A "precis" is simply an extremely condensed account of an article or book, one which states the article's main points and may locate the article in a category of articles (for example: "An early example of linguistically-based discussions of literary meaning, De Man's essay stipulates unique definitions of "literary" and "modernity".") It does not have as its primary function evaluation of a critic's argument, but rather the accurate summary of that argument; nonetheless, careful word choice allows an evaluative element (for example: "Guillory supplies a convincing example of canon revision in contrasting two critics' readings of Donne's "The Canonization."). In writing a precis, as in most writing, awareness of your audience's needs and of your rhetorical purpose is helpful: Guillory's article on "Canon" would be summarized in three different ways for three different anthologies: an annotated bibliography of, say, all Guillory's critical work, or of writings on canon formation, or of critical work on Donne from the 1990's. Thus, there is no single perfect precis of any article, simply versions that fulfill various functions. The writers' job is to become skilled in accurate summary and in highlighting aspects key to their purposes.
In a precis, every word and sentence count. Verbs must carry their fair share of meaning. Wordiness and vagueness will destroy effective summaries. Greater density in writing requires greater care in use of compact sentence structures, and careful thought about the information you can and want to provide. Beware of dangling or skewed modifiers in particular! Please review and use correct bibliographic format (MLA Handbook; see chapter 4, "Documentation").
Before you write a precis (up to 100 words) summarizing one of the critical articles we have read for class, read the following precis and think about the questions I raise about it.
Paul De Man, "Literary History and Modernity"
In an influential chapter from Blindness and Insight, De Man argues here that modernity and literature are incompatible categories. Modernity requires the total relinquishment of the past, in exchange for a vibrant life in the present. Literature, however, as a reflection on life, is trapped in established modes of speech and metaphor. If the writer is to be understood, he must employ language. He is then separated from the present through his dependence on modes created by his forebears. In trying to express the sensation of now, the modernist writer's intentions are swallowed up by the tools of this expression.
1. Is the documentation of the article correct in form and content? What bibliographic information needs to be added?
2. (After reading the article) Does this precis convey the most important parts of De Man's argument?
3. What information would you delete? add?
4. Are there any instances of wordiness? any instances of confused syntax or meaning?