This is an interpretative-analytical summary of a chapter from The Blue Annals. There are already existent summaries in the WIKI, and the new work should be done as a revision of that earlier work which aims to take it to a next level in terms of consistency, format, and analysis. Since you already have a first pass to work on, you should be able to make it more analytical and not just factual. However, it should continue to give a clear factual account of the chapter, and stick closely to the structure of the text. However, even this factual summary should be analytical - don't just write it all out again, but rather analytically account for the content. Then make interpretative comments - why is it interesting? What possible interpretative lines of inquiry does it suggest? Also feel free to list out anamalous points you think are of possible interest and questions for discussion.
In writing these assignments, follow the following general guidelines:
Page numbers are referred to parenthically. As with all other page references, use “R” etc. to indicate which version of the text you are referring to.
This is due the day before class, but then also I expect you to review it after class and post a final revised copy the day before the following class. The revision should take into account the class discussion, as well as other resources posted by other students for that week which may help you see new things about the chapter. All work should be done on the WIKI.
The actual summary should be given as a series of titled sections corresponding directly to the actual sections of the chapter. After the first h1 title of the chapter, you should write "Composed by Jane Smith (last revised January 24, 2007)". Then there should be a h2 titled "Overview" section which provides a synthetic account of the chapter. Then the remaining sections should correspond precisely to the structure of the chapter. The headers should start with h2, and then go through h3, h4, etc. corresponding to the structure of the chapter. For example, if the chapter has 4 subsections at its top level - they are all h2. If any of those have subsections, those would be h3; and so on. At present the headers have NOT been properly applied, and the Overview section is not titled as such, and often is a woefully inadequate two or three lines.
The formatting is also all wrong. Instead of a series of paragraphs starting with page numbers, this should be a nicely written series of analytical paragraphs. Page references should be given at the end of sentences in parentheses, and indicate the range of page numbers if its more than one page.
Thus a current bad example:
Notice the many mispellings, bad grammar, and other problems. In addition, its just a bunch of lines and not a written paragraph of analysis.
The current summaries range from excellent to terrible. My hope is that since you have a solid starting point, you will be freed to really make the details well written and comprehensive, but also have much more analysis and interpretative insight expressed in the summary. The challenge of this assignment is to learn how to read a primary source extremely closely, and summarize its structure and contents, while still engaged in analytical and interpretative engagement. Thus as you analyze the chapter, think about the sequence of discussions - how are they related to each other? Why does this one come after that one? Look for odd discontinuities as much as for seamless continuity. Also keep an eye out for such things as the overall tone (favorable/critical) of the author, metaphors being employed, patterns of references (monastic/ lay, etc.), and so forth.
Examples: Summaries of a Blue Annals Chapter