This is an open assignment: your only responsibility is to say something interesting, persuasive, and coherent about the book. You have come up with lots of promising avenues into the text; you can read through the comments on the last few posts for ideas that might pique your interest.
Nevertheless, some of you might like to have a little more guidance, so I'm going to provide a possible way to structure your paper:
In ¶ 1, raise an interesting question. There are lots of uncertainties, tensions, and apparent contradictions (paradoxes, I suppose) in the book; use the first paragraph to show one of these to the reader in a way that brings the question alive. You could do this by highlighting the contradictions inherent in a specific passage, or by showing how two different elements in the book are in tension, or by pointing out that something in the book is left out.
In each succeeding ¶, consider one way to answer that question. Use specifics from the text to guide your way and provoke your thinking. It would be best if the different ways of seeing the question followed one from the other!
Conclude with a way of seeing the question that has learned from what you've said in the body paragraphs.
Any questions?
No comments:
Post a Comment