Write an analytic essay that compares one of our origin texts, Troy, 47 Ronin, Much Ado about Nothing, or Don Quixote to one other text we are reading this semester by comparing and contrasting a single element of those texts.
Overview: In one of our two textbooks, Introducing Comparative Literature, Domingo, Saussy, and Villanueva explain that when we write a comparative essay, we ask and answer a series of questions about what a work of art has achieved at a moment in its culture. We then compare the results of that analysis with a similar kind of art from a different culture. When we write this comparison, we determine the nature of a complex group of internally linked meanings in both works of art. This process allows us to write robust accounts of the function and value of those texts, even of their beauty (74).
The authors mean in part that we first analyze particular, specific, elements of one text and that we can discern additional elements of that same text when we contrast and compare those elements with similar elements in another work that was produced in a different culture or at a different moment in time in the same culture.
For example, we can analyze the Japanese woodcut at the bottom of the page by focusing on the relationship between the person with the text and the person looking at him. However, we would say different things if we compared and contrasted the woodcut with the painting next to it. The painting depicts a similar scenario of two people, one of whom has a text in hand, but comparing and contrasting the woodcut and painting allows us to highlight differences between the two works. Different elements we might analyze include: objects in the painting, who the holder of the text is and who the non-holder is. Each of these elements suddenly becomes more salient because we see the two works in light of each other. So too, if we were to perform the same analysis but with the painting and the photograph, yet another set of elements come to mind that we can analyze. In your essay, you will do something like this. Do not attempt to analyze the text as a whole. Instead, say significant things about one element. Maintain a narrow focus, one that is laser sharp.
So, take a single element from one of our origin texts and write an analysis of it by comparing and contrasting it with a similar element from one of the other texts we are reading that is not one of our origin texts. It would be useful to bring in a single insight from one chapter in Bennett & Royle’s Introduction to Literature, Criticism, and Theory or Domingo, Saussy, and Villanueva to choose an element. For instance, what is a universalizable singularity in Troy, and what do we see in it when we contrast it with a universalizable singularity from one of our novels or poems? I might argue that in Priam’s meeting with Achilles, Priam asserts that he is Achilles’s enemy but they can respect one another during the meeting when he requests his son’s body. Priam’s testimony regarding his presence in the tent witnesses himself and how Achilles can choose to see him. When Achilles acknowledges he has witnessed Priam’s courageous testimony by deferring their enmity till morning, it
HeDdedemonstrates the power of speaking one’s own truth to the perceived enemy. However, in The Housekeeper and the Professor, when character Z (to avoid spoilers) uses a mathematical formula to convince character Y of a specific problem, Z’s “argument,” is unique to him and only understandable by Y. The result is a surprising reconciliation between the two characters. In Troy, Priam’s testimony results in Achilles’s decision to no longer fight against the Trojans. In Housekeeper, Z and Y persist on their individual paths but find a way to speak to one another. In order to make a good argument about this, I will pull quotes out from both texts and analyze them thoroughly and extensively to prove that my analysis is correct. I’ll make sure I balance my analyses of both texts.
This is just one possible topic you can compare and contrast. A different element is possible.
Qualities of essays: Your essay will have an arguable thesis — that is, a controversial main idea that is not self-evident — that you prove is a strong interpretation of how the two texts illuminate each other by using specific quotes from both texts and making logical arguments about those quotes.
Do not summarize either text. In your final draft, you can quickly contextualize the element, but you must not turn in a summary with your paper. Of course, you will probably have to summarize texts to figure out what you want to argue, but then you must revise so that the work you turn in consists of your thesis, quotes that support it, and arguments that use logic to prove points about the quotes.
The essay should be 750 to 1500 words long, in MLA format (12 point Times Roman Font, 1 inch margins). It is all right to go over the word limit, but it will be unwise to write fewer than 750 words. You MUST have a complete works cited at the end of the essay. If you have your works cited on the same page as the last page, that is all right, but it does not count towards the number of words in your essay. In any case, the works cited MUST have all texts you refer to or quote from in it. Anything you read to prepare your essay, from Wikipedia pages on the text to scholarly essay, must be put in your works cited. As long as you list the texts you reference, everything will be fine. It is only if you fail to include a text that you run into trouble. Do not plagiarize (see the syllabus on plagiarism and cheating).
The essay must be turned in on the due date. You will sign up for due dates the second week of classes. You must upload your paper to Turnitin.com through the Blackboard site associated with our class.
Options: The second text will be one we read in class. If not, you must check with me 1 week before the due date of your paper to ensure that you will be able to receive full credit. For instance, you might want to compare and contrast the 2013 47 Ronin with the 1941 47 Ronin by analyzing the depiction of the insult that is offensive to Lord Asano. If so, and if your paper is due 15 April, you must have formal approval from me by 8 April. To get permission, pitch the text and your thesis to me in a meeting. I recommend you make your argument interesting by bringing in a notion from Bennett & Royle such as, “Bennett & Royle state that, ‘The idea of God is inescapably linked to idea of truth, presence, revelation and meaning in general’ (190) as such, the absence of the direct insult that Lord Asano suffers in the 1941 version of the 47 Ronin resounds meaningfully when contrasted with the series of insults the same figure suffers in the 2013 version of the 47 Ronin. The later movie depends upon depicting Lord Kira as distinctly evil, due to his abuse of power and misuse of magic, while the 1941 version depicts both characters relatively favorably. The effect is to make the earlier version of the story more ambiguous, which undercuts its power as straightforward propaganda and increases its relative artistry, rending the insult ineffable.” You would then go on to prove all your points by quoting the films and referencing their scenes. You’d have to have a good definition of propaganda too.