English 300
C. Knight

Rules for Writing Paper Topics


1. The topics should not primarily deal with such familiar matters as the analysis of character, a reading of piece of text, or an aesthetic appreciation. They may deal with historical connections (with the author's past or the author's present), or they may deal with large ideas of importance both in the literary work, in the period of the work, or, by way of contrast, with an earlier period (such as the period represented in the work).

2. At the same time, the topics should possible to discuss using the materials provided by the texts, handouts, and course packets for the course, although outside research would also be welcome. Thus you need to think not only about the definition of the topic but about the materials that might be necessary to discuss it adequately.

3. The topics need to be strong enough to generate a paper of at least five pages in length but sufficiently defined for a paper to more than ten pages in length.

4. Insofar as possible, the topics should be open-allowing more than one possible approach or answer. The topics should be written so that they make any necessary assumptions clear.

5. While you might well try to frame the topic that you yourself want to write about (and to convince me to include it on the final list), your topic should be one that anyone in the class might be able to use.

Three illustrative topics on Richard II:

1. Shakespeare's sources and the historical record suggest different possible accounts for the actual death of Richard. Discuss these different possibilities and their implications. Why does Shakespeare use the one he uses?

2. The historical Queen Isabel was about 10 when the events of the play took place, but Shakespeare and Daniel make her old enough to have a passionate and even sexual relationship with Richard. Why? Discuss her roles in and functions in Shakespeare's play, Daniel's poem, and the historical record.

3. In what respects can we think of Shakespeare's play as one that serves to support Queen Elizabeth (in short, as a highly sophisticated piece of propaganda)? Alternatively, in what senses can we see it as a distinctly subversive play? (Choose one alternative or the other or both.)

Return to Syllabus