History
and Literature of the Theatre 2 History Paper Guidelines
This first paper is a research paper. While you may think that you have done
research papers before, chances are you were actually writing reports. This
is not a report, it is a comparative analysis of existing research on a very
specific topic.
The basic point of the paper is for you to find a relatively small question
on which there exists some sort of scholarly debate, present both sides of the
debate, and then come to a decision about which side makes more sense and why.
You are looking either for a historical debate, where scholars disagree about
the facts of something (why something happened, when something happened, what
was the first 'something', etc.) or a small interpretive debate (scholars disagreeing
about a playwrights meaning with a certain symbol or character, whether an aspect
of a play is autobiographical, etc.) In either case, your question must be small
- don't try to outline how two different scholars feel about an entire play.
Your first step is to decide on a very broad topic that you are interested in.
Pick a country and time period. Or pick a theatrical area (directing, acting,
design). Or pick a person from theatrical history you are interested in. Then
start narrowing it down. Without this narrowing process you will find this
to be a very difficult paper to write! Your question may focus on any period
of theatre history from the start of this class (Egyptian, or more likely Greek
theatre) through the end of the semester (i.e. about 1750). Hint: the further
back in time you go, the less evidence there is, and therefore the more good
questions. In other words, the further back in time you go, the easier the paper
will probably be. Example - hmm, I'm interested in Greek theatre - specifically
the audience, more specifically who was in the audience. Another example - hmm,
I'm interested in medieval theatre, more specifically religious theatre, more
specifically the beginning of it. (I give those examples because they aren't
from our time period.)
Once you have narrowed your topic to a very small area, you can begin reading.
If you have narrowed sufficiently, you shouldn’t have to read very much.
The goal with the narrowing is to make you have to do as little reading as possible!
For example - example 1 - I begin looking in the 18 million books about Greek
theatre. But I don’t have to read each whole book, only the part that talks
about the Greek audience, probably just a few pages, or at the most a chapter.
If you find that you are having to read a great deal, then obviously your
topic is too big and you should narrow further, based on what you have read.
Then you look for a question; a disagreement between scholars. Example 1
- hmm, this book says that women didn’t attend the Greek theatre. But
this other book says that all women had to sit in the back of the audience.
That's a disagreement. If you're lucky, and the works you are reading are recent
(which doesn’t necessarily mean their topic is recent) then scholars will
be honest and say there’s a disagreement. If you run into a sentence like
"Although so-and-so believes that women were in the Greek audience, further
evidence suggests that this was not the case" then you’ve hit pay
dirt. But usually scholars don't acknowledge disagreements and you have to find
them for yourself.
Once you have found a good question on your topic, the paper should practically
write itself. Here’s the formula:
A. Introduction. Here’s what we know about the topic, but "what we
don’t know is whether . . ." or "However, scholars disagree on
whether . . ." or "The question that still remains is whether women
were allowed to attend the theatre and where they sat."
B. Scholar number 1 (name them - this is very important. The
scholars themselves are essentially the subject of the paper. Name them frequently.)
says yada yada yada, and here's their evidence for that belief. And by the way,
these other scholars agree with them as well. (Sometimes scholars cite other
scholars who agree with them, and sometimes you may just run into one sentence
in another book that says "as so-and-so has written . . ." and you’ve
got yourself a corroborating scholar.)
C. Scholar number 2 (or group of scholars) says yada yada yada.
[D. Scholar number 3 says . . . (sometimes there are three sides to an argument)]
E. Conclusion - here's who I agree with and why. This is where you get to put
yourself in the paper. All that stuff you got in high school about being objective?
It's all bunk. You can’t possibly not appear in a paper you write, so you
might as well admit it. Say why you personally believe one side or the other.
Or say why either one could be correct. Or say why they shouldn't be disagreeing
with each other, because their arguments aren’t mutually exclusive. Whatever.
Wrap it up neatly.
Make sure you follow all my basic paper guidelines
as well.
If you don’t do a rough draft for this paper, no matter how rough, I can
promise you, you will regret it. Remember - you must do a rough draft.
It accounts for a portion of your grade.