›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Thesis statement for essay contrasting the battle of good and evil in Earthsea with Fahrenheit 451

whateverwhatever
edited September 2009 in Everything Else
So for summer reading, I was assigned A Wizard of Earthsea and Fahrenheit 45. For my first real essay in English class, I've been told to "analyze the means by which Bradbury and LeGuin develop the battle [between good and evil] in their respective books. In your conclusion, please determine which author's argument is more relative to contemporary society." Here is what I have written right now as my thesis statement (screen capped to avoid problems with Turnitin):

image

I'm having a hard time reading over this critically since I just spent about a half hour constructing it. Does this flow? Does it contain enough points for a 5000 word essay? Does it include too much information too soon? General criticism would be very helpful.

Also, I feel lie I'm overusing "which" and "that." What is a good way to go about replacing those so to not sound repetitive?
«1

Comments

  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    What? That's all one sentence?
  • YoshoKatanaYoshoKatana
    You should embed drm on your document, or CC it, or refuse to give turnitin.com the copyright.
  • NuriNuri
    I suggest you remove the explanation of what each book is about to different sentences. This one is way too long, and the parenthetical phrases stuck in the middle interrupt the comprehensibility. You have way too many clauses stuck together with commas.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    edited September 2009
    Learn to use the semicolon. Also, you need to underline or italicize A Wizard of Earthsea and Fahrenheit 451, as they're book titles.

    EDIT: Seriously, that needs to be 3 sentences. It's very difficult to follow.

    EDIT 2: After reading that hot mess several times, I still have no idea what you're trying to say. I think you're saying that A Wizard of Earthsea presents the good/evil conflict through an internal struggle, while Fahrenheit 451 presents it as a struggle against an outside force, but that is not even remotely clear from your sentence.

    Figure out what exactly you are trying to say, and phrase it in such a way that we can understand that.

    EDIT 3: It would also help if you told us the answer to the question; that is, which portrayal is more relevant to modern society? I certainly know how I would answer, but in order to fix your thesis statement, we need your answer.

    EDIT 4: Argh. This is bothering me immensely now. You need three sentences. The first two address each book individually; the second sentence should contrast that book from the one addressed in the first sentence. Your third sentence should establish the common ground between the two. It's simple, direct, and effective. Do it.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • SailSail
    Your thesis is meant to be a statement summarizing the point you're going to make in your essay and, although theses are often once sentence long, they definitely do not have to be. Split that motherfucker up.
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    edited September 2009
    Learn to use the semicolon. Also, you need to underline or italicizeA Wizard of EarthseaandFahrenheit 451, as they're book titles.
    Underlining is preferred.

    You are attempting to do too much with your single sentance, and possibly with your introductory paragpraph as a whole. You are ignoring the classic "funnel" method for these types of essays. In the funnel method you start with a broad or general statement on the paragraph's paragraph and then narrow the subject's focus down with greater specificity. Your introductory paragraph will be contain the broadest opening statement and will narrow its focus the least.
    For instance, your introductory paragraph could follow this lay out:
    1) A sentence or two that addresses that outlines the broad subjects you will address. In this case the broadest subject is good v. evil in classic literature and its relevancy to the modern world.
    2) A sentence or two that broadly and generally describes the author's moral argument in one book.
    3) A sentence or two that broadly and generally describes the author's moral argument in the remaining.

    Maybe leave the description of the kinds of conflict (man v. man, man v. society, etc.) for the subjects of a later paragraph to bolster/describe your argument.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • SailSail
    edited September 2009
    Learn to use the semicolon. Also, you need to underline or italicizeA Wizard of EarthseaandFahrenheit 451, as they're book titles.
    Underlining is preferred.
    Not really. The underlining came about from when people had typewriters. You would underline words before you sent a manuscript to a publisher so that they would know to italicize those words. Both serve the exact same functions. If any one could be thought of as more "correct", it would be italics.
    Post edited by Sail on
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Learn to use the semicolon. Also, you need to underline or italicizeA Wizard of EarthseaandFahrenheit 451, as they're book titles.
    Underlining is preferred.
    Not really. The underlining came about from when people had typewriters. You would underline words before you sent a manuscript to a publisher so that they would know to italicize those words. Both serve the exact same functions. If any one could be thought of as more "correct", it would be italics.
    I think the APA still prefers underlining. MLA standards say that you can use either, so it really depends on the person giving the assignment.
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    edited September 2009
    Actually, Pete, according to my MLA guidebook, underlining is the preferred method. MLA is the standard for most humanities and arts writing.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • SailSail
    image
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    edited September 2009
    Actually, Pete, according to my MLA guidebook, underlining is the preferred method. MLA is the standard for most humanities and arts writing.
    Oh, I was going from memory. I think I lost my MLA guidebook 100 years ago.

    Underlining it is.

    The Tsaritsa's suggestion for your thesis is probably your best option, as it's broad and leaves you open to describe your arguments using the ideas that you've already put down. Mine is more like a scientific abstract, summarizing the argument up front. It can work for you, but you need to have plenty to say in order to keep it interesting.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    The Tsaritsa's suggestion for your thesis is probably your best option, as it's broad and leaves you open to describe your arguments using the ideas that you've already put down. Mine is more like a scientific abstract, summarizing the argument up front.
    That would work too, except that the assignment specifies that there shouldn't be a thesis statement and argument until the conclusion. This clearly means that the point of the exercise is not to create a specific, well researched and reasoned argument, but to thoroughly analyze the texts and their literary devices with the argument/opinion as an afterthought.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    edited September 2009
    The Tsaritsa's suggestion for your thesis is probably your best option, as it's broad and leaves you open to describe your arguments using the ideas that you've already put down. Mine is more like a scientific abstract, summarizing the argument up front.
    That would work too, except that the assignment specifies that there shouldn't be a thesis statement and argument until the conclusion. This clearly means that the point of the exercise is not to create a specific, well researched and reasoned argument, but to thoroughly analyze the texts and their literary devices with the argument/opinion as an afterthought.
    Yeah, that's why the funnel method is perfect here. It sounds like the assignment is to do more of a parallel analysis and pick a "winner."

    EDIT: Out of curiosity, what grade level is this? It feels like 9th or 10th to me.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • SailSail
    Snarlyow/Krishna/Bear Police is a sophmore, I believe.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Snarlyow/Krishna/Bear Police is a sophmore, I believe.
    Wait, that's Krishna/Bear Police? It's one thing to change the name, but changing the name AND avatar? This is getting out of hand.
  • ......
    but changing the name AND avatar?
    I have changed my avatar and nickname multiple times. It's only a minor problem when both nickname and avatar are changed shortly after each other without the person being that active in the forums.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    but changing the name AND avatar?
    I have changed my avatar and nickname multiple times. It's only a minor problem when both nickname and avatar are changed shortly after each other without the person being that active in the forums.
    Yes, but I don't believe you've ever changed both at the same time. That's what caused the confusion. Plus, your name changes are usually more obvious, so you're easy to identify.
  • ......
    Yes, but I don't believe you've ever changed both at the same time.
    Actually, I think I did once. We'll probably never know for sure since this is based on fuzzy, useless, memories; unless Big Brother kept track. I too had a holy crap reaction.
    Plus, your name changes are usually more obvious, so you're easy to identify.
    Fuck, so you're saying my ingenious tactics of throwing every user on this forum into an astounding loop of "Who the hell is that guy" at set intervals is a complete failure? I must return to the writing board.
  • whateverwhatever
    I was told to include two to three arguments based on situation archetypes, "developed through symbols, characterization, settings, and motifs" for each book in the thesis statement. That's why I included the brief summary of Ged's actions and three examples of the dead/alive theme in Fahrenheit 451.
    EDIT 2: After reading that hot mess several times, I still have no idea what you're trying to say. I think you're saying thatA Wizard of Earthseapresents the good/evil conflict through an internal struggle, whileFahrenheit 451presents it as a struggle against an outside force, but that is not even remotely clear from your sentence.
    This is what I'm trying to say. I think the "parenthetical phrases stuck in the middle" that Nuri pointed out are the reason why it's difficult to see that.

    Thanks for the help so far guys. Here's a revised version:

    image

    Hopefully this make my point of Earthsea's conflict being man v himself and Fahrenheit being man v society more clear. Now, I need help in fitting those two or three arguments into this. What I want to do with the essay is, in each paragraph, present a similar part of each book, and then show how Fahrenheit illustrates it externally and Earthsea does so internally.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited September 2009
    Significantly improved. However, since you're comparing an internal struggle to one with society, the "more relevant to contemporary society" comment is out of place. How could an internal struggle not be relevant?
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • whateverwhatever
    edited September 2009
    Well I do have to state which is more relevant to contemporary society in some way. What would be a better way of going about that?

    I also don't think the fact that Montag's conflict is against society makes it more relevant, it's more based on the similarities between that society and our society, but I will go into that in the concluding paragraph.
    Post edited by whatever on
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Here's some more advice: most literary teachers frown on the use of passive voice. While it is technically correct to write that way, you're generally encouraged to write using the active voice.

    I'm not sure if a blow-by-blow simultaneous comparison is the best way to go. You may want to start with one book and support your arguments for that one book, and then contrast them with the second book. Your idea only works if you can find several very very similar situations in both books.
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    edited September 2009
    Well I do have to state which is more relevant to contemporary society in some way. What would be a better way of going about that?
    By dissecting the argument that each author presents, as stated in the question. For instance, an author can utilize a man v. society conflict to argue that King Henry VII's monarchy was disastrously unfocused (not incredibly relevant to modern society unless there are some clear and direct parallels between King Henry the VII and modern governments - which could be a stretch). Another author may utilize a man v. self/man conflict to argue that argues that unethical/prudent decisions can have disastrous effects which could clearly correlate to the issues leading to the banking and financial crisis.
    Just because a conflict is man v. society does not necessarily make it more relevant to society. I would advocate that you look at the argument presented rather than focusing on a particularly literary device to inform your opinion.

    EDIT: Pete, aka TheWhaleShark, is correct on both points. The use and/or overuse of passive voice is frequently a "red pen" deduction from a student's grade.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • whateverwhatever
    I'm not entirely familiar with passive and active voice at this point, but based on the brief summary on wikipedia, I've made a few changes.

    image

    To answer your question, WhaleShark, this is for 10th grade.
  • whateverwhatever
    Just because a conflict is man v. society does not necessarily make it more relevant to society. I would advocate that you look at the argument presented rather than focusing on a particularly literary device to inform your opinion.
    I did say in the same post that I didn't "think the fact that Montag's conflict is against society makes it more relevant, it's more based on the similarities between that society and our society." And by "more" I mean "entirely."
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    edited September 2009
    Just because a conflict is man v. society does not necessarily make it more relevant to society. I would advocate that you look at the argument presented rather than focusing on a particularly literary device to inform your opinion.
    I did say in the same post that I didn't "think the fact that Montag's conflict is against society makes it more relevant, it's more based on the similarities between that society and our society." And by "more" I mean "entirely."
    Oh, okay. It wasn't clear in your previous statement. Also, with minor revisions your piece is much improved. Way to go! I echo TheWhaleShark in advocating a break down of each book on its own with a comparison/conclusion afterward.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    edited September 2009
    That is a much tighter and more direct thesis statement. You get right to the heart of the matter. If that's where your conclusion lies, that's fine. Now you have to dissect each novel and show how you arrived at your conclusion. Well, really, you should have already dissected each novel and arrived at your conclusion; now you have to show your work.

    However, I'm a little confused as to the actual nature of the assignment. What Tsaritsa MacRoss is saying is spot-on; you need to do an analysis of each novel and then arrive at your conclusion, and I gather that's what the assignment is asking for. However:
    I was told to include two to three arguments based on situation archetypes, "developed through symbols, characterization, settings, and motifs" for each book in the thesis statement.
    This statement seems to indicate something a bit different than what you had posted earlier.

    Basically, is the paper supposed to be your analysis of the novels and the conclusion you draw from that (as Tsaritsa MacRoss is saying), or are you supposed to present and defend a particular position derived from a comparison of the books? Those are two different things.

    EDIT: Also, good luck! This sounds like it'll be an interesting read if you pull it off.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • whateverwhatever
    image
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    That is rquesting a fairly basic and straight forward analyses. If the essay writer wasn't noting the various literary devices utilized by the author, then there wouldn't be much to analyze let alone extrapelate into a reasoned argument behind the essay writer's opinion.
    @TheWhaleShark, I think you are creating an issue where there is none. In order to argue a point, the literature must be analyzed. Arguing a point merely directs the analyzation.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    The use of "more relative" the first time is a bit strange, but it's clear that this is meant to be an argumentative essay.
Sign In or Register to comment.