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.
You're right. It's definitely a pretty straightforward analysis paper. I was more concerned with the style of paper that was being requested, but it's definitely very straightforward. Analyze the books and make an argument based on your analysis. You can put your conclusion in your thesis statement if you'd like, or you can leave it open to be explored and then solidified later on. I'm not sure which would be better, but I can say that I like the thesis statement you've got now.
Yeah, okay; I was just wrong there. It's a strange requirement for a conclusion. I'd think that it still means you have to streamline the rest of your essay a bit, though, or the conclusion will just be out of place.
Big-time improvement. I can definitely understand what you're saying now, and it's easy to read. That's why we have first drafts!
My legal writing classes and books all start out with a basic charge of, "Give yourself permission to suck in your first draft. Just get words on page, and then re-write it a million times to actually make it good." This pretty much applies to ANY kind of writing. Although some of us could get away with turning in our first drafts and getting top grades anyway in undergrad. >.>
It's certainly a lot easier to get away with submitting first draft writing in engineering. The problem is, though, the writing isn't a very big part of it to begin with.
Yeah, okay; I was just wrong there. It's a strange requirement for a conclusion. I'd think that it still means you have to streamline the rest of your essay a bit, though, or the conclusion will just be out of place.
I think it's a way to force a focused analysis. You could write pages and pages doing a comparison of those two novels, but knowing that you need to pick a "winner" at some point means that you're only going to gather enough evidence to support the argument that you want to make, and it ensures that you won't drift around aimlessly musing about this thing or that thing.
The more I think about it, the more I like you having a summary of your conclusion in your thesis statement. It gets the ball rolling, and it'll help your analysis stay focused.
Yeah, okay; I was just wrong there. It's a strange requirement for a conclusion. I'd think that it still means you have to streamline the rest of your essay a bit, though, or the conclusion will just be out of place.
I think it's a way to force a focused analysis. You could write pages and pages doing a comparison of those two novels, but knowing that you need to pick a "winner" at some point means that you're only going to gather enough evidence to support the argument that you want to make, and it ensures that you won't drift around aimlessly musing about this thing or that thing.
Yeah, that's what I meant by streamlining.
The more I think about it, the more I like you having a summary of your conclusion in your thesis statement. It gets the ball rolling, and it'll help your analysis stay focused.
Yeah; it needs a bit of elaboration on this:
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.
I spoke with my English teacher today. She explained to me that what she meant by the two to three arguments in the thesis was what each body paragraph would mainly be about. I had simply misinterpreted this.
WhaleShark is right, I cannot find enough similarities in the two novels to due a blow-by-blow comparison. The first body paragraph will deal with Ged v. himself, the second with Montag v. society, and the third will compare both books as examples of the monomyth.
I've read both books in the past year. Why not take a different angle, and talk about something like the restriction of knowledge in both stories? For example, in one the authorities burn books because the words inside are seen as harmful. In the other, knowing the name of something gives you power over it, and this knowledge is kept secret as possible. Off the top of my head there are LOADS of other themes these books have in common, which you could tie back to good vs evil in more interesting ways than the tired old monomyth idea.
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.
Actually, Pete, according to my MLA guidebook, underlining is the preferred method. MLA is the standard for most humanities and arts writing.
The 2009 MLA revision now requires italics. I just learned this and remembered this thread, and figured it would be of interest to all of us grammar geeks.
Yeah I guess, do you know how to mass change underlines.
Well, it does depend on the software you're using, but generally the idea is to use smart formatting - rather than simple underlining, the titles are marked with metadata associated with an easily changed style.
If all you've done is underlined the text, then you should note that the "Find and Replace" dialogue box may have formatting settings, depending on your software.
Comments
My legal writing classes and books all start out with a basic charge of, "Give yourself permission to suck in your first draft. Just get words on page, and then re-write it a million times to actually make it good." This pretty much applies to ANY kind of writing. Although some of us could get away with turning in our first drafts and getting top grades anyway in undergrad. >.>
The more I think about it, the more I like you having a summary of your conclusion in your thesis statement. It gets the ball rolling, and it'll help your analysis stay focused.
WhaleShark is right, I cannot find enough similarities in the two novels to due a blow-by-blow comparison. The first body paragraph will deal with Ged v. himself, the second with Montag v. society, and the third will compare both books as examples of the monomyth.
^_^
Granted, with one exception (15 plus appendices and citations), I never wrote a paper longer than six or seven pages at RIT... ^_~
I've read both books in the past year. Why not take a different angle, and talk about something like the restriction of knowledge in both stories? For example, in one the authorities burn books because the words inside are seen as harmful. In the other, knowing the name of something gives you power over it, and this knowledge is kept secret as possible. Off the top of my head there are LOADS of other themes these books have in common, which you could tie back to good vs evil in more interesting ways than the tired old monomyth idea.
If all you've done is underlined the text, then you should note that the "Find and Replace" dialogue box may have formatting settings, depending on your software.