GatewayRedbirds.com

The thesis and introduction are ALWAYS the hardest things to pan down in a paper for me. Sometimes I can work on the rest of the paper, and they will develop, but for this one, I've got to get them hammered down first (for the most part, things always change a little bit) before I do the rest of the paper.

Just a brief intro paragraph on the topics, tying them together, then a paragraph explaining the goal and thesis of the paper, then paragraphs explaining my methodology for fulfilling the goal and thesis. Sounds simple, but these 2 and 1/2 to 3 ish pages have taken me all night to get down. I'm almost done with them, and then I get to go to bed, and start the rest tomorrow.

I'm tired, irritable and hungry. I've got to fight the urge to make a donut run before I sleep. (for breakfast)

I hate papers. I mean, yeah, its coming together slowly as I write it, but I'm throwing my sleep cycle and diet all out of whack. I could do that when I was younger, but its getting tough at 25.

Ok, well I think I know why I was so irritable on this post atleast. While I was typing the above bit, I realized my stomach discomfort was directing me to throw up. So much for sister and grandpa's birthday dinners tonight.

Aside from the scratchy throat, I feel better. I hope its not major food poisoning that I feel in about 6 hours. /knocks on wood/

I've never scored below a 90 on a college paper. I've never not wanted to punch a hole in the wall while writing a college paper. They're always a battle but your grade will be worth it in the end.

My least favorite part when working with papers are arbitrary page requirements. "Must be at least 10-12 pages!"

I have a big paper to write today, so I'll probably be ranting in this topic tonight.

I'm working on a 30 page draft today, so I feel the collective pain.

longhornbaseball wrote:I've never scored below a 90 on a college paper. I've never not wanted to punch a hole in the wall while writing a college paper. They're always a battle but your grade will be worth it in the end.

Yeah, I never really struggled on papers until grad school. I've gotten two A, 5 B+ and 1 B. (with one extension pending)

I though that was pretty meh until I found out that an A is only awarded if the paper is of "publishable quality". B+ means the paper is very good and demonstrates a high level of competency in the field, but is a step below publishable. B means the paper shows an above average comprehension of the field, but not enough to add anything to the field. C is average, and maybe you should reconsider an MA. I thought everyone in the department got As all the time, so for awhile I was all embarrassed. (yay, I can be proud of my grades!)

redbirdjazzz wrote:I'm working on a 30 page draft today, so I feel the collective pain.

Ugh, I've only had one of those. (25-30). What is your paper on?

This one is pretty easy. 15-20, and I have multiple things to review, so the first 6 and 1/2 pages are the intro and an analysis of two approaches to the field, creating my own approach. (I see both as important, one as a check against the other) Then I'm engaging a historical figure (Dorothy Day, Catholic Worker Movement) utilizing that created methodology.

It really isn't difficult, as Methodology and systematics are my strengths, this type of paper is where I excel. I'm just having a severe case of apathy. (aka, I don't want to dig through 15 books by Dorothy Day - I've only gone through 2 )

Kyle wrote:My least favorite part when working with papers are arbitrary page requirements. "Must be at least 10-12 pages!"

I have a big paper to write today, so I'll probably be ranting in this topic tonight.

10-12 is pretty tough, especially for undergrads who take so many classes in different areas. What is your paper on?

Oh and yay, I feel fine, so I must not have food poisoning! Woo!

JCShutout wrote:

redbirdjazzz wrote:I'm working on a 30 page draft today, so I feel the collective pain.

Ugh, I've only had one of those. (25-30). What is your paper on?

I'm writing about the Anglo-Saxon interpretation of Christianity. I'm looking at how they wrote about and represented Christian doctrine in art/manuscripts. I've found enough changes in how things are presented that I'm actually calling it the Anglo-Saxon Reformation. Some of the changes are really, really interesting; they incorporated many of the conventions of traditional poetry that are found in things like Beowulf into not only the written sources, but into the art as well among other things.

redbirdjazzz wrote:I'm writing about the Anglo-Saxon interpretation of Christianity. I'm looking at how they wrote about and represented Christian doctrine in art/manuscripts. I've found enough changes in how things are presented that I'm actually calling it the Anglo-Saxon Reformation. Some of the changes are really, really interesting; they incorporated many of the conventions of traditional poetry that are found in things like Beowulf into not only the written sources, but into the art as well among other things.

Very interesting. I've read only a small amount in this area, but enough to come to the conclusion (or rather, agree with the scholars who propose) that Christianity was "celticized", as much as celtic culture was "christianized" in this period. I see similar such changes (on scale, not necessarily similar content) in Christianity's interaction with the Germanic tribes in the 8th ish centuries. Both the Germanization of Christianity and the Christianization of German culture.

Stuff like this is part of why I think it is appropriate for the Catholic church to engage with United States culture, particularly the notion of democracy... not to make church and church doctrines an elected affair completely, but to recognize the authority of the sense of the faithful as a legitimate interpretive body (which it is in the tradition, but is significantly downplayed) as a counterbalance for hierarchical interpretations of scripture etc.

JCShutout wrote:

redbirdjazzz wrote:I'm writing about the Anglo-Saxon interpretation of Christianity. I'm looking at how they wrote about and represented Christian doctrine in art/manuscripts. I've found enough changes in how things are presented that I'm actually calling it the Anglo-Saxon Reformation. Some of the changes are really, really interesting; they incorporated many of the conventions of traditional poetry that are found in things like Beowulf into not only the written sources, but into the art as well among other things.

Very interesting. I've read only a small amount in this area, but enough to come to the conclusion (or rather, agree with the scholars who propose) that Christianity was "celticized", as much as celtic culture was "christianized" in this period. I see similar such changes (on scale, not necessarily similar content) in Christianity's interaction with the Germanic tribes in the 8th ish centuries. Both the Germanization of Christianity and the Christianization of German culture.

Stuff like this is part of why I think it is appropriate for the Catholic church to engage with United States culture, particularly the notion of democracy... not to make church and church doctrines an elected affair completely, but to recognize the authority of the sense of the faithful as a legitimate interpretive body (which it is in the tradition, but is significantly downplayed) as a counterbalance for hierarchical interpretations of scripture etc.

I find it interesting that the Celtic Church was influenced much more heavily by Eastern Christianity (not necessarily Byzantine, but Syriac and Egyptian) than it was by Rome. That's why you have the isolationist monasteries out on islands surrounding Ireland and Scotland rather than the more central monasteries found with the Benedictines.

You're definitely right about the people being an interpretive body; Christianity was originally a religion for and of the people (boy does that sound familiar ), but way too often bureaucracies take over and ignore the needs of their constituencies. That's why I find this subject is so interesting, because I'm finding out the numerous ways in which the Anglo-Saxons changed Christianity to better suit their worldview and understanding.

redbirdjazzz wrote:I find it interesting that the Celtic Church was influenced much more heavily by Eastern Christianity (not necessarily Byzantine, but Syriac and Egyptian) than it was by Rome. That's why you have the isolationist monasteries out on islands surrounding Ireland and Scotland rather than the more central monasteries found with the Benedictines.

Very interesting and cool. I think it is very important to note that the readily accepted "European" model of Christianity is but one model of many. They have found as far away as China, Christian symbols scribed utilizing Syrian constructs for explaining and understanding the faith. Not the usual Greco-Roman constructs.

It should also be noted that right now, the VAST majority of Christians DO NOT live in the "Global North". (First world, Industrialized and "Western", Latin worldview) About 590 million Christians live in North America (US and Canada) and Europe (not Russia), another 590 million in Latin America, around 300 million in Africa, and anywhere between 200 million and 500 million in Asia (including Russia) and the Pacific Islands.

Thus, it doesn't make tons of sense when between 30% and 35% of Christians are having 98% of the input and decision making. This is another reason why it is so important for me to allow theologies which are interpreations of the extreme poor, (a situation in which 60-80% of Christians live - and the gap is widening) as well as constructs and insights of other, non Latin Christian traditions. Because that is a MAJOR part of the church.

That paragraph in itself is a dialogue with United States culture, that the experience of the majority has authority.

redbirdjazzz wrote:You're definitely right about the people being an interpretive body; Christianity was originally a religion for and of the people (boy does that sound familiar ), but way too often bureaucracies take over and ignore the needs of their constituencies. That's why I find this subject is so interesting, because I'm finding out the numerous ways in which the Anglo-Saxons changed Christianity to better suit their worldview and understanding.

Very interesting. Victor and Elaine Turner proposed an approach to anthropology which always saw communities and movements in flux. There would be a communitas, a highly idealized, small movement, many times with a charismatic leader, which stressed an egalitarian worldview and "love" as the leading ethic. As times move on, ideals and intrepretations naturally take place, and structure takes over. Simply put, you can't stay a communitas forever. Jesus criticizes a strict adherence to the Torah when a specific situation (like healing on the sabbath or touching a leper) demands the law be technically broken in order to keep up with the spirit of the law. That's the communitas, but the early church had to at some point ritualize this in order to expand, and teach who they are. (Regardless of Constantine's influence)

The importance (this is now me utilizing Turner) is in maintaining that healthy balance of structure and communitas. Structure is natural and important. Or else people will never agree on the small things enough to tackle the big issues. But no rule/law/interpretation/etc. should be cannonized, and dissent respected when done for pure reasons. By basis of Christianity claiming it is a "living" tradition, God has the ability to reveal something new, re-emphasize something old, or emphazise something from the margins, and we should not be so attached to structure that we cannot deal with new revelation.

EDIT: Turner's book is, The Ritual Process