THE PRÉCIS A text is not organic, somebody made it; it is a fabrication. I want you to learn to identify the strategy according to which the text is created. This exercise is about understanding how the text is put together and how that contributes to what the text communicates. To write a précis for this class: 1. Provide the name of the author, nationality, what year born/died, any major awards, the type and title of the work, the date of the work in parenthesis after the title (if available). If it is a translation, indicate, if known, both original date of publication, date of translation and the translator’s name. 2. In 3-4 sentences briefly summarize the plot. 3. What is the main point of the text? In a work of fiction, this is different from the plot). Students often react to the question “what is the book about” by summarizing the plot. However, beyond the story, each text is driven by a central argument. Make a straightforward, one-sentence statement expressing that point. For instance: “The Enlightenment’s emphasis on rational science alone does not encompass essential aspects of humanity.” Do not include journalistic commentary, or examples, or evaluations. It does not matter here whether you agree or not, just what the author is proposing. 4. In a straightforward, one-sentence statement, you should identify a central tension in the text (this is not the same as cause and effect). Follow that with two columns that show examples of each side of that tension (the column headings should come directly from your statement). There should be at least 4 quotes per column. The central tension in the text is between the two realities embodied by Nathaniel’s fiancée Clara (reason, clarity) and Coppelius, aka the Sand-man (fantasy, nightmare). Clara “Clara’s form comes to gladden me in my dreams, and smiles upon me with her bright eyes” p. 2 “This mystic extravagance was in the highest degree repugnant to Clara’s clear intelligent mind” p. 3 “Clara could not conceal her distaste of his dark, gloomy, wearying mysticism” p. 6 “How can you imagine, my dear friends, that I [Clara] can take these fleeting shadowy images for true living and breathing forms?” p. 6 Coppelius “and [the Sand-man would] pick naughty little boys’ and girls’ eyes out with them” p. 1 “this Coppelius, therefore, the fearful and hideous thought arose in my mind that he, and he alone, must be the Sand-man” p. 3 “the repulsive vendor of weatherglasses, Coppola, had exercised a fatal and disturbing influence upon his life.” p.6 “Coppelius was the Evil Principle which had entered into him and taken possession of him” p. 7 5. A few sentences (or separate paragraph) indicating the implications not only of what the text purports but also the strategy by which it does so. Whereas in the previous parts, you should stick as closely as possible to the text, in this part you can venture extra-textual suggestions, personal reaction, etc. This is not a description of the strategy or focus or a retelling; but rather tell me why you find the text (in)significant or (un)interesting; what is the author’s covert, unstated program; how do the conclusions suggested by the text (the contrasts or implied causalities) correspond to your view of reality? In setting the argument up this way, what is being hidden, asserted, or brushed aside? What is new or old-fashioned about the correlations made? Who would profit most by this arrangement? Is the intended audience and/or the relationship the author/text establishes with the audience relevant? You might mention here any assumptions behind this argument. THE PRÉCIS Grading: Section 1 = 1 pt Section 2 = 2 pt Section 3 = 2 pt Section 4 = 3 pt Section 5 = 2 pt 10 = A 9.5 = A 9 = A8.5 = B 8=B 7.5 = B7 = C 6.5 = C 6 = C5.5 = D 5=D 4.5 = D4, 3, 2, 1= F Obviously, I also give half points but unless otherwise specifically indicated above, you need the full point to reach the next level. (e.g. 8.5 = B ) CLEARLY LABEL EACH PART 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. I will subtract a full point if you do not label the parts