ENGL 1302 Essay #2 Instructions: Comparing Multiple Texts Word Count: 800+ / (Honors: 1,500(+) + 1 extra source)Format: MLA  This essay asks you to take those things that we have worked

ENGL 1302 Essay #2 Instructions: Comparing Multiple Texts

Word Count: 800+ / (Honors: 1,500(+)  + 1 extra source)

Format: MLA

            This essay asks you to take those things that we have worked on thus far in the semester, the analyzing of texts through framing and arguing a thesis statement, and apply it to the analysis of multiple texts.  Your thesis should center on a common theme or idea contained in the texts you choose to compare, and your body paragraphs should argue for that thesis through a thorough analysis of each text, as well as a consistent contrasting of each against the other. 

            You may choose from any of the prose pieces that we have looked at this semester, or you may choose at least one essay that we have read and an essay or essays independent of our course.  The only stipulation is that it be either scholarly-academic in nature or it be published by a reputable literary organization (if you have questions about this, you should ask me).

For example, were I to compare Robert Musil’s “On Monuments” to Martin Heidegger’s “Memorial Address,” I might have this thesis: Through a combination of Heidegger and Musil’s thoughts, we see that thoughtlessness is just as big a threat facing our world today as it was when they wrote their pieces.

A sample outline:

·             Intro

o   Framing:

§   Introduce the issue of thoughtlessness or postmodernity independent of the texts.  In particular, I will focus on how these problems are more significant today than ever before.

§  Introduce my reader to the two essays, focusing specifically on how each shows how humankind does not think when they should most.

o   Thesis: Through a combination of Heidegger and Musil’s thoughts, we see that thoughtlessness is just as big a threat facing our world today as it was when they wrote their pieces.

·             Body #1

o   Topic sentence: As Heidegger and Musil illustrate, our dilemma is that a new way of thinking has replaced the old, and this has stunted our ability to truly, deeply contemplate.

§  Proof: explain Heidegger’s “calculative” thinking

§  Proof: show how “calculative thinking is the same as Musil’s “everyday” thinking

§  Tie the two together and show that these ways of “thinking” are no real thinking at all, and then apply it specifically to a twenty-first century context.

·             Body #2

o   Topic sentence: As argued by both, it is clear that this type of thinking has dire, catastrophic consequences for humanity if not heeded in time.

§  Proof: show how Musil’s notion of monuments leads to a numbing effect that levels all meaning and undercuts the important events in life.

§  Proof: discuss Heidegger’s fear of nuclear power and the destructive capabilities of calculative thinking.

§  Proof: relate both of these concepts to contemporary life, and show how inattention to them could have the same consequences for us that both authors fear.

o   Conclusion

§  Reframe the issue

§  Restate the thesis

§  Summarize the arguments.