Anthology Preface

Due Dates

3/29: Draft due (for peer review workshop)
3/31: First Submission due
4/12: Draft due (for peer review workshop)
4/14: Second Submission due(including cover letter explaining revisions)

Throughout the semester we have been researching a how scholars in various disciplines discuss Detroit, examining works that might serve as chapters in our anthology, and considering the purpose and audience of our anthology. Now is your chance to pull it all together by composing the preface to our book. Your preface should be 2000-2500 words long. The preface will serve to introduce readers to the text, map out the various arguments your text includes, explain how these arguments clash or overlap, and explain the purpose of the book.

In addition to submitting the preface, you will create a table of contents for the book. [see attached template below]

Your second submission will include a cover letter. The letter will explain how you've incorporated the feedback provided by your peers and by me. [see attached template below]

As you write the preface, think about the issues we have considered all semester long. NOTE: This is not a checklist. You do NOT have to address every one of these questions in your preface. This is a list of questions that you should use during your process of invention:

* Who is the audience for our anthology? Is it geared toward a particular discipline, or is it an interdisciplinary project? Why?

* What is the purpose of the book? This is where you might include some personal experiences. What is your own connection to this topic? What do you hope others gain from reading our anthology?

* How would you justify the inclusion of the contributions to our book? We could have chosen any number of scholarly articles or book chapters, but we chose these. Why? Defend our choices, and be specific.

* Who are the authors and what qualifies them to speak on this issue? This DOES NOT mean telling us about the scholarly degrees each of your contributors has. Since this is a scholarly anthology, most of your contributors will have PhD's. Instead, you should be much more specific. What qualifies this scholar to speak to this particular topic? What makes them an expert on it? You could mention their previous publications or any other information that explains why this author is qualified to speak on this topic.

* What are the various overlaps and collisions that happen between the texts we have brought together in this anthology? We have learned many ways to analyze arguments, and your task is to make sense of the pieces you've chosen by using the tools of rhetorical analysis. In addition to this analysis, you'll need to synthesize these arguments.

* Have you explained the patterns or gaps in the debate you're discussing? Have you looked for arguments or ideas that can be grouped together? Have you identified arguments or ideas that have been overlooked by those taking part in the conversation you've constructed?

* How is the book organized? Why? Each chapter of your book will consist of an author's work (and nothing else), but you can group these chapters into sections. This will help your reader make sense of the various arguments you've compiled in your anthology. You will be creating a table of contents, and that TOC should make it clear how you've organized the text (the order of the chapters, whether it is broken up into sections, etc.)

* What other books are similar to our anthology? How is our anthology different? Remember that your book is part of an ongoing conversation. You should discuss other texts that cover similar ground, and you should consider how your book is similar to or different from these texts.

Grading Criteria
When providing feedback, I will be looking for the following:

* Have you made use of the terms and concepts from our textbook in order to write your prefece?
* Have you appealed to the audience of your text?
* Have you explained the purpose of the text?
* Have you explained how the arguments in our book clash and/or overlap?
* Is your preface written effectively and coherently with very few grammatical errors?
* Have you included a properly formatted table of contents
* Was the paper turned in on time? (Reminder: I do not accept late work.)

For the second submission:
* Does your second submission demonstrate significant revision? (Significant revision means that the paper looks different and has been reworked. This is much more than fixing sentence structure and grammar. It involves rethinking the arguments and content of the paper).
* Have you included a cover letter explaining how this submission represents a significant revision?
* Have you incorporated feedback from peer review and from my comments on the first submission?