I found this section to be really interesting. After reading I really wanted to know what happens next. One part I didn't understand was the detail with which you described Russian society. I think it's all very interesting, but I don't see its relevance. Towards the end, I also didn't understand why Catherine would want to posture herself as more civilized than the French, but I suppose you'll elaborate more on that as you write more. Overall, I really liked you're style and I'm looking forward to reading what else you have to say.
Hey Jimmy, I thought your initial exploration of T.S's identity was really interesting! I also liked the section headings that you used. I would be careful with exploring other historical liars in the "Who was TS" section. The earlier part of your five pages seemed a little bit like a literature review. Perhaps if you have the literature review, then explore other travel liars, then look at T.S' identity you can better emphasize the similarities and differences between the travel accounts.
Hey Cameron, I liked your work so far a lot! I think you did a really good job of weaving together a narrative that described Russian society while still making the details relevant to your overarching topic - you tied it in especially well at the end. Though like Amir, I sort of wondered why you included the bit about being more enlightened than the French - could be a good piece of support for your argument but maybe you could work it in somewhere else, later. Mainly, I think you're going to need a good introduction that incorporates a little about each of smallpox, Dimsdale, Russian society, and English society, and if you're planning on starting with this section then you might need to rework the first bit a little to get it to lead nicely from that intro - you might also take a few of the anecdotes about Catherine from this section to put in the intro?
I think you did a good job of explaining your method, and you have a well organized progression for your argument
As a suggestion, I think, maybe, the discussion about providential narratives in general (if I'm remembering that right) doesn't really fit in with your discussion of "Who was TS." I think that might belong in your later section of comparing multiple accounts, while your discussion of actual slavery accounts should go right after your description of his ambiguous identity and adventures.
My favorite paragraph was the one discussing medicine in Russia simply because I did not know anything about it. I felt like the first three paragraphs that were background on Russia could have been narrowed down. It seemed like maybe more than was necessary. Also the I agree that I am not really sure what to think about your last paragraph about France. It seemed out of context of the rest of this writing. As well as I am unsure how you want to fit that into your paper as a whole, when comparing America and Russia?
It seems that your paper is pretty well organized and that you have a lot of information to share with us.
One suggestion I have is to explain a little more some of your points. For instance, when you mention that the captivity narrative influenced society you only point out its capacity to be interpreted differently by its historical context but don't go into much detail.
I really like the fact that you brought in Rowlie. I think that, if possible, you should definitely tell us how his contemporaries reacted to his story. I'm sure that some must have been offended by his conversion.
I liked how you broke your paper into sections. I especially liked how you really dived into who TS was, since that is essential to looking at the accountabilty of his travel writings. But, I thought especially your 2nd paragraph seemed unnecessary and broad. I don't think you need to go over all the different similar pieces of the time, and if you decide you want to include this information maybe try to frame it more within your argument.
I found this section to be really interesting. After reading I really wanted to know what happens next. One part I didn't understand was the detail with which you described Russian society. I think it's all very interesting, but I don't see its relevance. Towards the end, I also didn't understand why Catherine would want to posture herself as more civilized than the French, but I suppose you'll elaborate more on that as you write more. Overall, I really liked you're style and I'm looking forward to reading what else you have to say.
ReplyDeleteHey Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteI thought your initial exploration of T.S's identity was really interesting! I also liked the section headings that you used. I would be careful with exploring other historical liars in the "Who was TS" section. The earlier part of your five pages seemed a little bit like a literature review. Perhaps if you have the literature review, then explore other travel liars, then look at T.S' identity you can better emphasize the similarities and differences between the travel accounts.
Hey Cameron,
ReplyDeleteI liked your work so far a lot! I think you did a really good job of weaving together a narrative that described Russian society while still making the details relevant to your overarching topic - you tied it in especially well at the end. Though like Amir, I sort of wondered why you included the bit about being more enlightened than the French - could be a good piece of support for your argument but maybe you could work it in somewhere else, later. Mainly, I think you're going to need a good introduction that incorporates a little about each of smallpox, Dimsdale, Russian society, and English society, and if you're planning on starting with this section then you might need to rework the first bit a little to get it to lead nicely from that intro - you might also take a few of the anecdotes about Catherine from this section to put in the intro?
Hi Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteI think you did a good job of explaining your method, and you have a well organized progression for your argument
As a suggestion, I think, maybe, the discussion about providential narratives in general (if I'm remembering that right) doesn't really fit in with your discussion of "Who was TS." I think that might belong in your later section of comparing multiple accounts, while your discussion of actual slavery accounts should go right after your description of his ambiguous identity and adventures.
My favorite paragraph was the one discussing medicine in Russia simply because I did not know anything about it. I felt like the first three paragraphs that were background on Russia could have been narrowed down. It seemed like maybe more than was necessary. Also the I agree that I am not really sure what to think about your last paragraph about France. It seemed out of context of the rest of this writing. As well as I am unsure how you want to fit that into your paper as a whole, when comparing America and Russia?
ReplyDeletemackenzie Tudor
It seems that your paper is pretty well organized and that you have a lot of information to share with us.
ReplyDeleteOne suggestion I have is to explain a little more some of your points. For instance, when you mention that the captivity narrative influenced society you only point out its capacity to be interpreted differently by its historical context but don't go into much detail.
I really like the fact that you brought in Rowlie. I think that, if possible, you should definitely tell us how his contemporaries reacted to his story. I'm sure that some must have been offended by his conversion.
I liked how you broke your paper into sections. I especially liked how you really dived into who TS was, since that is essential to looking at the accountabilty of his travel writings. But, I thought especially your 2nd paragraph seemed unnecessary and broad. I don't think you need to go over all the different similar pieces of the time, and if you decide you want to include this information maybe try to frame it more within your argument.
ReplyDeleteMackenzie