The responses to my post below about Friday's descussion were helpful. Maybe by responding to some of the issues raised in them I can articulate better what you should be doing on your papers.
One person writes,
You're constantly encouraging us to say something new, interesting, and different. Although the second paragraph says something "new," it wasn't something very drastic. ....That being said, I thought that the second paragraph was the more balanced paragraph. Although the third paragraph makes really, really awesome claims about the Enlightenment, it doesn't really use the text to support what it's saying. Whereas the second paragraph used quotes to demonstrate the point of the paragraph, the third paragraph throws the quote in there as almost an afterthought.
And another person points out,
[T]he argument [in example 2] I believe is nothing “new, interesting, or different” from what we have already heard in class discussion and therefore do not see any help in clarifying the expectations for our papers. As for example three, I can see the attempt to create an out of the ordinary claim. However, as stated in class, example three does not “connect the dots” to the overall analysis and examples—ultimately not helping me “connect the dots” to what you are expecting out of our papers.
Example 3 points out that Orou and the Almoner "embody the opposing views of desire during the Enlightenment, and through their dialogue, Diderot illustrates the contradictions of Christianity concerning human desires." If the paragraph then went on to show the Almoner "embodying a view of desire," it would be an awesome paragraph (though it might turn out, upon closer examination, that the quoted wording is the not best way to describe the Almoner's position in this dialogue).
Nevertheless, there would be ways to support this organizing claim. The paragraph could use specific language from the text to show how Diderot makes the Almoner's desire to bed Orou's wife and daughter obvious despite his explicit protestations to the contrary. The paragraph could point out, with some specificity as Example 2 does, that the Almoner has no fully internalized ideas concerning human desire and how the teachings of his Church constitute a socially useful way to contain it--he has only the teachings themselves to fall back on. The paragraph could question whether Diderot is really implying that it's better to breach your own moral code than be an ungrateful guest--and if so just how far he would be willing to take that claim. These are all ways to connect the big organizing claim with the specifics of the text. There's probably not room in a single paragraph to do all of them, but that's okay--any one of those possibilities would allow the writer to add the value of his or her individual interpretive work to the reading we arrived at in class (which encompassed the fact that Diderot uses the dialogue between Diderot and the Almoner about desire to expose the contradictions, the internal incoherence, of Christianity).
That said, there are further questions:
"Personally, I'm having trouble saying something interesting about these texts. Everything I think of seems too obvious to me or too far-fetched. Do you have any further advice?"
"I understand that goal of our papers is to make some critical purchase on the texts, but I personally find it difficult to make said purchases on texts that say what they mean. A question I have is 'would a good way to approach such essays be to discuss the ideas in terms of the problems it creates in society, or in terms of what the ideal fails to address?'"
Even texts that say what they mean may mean more or less than they say, or may not say it in ways that track with our own intuitions on the subject, or that reveal some of the peculiar contours of the way things were thought about 200+ years ago. The Almoner--for the sake of Diderot's argument--does a poor job of justifying European notions of sexual morality. That point lies fairly close to the surface of the text, and it's hard to spin that claim alone in any interesting direction.
One can fruitfully ask, though, if Diderot is...
(1) unfairly stacking the deck by making the Almoner so stupid (knowledge!),
(2) mostly just demonstrating the hollowness of the Almoner's beliefs--the issue of sexual morality is just an eye-catching stalking horse (religion!),
(3) starting a conversation about how to make sexual morality more rational--even if a workable system would stop short of the Tahitian model described here (progress!),
(4) assuming that women are of interest in the development of any social system only to the extent that they are sexually available to dunderheads like the Almoner and entirely without agency independent of said sexual availability (and is that a problem for reconceiving European sexual morality along the lines that Diderot seems headed?) (desire!).
Those are not the only options, of course, and I certainly don't buy all of them myself at first glance--but I would sit up and pay attention to a paper that sought to argue any one of them and isolated specific relevant evidence (as in Example 2) to support that argument.
Please feel free to ask in class, come talk to me in office hours, or e-mail me, if you'd like more guidance along these lines about your paper specifically. But I'd like to leave the conversation open--please feel free to respond to this post with further general questions or thoughts about the challenges posed by this material.
Deadline: Friday (11/13), start of class.