Nick S. did this first (and better, because he had electronic copies which could be put through Wordle) but I got out my big binder of college papers and looked through them. (Note: it occurs to me that I need to figure out a better way to distinguish boyfriend-Nick from CMS-Nick. The most elegant way, I think, would be to give boyfriend-Nick a terrible nickname, for instance “Lulubelle.” So if you hear about Lulubelle from now on, you know who I’m talking about. Since he never reads this blog, we’ll see if he ever catches on to the fact that I’m calling him something mildly embarrassing.)
Anyway. In no particular order -
“Representation and Reality in Virtual Worlds”- Good paper, dry title.
“Mother and Wife: Penelope’s Representation in the Odyssey“ - Oh, subtitles. I’m pretty sure that I just added the first bit because “Penelope’s Representation in the Odyssey” was dry as dust.
“Cicero and Terentia: What’s Love Got to Do With It?” - Okay, I’m proud of this one.
“The Care and Training of Child-Wives” - I like this one, too (it was for a class entitled “Women in the Ancient World”).
“Greek Temptresses and Philhellenes in Plautus’ The Bacchides“ - Boring.
“Our Bodies, Our Selves: Power, Effeminacy and Medicine in the Catilinarian Orations” - Okay, I am super proud of both this paper and this title. It was my junior qualifying exam for Classics (back when, yknow, I thought I was a classicist - ha ha ha)
“Sexuality in Defixiones From the Athenian Agora”- Another rad paper topic not done justice by its title.
“Inward and Outward: Paul’s Concept of Circumcision in the Epistle to the Romans”- This was my first real college paper, not counting the freshman foundations course, and it was pretty dang good for all that, even if the title was uninspiring.
“Effing the Ineffable: the Zhuangzi’s Method of Teaching the Way”- Oldest joke about Zhuangzi ever, but I couldn’t resist.
“A Short Rejection of the Knowledge Argument” - To the point.
“Economic Homogeneity and the Well-Functioning Democracy” - Not only do I not remember what this paper was about, I don’t even know what it meant. I’m not sure if that means it was incredibly poorly written, I didn’t understand the topic then, or I’ve forgotten everything I ever knew about comparative politics. Or all of the above.
“Tyrants Breed Worse Tyrants: Herodotus’ Opinion of Dynastic Rule” - Well, with that title, do I even need to write the paper?
“Plausibility in Lysias 1″ - This was a translation paper, no point in trying to make a fun title. Lysias, though, is fun - he’s the Jerry Springer of the ancient world.
“Give The People What They Want: International Relations Theories in Wag the Dog” - International Relations was not exactly a class I spent a lot of time thinking about, and assignments like this one may have been the reason. Who assigns this kind of thing after high school Government?
“Iliad, Odyssey and Aeneid“ - This was for a Latin class where I took a passage from the Aeneid and traced all its ties to the Iliad and Odyssey. Don’t know why I couldn’t think up a better title.
“A Doubted Future: Freud’s Heavy-Handed God versus Mystic Experience” - 1. Bad title. 2. Who gave me the idea that it was okay to write a compare-contrast paper about Freud and William James?
“Eliade’s Debt to Durkheim” - At this stage, I’m just amazed I managed to take Eliade seriously enough to write a whole paper about him.
“Applied Pragmatism: James, Rorty, West” - This was the paper that largely shaped my current academic lens. I loved Religion 301 basically because it forced me to spend time on Pragmatism.
This exercise has basically shown me what a terrible religion major I was. Almost all my classes were Classics! I guess that’s fair, and yet - wow, how did they ever let me just do the straight Religion major? Weird.