Literature Review reviewed

This link provides my lit review of the Peter of Blois & Medieval Women paper. It's not a stellar example, but is what it is: a tool to sort out secondary-source ideas related to the primary source issues. What short-comings can you point out? There are many.... Let's see if we get them all.

Bear in mind that you will critique your own Lit Review in class.
Plan your remarks with the above elements in mind.




WHAT?	To View & Review: A Literature Review is an essay which recounts, categorizes, evaluates and cites scholarly work which is relevant to a (i.e., your) topic. It answers the question: "What has been done?" It sets your thesis into an intellectual and/or historical context.

MORE WHAT	It describes issues, and the ideas of those scholars who are connected with that issue. It recounts historiographic debates, creating a spectrum of scholarship/ideas for the reader, and does so with some principle of ordering the ideas, e.g., leader in the field, iconoclast, traditional school of interpretation, etc …

FIRST	It begins by a short explanation of significance in terms of: your topic, these experts, and how the relationship between is significant. Include your thesis and line of inquiry.

WHO, ONE BY ONE	Isolate the Particular Interpretation of each secondary source. Show the Significant Issues, Arguments, Disputes, Presuppositions that Scholars have introduced into the field. You may write it down now, or keep in mind for later: "This debate-focus-interpretation is useful to my work because...." or "My work is in [agreement or disagreement] with _________."

WAYS & MEANS	There are at least Three Ways of arranging or putting scholars in order (if that's possible): (1) Idea-Spectrum arrangement; (2) Categorized Groups; (3) Chronological Development.

HOW?	Present the Critical Interpretations in the field, then explain the nature of any differences with some attempt at explaining the reasons for the differences Note the extremes & points between by Revealing Disagreements Be sure to explain the expertise of each 'expert witness'

IF NOT:	If you cannot find scholarly secondary sources, then either: They don’t exist, which means either you have stumbled upon a new, viable field of inquiry, or your inquiry is not one accepted by the scholarly-history community (e.g., Is the sky really blue?). If the first, you will have the problems of the Explorer: Do you want that? If the second, find a new topic/thesis. You're not looking hard enough, or you're "lookin' for help in all the wrong places."
	This link provides my lit review of the Peter of Blois & Medieval Women paper. It's not a stellar example, but is what it is: a tool to sort out secondary-source ideas related to the primary source issues. What short-comings can you point out? There are many.... Let's see if we get them all. Bear in mind that you will critique your own Lit Review in class. Plan your remarks with the above elements in mind.