REL 3882 Spring 2010: Highlights and Lowlights of Paper 1

Let me start on a positive note. A good paper is well planned, and you should let the reader know what the plan is:

This essay analyzes the political aspects of the novel by trying to explain the ideas Orwell wanted us to understand in order to take his advice seriously. It examines the things that Orwell is trying to tell us, the reasons why he chose to tell them in a certain way, and what are the things we should not conceive of as the novel's objective.

I now know what to expect, and in what order. The next paragraph summarizes the novel:

One of the reasons why 1984 is such a masterpiece is that it accomplishes three purposes, political, literary and metaphysical, in one. The first two thirds of the book are a depiction of the type of world whose political features are in our best interests to avoid. The third part, whether purposely or not, raises some serious philosophical questions that point out the political implications of an age-old debate between realism and anti-realism.

There is one sentence here I would re-phrase: not "whose political features are in our best interests to avoid", but "whose political features it is in our best interests to avoid": "...it is in our best interests to..." is a rare use in English of an impersonal third person passive voice.

However, the main thing to note is that this avoids the trap many students fall in to of telling the story. You are not a high-school student trying to show you've read the book by telling the story, as if for a reader who hasn't read it. Assume that your reader has read the book, and knows that you know this. The summary here does not tell the story, but it offers a proposal about how the novel is structured - what is Orwell trying to achieve at each point? The final sentence is carefully qualified "whether purposely or not", indicating a matter that could be discussed later in the paper.

Now for a negative:

Don't just make assertions, give me arguments:

Or if we face a totalitarian revolution will we fight against it? Maybe I'm a bit fatalist but I believe that in both cases, interest will prevail over solidarity. Nowadays most of us live or strive to live hedonistic lives; we really do not care what happens to other people but ourselves ... Newer generations, such as mine, are ignorant or indifferent to political issues that should concern us all.

Why should I be persuaded by any of this? Just because it is cynical and well-expressed doesn't make it true. In this case, an interesting strategy is used to avoid the need to argue - the views are presented as a form of self-knowledge. If you criticise your own generation for political apathy, who am I to defend you? If you tell me you are a fatalist, how can I argue? But in a philosophy paper, it is never enough just to say "This is who I am, this is how I think, this is how it seems to me." You should not just be expressing your point of view, you should be trying to persuade the reader that this is the correct point of view.

Back to PHI 3882 Home