Essay 3 – Analysis of a Novel Assignment | Online Assignment

Please see the attached files for the sources. Also, a “Brainstorming Activity” worksheet and a “PERT” worksheet must be completed as well, both of which are attached. I have attached the first 3 sources. You will need to find: 2 reviews of George Orwell’s 1984 2 scholarly articles on George Orwell’s 1984 Assignment-at-a-Glance: You are required to write an essay in which you learn a lesson about life and/or the world around us (it may be a message or a moral) from an assigned work of literature and then teach that lesson to your reader. In order to convey that lesson to your reader, you will need to: a.) attribute the lesson to the author (otherwise it’s YOUR lesson, not theirs), b.) identify a specific and insightful lesson that you extrapolate from the work of literature, and c.) explain HOW the work conveys that lesson. You will assume the role of teacher in your essay and actually teach how a work of literature conveys its wisdom! Detailed Assignment: After reading ONE of the approved novels (and completing the Annotated Bibliography), you need to discuss what you think the author/work of art has to teach us about life and/or the world in which we live, using concrete examples from the text(s) to support your argument (and only the assigned text!). You can begin to approach this assignment by asking yourself these questions: ● What is the message of this work? Ex: What is Shakespeare trying to tell us in this play? ● How is this work of art still relevant for today’s world, independent of when it was written? ● How does it communicate its message? • Then ask yourself: Where do I see this happening in the text? You can choose to write on virtually ANY INSIGHTFUL LESSON you find in the reading as long as you are able to put that lesson into academic language and persuasive structure (Title, Hook, Intro strategy, Larger Social Significance, Thesis, PERT, etc.) and support it with textual evidence (do NOT discuss things that are outside of the text for this assignment). Moreover, you must use inductive reasoning (that is to say you must reason from the particular to the general). You have to generalize a lesson; you must infer a larger social purpose (not merely limited to the “actual” or even the historical events in the work). In other words, you are being asked to see how what happens in a work of art might be true for YOUR reader, and then you must find plenty of textual evidence from the readings in order to illustrate and support your thesis. NOTE: You must develop an insightful thesis that goes beyond a surface-level argument. The lesson should go deeper than clichés and “stock wisdom.” If what you say in your thesis is something many people have heard before, it’s NOT insightful. Avoid clichés, stock phrases (that are repeated ad nauseum in our culture), and other surface-level ideas. Make sure that you are adding to your readers’ understanding of the work you are writing on; help them see something that you saw, that most people might not have seen on a first reading/viewing! Two questions to ask yourself to see if your thesis is insightful enough: 1.) Does your reader already know this? (In other words, did they really have to read the work of art to discover the message you have in your thesis or have they probably heard many times before?) 2.) If your reader has read the work of art at least but haven’t memorized or analyzed it yet, is your thesis something they’d probably get out of a first reading? If yes, then your thesis isn’t quite insightful enough. That means you’re probably staying on the surface with your analysis. You can usually go deeper by trying to answer “how” the work of art tries to teach that lesson (as in What and Why/How indicated in Essay Writing Essentials). In your essay, make sure to include: 1.) An Introduction with a Hook and Intro Strategy in order to establish the Larger Social Significance of your argument and build toward your Thesis. 2.) Develop at least six Body Paragraphs using P.E.R.T., with clear, concrete examples from the texts you’ve chosen to help your reader/audience understand your argument clearly; 3.) Conclude by rephrasing your argument, using a Conclusion Strategy, and re-emphasizing its Larger Social Significance! Minimum Requirements to pass the assignment (70/100 or a “C”): Length: 8-10 paragraphs (approximately 1650-2400 words or five to eight full pages). Sources: a minimum of seven sources: a) Source 1: One of the approved Novels b) Source 2: D. H. Lawrence’s “Why the Novel Matters” c) Source 3: Susan Sontag’s “The truth of fiction evokes our common humanity” d) Source 4 & 5: at least two book reviews of the novel. e) Source 6 & 7: at least two scholarly articles on the novel. Note: It is recommended to integrate all sources from your bibliography into your essay. A “Works Cited” page is required (not to be included with the word count). Your essay must be typed using MLA format, 12-point font in Times New Roman, one-inch margins, and double-spacing. You must submit your essay electronically to TurnItIn.com as a .doc file. The essay is due by the start time of class on the day noted on the Course Calendar. No credit will be given for late essays. Thesis: Pose an argument interpreting the novel and how it challenges the way that you and/or the audience thinks. Your thesis could be phrased in the following manner: “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde wears its Christian morality very prominently on its sleeve. Its message is blatant and clear: humankind has two very distinct sides to its personality, one which is rooted in a servitude to moral codes and one of base but vital forces, and Stevenson warns that we must not simply choose one over the other but must embrace both sides.” In any case, be original and thought-provoking. Points/Paragraphs: All Points must support and expand on your thesis. Remember, answer your reader’s questions about your thesis such as how and/or why. Moreover, Points must be opinions/arguments, not facts or questions. Your paragraphs develop concrete examples that support your points through facts and reasoning. Remember P.E.R.T.: Point, Evidence, Reasoning, and Transition! Develop six to eight Body Paragraphs using P.E.R.T., with clear, concrete examples from the texts you’ve chosen to help your reader/audience understand your argument clearly. This means you need to include at least TWO SOURCES per body paragraph in order to develop your argument and support your thesis! I recommend using a concrete example from your primary source (the work you’re writing about) for the first (Example/Evidence), follow that up with Reasoning, then transition to another E from a secondary source (either a scholarly article or a review) and follow up that example with more Reasoning that further explains and supports your Point before Transitioning to your next paragraph. Conclusion: Beyond simply rephrasing your argument, leave a lasting impression in your reader’s mind. Organize your essay logically and include smooth transitions throughout. Finally, proofread your work to make it relatively free from grammatical

errors.

“The truth of fiction evokes our common humanity”

By  SUSAN SONTAG

DEC. 28, 2004

 

Editor’s Note: The following essay is excerpted from a speech by Susan Sontag given April 7 at the Los Angeles Public Library upon receiving the library’s annual Literary Award.

—————————————————————————————————————-

Long ago—it was the 18th century—a great and eccentric defender of literature—it was Doctor Johnson—wrote, in the preface to his Dictionary: “The chief glory of every people arises from its authors.”

 

An unconventional proposition, I suspect, even then. And far more unconventional now, though I think it’s still true at the beginning of the 21st century. Of course, I am speaking of the glory that is permanent, not transitory.

 

I am sometimes asked if there is something I think writers ought to do, and recently in an interview I heard myself say: “Several things. Love words, agonize over sentences. And pay attention to the world.”

 

No sooner had these perky phrases fallen out of my mouth than I thought of some more recipes for writer’s virtue.

 

For instance: “Be serious.” By which I meant: Never be cynical. And which doesn’t preclude being funny.

 

And if you’ll allow me one more: “Take care to be born at a time when it was likely that you could still be exalted and influenced by Dostoevsky and Tolstoy and Chekhov.”

 

The truth is, whatever it might occur to you to say about what a writer ideally should be, there is always something more.

 

A great writer of fiction both creates a new, unique, individual world—through acts of imagination, through language that feels inevitable, through commanding forms—and responds to a world, the world the writer shares with other people but that is unknown or mis-known by still more people, confined in their worlds. Call that history, society, what you will. The writers who matter most to us are those who enlarge our consciences and our sympathies and our knowledge.

 

Of course, the primary task of a writer is to write well. (And to go on writing well. Neither to burn out nor to sell out.) In the end—that is to say, from the point of view of literature—a serious writer is not representative of anybody or anything but herself or himself. That, and the noble cause of literature.

 

Literature, I would argue, is knowledge—albeit, even at its greatest, imperfect knowledge. Like all knowledge. Still even now, literature remains one of our principal modes of understanding. A major novelist is one who understands a great deal about complexity: the complexity of society and the complexity of the private life—of family bonds, family affections, the powers of Eros, the many levels on which we feel and struggle.

 

Almost everything in our debauched culture invites us to simplify reality, to despise wisdom. There is a great deal of wisdom in the precious inheritance of literature which can continue to nourish us, which makes an indispensable contribution to our humanity by articulating a complex view of the human heart and the contradictions inherent in living in literature and in history.

 

Literature is a form of responsibility—to literature itself and to society. By literature, I mean literature in the normative sense, the sense in which literature incarnates and defends high standards. By society, I mean society in the normative sense too, which suggests that a great writer of fiction, by writing truthfully about the society in which she or he lives, cannot help but evoke (if only by their absence) the better standards of justice and of truthfulness which we have the right (some would say the duty) to militate for in the necessarily imperfect societies in which we live.

 

Obviously, I think of the writer of novels and stories and plays as a moral agent. In my view, a fiction writer whose adherence is to literature is, necessarily, someone who thinks about moral problems: about what is just and unjust, what is better or worse, what is repulsive and admirable, what is lamentable and what inspires joy and approbation. This doesn’t entail moralizing in any direct or crude sense.

 

Serious fiction writers think about moral problems practically. They tell stories. They narrate. They evoke our common humanity in narratives with which we can identify, even though the lives may be remote from our own. They stimulate our imagination. The stories they tell enlarge and complicate—and, therefore, improve—our sympathies. They educate our capacity for moral judgment.

 

When I say the fiction writer narrates, I mean that the story has a shape: a beginning, a middle (properly called a development) and an end or resolution. Every writer of fiction wants to tell many stories, but we know that we can’t tell all the stories—certainly not simultaneously. We know we must pick one story, well, one central story: We have to be selective. The art of the writer is to find as much as one can in that story, in that sequence, in that time (the timeline of the story, in that space, the concrete geography of the story).

 

“There are so many stories to tell,” muses the alter ego voice in the monologue that opens my novel, “In America.” “There are so many stories to tell, it’s hard to say why it’s one rather than another, it must be because with this story you feel you can tell many stories, that there will be a necessity in it…. It has to be something like falling in love. Who ever explains why you chose this story hasn’t explained much. A story, I mean a long story, a novel, is like an around-the-world-in-eighty days: you can barely recall the beginning when it comes to an end….”

 

To tell a story is to say: This is the important story. It is to reduce the spread and simultaneity of everything to something linear, a path.

 

To be a moral human being is to pay, be obliged to pay, certain kinds of attention.

 

When we make moral judgments, we are not just saying that this is better than that. Even more fundamentally, we are saying that this is more important than that. It is to order the overwhelming spread and simultaneity of everything, at the price of ignoring or turning our backs on most of what is happening in the world.

 

The nature of moral judgments depends on our capacity for paying attention—a capacity that, inevitably, has its limits, but whose limits can be stretched.

 

But perhaps the beginning of wisdom, and humility, is to bow one’s head before the thought, the devastating thought, of the simultaneity of everything and the incapacity of our moral understanding—which is also the understanding of the novelist—to take this in.

 

Perhaps this is an awareness that comes more easily to lyric poets, who don’t fully believe in storytelling. The incomparable early 20th century Portuguese poet and prose writer, Fernando Pessoa, wrote in his prose summum, “The Book of Disquiet”:

 

“I’ve discovered that I’m always attentive to, and always thinking about two things at the same time. I suppose everyone is a bit like that…. In my case the two realities that hold my attention are equally vivid. This is what constitutes my originality. This, perhaps, is what constitutes my tragedy, and what makes it comic.”

 

Yes, everyone is a bit like that, but the awareness of the doubleness of thinking is an uncomfortable position, very uncomfortable if held for long. It seems normal for people to reduce the complexity of what they are feeling and thinking and to close down the awareness of what lies outside their immediate experience.

 

Is this refusal of an extended awareness, which takes in more than is happening right now, right here, not at the heart of our ever-confused awareness of human evil and of the immense capacity of human beings to commit evil? Because there are, incontestably, zones of experience that are not distressing, which give joy, it remains a puzzle that there is so much misery and wickedness. A great deal of narrative, and the speculation that tries to free itself from narrative and become purely abstract, inquires: Why does evil exist? Why do people betray and kill one another? Why do the innocent suffer?

 

But perhaps the problem ought to be rephrased: Why is evil not everywhere? More precisely, why is it somewhere but not everywhere? And what are we to do when it doesn’t befall us? When the pain that is endured is the pain of others?

 

Hearing the news of the earthquake that leveled Lisbon on Nov. 1, 1755, and (if historians are to be believed) took with it a whole society’s optimism (but, obviously, I don’t believe that societies have only one basic attitude), the great Voltaire was struck by our inveterate inability to take in what happened elsewhere. “Lisbon lies in ruins,” Voltaire wrote, “and here in Paris we dance.”

 

One might suppose that today, in the age of genocide, people would not find it either paradoxical or surprising that one can be so indifferent to what is happening simultaneously elsewhere. Is it not part of the fundamental structure of experience that “now” refers to both “here” and “there”? And yet, I venture to assert, we are just as capable of being surprised by, and frustrated by the inadequacy of our response to, the simultaneity of wildly contrasting human fates as was Voltaire two and a half centuries ago. Perhaps it is our perennial fate to be surprised by the simultaneity of events, by the sheer extension of the world in time and space. That we are here, prosperous, safe, unlikely to go to bed hungry or be blown to pieces this evening, while elsewhere in the world, right now in Grozny, in Najaf, in the Sudan, in the Congo, in Gaza, in the favelas of Rio….

 

To be a traveler—and novelists are often travelers—is to be constantly reminded of the simultaneity of what is going on in the world, your world and the very different world you have visited and from which you have returned home.

 

It is a beginning of a response to this painful awareness to say: it’s a question of sympathy, of the limits of the imagination. You can also say that it’s not “natural” to keep remembering that the world is so extended. That while this is happening, that is also happening.

 

True.

 

But that, I would respond, is why we need fiction: to stretch our world.

Brainstorming Activity Worksheet

Instructions: Fill out the worksheet using full and complete sentences for each section. 300 words minimum.

 

• Specific Topic: ___________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

• Opinions/Ideas/Points (What are some things you want to say (argue) about the topic?):
• ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

• ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

• ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

• ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

5.) ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

• For each of the above, describe, at length, two examples that illustrate/support your opinions?

(Use the back or another piece of paper to finish your examples, if needed.)

1a.) ________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

1b.) ________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

2a.) ________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

2b.) ________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

3a.) ________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

3b.) ________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

4a.) ________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

4b.) ________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

5a.) ________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

5b.) ________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

 

STUDENT SAMPLE Brainstorming Activity:

 

❖ Specific Topic: In “The Story of an Hour” Kate Chopin is trying to illustrate how marriage can be

repressive and forced upon us by society. Therefore, marriage can prevent many people from pursuing their own hopes and dreams.

 

❖ Opinions/Ideas/Points (What are some things you want to say (argue) about the topic?):

1.) Chopin elucidates her view on marriage and how it can restrict women and men from their own freedom.

2.) Chopin displays the idea of women being single or independent as very liberating.

3.) Throughout the story the idea of self assertion and rediscovery are prominent.

4.) When you’re in a committed relationship, you’re no longer living and doing things just for yourself.  You now must take into consideration the feelings and/or affects your actions have on the other person which means sacrifice.

 

❖ For each of the above, describe, at length, two examples that illustrate/support your

Opinions?

 

1a.) As stated in the text Chopin says, “There would be no powerful will bending hers in that

blind persistence with which men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will

upon a fellow-creature” (2).

1b.) As stated in the text, “There would be no one to live for during those coming years; she

would live for herself (2).

 

2a.) As stated in the text Louise whispered “free! Body and soul free” (Chopin 2). Louise

felt an overwhelming sense of joy to live for herself.

2b.) As stated in the text, “There was a feverish triumph in her eyes, and she carried herself

unwittingly like a goddess of victory” (2).

 

3a.) In the text Louise began to feel exhilarated and joyful to start a new chapter of her life.

Chopin states, “But she saw beyond that bitter moment a long procession of years to come that

would belong to her absolutely. And she opened and spread her arms out to them in welcome” (1).

3b.) Chopin writes,“What could love, the unsolved mystery, count for in the face of this

possession of self-assertion which she suddenly recognized as the strongest impulse of her being (2).

 

4a.) She says, “and yet she had loved him-sometimes.  Often, she had not.”  She is telling us that often she was not in love. But she did love him.

4b.) There was love in the marriage, but was it enough, was it enough to fit the confinement feelings “she knew she would weep again when she saw the kind, tender hands folded in death: the face that had never looked save with love upon her”