Lord of the Flies: End of Novel Project:

All Projects: Typed projects are required to be and between 2-4 pages in length with double spaced 12 point Times New Roman font. Handwritten projects are required to be 5-6 pages in length (pay attention to how large your handwriting is, if it is large you should have a longer project). Pick one of the following options to complete:

  1. Through Other’s Eyes: Lord of the Flies is told from a third person omniscient perspective, this means that the reader is positioned like an audience that can see all the characters and action. Rewrite a chapter from the first person perspective. This means you must choose one of the characters to be the main character of your rewrite and readers should witness the events from that character’s perspective.

Expectations:
A / Covers LotF in-depth with details. Subject knowledge is excellent. The rewrite includes all important events and details from the chapter. The rewrite vividly depicts the events of the chapter in the form of a first person narrative. Details, tone, and word choice are consistent with that of the book.
Almost all sentences are well constructed. There are almost no errors in grammar, spelling, or mechanics. Sentences flow well together and are varied in structure.
B / Includes essential knowledge about LotF. Subject knowledge appears to be good. The rewrite leaves out few important events and details from the chapter. The rewrite depicts the events of the chapter in the form of a first person narrative. Details, tone, and word choice are relatively accurate to that of the book. Most sentences are well constructed. There are few errors in grammar, mechanics, or spelling. Sentences flow well together and are varied in structure.
C / Includes essential information about LotF however there are a few minor errors or misconceptions. The rewrite leaves out important events and details from the chapter. The rewrite sometimes depicts the events of the chapter in the form of first person narrative. Details, tone, and word choice are inconsistent to that of the book. Most sentences are well constructed. There are errors in grammar, flow, mechanics, or spelling that may interfere with understanding.
D / Content on LotF is minimal and/or there are several factual errors or misconceptions. The rewrite includes few events and details from the chapter. The rewrite does not depict the events of the chapter in the form of first person narrative. There was no attempt to mimic the details, tone, or word choice of the book. Sentences are awkward, distracting, repetitive, difficult to understand, or incomplete. There are numerous grammatical, spelling, or mechanics errors.
  1. The Lord of the Flies: The darkest character in this novel is not even a person at all, he is the “being” called Lord of the Flies. Analyze how the author’s use of language builds this strange and grotesque persona out of an inanimate object. You will need to consider the author’s word choice and how he positions the Lord of the Flies as a character.

A / Covers LotF in-depth with details. Subject knowledge is excellent. The author’s language analysis is deep and thoughtful. All claims are well supported. The writer maintains a seamless professional and academic argumentative voice. Almost all sentences are well constructed. There are almost no errors in grammar, spelling, or mechanics. Sentences flow well together and are varied in structure.
B / Includes essential knowledge about LotF. Subject knowledge appears to be good.The author’s language analysis is thoughtful. Claims are generally well supported.The writer generally uses a professional and academic argumentative voiceMost sentences are well constructed. There are few errors in grammar, mechanics, or spelling. Sentences flow well together and are varied in structure.
C / Includes essential information about LotF however there are a few minor errors or misconceptions.
The author’s language analysis is weak and few claims are supported.
There are parts of the essay that are unprofessional or non argumentative.
Most sentences are well constructed. There are errors in grammar, flow, mechanics, or spelling that may interfere with understanding.
D / Content on LotF is minimal and/or there are several factual errors or misconceptions. The analysis does not focus on the author’s use of language and there is no support for the claims made. The author neither uses a professional voice nor an academic argumentative voice. Sentences are awkward, distracting, repetitive, difficult to understand, or incomplete. There are numerous grammatical, spelling, or mechanics errors.
  1. Plot Twist! In a bizarre ballot counting error, Piggy is elected chief! Write an alternate story about what would happen under Piggy’s rule as chief. Consider how the plot would change and how the character roles would be impacted.

Expectations:
A / Covers LotF in-depth with details. Subject knowledge is excellent. The author thoroughly and realistically considers and shows the differences in plot and character roles. The writer seamlessly writes an entertaining and vivid story that holds the reader’s attention. Almost all sentences are well constructed. There are almost no errors in grammar, spelling, or mechanics. Sentences flow well together and are varied in structure.
B / Includes essential knowledge about LotF. Subject knowledge appears to be good. The author realistically shows the differences in plot and character roles and has considered the impact on the text. The writer write a creative and entertaining story that holds the reader’s attention. Most sentences are well constructed. There are few errors in grammar, mechanics, or spelling. Sentences flow well together and are varied in structure.
C / Includes essential information about LotF however there are a few minor errors or misconceptions. The writer unconvincingly shows differences in plot and character roles. The story is not particularly vivid or creative. Most sentences are well constructed. There are errors in grammar, flow, mechanics, or spelling that may interfere with understanding.
D / Content on LotF is minimal and/or there are several factual errors or misconceptions. The author does little to consider the differences in plot plot and character roles and does not show a deep understanding of these elements. The author writes a boring and/or unimaginative story. Sentences are awkward, distracting, repetitive, difficult to understand, or incomplete. There are numerous grammatical, spelling, or mechanics errors.
  1. Crash Landing: Imagine a parachutist safelycrashlanded on the island after an intense aerial battle. Hypothesize how the plot would have changed and how the novel. You will need to consider if the character’s roles on the island would change or remain the same.

Expectations:
A / Covers LotF in-depth with details. Subject knowledge is excellent. The author thoroughly analyzes differences in the scenarios and supports the analysis with various pieces of strong evidence. The writer maintains a seamless professional and academic argumentative voice. Almost all sentences are well constructed. There are almost no errors in grammar, spelling, or mechanics. Sentences flow well together and are varied in structure.
B / Includes essential knowledge about LotF. Subject knowledge appears to be good. The author analyzes general differences in the scenarios and supports the analysis with sufficient evidence. The writer generally uses a professional and academic argumentative voice Most sentences are well constructed. There are few errors in grammar, mechanics, or spelling. Sentences flow well together and are varied in structure.
C / Includes essential information about LotF however there are a few minor errors or misconceptions. The author vaguely analyzes the differences in scenarios. The evidence may be disconnected or lacking. There are parts of the essay that are unprofessional or non argumentative. Most sentences are well constructed. There are errors in grammar, flow, mechanics, or spelling that may interfere with understanding.
D / Content on LotF is minimal and/or there are several factual errors or misconceptions. The author provides little analysis of the different scenarios. The analysis is vague or missing. The author neither uses a professional voice nor an academic argumentative voice. Sentences are awkward, distracting, repetitive, difficult to understand, or incomplete. There are numerous grammatical, spelling, or mechanics errors.