Good reading is about
asking questions of your sources. Keep the following in mind when reading
primary sources. Even if you believe you can't arrive at the answers,
imagining possible answers will aid your comprehension. Reading primary
sources requires that you use your historical imagination. This process is
all about your willingness and ability to ask questions of the material,
imagine possible answers, and explain your reasoning.
I. Evaluating primary
source texts: I've developed an acronym that may help guide your evaluation
of primary source texts: MAPER.
Motives and goals of the author
Argument and strategy she or he uses to achieve those
goals
Presuppositions and values (in the text, and our own)
Epistemology (evaluating truth content)
Relate to other texts (compare and contrast)
Motives
Who is the author and what is her or his place in
society (explain why you are justified in thinking so)? What could or
might it be, based on the text, and why?
What is at stake for the author in this text? Why do
you think she or he wrote it? What evidence in the text tells you this?
Does the author have a thesis? What -- in one sentence
-- is that thesis?
Argument
How does the text make its case? What is its strategy
for accomplishing its goal? How does it carry out this strategy?
What is the intended audience of the text? How might
this influence its rhetorical strategy? Cite specific examples.
What arguments or concerns does the author respond to
that are not clearly stated? Provide at least one example of a
point at which the author seems to be refuting a position never clearly
stated. Explain what you think this position may be in detail, and why
you think it.
Do you think the author is credible and reliable? Use
at least one specific example to explain why. Make sure to explain the
principle of rhetoric or logic that makes this passage credible.
Presuppositions
How do the ideas and values in the source differ from
the ideas and values of our age? Offer two specific examples.
What presumptions and preconceptions do we as readers
bring to bear on this text? For instance, what portions of the text
might we find objectionable, but which contemporaries might have found
acceptable. State the values we hold on that subject, and the values
expressed in the text. Cite at least one specific example.
How might the difference between our values and the
values of the author influence the way we understand the text? Explain
how such a difference in values might lead us to mis-interpret the text,
or understand it in a way contemporaries would not have. Offer at least
one specific example.
Epistemology
How might this text support one of the arguments found
in secondary sources we've read? Choose a paragraph anywhere in a
secondary source we've read, state where this text might be an
appropriate footnote (cite page and paragraph), and explain why.
What kinds of information does this text reveal that
it does not seemed concerned with revealing? (In other words, what does
it tell us without knowing it's telling us?)
Offer one claim from the text which is the author's
interpretation. Now offer one example of a historical "fact" (something
that is absolutely indisputable) that we can learn from this text (this
need not be the author's words).
Relate: Now choose another of the readings, and compare the two,
answering these questions:
What patterns or ideas are repeated throughout the
readings?
What major differences appear in them?
Which do you find more reliable and credible?
II. Here are some additional concepts that will help you
evaluate primary source texts:
Texts and documents, authors and creators: You'll see
these phrases a lot. I use the first two and the last two as synonyms.
Texts are historical documents, authors their creators, and vice versa.
"Texts" and "authors" are often used when discussing literature, while
"documents" and "creators" are more familiar to historians.
Evaluating the veracity (truthfulness) of texts: For
the rest of this discussion, consider the example of a soldier who
committed atrocities against non-combatants during wartime. Later in his
life, he writes a memoir that neglects to mention his role in these
atrocities, and may in fact blame them on someone else. Knowing the
soldier's possible motive, we would be right to question the veracity of
his account.
The credible vs. the reliable text:
Reliability refers to our ability to trust the consistency of the
author's account of the truth. A reliable text displays a pattern of
verifiable truth-telling that tends to render the unverifiable parts of
the text true. For instance, the soldier above may prove to be utterly
reliable in detailing the campaigns he participated in during the war, as
evidence by corroborating records. The only gap in his reliability may be
the omission of details about the atrocities he committed.
Credibility refers to our ability to trust the author's account of the
truth on the basis of her or his tone and reliability. An author who is
inconsistently truthful -- such as the soldier in the example above -- loses
credibility. There are many other ways authors undermine their credibility.
Most frequently, they convey in their tone that they are not neutral (see
below). For example, the soldier above may intersperse throughout his
reliable account of campaign details vehement and racist attacks against his
old enemy. Such attacks signal readers that he may have an interest in not
portraying the past accurately, and hence may undermine his credibility,
regardless of his reliability.
An author who seems quite credible may be utterly
unreliable. The author who takes a measured, reasoned tone and anticipates
counter-arguments may seem to be very credible, when in fact he presents us
with complete balderdash. Similarly, a reliable author may not always seem
credible. It should also be clear that individual texts themselves may have
portions that are more reliable and credible than others.
The objective vs. the neutral text: We often wonder if
the author of a text has an "ax to grind" which might render her or his
words unreliable.
Neutrality refers to the stake an author has in a text. In the
example of the soldier who committed wartime atrocities, the author seems to
have had a considerable stake in his memoir, which was the expunge his own
guilt. In an utterly neutral document, the creator is not aware that she or
he has any special stake in the construction and content of the document.
Very few texts are ever completely neutral. People generally do not go to
the trouble to record their thoughts unless they have a purpose or design
which renders them invested in the process of creating the text. Some
historical texts, such as birth records, may appear to be more neutral than
others, because their creators seem to have had less of a stake in creating
them. (For instance, the county clerk who signed several thousand birth
certificates likely had less of a stake in creating an individual birth
certificate than did a celebrity recording her life in a diary for future
publication as a memoir.)
Objectivity refers to an author's ability to convey the truth free of
underlying values, cultural presuppositions, and biases. Many scholars argue
that no text is or ever can be completely objective, for all texts are the
products of the culture in which their authors lived. Many authors pretend
to objectivity when they might better seek for neutrality. The author who
claims to be free of bias and presupposition should be treated with
suspicion: no one is free of their values. The credible author acknowledges
and expresses those values so that they may accounted for in the text where
they appear.
Epistemology: a fancy word for a straight-forward
concept. "Epistemology" is the branch of philosophy that deals with the
nature of knowledge. How do you know what you know? What is the truth,
and how is it determined? For historians who read primary sources, the
question becomes: what can I know of the past based on this text, how
sure can I be about it, and how do I know these things?
This can be an extremely difficult question. Ultimately, we
cannot know anything with complete assurance, because even our senses may
fail us. Yet we can conclude, with reasonable accuracy, that some things are
more likely to be true than others (for instance, it is more likely that the
sun will rise tomorrow than that a human will learn to fly without wings or
other support). Your task as a historian is to make and justify
decisions about the relative veracity of historical texts, and portions of
them. To do this, you need a solid command of the principles of sound
reasoning.
1. A good essay does
more than "rattle off" facts. It reveals an understanding of the general
principles of the "big picture" of history. The best essays "weave" an
understanding of content
with some critical analysis.
2. Plan your essay!
Brainstorm and list facts pertaining to the question. Then, write a working
outline before you begin the writing process. An essay will be
judged on the strength of the
thesis, the quality of historical argument, and the evidence
used (correctly) to support the
thesis. Take some time to "pre-write", to plan your strategy. Follow the
steps listed below.
3. Generally, the
five paragraph essay is expected; however, some questions do not lend
themselves to that format. Look for key words in the question, and the
directive verbs found in
the question.
SEVEN STEPS IN WRITING AN ESSAY
1. Analyze the
Question
a. Without a clear
understanding of the question, you cannot write an adequate answer. Be sure
to you address all "tasks" in the question. Pay attention to every
word in the question.
b. Understand the
directive terms: discuss, explain, evaluate, analyze, etc. (See
Reverse)
c. All questions
have one thing in common: they demand judgment about the historical
evidence.
A question is never satisfactorily answered by simply reporting
information. If you think that
you can write an essay without making some judgment on the issue,
you havenot
understood the question.
d. Be sure to
include all aspects of the question.
2. Collect and Sort
Information
a. Once you
understand the question, "brainstorm" what you know about the topic. List
everything; then categorize it in some meaningful way (PERSIA,
PDESCI, etc.).
b.
Notetaking/Outlining is important in the pre-writing stage. It focuses
attention on possible
ways to organize material.
c. Make a "working
thesis", a general answer to the question.
d. Also,
anticipate counterarguments. Consider arguments that are against your
thesis, not to
prove them, but to show you are award of opposing viewpoints. The
strongest essays
confront conflicting evidence. Include this in your essay somewhere.
3. Develop a Thesis
a. Thesis: Your
brief answer to the question given. It generally explains why or how
something
happened. Your thesis should take a stand on an issue or historical
problem.
b. A thesis makes
an assertion that a reasonable person could disagree with. It is your
"claim"
statement, what you claim to be true.
c. A thesis
requires some judgment and interpretation of evidence. Everything that comes
after
your thesis should support the thesis. Develop your thesis
throughout your essay. However,
include it in your introductory paragraph: tell the reader so he/she
can evaluate your
arguments as they read your essay.
d. For a thesis to
be "well-developed", it should have some power to explain the issues in
question. It should be "focused" on the way you plan to answer the
question. Try to make
your thesis "measurable". You can, then, show analytical ability.
e. Here is a
somewhat formulaic approach to constructing a thesis:
-A
"concessive" clause: "although such and such"…if you do not concede
something, you will
appear unreasonable, or unaware of another side of the issue.
-The "main"
clause: the thing you will attempt to prove in your essay.
-The "because"
clause: this will force you to summarize supporting arguments (categories).
4. Write the
Introduction
a. Include
relevant background information, i.e., time and place (setting) are usually
important to
establish.
b. DEFINE
your key terms, those that are vague or controversial (effective, liberal,
revolutionary, etc.)
c. Include your
THESIS statement. It is best to "weave" your arguments into the thesis
(use
PES, PERSIA if categories are not given).
d. Good essays get
to the point quickly. Avoid broad statements such as "from the earliest
times....". Don’t waste time getting to the point!
e. Organize your
attack: arrange your arguments in some logical order: chronological,
least-to-most important, or some such way.
5. Write the
Body/Supporting Paragraphs (Prove one "big picture" idea/argument per par.)
a. Begin each
paragraph with a topic sentence. Every sentence should relate to and support
the
main idea.
b. Prove your
arguments. Demonstrate "analysis", tell how, why the thing happened.
c. Provide factual
information to prove your thesis. Each set of facts (to support a category)
should be in a separate paragraph. Use specific support ("capital
letters").
d. Evidence should
be used, such as data (facts and figures) or authority (what historians
know,
or think they know).
e. Evidence is
detailed information that gives the reader reason to believe what you tell
them. All
generalizations and assertions should be supported by facts.
f. Use "structural
indicators" (first, in the second place, etc.) and use transitional devices
between body para- graphs. Show where you are going with your essay.
6. Write the
Conclusion
a. Good essays
should end simply and cleanly.
b. The conclusion
should focus on the thesis. Restate the thesis in a fresh and interesting
manner or explain its significance.
c. Attempt to use
"foreshadowing", connecting to future events, etc. But, do not introduce new
evidence.
7. Proof the Essay
a. Check your work
b. Reread your
entire essay; begin with the conclusion, then the intro; see if they agree.
c. Be familiar
with the reminders listed below as you proof your work.
PERTINENT REMINDERS
1. Keep it simple. Do
not use "flowery language", or overly complex sentences. Do, though, use a
few big words (relevant words)…do use them correctly! Don’t use many
words when one or two
will do.
2. Write about the
past in the past tense.
3. However, write in
the active voice, it is livelier and more interesting to read. Active voice
is when
the subject acts through the verb (Columbus discovered America, Napoleon
made the decision to
invade Russia).
4. Write clearly and
neatly. At least, do your very best! Readers are prejudiced against
sloppiness!
5. Misspellings may be
inevitable, nevertheless, a student should learn to spell terms associated
with each unit of study as well as other frequently occurring terms,
such as "affected" and
"occurred", words like "which", "their/there".
6. Things to avoid in
writing historical essays:
a. Lengthy
quotations. In fact, try to avoid using any quotations in your essays.
b. Rhetorical
questions and rhetoric in general. The essay is not to get on a soapbox and
espouse personal opinions not relevant to the question.
c. Do not use
personal pronouns ("they" said, e.g.) or vague references.
d. Writing in the
first person, such as "I think", "in my opinion" should be avoided.
DIRECTIVES
Look for directive
verbs or phrases that are intended to direct the focus of the essay.
Examples:
1. Analyze:
Determine the nature and relationship of the component parts of; explain;
break down.
Tell "how", "why" something happened. It is like "cause and effect".
2. Assess:
Judge the value of character of something; appraise; evaluate. How true or
false it is.
3. Compare:
Examine for the purpose of noting similarities and differences. When the
question call
for comparisons, they expect you to include differences as well.
4. Describe:
Give an account of; tell about; give a word picture of.
5. Discuss:
Talk over; write about; consider or examine by argument or from various
points of view;
debate; present the different sides of.
6. Evaluate:
Give the positive points and the negative ones; appraise; give an opinion
regarding
the value of; discuss the advantages and disadvantages of.
7. Examine:
Make clear or plain; make clear the causes or reasons for; make known in
detail; tell
the meaning of.
8. To What Extent
and In What Ways: How much? In what ways did an event or condition
relate
to another? Understand both what was done and what was still left to be
done. Anticipate
counterarguments.
