Overview
The final paper for this course is a 6 to 8 page analytical essay due as a first draft no later than class on Thursday, April 26 and as a final submission on Tuesday, May 1.

April 26: We will devote some time--approximately 20-25 minutes--to the reading of drafts and discussing strategies for completing the essays as strongly as possible. Please bring at least one copy of your draft. You will have the opportunity to receive written and oral comments to aid you in a final submission. If possible, please send me an electronic file of your draft by email by Wednesday evening or early Thursday morning.

May 1: Since class does not meet on May 1, you are welcome to send the paper as an email or to post it to our course's sakai site in advance of bringing a hard copy (consisting of a brlef cover note, a penultimate editing/proofeading draft, and a final clean copy) with you on Thursday, when you take the final exam. In your cover note, discuss why you chose to submit the essay you did, noting specifically, in the case of a revised effort, what you did differently in this paper.

Note: no paper will receive a grade higher than a C + that is substantially deficient in required elements, including an informative title, a coversheet, a list of Works Cited, name and page number on each page, a proofreading/editing draft

Considerations
As I have noted in class, this final paper invites you to revisit a previous essay or, in consultation, to develop a new topic.

In revisiting a previous essay, your goal is to reframe (and re-purpose) the earlier paper either by refining your thesis or by addressing inadequacies in the support your brought to bear in support of a prior claim. In many cases, this slightly longer paper will benefit greatly from anchoring your discussion within an ongoing conversation about the text(s) you consider, especially by identifying existing critical perspectives (in print or otherwise) that you may use as a point of departure (e.g., "while critic X sees Yeats as a fatalist in poemY, I argue that...") or by developing a more substantive account of biographical, historical or social contexts that round our your critical effort. In any case, the task in this paper is to write not simply more, but better, that is, to demonstrate greater control (clarity, correctness) in matters of argument, style, grammar, and mechanics and, equally important, to show greater awareness of your audience and purpose. You might think of this third paper, then, as a revision that presents a more fully realized version of a previous paper, one that meets a higher standard.

Resources: the links to which I have referred in previous assignments and on the course homepage remain relevant and highly useful, including those that address properly employing MLA conventions when formatting quotes and supplying citations; developing a strong, arguable claim; and writing with clarity and grace.

Fair Warning
In addition to these, here are two resources dealing with academic integrity in the use of sources: a statement on defining and avoiding plagiarism (http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/plagiarism.shtml#original) and Rutger's policy on integrity (http://www.camden.rutgers.edu/RUCAM/Academic-Integrity-Policy.php).

Key points: when using more three or more words in succession from another source, quotes must been employed. When you communicate the substance of a source in a manner that communicates that sources ideas, whether in your own words or not, it must be cited. Too close a paraphrase, even when a citation is provided, is never acceptable.