Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: Hello there

On the second short essay of the PHIL 271 course, my essay was awarded a 62. The feedback provided centered on how my essay failed to answer the prompt that was given, which was: Explain how the distinction between fabula and syuzhet enhances our ability to understand and appreciate literary works. For context, the fabula and the syuzhet are narratological terms introduced by the Russian formalists to capture the difference between the story of a piece of literary (fabula) and the plot (syuzhet). The story, roughly, is the sequence of material events as they occurred chronologically in time. The plot is how the text presents these events, how the text reorders, expands, contracts, and characterizes the events for the reader.

I was told my essay failed in three ways. I will begin with the first two critiques: that it did not engage with the text identified by the prompt in-depth and in detail, and that it did not completely elucidate what the distinction between plot and story is and how this distinction serves to enhance a reader's understanding and appreciation (quotes from OnQ feedback).

The first of these critiques is most obviously unfair. I did not engage with the text identified by the prompt because there was no text identified by the prompt. It is true that the terms were introduced to us in H. Porter Abbot's article, Story, Plot, and Narration, but neither the text nor Abbot's name appear in the prompt, so I cannot see how my grade could reasonably suffer for not engaging with it.

The second critique requires a slightly more complicated defense. The thesis of my essay was that The distinction acquires significance in the discourse concerning literature as a means of establishing ethical norms because it is the syuzhet that exclusively evidences ethical norms in any given work. The argument runs that, 1) readers of literature conventionally engage with and evaluate literature on ethical grounds, 2) all evidence used to interpret a text's ethical system must have physical form, 3) of the fabula and the syuzhet, only the syuzhet has physical form (the text on the page), 4) therefore, only the syuzhet evidences a text's ethical system.

It thereby answers the prompt in that I have explained how the distinction enhances our ability to understand and appreciate any given text's ethical systems and how they are presented.

I will pause here to respond to the third critique offered on the OnQ feedback, which is that it is not clear or universally evident that being able to discern the potential moral values/systems represented or expressed in a given work of literature actually enhances the understanding or appreciation of said works for readers. In fact, this is not an assumption my argument relies on. I only say that it is true that we engage with text's ethical systems, and that the distinction helps us do it. I make no claims as to the critical benefit of the ethical evaluation of a work.

Returning to my defense regarding the second claim, this way of answering the prompt seems utterly within the realm of reasonable relevance, especially considering a) that it is common practice for essay prompts to actually function as prompts for the student to generate more specific ideas, and b) a direct answer to the prompt as formulated seems to me to not warrant even just a 700 word essay, the argument running simply that 1) the distinction helps us understand the difference between plot and story, 2) we cannot appreciate what we do not understand. I did think myself capable of stretching this argument to 700 words, so I found another argument.

No critique was offered on either the essay's quality of writing or argumentation, so it seems it was given a C- solely on the grounds of it not satisfying the prompt. I hope I have given sufficient reason to think this evaluation unfair.

Sincerely,

Adam Vriend