Preparing Your Annotated Bibliography
Annotation versus Abstract:
Abstract = a descriptive summary of a book, journal, or essay
Annotation = a descriptive and critical discussion of a book, journal, or essay
The Process
1. Provide a citation.
2. Present concisely the thesis or key argument of the piece.
3. Discuss briefly how this piece might fit into your overall research project.
Your statement of the key argument and discussion of how the source might work with your essay should only be 100-150 words. At least half of the citation should be your critical engagement with the ideas presented by your source.
Let’s say that I am doing a project on the nature of Ovid’s gods, and I am curious about why Ovid presents the gods as he does. I have found an article by Fulkerson about remorse and repentance in Apollo throughout the poem.
1. Fulkerson, L. 2006. “Apollo, Paenitentia, and Ovid’s Metamorphoses.” Mnemosyne 59: 388-402.
2. Fulkerson highlights the use of the Latin term paenitentia (remorse or repentance) in connection with Apollo in order to highlight a key difference between Apollo’s experience of remorse and the experiences of remorse that mortals show throughout the poem. Because there are no consequences for gods for their
actions, it is impossible for the gods to experience a kind of remorse or repentance that is recuperative or beneficial for the mortals who have been affected.
3. Fulkerson’s approach suggests that there is something fundamentally deficient about the gods which makes them unsuitable models for human actions. Rather than being perfect beings, the gods betray their moral inferiority to humans which comes out of their consequence-free world. In order for moral action to take
place, we must choose to take the morally right action in lieu of the morally wrong options.
My annotated entry would thus look like this:
Fulkerson, L. 2006. “Apollo, Paenitentia, and Ovid’s Metamorphoses.” Mnemosyne 59:
388-402.
Fulkerson highlights the use of the Latin term paenitentia (remorse or repentance) in connection with Apollo in order to highlight a key difference between Apollo’s experience of remorse and the experiences of remorse that mortals show throughout the poem. Because there are no consequences for gods for their actions, it is impossible for the gods to experience a kind of remorse or repentance that is recuperative or beneficial for the mortals who have been affected.
Fulkerson’s approach suggests that there is something fundamentally deficient about the gods which makes them unsuitable models for human actions. Rather than being perfect beings, the gods betray their moral inferiority to humans which comes out of their consequence-free world. In order for moral action to take place, we must choose to take the morally right action in lieu of the morally wrong options.
The Assignment:
Prepare an annotated bibliography of 5-10 sources that you think will be helpful for your final research project. Make sure you use the format of the annotation above. It is imperative that you use a consistent and approved citation style (Chicago, MLA, APA).
FYS 063
Griffin, Alan H. F. “Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses.'” Greece & Rome. 24.1 (1977): 57-70. JSTOR.
Web. 23 April 2013.
This source offers a lot of background information on Ovid and what he was interested in talking about as a poet, which offers an interesting insight into what he was attempting to get across through his Metamorphoses. Also, it includes a close look at a couple stories within the poem
and how Ovid’s interest in atypical (for epic poetry, at least) content affects it. This source would be helpful in explaining Ovid’s motivation behind his use or disuse of heroic values.
Casali, Sergio. “Censoring Aeneas’s Voyage: Ovid’s Commentary on Aeneid 3.” Transactions of the American Philological Association. 137.1 (2007): 181-210. Project MUSE. Web. 24
April 2013.
Casali offers a direct comparison between the Aeneid and Ovid’s Metamorphoses, stating that Ovid is interpreting Virgil’s work, building upon it and occasionally correcting it. He focuses somewhat on the portrayal of Aeneas and Anchises, whom he calls “heroes” of the story, and how Ovid moves to show them in a more positive light. This goes against the idea that Ovid is degrading heroes and is thus a super interesting perspective to include.
Finkleberg, Margalit. “Odysseus and the Genus ‘Hero.'” Greece & Rome. 42.1 (1995): 1-14.
JSTOR. Web. 23 April 2013.
This article deals directly with the heroics acts of Odysseus throughout the Odyssey, and why he can still be classified as an Achilles-level hero, despite there not being a literal battle within the poem. Her addressing of other methods of heroics makes for an interesting argument, and presents the idea that a multi-faceted hero is just as glorious to an ancient audience, which accounts for differences in what makes “heroic” actions truly “heroic.” It also lends itself to the idea that through struggle, heroism can be achieved.
Hadas, Moses. “Aeneas and the Tradition of the National Hero.” The American Journal of
Philology. 69.4 (1948): 408-414. JSTOR. Web. 22 April 2013.
Here Moses provides a description and analysis of national heroes, and chooses to examine Virgil’s use of Aeneas specifically as champion of Roman culture. He writes that Aeneas’ importance lies within his use as a symbol of Rome itself, and he is the sole symbolic manifestation of the Roman people. This lends another layer of what it means to truly be a hero, as Aeneas’ actions throughout the Aeneid can be criticized as stagnant or passive, and his piety not truly a match for Achilles’ brute strength or Odysseus’ cunning.
Levin, Saul. “Love and the Hero of the Iliad.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American
Philological Association. 80 (1949): 37-49. JSTOR. Web. 25 April 2013.
Levin asks the question of why Achilles is exalted as the hero of the Iliad as opposed to Hector, the figure that many modern audiences identify and simply like more. He notes that the prejudices of the Greek culture has a huge impact, and that the Greeks sought out what seems to
be excuses for Achilles’ faults — his honor was betrayed, he was really impacted by Patroclus and thus a good person. While the article itself isn’t wholly helpful, its insight into certain aspects of Achilles character that allow audiences to perceive him as a hero is significant to my thesis.