Paper 2 Assignment: Critical Analysis Essay
English 2100: Writing 1
Section KMWG
Fall 2015
Thanhauser
Paper 2 Assignment: Critical Analysis Essay
The readings we’ve focused on so far this semester (Claudia Rankine, Richard Manning, Ekaterina Alexandrova, Jun’ichiro Tanizaki, Barbara Ehrenreich and Seymour Hersh) all talk in some way about how false narratives are distracting the public’s attention from a real problem, and work to expose the real forces (economic, political, social) behind these problems.
In this second major assignment I’ll ask you to compare two of these writers/thinkers and how they have gone about this process of myth-busting. An analysis asks you to go beyond summary and think about various elements that make up a text: the argument or message, how the writer or speaker crafts that message (evidence, stories, metaphors), the audience, the purpose, the political and historical context for the text, and the conclusions you can draw from these.
As you approach these two texts, consider the following: what arguments do the writers make about the relationship between the real causes of a situation, and the apparent causes, or popular narratives designed to distort, or draw attention away from the real issues? How do they support these arguments, who are their audiences, and what was their purpose in writing the text? These elements will help you develop your own argument (analysis) about the significance of the two texts on which you’ll focus.
For example, you could compare how Claudia Rankine and Richard Manning both disclose a discrepancy between rhetoric surrounding major social problems, and the truth about those problems. Rankine shows how despite the media’s attempt to paint the perpetrators of racial violence as a few isolated “disturbed individuals,” the reality is that police violence against black Americans points to broader, systemic racism. Manning, meanwhile, shows how while presidential candidates in Iowa like to talk about issues like ethanol or immigration, the real crisis facing Iowa is ecological catastrophe. Both are looking beyond received notions and convenient stories to show problems that don’t have easy answers. They dismantle an erroneous understanding of a situation, and provide a more accurate one. But they go about this in different ways. They use different tones, address different audiences, use different metaphors.
Grading Criteria:
- Thesis/Focus (40%): How well have you informed your readers about the various rhetorical aspects of the two texts (message/argument, audience, purpose, historic and political context, writing style, metaphors) and drawn conclusions between the differences between these two texts and the significance of these rhetorical elements (the “so what” that you offer to your readers)?
- Support (30%): How well do you support your analysis with examples from the two texts, as well as other texts we’ve read this semester? How well do you integrate quotes from the texts (without “padding” your paper with too many long quotes)?
- Organization (20%): How well do you organize the piece? Is the organization logical and coherent?
- Style, Grammar, and Editing (10%): How well have you edited and proofread so that no grammatical or spelling errors detract from the message and your credibility as a writer?
Paper Specs:
- 1,800-2,100 words/about 6-7 double-spaced pages
- 20% of course grade
Important Dates:
October 19 In class invention work for your paper
October 26 Peer and instructor review of draft 1+ writer’s reflective letter describing your choices, process, and thinking about your piece so far, and instructions for readers to help them give you feedback.
November 2 Final revised essay and writer’s reflective cover letter due.