Final Synthesis Project Paper – THEA 481
The final synthesis paper demonstrates your a) research of the origin, theoretical bases, and formal characteristics of a late 20th-century theatre approach, b) examination and analysis of the work of specific artists and groups that have utilized such an approach, and c) application of those theories and means to a production of a "classical" theatre text, including your formulation and creation of the production's concept, process, and outcome. As such, it incorporates, adds to, and culminates all of the earlier stages of the project.
We will approach the final paper of the research project through a series of drafts, due at different times. Before they begin, however, you will have chosen which performance text your approach will incorporate.
Draft of Parts A and B
This draft covers the content of your research presentation project and would most likely be based on it. However, since the rough draft is meant to serve the ends of the paper, rather than presentation, it may differ in the following ways, depending on the form in which you composed your presentation paper:
-it may be structured differently, in a way that best serves the paper
-the language must be of the precision appropriate for a paper
-transitions and connections will probably be more fully developed
-it may contain more information and detail than did your presentation paper
-analysis (significance, context, connections, relationship of means to theory, purposes,
influences, etc.) should be fully developed
-it should be composed in such a way as to support and lead to the third part of the paper
The rough draft should serve the purposes of presenting ideas, means, significant arguments, etc. discussed in the presentation paper assignment, but should also reflect your continued thinking on the subject.
It must also:
-Fulfill the technical and format requirements of citation, grammar, quotation, etc.
-Use standard margins and font size
-Contain an introduction, body, and synthesizing conclusion
-Be at least 2400 words long (8 pages @ Times-New Roman, 12 pt)
Full Draft for Peer Critique
This part of the process includes your completion of a full draft of all three parts of the paper and your critique of a peer's paper.
Writing
The full draft incorporates the third part of the paper, application of theories and means examined earlier in the paper to a production of a "classical" theatre text, which should include your formulation and creation of the production's concept, process, and outcome. This does not mean that the sections must necessarily follow a, b, c with no crosspollination, however. You will, of course, need to revise your introduction and may want to incorporate some discussion of the play in the paper's first two sections. The concept and application in the final part must be based on not only an understanding of the theories but of the play itself. The third part, therefore, must
-analyze the play's structure/form, theme(s), and main idea in a very succinct way
-discuss the reason(s)/purposes/goals for marrying this approach with your chosen play
-this should lead you to a concept statement or question (eg., a Brechtian approach based on reason and the perspective enabled by distance juxtaposed with the irrationality and myopia in Macbeth, allows us to see the political danger of a ruler who believes he leads blessed by supernatural forces OR What does the juxtaposition between a Brechtian approach based on reason and the perspective enabled by distance with the Artaudian irrationality and myopia in Macbeth enable us to perceive arises from the clash of these worlds, the constant repositioning—distant and close—of the audience in relation to the action, the relationship between a world ideally led by justice/rationality/law and a leader committed to the supernatural/irrational/subjective?).
-present a process (rehearsal, work with designers, etc.) of creating the piece that reflects your chosen approach and fulfills your goals for the production
-discuss the kinds of and rationale for the adjustments (additions, cuts, rearrangements), if any, that would be made to the text
-and provide examples and explanation and description of how these ideas will be manifested and operate in actual production (acting, design areas, etc.) and dramatic writing
The paper must also fulfill the technical requirements discussed above. Its length, however, must be at least 3300 words (11 pages).
Critiquing
Your task in your critique of your peer's paper is to point out strengths, weaknesses, and potentials so that their final version can be as clear and compelling as possible. You should mark their paper clearly in the following areas:
-grammar, spelling, punctuation (comma splices, semi-colons, etc.), run-on and fragment sentences, noun-verb agreement, etc.
-citation format and placement (Is there a citation everywhere that there should be? Is there enough citation? Are all or most of the sources cited? Are ideas supported?)
-clarity and style. Does this idea follow from the last? Are the connections and arguments logical? Is the progression of the entire argument, the whole paper clear? Is everything sufficiently explained? Are the theories and their application clear? Is the origin of concepts clear? Is everything reflecting the chosen approach? Does each of the three parts of the paper fulfill its purpose? Are the transitions smooth and logical?
-convincingness. Does the paper convince you? What needs more emphasis or less, more explanation or less, more support from sources? Where would a concrete example strengthen and clarify? Where is the writer relying on an assumption? Is the application to the play compelling and clear? Does the conclusion synthesize ideas rather than just rehash what's already been said?
Put your name, as peer reviewer, on the first page of the paper.
Your critique of your peer is graded based on your attention to the criteria above.
Final Revised Draft
The draft of the full paper that you turn in to me is a revision of your penultimate draft based on your peer's critique and your evolving thoughts and re-readings. It should be a noticeable improvement over your earlier draft.
You must submit not only the final version but also the critique made by your peer, with the reviewer's name indicated.