analyzes one of the short works we read in Weeks 1-2 (this must be a primary work and not an analysis piece; in other words, you may not analyze Schechter, Halttunen, Black, Browder, or Friedman). Ins

analyzes one of the short works we read in Weeks 1-2 (this must be a primary work and not an analysis piece; in other words, you may not analyze Schechter, Halttunen, Black, Browder, or Friedman).

Instructions:

you will analyze this work from a literary standpoint, using critical lenses, literary elements, or other approaches. Remember: this is not simply “What you think” as a consumer; instead, this is a chance to examine the literary forces at play (character, theme, symbolism, language, etc.). First person language is acceptable on a limited basis, but avoid “I think”/”I believe” statements. You should use only the primary text for this analysis; do not do any outside research and especially do not Google your piece - this is not a research paper.

Length: 1,000 words (about 4-5 pages, including a Works Cited page citing your snigle source). Graded using the literary analysis rubric.

IMPORTANT: remember that you are analyzing this as a literary work, NOT analyzing the crime. This should not resemble a psychology, sociology, or criminology paper. It may help to imagine it as fiction to ensure you do not speculate outside of the course guidelines. For example, it is not appropriate to write a paper about whether Lizzie Borden truly killed her parents, or why children kill their parents. It IS appropriate to write a paper that discusses how newspapers portrayed or characterized Borden, based on the language provided.