University+of+Cambridge+(French+Department)+Guidelines

GUIDELINES FOR COMMENTARY WRITING
There is no recipe for doing commentaries. The elements that make up a successful commentary tend to vary and will depend on the nature of the text and on particular approaches to it. Nor is there a single 'right answer' to any passage for commentary. A good commentary may well consist of a number of pertinent questions raised by the passage. 1. A commentary should not be a précis of the passage. Summary and description are not commentary. It is generally preferable not to proceed line-by-line through a passage from beginning to end; instead, one should identify important themes or elements and then discuss each of those in turn, illustrating with examples from the passage. 2. A commentary should not dwell on the context of the passage and should in general avoid venturing into other parts of the work from which the extract is taken. It should likewise avoid excursions into the wider composition of the author. It is quite possible to write a successful commentary on a passage drawn from a text with which one is unfamiliar, as commentary is meant to be an exercise in analysis OF THE GIVEN PASSAGE. Any comments that do concern the wider context should remain secondary. They must emerge directly from an analysis of the passage or illuminate it in some way. There should be a clear distinction between a commentary (focused on a particular passage) and an essay that discusses an entire work. **The following points should be considered: ** 1. A commentary benefits by paying close attention to the use of language. Depending on the text, this might include (but need not be limited to) some or all of the following: use of rhyme, metre, and alliteration; lexical choices which mean that particular words are given prominence or carry special significance; syntax, especially when this is manipulated to highlight meaning, to create ambiguity, or to interact with poetic verse form; grammatical features such as sequences of verb tenses which might be used to create a particular temporal structure. **It should be remembered, though, that there is no point in simply describing such features if one does not also explain how or why they are important or meaningful**. It adds little or nothing to an understanding of a passage if the commentary merely identifies verb tenses, states that alliteration takes place, or reports the number of syllables per line of verse, and lets it go at that. It should be remembered that language is no less important in passages of prose or in discursive extracts. 2. It is important to pay attention to the means of representation and to address not only the question of WHAT is said but that of HOW it is said. Questions concerning voice, perspective, and point of view may be considered, as might, for example, the relations between the voice of the text and the reader/addressee. Equally, a good commentary may well consider the assumptions that are implicitly or explicitly made by the text or attributed to the reader and the ways in which configurations of imagery and thematic developments are set up and manipulated. 3. There is no need to ascribe to the text a definitive meaning or structure. It is fine to problematize the text. Indeed, in certain circumstances, this may even be essential. Good commentaries will often point out ambiguities or inconsistencies and suggest possible alternative readings. Commentaries need not necessarily be exhaustive but can afford to emphasise particular themes and facets of the passage. Ideally, the different points raised by a passage for commentary should be synthesised into an argument and one should try to avoid inventories of discrete points and observations.
 * However, certain tendencies should be avoided: **

http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/french/courses/ugrad/commentary.html