper, you need to ENGAGE with those debates. In other words, you need to develop your own argument based on the sources you have read.
It will probably help you develop your own argument if you start by concisely defining the key issue at hand. For instance, if you had been studying the French Revolution, you might begin with: "Albert Soboul argued that the French Revolution was a social revolution, but François Furet later asserted that it was a political revolution and, these days, most authors agree with the latter." You wouldn’t necessarily begin your finished paper with such a statement, but as long as you have those points clear in your own head, you have a good place to start. That is, you understand the overall framework within which arguments about the French Revolution currently occur.
When you find two historians at each others’ throats, it will be tempting to think that “the real answer is probably in the middle, or a combination of factors,” but if you want to make such a claim you need to think carefully about how you combine elements from two arguments. When one author says “yes” and another says, “no,” then the middle answer would be “maybe.” I hope I do not have to tell you that “maybe” is not really a very forceful argument!
You do not do yourself any favours by writing summaries of history books and you do not need to spend many words telling me "what happened." Papers written for a course have a very specific readership, and you can assume that the instructor reading your essay knows that there were revolutions across Europe in 1848, or that history is “incredibly complex.” However, you DO need to remember that many so-called "facts" are hotly contested, and so you cannot take it for granted that "barter is inconvenient” or that Napoleon was a military genius. Indeed, what you might do with either of those examples would be to write an essay exploring such platitudes. Who makes such claims and in what contexts? What has to be overlooked in order to make such claims? Neither “barter is inconvenient” nor “Napoleon was a military genius” is a historical claim. That is, while they may be asserted about various periods in history, neither takes the specifics of the past into account. Remember that the study of history is, fundamentally, the study of change across time. If you assert that barter is always, in all times and places, “inconvenient,” then you are not making a historical argument.
Here is a more specific example of how you might work from a textbook’s blithe assertion to your own argument. Imagine that you find the following statement: “Gericault’s Raft of the Medusa embodies the spirit of Romanticism.” This, I think, is a problematic claim, because it suggests that “Romanticism” (or, any other –ism) has a spirit, an essence, that exists outside of, and prior to, particular examples of that –ism. Nonetheless, you might be able to use this claim to your own ends by writing:
Scholars of Romanticism have long strained to give their esoteric topic a material form. Indeed, Smith even goes so far as to claim that Romanticism is "embodied" in The Raft of the Medusa--a painting striking for its very graphic depictions of many dead bodies. Are we then to conclude that Romanticism's body is, in fact, a corpse? In this essay, I look closely at three "typically Romantic" works and the criticism around them, in order to explore the intimate relations between "Romanticism" and death.
Such a paragraph could conceivably be the opening for a paper answering the question “What is Romanticism?” or even a paper on “How did artists cope with the desctruction wrought by the Napoleonic Wars?” (Though in the latter case, you would have to make it clear that the Wars ended well before that canvas was painted.) In the rest of your paper, you could examine the three works and major criticism of them [maybe three is too many for eight pages--better make it two], and then consider whether the name "Romanticism" was, itself, alive or dead. That is, in the early nineteenth century, did it convey meaning and a call to action (perhaps the willingness to sacrifice one's life?), or did it stink of the grave? To WHOM did it convey these meanings? What about today? Is "Romanticism" alive and well? (Surely some degree of vitality must account for all the folks who make their livings as scholars of Romanticism?) Do NOT feel that you would have to answer each of the questions just posed in order to write a good essay--these questions are suggestions, not commands.
In short, a good paper requires that you work through the implications of something you have noticed. To offer another example, you might be struck that Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities is pervaded with the language of theology. In a paper on Anderson's text, you would start by offering several examples, then concisely suggest your thesis (e.g., "For Anderson, nationalism is a new world religion, one that paradoxically pits its zealots against each other") and then elaborate on this idea and outline whether it enhances or limits his understanding of modern nation-state formation. Note, please, that I am NOT saying that this is the "correct" reading of Anderson's theological language. Indeed, an equally compelling analysis might posit that Anderson's language indicates his deep debt to the writings of Walter Benjamin, the early twentieth-century theorist and literary critic who was equally influenced by Jewish mysticism and Marxism. Okay, so if you have never read, nor even heard of, Benjamin, you are unlikely to make this argument. BUT, if you came to see me and said "Anderson keeps talking about the Angel of History--where is he getting this?" I would give you Benjamin's "Theses on the Philosophy of History" to read, in which Benjamin refers to that Angel. See how simple it is? You are interested in something, you ask me about it, I suggest something, you do some more reading, you have another idea, I give you some more suggestions. It is not easy to write an excellent paper but it is also not impossible. Yes, I do put a grade on your paper, BUT: the point of writing is to learn something, and the point of teaching is to help you learn.
ONE LAST POINT ON “HOW TO WRITE”:
Many students think that they should work in the following order:
1. read
2. decide what you’re going to write [make an outline]
3. write.
That plan has the advantage of seeming very clear and well organized, and it was probably the correct way to proceed when all papers were written by hand or typewriter. Now with computers, however, writing can actually be part of the process of deciding what you want to say. If you think of writing as a process, then you are less likely to panic in front of a blank screen. On the other hand, you will almost certainly need to go back and re-write your introduction once you realize—on page four!—what your best idea is.
VERY OFTEN, THE BEST WAY TO WRITE A GOOD PAPER IS TO WRITE ONE THAT IS MUCH LONGER THAN THE PAGE LIMIT AND THEN CUT IT DOWN.
A FEW THOUGHTS ON THE SO-CALLED "MECHANICS" OF WRITING
VERBS: Verbs are good. Go through a draft of your essay and circle all forms of the verb "to be." Try to get rid of as many of them as possible. Why? Two reasons: "to be" often indicates the passive voice, as in "Napoleon WAS defeated." What's wrong with that? Well, that "was defeated" conceals a rather important point: "by WHOM"? Granted, in some circumstances it may not matter who beat him, but in others--say in a paperthat might be on the Vienna Settlement, might be on Waterloo, and might be on French domestic unrest after 25 years of war--it helps your reader understand your point more quickly if you write: "An alliance of major European powers [or "The British commanded by the Duke of Wellington" or "The people of France, weary of war"] defeated Napoleon."
Avoid "to be" even when the construction is not passive, e.g., "Napoleon was a military genius." In such a sentence, you have not actually analyzed anything, or argued any point. Instead, you have merely made an assertion. Assertions, especially when platitudes, do not support your thesis. A paper that begins with the assertion of Napoleon's military genius, then describes a couple battles he won, and concludes "so, clearly we can see that Napoleon was a military genius" does not really make an argument at all. Since you begin by assuming his genius, what difference do a few battles one way or the other make? Note: an occasional counter-intuitive assertion CAN be very effective. For example, an essay that begins "Bonaparte may have been a military genius, but Napoleon proved to be a dolt" would immediately have the reader's attention.
SENTENCE LENGTH: When in doubt, write SHORT sentences, punchy and to the point. You are not going to fool anybody into thinking you are clever, just by writing long, run-on sentences. Winnie the Pooh is full of long sentences.
WASTED WORDS: You don't get very many--don't waste them by beginning sentences with phrases such as "It is interesting that..." "It is important to note that..." "It has been argued by many scholars that...." All such constructions waste the most important parts of the sentence: the subject ("It") and the verb ("is"). How much does the reader learn from "It is"? In nearly all such cases, you can cut the introductory phrase without losing any of the content.
WHEN DO YOU NEED A REFERENCE?
WHAT INFORMATION BELONGS IN A BIBLIOGRAPHY?