Hey Alice, So first, I would say none of this information struck me as irrelevant. If you are determined to cut your paper down, you could probably eliminate your explanation of the first East India Trading Companies of France, since they seemed like an unsuccessful bunch. The French-Austrian relationship up until the French alliance with the Ottoman Empire didn't seem terribly important. (As in you could probably eliminate everything pre1650s if you really wanted to) My one suggestion would be to keep weaving Chardin into your discussion. You do a great job of that towards the end, but if you could occasionally remind the reader of where Chardin fits in the timeline, it'd make your discussion a little clearer. Otherwise great job!
None of this information struck me as totally irrelevant either, and I think you did a good job of bringing over your previous focus of trade. In fact, after reading over your paper, points you've been bringing up in class have really come together for me in an overall picture.
A few suggestions, going off of Cameron's comments, the paragraph about the first East India Trading Companies of France and the French-Austrian relationship is very long, and I wasn't really sure how these topics were interrelated or why you couldn't break that up into two parts. Maybe the significance of the French-Austrian relationship would become clearer by being discussed on its own. Also, the fact that you start the paragraph with the fact that the first company folded very quickly doesn't emphasize the section's relevance to your argument.
Also, I really like the "wooing" of the Ottoman empire and the "special" friendship that developed between France and the Ottoman Empire :)
I liked the fact that you put in a lot of work into researching the society that produced a man like Chardin. However, I feel that some of the information is currently superfluous. Much of the minutiae about Cardinal Richelieu and the court of Louis XIV seems a bit unnecessary, but you could use it by tying it explicitly with Chardin and his writings. Overall, it's a very good start.
your research is very through to me. However I did think your paragraph starting on page 3, and the next paragraph on French East Indian trading companies were very long. This combined with the couple of intro paragraphs seemed to be a bit too much background information. Can you cut any of it out? Also might want to break up those paragraghs?
Great framing of this topic. It has good context and background. I really like the explanation of why France turned to the Ottoman Empire as opposed to the waters. I agree with everyone else that you will just have to wait and see towards the end for what information is a little bit extra. Nice job!
Hey Alice,
ReplyDeleteSo first, I would say none of this information struck me as irrelevant. If you are determined to cut your paper down, you could probably eliminate your explanation of the first East India Trading Companies of France, since they seemed like an unsuccessful bunch. The French-Austrian relationship up until the French alliance with the Ottoman Empire didn't seem terribly important. (As in you could probably eliminate everything pre1650s if you really wanted to) My one suggestion would be to keep weaving Chardin into your discussion. You do a great job of that towards the end, but if you could occasionally remind the reader of where Chardin fits in the timeline, it'd make your discussion a little clearer. Otherwise great job!
Hey Alice,
ReplyDeleteNone of this information struck me as totally irrelevant either, and I think you did a good job of bringing over your previous focus of trade. In fact, after reading over your paper, points you've been bringing up in class have really come together for me in an overall picture.
A few suggestions, going off of Cameron's comments, the paragraph about the first East India Trading Companies of France and the French-Austrian relationship is very long, and I wasn't really sure how these topics were interrelated or why you couldn't break that up into two parts. Maybe the significance of the French-Austrian relationship would become clearer by being discussed on its own. Also, the fact that you start the paragraph with the fact that the first company folded very quickly doesn't emphasize the section's relevance to your argument.
Also, I really like the "wooing" of the Ottoman empire and the "special" friendship that developed between France and the Ottoman Empire :)
I liked the fact that you put in a lot of work into researching the society that produced a man like Chardin. However, I feel that some of the information is currently superfluous. Much of the minutiae about Cardinal Richelieu and the court of Louis XIV seems a bit unnecessary, but you could use it by tying it explicitly with Chardin and his writings. Overall, it's a very good start.
ReplyDeleteyour research is very through to me. However I did think your paragraph starting on page 3, and the next paragraph on French East Indian trading companies were very long. This combined with the couple of intro paragraphs seemed to be a bit too much background information. Can you cut any of it out? Also might want to break up those paragraghs?
ReplyDeleteMackenzie Tudor
Hey Alice,
ReplyDeleteGreat framing of this topic. It has good context and background. I really like the explanation of why France turned to the Ottoman Empire as opposed to the waters. I agree with everyone else that you will just have to wait and see towards the end for what information is a little bit extra. Nice job!