You work to integrate your discussion of Christopher Hill into the general framework of Marxist theory, but you set Marxism up as a straw man in the first paragraph, pulling out a political rather than historical notion.
My main concern with this paper is that there is no focal point. There is not really a thesis that the paper can build from conceptually. You state that Hill "broke away from Marx in a few important aspects of what Marx had believed" but that really doesn't say much—it's neither analytic nor specific. As a result, there is really no conceptual development throughout the paper. It is primarily descriptive, retelling rather than explaining the significance of parts of Hill's paper in relationship to your argument. Moreover, the evidence you provide is not very detailed, either. You need to make historical claims about the article and use the article as evidence to support your claims. Rather than doing this, you rely on some over the top claims such as "these kinds of comments would never be uttered from a true Marxist's mouth. A Marxist would believe that a class consciousness must be in place before a revolution occurs." Other, more substantive claims are not explained or analyzed (see all of page 2).
Finally, the structural development of this paper is not very sophisticated at all. There are too many grammatical or editorial errors for an upper-division paper, and many of your phrases / sentences are awkwardly formulated.
The strength of the paper is the attention that you pay to the juxtaposition between Hill and Marx. You speak of the way Marx resonates through Hill's work as well as the ways in which Marx is left behind in Hill's analysis of the English Civil War. Having said that, however, I will now say that this paper could still be improved.
First, some of your claims are built on imprecise ideas about Marxism and Hill's article. Part of Hill's claim is that a bourgeois revolution DID in fact occur in England, but did not occur in the manner that people imagining Marxist thought would expect. He's trying to pull out the nuances of Marxism rather than disrupt them. Additionally, you make too many false juxtapositions, that don't really work. I've made some comments along the margins where you make some claims between Marx and Hill that you want to contradict each other, but don't really.
You need to work about being more all-inclusive with citation. Sometimes you cite your evidence, sometimes you don't. You need to be consistent, not only to provide your reader with the information after a quote, but to substantiate points you refer to in the text or to reference where you may have lifted some language.
The diction of the paper leaves the reader a bit confused. Work on writing for clarity. Some of these problems are in word formation, others are in sentence formation—in either case, clarity and sophistication should be the rule. Avoid common phrasing and presentation.
Finally, I think the very last sentence of this paper is a better thesis statement than what presumably you present at the beginning. In this case, editing a few more drafts may have helped you flesh out the details of this argument.
The part of this paper with the greatest analytic power is the discussion of the inevitability of revolution and the notion of consciousness. However, you never link this discussion into an over-arching thematic point which leaves your paper rambling and descriptive rather than analytic and focused. What I mean is that your paper really lacks a thesis statement to guide you as you progress along with your ideas. As a result, some of your ideas are good but undeveloped, and some of your ideas a just irrelevant to the point of the prompt—at least as you present it here. With a solid thesis / argument at the beginning, your paper would be more organized conceptually and thematically. You'd be able to ask yourself, "does this comment fit the ideas I want to express in my paper?" If the answer is no, then delete it. You'd also be able to explain your ideas more forcefully, because you'd know WHAT you want to prove and how you need to go about doing so. Perhaps for the final paper you should construct an outline starting with a thesis statement, and have each paragraph move from point to point.
Overall, this is a nicely formulated paper. The main strength is that you have a solid, workable thesis that serves as a focal point as you progress through your argument. It seems clear to me that you understood the nature of the article (though I debate whether Hill "dismissed" consciousness), and are able to pull together the evidence in a coherent and analytic form. There are some small problems with argument—I've already mentioned the consciousness issue; the second is the ways in which he distinguishes between 1649 and 1688, because he does recognize consciousness at that point.
Your citations are in solid form (although a full name would be helpful rather than "M" or "H"); there are some structural problems that I've noted throughout the body of the paper, but there is nothing minor.
Just a note for future papers: if you want to have a title page, make it a separate document, otherwise your pagination is a bit disrupted, as it is here.
Again, though, this is a solid job.
You have a fair thesis here, but it is just a bit too general, which means that your focus can fall apart as you progress through your paper. You need to have a specific statement. If Hill puts a "cultural" spin on Marxism, what specifically do you mean? Then you can work to prove your claim as you move along.
As with your journals, I'm concerned in this paper by two main problems. The first problem is that you tend to editorialize. Yes, a paper is an opinion, but it is an informed opinion backed by evidence. Often you slip in statements that are not integrated into the analysis, and are headed by "I would" or other "I" phrases. And then you move on to another idea. The relevance to an overarching thesis is not made in these statements, and in fact, seems as if you are subtly challenging the very nature of your project. Additionally, you tend to make these claims stand as your argument without fully explaining them or bringing in appropriate evidence. The second main concern I have is that your writing is not at the level it needs to be in an upper-division class. There are too many awkwardly formulated sentences, errors in grammar, and imprecise statements. You toss out words very casually, even though many have deeper meanings than I think you want to attribute to them. The way that you articulate your sentences leaves the meaning behind some of these statements and words very unclear.
You need to strive for clarity and sophistication in your writing, as is necessary in historical arguments. If you need some help, please visit the Writers' Resource Lab or the Learning Assistance Center where they can provide you with extra help in articulating your ideas.
This paper attempts to link the issue of working-class consciousness to the issues of Marxist theoretical development. However, it is problematic on a number of levels.
First, there is no thematic focus. Your thesis is quite vague with little specific reference to the issues raised by Thompson. As a result, there is no point of reference for developing an analysis of the material. What results is a rather descriptive essay that retells parts of the theory without providing any substantive critique or analysis.
Additionally, you toss out phrases such as "Vulgar Marxism" or "Marxist lens" without any solid discussion of what those terms actually mean. This paper would have been better had you focused on Thompson's claims as a Marxist without reference to the political consequences of the Soviet project. It bears little relevance to the issue at stake in the prompt, and the way you've presented it is unformatted and lacking sophistication.
Your understanding of the theory is imprecise, but so is your understanding of Thompson's main premises. First, you don't fully take into account the people in Thompson's study are PREINDUSTRIAL, and are NOT a working class in the modern sense. Additionally, you make too many false contradictions where you set the two works apart in ways that are not analytically sound.
Finally, there are too many structural errors for an upper-division course.
This essay attempts to construct a distinction between Marx's economic focus and Thompson's more cultural analysis of class relations. However, it is very problematic, both conceptually and structurally.
First, there are far too many structural errors in this paper. You lack citations to the readings. I'm not saying that you have to quote, but you do need to cite the page numbers from where you received your information. Additionally, many of your phrases are very awkwardly formulated, and therefore the meaning is unclear. Strive for simplicity and clarity. See my marginal comments for specific points.
More important, this paper lacks a solid thematic framework in which to ground your discussion. That is, you do not have anything in the way of a solid thesis statement / argument. As a result, your paper relies too much on description rather than analysis. That is, you tend to retell various events in the article rather than explaining their significance in relationship to a specific argument / claim.
Finally, some of your claims about the reading are simply imprecise. For example, you place theatre / counter theatre completely within the hands of the mob, when in fact the gentry controlled the "theatre," and the mob controlled the "counter-theatre." This is an important component in his discussion of the reciprocity of their relationship. Also, he cautions us on reading backward in time, but you do precisely that in your paper.
I don't have any substantive comments to make on this paper because you fail to address the question as presented in the prompt. Since you did not answer the question, you have not completed the assignment. Since you did not complete the assignment, you cannot pass it.
You attempt to grapple with the problems in Marxist theory, but many of your comments are more descriptive than analytic. That is, you don't explain their significance.
You've got some really good points in this essay, and I like how you grapple with the relationship between Marxist theory and Thompson's application of it. Having said that, I will now suggest places for improvement.
First, there is not really a satisfactory thesis guiding your analysis. It is general at best, and non-existent at worst (I'm giving you the benefit that that the last sentence on the first page is your argument, but it's not wholeheartedly developed through the paper). Since your thesis statement is rather general, you don't have a substantive focal point to guide your discussion—as a result, the paper is more descriptive than analytic, focused on retelling various parts of Marx or Thompson without really linking them in an explanatory fashion. I want to see you work on formulating a thesis that is developed and alluded to throughout the paper.
Moreover, this paper is not as well-edited as it needs to be, especially for an upper-division course. Take a look at all my marginalia and comments on the text itself. You've got problems with tense, structure, spelling, verb use, etc. Please work to clean up these kinds of mistakes in the future. Also, articles are in quotation marks, not underlined or italicized.
The strength of this paper, Ari, is that you really seem to have a solid understanding of the issues raised in Hill's argument about the Civil War (as an aside, I think this will help you in our T/S class). This understanding means that you can grapple with his relationship to Marxism in very specific ways. I like how you say that definition is crucial to understanding where Hill is coming from theoretically. However, there are many other concerns I have with this paper.
Your thesis statement doesn't really exist. It is not clear to me what exactly you want to argue in this paper. As a result, there is no analytic anchor or focus point for the rest of your discussion. Therefore, the paper seems to meander from point to point, and instead of explaining the significance of the material, you instead retell it.
Additionally, the paper is plagued by structural errors of all types. You need to work on clarity in your writing style. As you move towards the final paper, use your mini-papers to construct clearly-written analyses of the material. Let those be your practice board. Additionally, you might consider going to the Writers' Resource Lab or the Learning Assistance Center for problems with writing.
This is a good paper. It is well written and organized with a sound thesis (though the introduction and the thesis could be more developed). The evidence from the text is solid, and you seem to have a handle on what the article means.
You don't always cite page numbers when you ought. You don't have to quote, but you do need to reference specific points from the articles. Additionally, there are some imprecise formulations and at least at one point you set up a contradiction that is not really relevant. The points are mutually exclusive. However, it is good, and reflects a solid knowledge of the theoretical position of Hill.
The strength of this paper is that you seem to have a solid understanding of the ways in which Marxist theory operates through historical practice (in this case, EPT). In general, I think you are on the right path analytically, but there are some problems with the ways you conceptualize certain issues.
My first concern is that while you have a thesis / argument, it's not really as strong as it might be for this paper. Your argument runs through the paper, but you don't have it anchored. As a result, you tend to take certain ideas and just toss them out without fully explaining their relationship to the paper as a whole.
Structurally, this paper can be improved as well. First, your citation format in the body of the text itself is incorrect. The citations in the footnotes are fine. Please review punctuation for citation. Additionally, there are too many awkwardly formulated sentences and editorial errors. Finally, you need to be careful to connect your sentences to each sentence in the paragraph. At times, the connections within a paragraph are a bit tenuous.
This paper has potential, especially in the fact that you work to incorporate a great deal of evidence from Thompson's article into your analysis, but it is relatively problematic.
First, your thesis is not as strong as it needs to be. Since you thesis is not very sound, you don't have a specific point of reference to develop your argument thematically and conceptually. As a result, your discussion is not marked by smooth transitions between main points, but by choppy connections (see page 2, for example). Second, and connected to the first point, is that the paper is more descriptive than analytic, which means that you tend to retell what's going on in the article (with the use of the quotations) rather than explain it in relationship to a grounding argument.
You attempt to integrate a discussion of Marxism into the paper, and that's admirable, but you're too focused on the political application of it rather than the historical theory.
There are two main strengths of this paper, and they're both related. The first is that you have a solid, specific thesis / argument to ground your analysis. The second is that you bring in appropriate evidence from Hill's article to substantiate your claim. I think you really have a solid handle on the article and its relationship to the theory. However, the paper could still be better.
First, I think that your argument, while clearly articulated in the introduction, sometimes gets lost as you progress through your paper. You need to remain focused on the topic at hand. Sometimes you pull evidence in that doesn't necessarily correlate with the claims you are making, so you need to be careful to read your paper for conceptual consistency.
Second, there are some structural problems throughout this paper. We've already chatted about working to improve your writing. I will only reiterate here that I want you to continue to do so.
This paper's main strength is a really strong thesis statement very early in the paper. An additional strength of this paper is that it really seems to me that you have a solid understanding of the issues at work in Hill's discussion of the English Civil War. Both of these are crucial in establishing a solid paper. However, this paper can still be improved.
First, while you do cite particulars of the article, you do not cite enough. I'm not asking you to bombard your paper with quotations, but if you talk about a specific issue (see page 3 for examples), you should at least cite the page where you obtained the information.
Second, there are a number of structural problems, primarily in articulating your thoughts. Strive for clarity. Use your mini-papers to practice writing style.
This paper has a fair thesis that you work to follow throughout the course of your analysis, but there are a number of problems that impede the clarity of your presentation.
First, while you try to integrate these ideas, your paper is not as conceptually developed as it needs to be. What this means is that you have to work on making sure that your claims match your evidence and that you clearly articulate the connections between ideas. Second, the paper is more descriptive than analytic, which means that you devote too much space retelling the events of the article than on explaining their relationship to the argument. Additionally, some of your claims go unsupported, or at least are not related well enough to the evidence you provide.
Second, this paper is not structurally well developed at all. There are editorial and grammatical errors throughout, and they really impede the clarity of the argument. The kinds of errors present are not acceptable in an upper-division paper, and need to be weeded out for a final draft. Aside from editorial errors (spelling, tense, n / pn relationships), there are problems with diction which means that what you are saying is articulated in a very awkward manner.
The strength of this paper is a very solid thesis statement. It is specific and grounded, which enables you to remain focused as you move along in the paper. You also recognize the issue at stake—the idea of class struggle without class or without class consciousness, and you generally succeed in your points.
However, you have a tendency at times to fall into description, preferring to retell certain elements of the article rather than explaining their significance in relationship to your larger argument. You have a couple of rather nice paragraphs on pages 2 and 3 that are interesting, but they lack thematic punch. Link them to your larger argument and explain why the examples you have chosen are there.
There are also some structural errors which I've noted along the margins, but nothing that is terribly detrimental to the clarity of your ideas.
This paper works to examine the relationship between Christopher Hill's work and Marxist theory, but it is not very well formulated, nor articulated.
First, your argument, "CH explains the English Revolution, in "ABR", through the theory of dialectical materialism while at the same time adjusting this theory" isn't much of an argument at all. It is vague, not compelling or specific, and really says nothing of substance. As a result, there is nothing to anchor the rest of your paper to as you move through your discussion.
Second, as a result of this poorly articulated thesis, you do not have a solid conceptual development here. Your papers is ruled by quotations; that is, you plop a bunch of quotations throughout the paper and then reiterate what the quote says—you make them make your argument. Instead, what you need to do is construct an argument, make a claim, provide some evidence and EXPLAIN how that evidence ties into your argument. Additionally, by relying on quotes and then simply saying that "this quote says that…" you run the risk of taking the quotation out of context of the actual argument. In fact, you do this a couple of times. The claims you do make are really unproven.
There are also numerous structural errors throughout the text. Your citation punctuation is incorrect, and your diction is not very clear. See marginal comments / corrections for specifics.
Overall, this is a very strong paper. It is well argued (for the most part), and reflects a solid understanding of the main components of Marxism as it relates to Thompson's historical practice. Additionally, you remain focused on your thesis statement, which is very strong, and you make accurate interpretations of the evidence you put forth.
This paper could be better developed structurally. That is, there are really too many grammatical / editorial errors here for an upper-division paper. See my marginal comments for specific places and errors to avoid in the future.
There are some imprecise claims here, primarily with your connection between the gentry and the bourgeoisie. They're really not the same thing at all. If you want to make the argument that they are, then you need to more fully articulate the connection. Also, at times you tend to make a statement, but the quote you use is not wholly relevant to the claim. Be careful to avoid these kinds of errors.
A- / B+
This paper isn't bad, considering you had to miss so much of class for your work situation. Your introduction is fairly solid, and the first part of the paper reads fairly smoothly.
The main concern I have with this paper is that your thesis could have more punch and be more fully integrated throughout the body of the paper, so that it is really proven. You don't do that here, so the paper is not as conceptually well developed as it needs to be. This is not to say that you're lacking a thesis—quite the contrary, it is very specific, it just isn't fully formulated throughout the paper.
Finally, there are too many structural / editorial problems in the paper. The paper begins fairly strong, but it gets increasingly sloppy towards the end.
There are a number of problems with this paper that impact its clarity and its argument.
First, there is no firmly grounded thesis / argument. To say that "Marx's principalities [sic] on the economic transformation brought about by the Revolution are seen in Hills [sic] "ABR" but Hill argues that a revolution embraces all aspects of social life and activity" is not much of an anchor to built the rest of your argument.
Second, instead of building from this and introducing a series of claims backed by evidence, you rely on the readings to make your points for you. You can't simply string together a series of quotations from various sources and call that an argument. Quotations are used to complement your explanations.
Additionally, you are repetitive with your ideas. Since your thesis is not clearly articulated, you tend to meander from point to point with no organization. Since you don't have specific points to push through, you tend to repeat the same ones.
Finally, this paper is not at all written for the level of an upper-division course. I've made lots of corrections along the margins and in the body of the text itself. Not only are there editorial errors, but the diction is subpar as well. You misuse word formations and sentence structure and the result is a paper lacking clarity, precision and direction.
First, let me say that I like your title. Second, there are some real strengths of this paper, including the way in which you pull evidence from the text. You are making accurate interpretations of the material under investigation, and these interpretations only strengthen your claims. You are also fairly well organized in this paper, moving from point to point. However, it still needs improvement.
First, while you move nicely from point to point, you don't articulate a clear thesis / argument on which to ground your paper. It is there, but it isn't as strong as it needs to be, especially given the specificity of your discussion throughout the paper.
Second, I like the movement, but at times you make claims and then explain those claims or provide evidence, and the connection is lost. You need to make sure that the connections between what you are saying and what you are meaning correlate.
Finally, there are some structural / grammatical problems in this paper. Please see my marginal comments / corrections for specific points.
You seem to have a solid understanding of the ways in which EP Thompson interprets the past and how he explains the past. However, the connections you make are not as clearly constructed as they need to be.
First, I'm not sure what your argument is. You put forth a series of statements, and I'm unsure as to how you privilege them in relationship to each other or how they relate to each other as you progress through the paper.
Second, while you nicely pull evidence from the article, you do not use them to your advantage. You tend to let quotes trail off rather then using them to complement your main claims. What I see you doing here is making a statement, pulling out a quote, and reiterating the statement. You need instead to explain the significance of that quote in the larger scheme of Thompson's article and in the larger scheme of the paper.
Finally, there are some structural / editorial problems with this paper that impact the clarity of your statements.
The strength of this paper is the consistent, and generally accurate, focus on Hill's article. You work to incorporate Hill's argument within the larger frame of Marxism rather than use Hill as a point of reference to discuss Marxism. However, the paper could be much better on a number of levels.
First, your thesis, while fair, is not as clearly elaborated as it needs to be. You need to make your argument specific enough to be an anchor for the rest of your paper. Draw on the skills from 301 when you think about coming up with thesis statements.
Second, your focus on Hill is good, but it is not as tidily knit together as it should be. This problem emanates in part from the loosely structured nature of the thesis statement. In any case, conceptually this paper needs to be more elaborate and detailed.
Finally, there are problems with your structural development. That is, there are too many editorial errors in this paper. Also, the punctuation for citations is incorrect—you need to go back and review format for citation.
While you attempt to examine the ways in which EP Thompson's article is reflective of a Marxist theoretical position, it is somewhat problematic. This begins with your very vague thesis statement: "In his writing…Thompson starts to branch off from the main tenets of Marxism while staying true to his Marxist training and beliefs." This really says nothing of substance that can serve as an anchor point for the rest of the paper. As a result, the paper moves from point to point with very little development of a primary theme. You simple articulate how he's Marxist and how he's not. Why is this significant? You never really bring the significance of your claims to bear on your analysis. Further, you don't provide enough substantive evidence to back the claims that you make. You have quotations, but they are not integrated very well into a cohesive argument. Essentially, you make the assertion that Thompson says "…" or Thompson says "…" without ever fully explaining why he says that. You simply retell the quote. See the top of page three for an example. Finally, this paper is not very well developed structurally. What I mean is that there are too many colloquial phrases, grammatical errors, and problems with diction for an upper-division paper. You need to make a concerted effort in your writing to strive for clarity. If you are having problems, try going to the Writers' Resource Lab or the Learning Assistance Center. Also, use your mini-papers as opportunities to practice writing.
There are some strong points to this paper. In general, your thesis is solid, though it could be strengthened and better articulated. Additionally, you seem to grasp the main components of Hill's argument. However, the paper could be better.
First, as I've already mentioned, your thesis could be a bit more developed. By having a very specific thesis, you will be better able to remain focused on the issues you want to prove.
Second, the paper is more descriptive than analytic. In part this problem is due to the fact that you tend to let the quotes make the argument for you. That is, you don't explain the quotes, you simply plop them into your paper after your claims. But WHY is the quote there? WHY is it necessary? HOW does this particular quote prove your points? Quotations are evidence that complement the explanation you provide. They are not the explanations in and of themselves.
Finally, there are some problems with structure / grammar in this paper. I've made lots of connections along the margins for you to examine.
This paper has a lot of potential. However, I think you need to trust your intellectual instincts more than you've allowed yourself to do in this paper. What I've seen in your mini-papers and you in-class discussion is not fully reflected in this paper.
First, your thesis is practically nonexistent. What could count as a solid argument is essentially a quote from HOH. This means that it is not your own idea. As a result, the paper is not as well developed as it needs to be, because you don't have a solid argument to make your claims.
Second, you rely too much on the readings to make your claims. Using the readings is good—in fact you should use the material to complement your ideas. But here you rely to much on the textbook to substantiate the evidence from EP Thompson's article. The result is that your voice is lost in the dialogue between Thompson and what Troup and Green have to say about Thomson (and to a lesser extent, what Sayegh has to say about materialism). Where is the Luna analysis? It's here, but it's buried in a mound of quotations. Trust your insight.
Finally, there are too many structural problems in this paper. I've noted editorial and grammatical errors throughout the text.
While you make some interesting points regarding the consciousness of revolution in Hill's article, the paper is not as well articulated or argued as it could be.
First, the thesis statement is very vague: "One of these many historians, Christopher Hill, appears to agree with Marxism, but only to a certain degree." Is this your thesis? Or is this: "It is this acceptance of these flaws that force Hill to explain the difference between consciously and unconsciously willed revolution…"?
As a result of this lack of clarity, the paper meanders in more descriptive form rather than in analytic form. I've marked entire pages that are simply retelling Hill's main points, NOT analyzing them. You need to explain the significance of the specific events you choose to discuss in relationship to your argument about revolution.
Finally, there are too many structural errors in this paper. See my marginal comments for specific errors.
You've got lots of good ideas in this paper, and your thesis is OK. However, there are significant problems with the articulation that affect the strength of the paper.
First, while your thesis is fair, it is not as strong as it should be. As a result, your thematic development suffers, and the result is a tendency to be more descriptive than analytic. What I mean is that you tend to fall into retelling the events of the article rather than explaining their significance. There are numerous points where I've written in the margins "explain" or "relate" because you don't firmly make the conceptual connections between your larger thesis and the smaller claim in the paragraph.
Second, where are your citations? You can't have a paper with no citations referencing the reading. You don't have to have a bunch of quotations, but if you are specifically discussion something from the article, then you should cit the page number.
Finally, this paper is structurally unsound. There are too many long, rambling sentences lacking any clear cut direction. Your very first paragraph was difficult to understand because you try to incorporate too many ideas into one sentence. Break up your ideas. Strive for clarity. Vary your sentence structure by using both simple and complex sentences. Most important, don't try to shove too many ideas into a sentence. It is ok to have some short sentences. There are also other structural / editorial problems that I've noted throughout the paper, but it is crucial that you work on strengthening your writing skills. Use your mini-papers are practice papers. If you are struggling, go the Learning Assistance Center or the Writers' Resource Lab.
This is not a bad paper, but it could be better. The main concern I have with the paper is that your thesis is somewhat bland—it's not really an argument, and as a result, your discussion is mostly descriptive. Additionally, while you provide quite a bit of evidence, you don't integrate that evidence into a coherent conceptual framework. You tend to describe what is going on in the articles rather than explaining their significance, and therefore, the connections you are trying to draw with Marxism are not as clearly elaborated as they should be.
Conceptually, the paper seems to misrepresent Marxist claims, and Marx's position. I think that you would need to bring Marx more fully in the analytic picture in order to justify some of the statements you make about his philosophy, especially the notion of class struggle.
Structurally, this paper could be improved as well. There are some awkwardly formulated sentences throughout the paper.
You make some solid points in this paper, and it seems to me that you understand the implications embedded in EPT's article. However, you use that knowledge of the article as a crutch, and what results is more a description of EPT's essay than an argument about its relationship to Marxist theory. Part of the reason for this focus on description rather than analysis is that you don't formulate a strong, workable thesis in the first couple of paragraphs. You don't really have a thesis until late in page two after you have spent considerable time describing the lives and histories of Marx and Thompson. I think the very last sentence of the paper is the strongest thematic point, and you could very well develop that as your argument. Because your paper is primarily descriptive without a strong argument, the points tend to meander without much direction—that is, there is very little thematic development at work here.