PLANO DE ENSAIO COMPARATIVO COM BIBLIOGRAFIA ANOTADA

 

Your plan (1 PAGE) should have a proper header (NAME + title of work). It should consist of your TOPIC, and your (comparative) RESEARCH QUESTION, including the GROUNDS for comparison between the two sources. Moreover, you should include an ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Questions to Consider 

1. What topic/ problem am I investigating?
2. What question(s) am I exploring? Identify the aim of your literature research.
3. What kind of material am I looking at and why? Am I looking for journal articles, reports, documentary, films, arti works?
4. Am I being judicious in my selection? Do I have two principal sources for my comparison? What 
5. What are the essential or key texts on my topic? Am I finding them? Are the sources valuable or often referred to in other texts?

What does an annotated bibliography look like?

An annotated bibliography starts with the bibliographic details of a source (the citation) followed by a brief annotation.

As with a normal reference list or bibliography, an annotated bibliography is usually arranged alphabetically according to the author’s last name. An annotated bibliography summary for each entry should not be more than 80 words. Summary should inlude an evaluation (why the work is useful) and/or an explanation of value (relevance of the citation for the research paper) 

Sample entry for annotated bibliography

Zinman, Toby Silverman. “‘In the presence of mine enemies’: Adrienne Kennedy’s An Evening with Dead Essex.’’ Studies in American Drama, 1945-Present 6 (1991): 3-13. 

Zinman analyzes the play in terms of “presence” and absence” of the characters, but as he says, not in as complex a manner as they are used to in the theories of Lacan, Saussure, and Derrida. He contends that the real subject of the play is absent (Essex) and that Kennedy has not found “a satisfying way to present absence on stage” in this play (12).  The article was interesting, but I’m still not sure what a satisfactory absence would be. 

Mitchell, Jason. “PMLA Letter.” 1991. 23 May 1996. 

<http:10/28/2008/sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu/-jmitchel/plma.htm>

Mitchell protests the “pretentious gibberish” of modern literary critics in his letter to PMLA. He argues that “Eurojive” is often produced by English professors to show that their status is equal to that of math and science faculty. His sense of humor makes this letter a great read.