I am writing a paper, for a Legal history class, and have hit a terrible writer's block.
The paper is a book analysis...the book is Robert Cover's Justice Accused, which is essentially about the justice system's complicity surrounding slavery during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. That is the author's thesis (that jurist's were complicit), but the supporting evidence is just not *there* or is so disjointed, I can't put it together. It's a short paper (7 pages), and I've started the intro, and still have a few days to finish it, but I am so stumped, and find the book so *dense* that I feel I am up against a wall. The prof, who I really like, has not been too helpful...she has high expectations, and I think just expects her students to be able to extract info, yet I am finding this "info" elusive.
posted on October 24, 2000 09:37:33 AM new
Try writing an outline for the paper. Once you've developed a plan for the paper, it shouldn't be so hard to find support for your ideas from the book itself.
posted on October 24, 2000 10:00:51 AM new
Hi James --
I have an outline and a plan...that was actually the easy part. The supporting evidence is another story. And this isn't my first book analysis; I know how to put together a good paper, but in this case, the materials are seriously lacking...something I haven't encountered before.
My prof said I could write a paper that counter's the author's thesis, but I think I would be opening up a new can of worms then.
posted on October 24, 2000 10:26:16 AM new
Oh, wow. Sorry then, I think you'd be better off if you hit the professor's head against the wall.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Oct 24, 2000 10:26 AM ]
posted on October 24, 2000 10:37:37 AM new
And you chose that volume; and you read it aforehand; so.....off you go to sleep in the bed that you made. You'll need to read all of the opinions and dig out your own supporting evidence and make Cover's case for him.
posted on October 24, 2000 10:57:15 AM new
Perhaps this view of the book might help you, Julesy:
"There is a rich literature regarding the roles and interplay of morality, formalism, instrumentalism, and utilitarianism in American jurisprudence. Beginning with the earliest American legal writings, those concerned with law have addressed such fundamental issues as the proper response for judges faced with cases in which the law conflicts with their moral vision of a "just" outcome. In his 1975 book, Justice Accused, Professor Robert Cover reconstructed the legal and intellectual worlds that antislavery judges inhabited in the forty years leading up to the Civil War. Cover found that those judges faced an excruciating conflict, which he labeled the "moral-formal dilemma," between following the positive commands of the United States Constitution and Congress to support slavery and their own moral command, often informed by their religious backgrounds, that slavery violated natural law and the dictates of humanity. Their responses took several forms. Some resigned from the bench; others "elevate[d] the formal stakes"--they advanced justifications based on the threat to society that an antislavery decision posed; others retreated to formalism in their opinions, arguing that their duty to law required that they return fugitive slaves whatever the dictates of humanity, or simply ascribed moral responsibility for their decisions elsewhere.
"Many scholars have also wondered whether a judge should issue an opinion dictated by a formalist approach to law? Conversely, should a judge reject legal doctrine and instead issue a decision based on a utilitarian calculus of maximizing wealth or social harmony? Both positions have adherents in contemporary debate and have analogs in American history."
From "Humanity, Utility, and Logic in Southern Legal Thought: Harriet Beecher Stowe's View in Dred: A Tale of the Great Dismal Swamp," by Alfred Brophy
http://www.okcu.edu/law/brophy_d2.htm
posted on October 24, 2000 11:29:57 AM new
KRS - was that REALLY called for??? Do you think you're being helpful or cute? Next time, keep your snide comments to youself.
posted on October 24, 2000 11:34:29 AM newsaid I could write a paper that counter's the author's thesis, but I think I would be opening up a new can of worms then.
Unless you prefer continued self-inflicted head injury (from banging against the wall), maybe you should get out that can-opener.
Why not, instead of arguing your position from a positive stance ("Author believes A, I believe B, and this is why I'm right" ) argue his from a negative one ("Author says he believes A, but his position is shaky because his evidence is inconclusive, and sources B, C and D refute him" ), presenting your own difficulties with his position? IOW, rather than prove the author's "guilt" or "innocence," argue for reasonable doubt. It's noncommittal, doesn't back you into a corner, and can be tons of fun
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Oct 24, 2000 11:35 AM ]
posted on October 24, 2000 12:09:47 PM new
sjl1017,
I don't know where you learned to read, if you did, but evidently you cannot understand that my advise was made in all seriousness; If the author of the book in question has not made the case sufficiently for a serious paper, then Julesy, who presumably has committed to the project of supporting his premise will have to find ways outside of those provided by the author to do so.
posted on October 24, 2000 12:46:22 PM newjulesy: it seems to me that you are making this harder on yourself then it needs to be. This is a book analysis, right? You have already stated the major flaw you find in the book--that the author doesn't offer concrete support for his premise. Why not run with that? Begin by stating what his premise is, and then discuss why you believe the book fails. Poor writing (you said "disjointed" )? Insufficient research? Inconclusive "facts"? What could the author have done to better get his point across? What information is lacking or contradictory? Is the author biased & what in his background leads you to believe so? Has he deliberately twisted or distorted facts to fit his premise? Left them out entirely if they did not further his case?
You have made your start. Go for it. BTW, it helps (if you don't already) to take notes as you read--jotting down points as they strike you.
edited for UBB--why on earth does a " followed by an ) always come out as if you don't put a space between them?!?
[ edited by bunnicula on Oct 24, 2000 12:48 PM ]
posted on October 24, 2000 01:40:00 PM new
KRS - I could ask you the same question. Nowhere in Jules' initial message does it say that she chose this particular book, so telling her to sleep in the bed she made and restating the obvious fact that she was still going to have to figure out how to get this accomplished was neither helpful or supportive and in my opinion nasty and condescending, SIL or not.
posted on October 24, 2000 01:42:54 PM new
Jules - has anyone else written an analysis of the book that you could work from? Sometimes reading what someone else has written about something you don't quite get can be helpful. It's the only way I could have survived Economics!!!
posted on October 24, 2000 02:55:17 PM new
sjl1017 posted on October 24, 2000 01:40:00 PM new
"KRS - I could ask you the same question. Nowhere in Jules' initial message does it say that she chose this particular book, so telling her to sleep in the bed she made and restating the obvious fact that she was still going to have to figure out how to get this accomplished was neither helpful or
supportive and in my opinion nasty and condescending, SIL or not."
posted on October 24, 2000 03:05:28 PM new
Thanks for all the constructive advice and encouragement; it's very appreciated.
I am going to try to find a couple of outside sources (thanks, Pareau), which might give me a better idea of how to disseminate the info. I think I will have to entertain writing it from the standpoint that he doesn't support his thesis, though that will take a bit of research, too. Regardless, thank you for the alternative ideas on how to approach this.
posted on October 24, 2000 10:15:41 PM new
Pareau...
I am constantly and consintently amazed by your overwhelming mastery of not only the English language, but also your seemingly unboundless knowledge!!
I mean NONE of this facestiously (sp)...you are truly a well read/educated person, and I truly enjoy your insights (when I can understand them!) Thanks for hangibg around AW!!
Keith
I assume full responsibility for my actions, except
the ones that are someone else's fault.
posted on October 25, 2000 08:25:33 AM new
Perhaps it would be useful to look at the historical effects resulting from the Court's decisions from the period and work your way back. Dred Scott, and the Civil War Etc. The effects of States Rights and questions regarding South Carolina wanting to leave the Union cropping up in the late 1840's.
If you look at the Civil War and work back mentally to the role of the Courts in contributing to - or holding back the conflict.
Or take an event - such as the role of a Union officer faced with an escaped slave coming from an area under Union control at the time of the Em. Proc. (Only the areas under Confederate control were actually covered by the EP - slaves held in Union controlled territory were still slaves)
Perhaps this might be the trick to getting past the writers block. (Been there - had to walk away from my thesis for 2 months - and as soon as I finished the sentence that I had frozen on - I was off and running again.
Just an idea.
[ edited by nutspec on Oct 25, 2000 08:39 AM ]
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Oct 24, 2000 10:26 AM ]