Manuscript Evaluation Form

The assignment from Dr. Logan:


Dear LIT 6216 Scholars,

Thank you for agreeing to serve as manuscript reviewers for the upcoming conference “Early American Novel and the Nation.”  I attach a Reviewer Response Form, which I ask that you use as you review the manuscripts.  I request that you review at least two manuscripts.  In past conferences, writers have praised this conference for the detailed reviewers’ comments that have assisted them with their research and composing processes.  Please complete your reading of the manuscripts and return the sheets to the individual writers by 11/30/10.

Please fill out one Reviewer Response Form for at least two people, and make sure to post your own essay at the common area in discussions (under “Research Proposals and Drafts”).  (As well, please post these at your blogs.)  I am grateful for the spirit of intellectual community which pervades our classroom, and I hope that you will approach this process in that spirit.  


Best, Lisa Logan

LIT 6216:  Unruly Women in Early American Literature

Reviewer Evaluation Form

Call for Papers!  LIT 6216:  Unruly Women in Early American Literature.

The organizers of the LIT 6216 Scholars Group announce a call for papers to be presented at its final graduate student conference on Tuesday, December 7, 2010 from 7-9:50 p.m.  The conference will explore representations of women as transgressive or unruly; “unruly” is understood in a broad sense in the context of early American gender norms.  Topics might include women whose experiences were out of the ordinary (captivity, travel, etc.), women who broke laws or defied dominant cultural mores and/or values, cross-dressing women, etc.  Exploration of different textual forms  is welcome, including sentimental or historical novels, speeches, conversion narratives, crime and execution narratives,  short fiction, autobiography (including diaries memoirs, journals), biography, letters, poetry, etc.  Papers should engage with the scholarly conversation in early American literary studies, including a knowledge of the historical and cultural context in which the text was produced.   Please send questions and/or submit your abstract to Dr. Lisa M. Logan by 10/22/10 via email.

Conference format:  Papers for this conference will be circulated beforehand and discussed (rather than read) at the conference meeting.  Papers should be 8-10 pp. double-spaced using 12-pt. font.  (excluding bibliography/Works Cited). 

[Submitted 30 November 2010]


Instead of filling out the manuscript evaluation form via email, the class as a whole agreed to bring hard copies to our class on November 30, 2010 and read each other’s papers in person.  We were each responsible for reading two people’s papers – ideally someone with whom we shared a panel presentation, and the other selection was up to us.  It was optional whether or not as a reader you filled out the manuscript evaluation form or simply wrote your notes on the hard copy.


I read and evaluated the rough drafts by Blake, Lindsay, and Zach ahead of time so I wouldn’t have to deal with my own project.  In other words, I happily engaged in strategies of procrastination.  In class, I read Stephen’s paper, and I took home Jen’s paper and returned it to her on Thursday (the 2nd).  I greatly enjoyed reading the papers that I had time for, and I’m looking forward to everyone’s presentation during our mock conference.


My readers were Zach and Blake and I want to thank them for their thoughtful and helpful comments and constructive criticism.  An outside perspective is extremely helpful, especially when I’ve been involved with my text for such a long period of time that I forgot not everyone would know what a commonplace book *is* (Blake caught that issue).


I’m including the template of the manuscript evaluation form below, and then I’ll retype the notes from Zach and Blake.  (Blake’s notes are briefer because we ran out of time during class.)


My rough draft is here.






Manuscript Title: Bonds of Intimacy: The Female Homosocial and Lesbian Continuum in Milcah Martha Moore’s Book

Recommendation:
            Accept _____
            Revise and resubmit __X__
            Reject _____

Evaluation:  Please consider the overall effectiveness of the essay and how well it suits the conference forum (described above).  Here you will highlight the specific strengths of the argument and areas for revision.

Specific Suggestions for Revision:  Please describe specific points in the essay that will benefit from revision and make suggestions about how to undertake that activity.  Pay particular attention to the clarity, specificity, and strength with which the argument is advanced; the demonstrated knowledge of the text and period; the distinction between the writer’s views and those of other scholars; the development of each point of argument with textual evidence; areas in which the argument lacks cohesiveness, evidence, or precision; and the contribution of this argument to the field.  Please note broad areas in which the niceties of grammar, syntax, style of written expression, or MLA citation style need attention. 




From Zach:

• Opening paragraph: Nice stylistic choices, but watch parallel structures here.
• “non-traditional format”: which is?  May not need for educated audience.
• Second paragraph: Clear, concise thesis.
• Third paragraph: Nice contextualization.
• Reading practices, first paragraph: Add some contextualization for quote here (last line).
• —, third paragraph: Nice interpretation.
• —, fourth paragraph: Again, contextualize or tie this together with above, add your interpretation (last line).
• Female Homosocial and Lesbian Continuum, first paragraph: Use primary source instead. 
• “to which I disagree”: How, why?
• “be abandoned by their husbands”: Not something they can control, right?
• —, second paragraph: Forefront this to introduce the last paragraph, seems stronger explicit application (last line).
• FF poems in MMMB, second paragraph: Use MLA documentation for poetry.
• —, third paragraph: Add your own interpretation on how this supports thesis (last line).
• —, fourth paragraph: Good textual interpretation.
• —, eighth paragraph: Good homosocial example. 

General notes:

• Strong thesis, applications, organization.
• You may need to contextualize your citations a bit more, make explicit reference to your argument.
• Check MLA documentation for poetry, use primary sources if possible.
• You have a good knowledge of your subject and secondary material and your voice is strong throughout, excellent use of homosocial theory.
• For revision add more of your interpretations and critical work, the areas where your voice is represented is very strong.

Zach also reassured me that the section titles were helpful to the reader, so I’ll be keeping them (although I’ll fix the “FF poems in MMMB” to “Female Friendship poems in MMMB”).



From Blake:

• Opening paragraph: “kicked out”: replace with “excommunicated from.”  Mention that the friendship poems are a selective reading of Moore’s commonplace book.
• Second paragraph: I would put a sentence defining a commonplace book.