Literary Analysis—Essay

 

          Since the French philosopher Montaigne published Essais, a two volume collection of short writings on diverse subjects in AD 1580, essays have become a very common way for writers to communicate their ideas. Informal essays are usually brief, often humorous or witty, and sometimes personal. Formal essays tend to be longer, serious in tone, and informational or organized as an argument.

 

          As you read an essay, determine what kind of essay it is. An informal satiric piece needs to be read differently than a formal, straight forward, exposition explaining a historical, social, or political analysis. Reading a personal essay should lead you to examining the author’s presentation of himself or herself; does the author present the narration humorously? Or is the narrator portrayed as speaking authoritatively? Does the essay create an ironic tone, as Jonathan Swift’s speaker in “A Modest Proposal”? Or is the speaker gently mocking himself as in E. M. Forster’s “My Wood.” The tone of an informal personal essay may be serious, as in Anne Morrow Lindbergh’s “The Channelled Whelk,” or it may be humorous, as in Forster’s “My Wood.”

​

          Identifying the purpose, audience, and tone of an essay are necessary first steps to understanding it and writing a valid analysis.

 

Literary Devices Often Used in Essays

         

Look up the following literary devices to learn ways that persuasive essays are likely to use. https://literarydevices.net/  

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

​

The Appeals of Effective Persuasion

 

           The speaker’s or writer’s appeals used in persuasion have traditionally been viewed in Western civilization as logos (persuading by sound reasoning), pathos (persuading by moving emotions), and ethos (persuading by your good character).

 

Reason

          A speaker or writer may appeal to an audience by clear, valid reasoning (called logos). This appeal may involve something as purely logical as a classic syllogism (a strict method of deductive reasoning, in which you reach conclusions by correctly relating a major premise and a minor premise). A model syllogism comes to us from ancient Greece:

​

Major premise: “All men are mortal.”

Minor premise: “Socrates is a man.”

Conclusion: “Therefore, Socrates is mortal.”

 

In a syllogism, like this, the new term in the minor premise (“Socrates”) must be included by the absolute term of the major premise (“all”). If the new term is not included by the absolute term of the major premise, the logic is invalid:

 

Major Premise: “All men are mortal.”

Minor Premise: “Socrates is mortal.”

Conclusion: “Therefore, Socrates is a man.” 

 

Here is another example of this invalid form of syllogistic reasoning:

 

Major Premise: “All cacti live in the desert.”

Minor Premise: “Scorpions live in the desert.”

Conclusion: “Therefore, scorpions are cacti.”

 

Normally, the major premise is stated in an absolute term like “all.” If one term is qualified or conditional in the premise, the conclusion must also be similarly qualified:

 

Major Premise: “Most men are mortal.”

Minor Premise: “Socrates is a man.”

Conclusion: “Therefore, Socrates is probably mortal.”

 

Another example of this kind of modified syllogism is as follows:

 

Major Premise: “Most potatoes weigh less than a pound when harvested.”

Minor Premise: “I just harvested a potato.”

Conclusion: “My potato probably weighs less than a pound.”

 

          These syllogisms, modified to show limitations in their applications, are valid for reasoning about probabilities, but not absolutes.

​

          When speaking about logic, you must keep in mind that a syllogism that is valid may not be true. For it to be true, each of the premises must be true. “All birds are yellow; the jay is a bird; therefore, the jay is yellow” is a valid syllogism, but it is nonsense because the major premise is not accurate. Another example is, “All students who study hard make good grades: Sylvia studies hard; therefore, Sylvia makes good grades.” Unfortunately, the major premise stated something that is not always true, so the logic of the syllogism is valid, but the conclusion is still untrue.

 

          The American Declaration of Independence is structured as an extended syllogism composed of a variety of minor premises that work with the major premise which Jefferson begins the Declaration: “We hold these truths to be self-evident….” Like all deductive arguments, the Declaration moves from the opening general statement to specific situations and a logic conclusion.

 

          Syllogisms provide useful ways of checking the logic of argument or reason, but they are not often expressed in this pure form; more likely you find them underlying expository prose at scaffoldings of logical thought structures that proceed from generalizations to specific instances.

 

          In conversation, speakers often take for granted that their audiences agree on material that would be stated in the major premise of a formal syllogism. They might then use logic based on that assumed agreement:

​

Major Premise:          “No one likes a coward.” (Unspoken, agreement is assumed)

Minor Premise:          “John is a coward.”

Conclusion:              “Therefore, no one likes John.”

 

          When speakers assume the agreement of the listener, they feel no need to make their major premises explicit. The speaker/writer usually will express this reasoning colloquially: “John is a coward, so no one likes him.” This kind of logical construction is technically called an enthymeme. The logic works as long as the assumed agreement is real. If this information is problematic or controversial, the logic is not convincing: “Robert never made an A in high school history; he must have been a lazy student.” The unspoken assumption here is there is universal agreement that anyone who failed to do outstanding academic work in a particular subject must be lazy.

​

          Students often write unconvincing arguments because they fail to state specifically and accurately the fundamental premises on which they assume agreement. They do not expect disagreement, so they begin their reasoning at the wrong point of the deduction.

Induction takes the opposite direction, moving from the specific to the general, accumulating data and interpreting it by a more general insight or principle that best accounts for the observed phenomenon. With inductive reasoning, you must follow the closely observed actions and reactions of the phenomenon you are seeking to understand and explain. This phenomenon may relate to the physical world, the world of human actions and history, the world of art and culture, or the world of scholarship and faith. By the strict methods of scientific investigation, scientists move inductively from particulars to arrive at more general truths, more abstract principles. They can test ideas or theories by setting up experiments, noting results accompanying the varying controlled conditions, determining which results are useful, validating the results by repeated experiments that are yielding the same outcomes, and then predicting results when the same conditions apply.

​

          The deductive and inductive reasoning modeled by the logical syllogism and the scientific method tend to be formulated in strict forms. But the appeal to reason may also be expressed in less rigid ways. You daily make judgments about your world, your friends, your fellow workers, your teachers, by methods of deduction or induction that interpret their words, their tones, their facial expressions, their “body language.” Deduction seems to work most effectively in the world of ideas and values, where ideal values help us understand our particular dilemmas and responsibilities: “All persons who commit murder should be punished; John Doe murdered his wife; therefore, John Doe should be punished.” But in the physical world, operating from interpretive strategies based on generalization frequently leads to misreading specific situations. A Marxist committed to a particular kind of historical inevitability may ignore or mistaken specific events that do not support the Marxist theory. On a more personal level, our own assumptions or prejudices may consist of generalities that block us from seeing reality clearly. If we are introduced to someone and told that he is Italian, our stereotyped notion of the enthusiastic, romantic, and emotional Italian may mislead us in knowing this Italian.

Knowing how easily people can misinterpret one another—misread a tone of voice or fail to recognize a joke—we need to be slow to judge what others mean by their statements or gestures. This is especially true if we perceive things through the lens of a biased subjectivity, when our interpretation is colored by our own emotions or expectations. How do expectations figure on this? When we are expecting the glass to be filled with orange juice, but it is actually filled with tomato juice, we have a moment of confusion, and, perhaps, irritation. When a speaker gives us a lesson with intricate reasoning required understanding it, we may reject it and call it boring if we were expecting an inspiring pep talk from the speaker.

​

          Our assumptions also may betray our reasoning and evaluating in the same way; in fact, assumptions are what lead to expectations. When a new Star Wars movie comes out, fans assume that it will be as adventurous and witty as the earlier films of the series. They expect a certain style and spirit to the movie. If the movie does not live up to those expectations, they react negatively to it. If this happens, they should reflect on the assumptions that lie behind their expectations, questioning them. Do these assumptions permit the fans to really see the new movie for what it is? Perhaps instead of comparing the movie with the earlier films of the saga, they could deal with it more independently and learn of its distinctive qualities. They might reason about it, reflecting on what the director was seeking to do in this particular episode. Perhaps George Lucas wants a different tone in this one; perhaps he’s experimenting, discarding the successful patterns of the earlier episodes and creating new effects.

​

          Whenever our expectations, based on our assumptions, are not satisfied, we tend to react negatively. Christians who worship formally, with a prayer book and liturgy, may dislike, even disapprove of, a service filled with spontaneous demonstrations of worshipping, charismatic Christians, people raising their hands and praying loudly. In fact, they may not find it to be “worship” at all, their assumptions blinding them to the sincere expressions of praise all around them. Likewise, a charismatic Christian used to a charismatic church and worship might find a quiet, ordered liturgical service to be “dead ritual,” not “worship” at all. In both these cases, Christians have not really seen their brothers and sisters engaged in communion with their God because their assumptions have led them to judge and condemn the way others worship the God they both call “Father.”

​

          A thoughtful evaluation about our own assumptions and their power to shape our interpretations may validate our initial judgments. We may realize that we have built up a set of expectations that we assume any new movie directed by George Lucas will attain. We are disappointed in his latest film; we suspend our expectations to try to discern what his purpose and accomplishment is in this particular work—and we still don’t like it. We decide it is simply a bad movie, insufficiently conceived, badly acted, awkwardly written, its characters thinly drawn and poorly motivated. Our initial response has held up, but we have learned much from questioning it.

​

          Emotions may also color our interpretations. If we find ourselves in a bad mood, tired and irritable or fearful and defensive, we are more likely to misread what is said to us—or what we are experiencing in a class, a movie, a book, or any other situation. “Common sense,” a useful term for widely shared reasoning, calls on us to become less emotionally tied to the situation we’re trying to understand, to stand back from it or, in more colloquial diction, to “cool off” or “chill out.”

​

          This discussion of the logos appeal used in persuasion introduces you to the processes of good reasoning and fallacious reasoning. Your handbook describes in greater detail the various forms of reasoning, explaining their use and misuse in structuring and testing an argument.

​

Emotion

          You may also appeal to your audience’s emotions (pathos). By simple analogous thinking, we are able to imagine ourselves experiencing what another human is experiencing; we have the capacity to share in another’s emotions. Writers/speakers tell stories or relate examples that move the audience to empathy, to feel pity, outrage, hope, or love. This appeal is perhaps most powerful in persuading an audience to action. Think of how easily moved you are when you see images of war orphans or starving children on the evening news, how easily hard luck stories can gain your sympathy, how romantic love stories can absorb your full attention. Emotions are powerful energies that can be roused and demand that you act on them. Seeing the victims of tornadoes, we want to gather canned goods and clothing for them, donate blood, or contribute money. But again, as discussed above, this powerful appeal can be misused to manipulate audiences and readers. Not every charity that makes you feel responsible for poor children actually gets the majority of the contributed funds to them. You must investigate and reason, giving out of a wise decision and not just an emotional impulse. Similarly, the appeals to your guilt or doubt may be played upon by preachers and others to manipulate the responses that they think acceptable–as in Langston Hughes’ “Salvation.”

 

Character

          Finally, you may build credibility with your audience by the appeal to character (ethos), convincing them of your goodness and your sincerity, leading them to trust you, persuading them by your demonstrated virtue and authority that they should agree with you. Writers/speakers may establish this impression of character just by the way they reveal their personalities: a person who seems confused, weak-willed, indecisive, or ill-at-ease—or one who appears unconcerned, pompous and condescending—may fail to persuade an audience. On the other hand, the person who seems caring, informed, calm, reasonable, or humble is more likely to get a fair hearing before judgment is made—and will probably persuade many in the audience.

​

          Another way a writer/speaker gains credibility is by aligning himself or herself with historical figures or causes that have received public approbation. These “cultural icons,” like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Henry David Thoreau, and Eleanor Roosevelt, symbolize to Americans the ideals that our nation strives for, and when the writer/speaker mention such names or quote them, they invest themselves with ready-made respect. Similarly, invoking images of national virtue, such as “home, Mom, and apple pie” works to enhance one’s character in the mind of the audience. Homespun wisdom, nods to national values and images, warnings about the decline of morality in our society can build this sense of character and are “appeals” that move toward persuasion.

This appeal too can be falsified. Feigned allegiance to moral standards and values, especially by politicians, is often detected today by a skeptical public and an eager press. When we watch a production of Shakespeare’s Henry V or read a biography of President Harry Truman, it makes us yearn for people who can act and lead from the foundation of their own integrity, their character.

​

          These three appeals are seldom found alone in a persuasive work. Writers and speakers employ them as needed to bolster their desired effects. As you consider a persuasive speech or writing, you need to listen or read carefully, alert to any flaws in logic or reasoning, questioning the assumptions that shape both the verbal text and your interpretation of it and examining all elements thoughtfully.

​

Logical Fallacies

          Sometimes errors in logical thinking—called logical fallacies—show up in advertisements. Be aware of these tactics in advertisements, speeches, and written documents, and be careful to not make these mistakes in logic as you write or discuss issues.

 

Generalizations—based on inadequate, sparse evidence; forming a conclusion before observing sufficient or particular cases.

• faulty generalizations—based on weak, unrepresentative, or irrelevant evidence

• guilt by association—attacking a person’s ideas because of that person’s interests or associates

• stereotyping—grouping without considering individual differences

• half-truths—telling only part of the truth so that the picture is distorted

 

False causes—inaccurate causes

• post hoc—assuming that because two events are related in time, the first caused the second. “George started listening to that hard rock music, and sure enough, before you knew it, he was on drugs.”

• false assumption—a conclusion that may be true but cannot be proven for a lack of hard evidence.  “She wears bifocals, so she must read a lot.”

• genetic fallacy—assuming something can be explained in terms of its birth or origin. “; Ignore them; they’re from that small town with the rusty water tower.”

• non sequitur—a conclusion or statement that is not based on the evidence; not a logical conclusion.

 

False analogy—making comparisons that aren’t relevant to the issue; basing proof on an analogy that is ludicrous or untenable. Mistaking an analogy for a proof, so that what is true in one situation is automatically to be taken true in the second. “Don’t fire Hank just because he pilfers goods from the store room. One bad apple doesn’t spoil the whole barrel, you know.”

• Begging the question—assuming the truth of the proposition that needs to be proven (circular argument is related). Making an unsupported assertion and expecting your audience to agree with it without proof. “How did grand opera, which is so boring, even survive beyond the Dark Ages?”

• Circular reasoning—Restating an assertion as a reason in support of the assertion; “Because Oklahoma weather is unpredictable, it is next to impossible to predict whether the next day will be sunny, rainy, snowy, or windy.”

• Self-contradiction—using two premises that cannot both be true

• Either/or (false dilemma)—two choices are incorrectly offered as the only possibilities when, in fact, there are probably more.  “You either are a jerk or you do sloppy work.”

 

Ignoring the question—raising irrelevant issues to draw attention away from the real issue

• ad hominem—attacking the person supporting the issue instead of the issue itself (name calling is related).

• straw man—attacking an opposition that doesn’t really exist

• red herring—introducing an issue to divert attention from the real issue

• ad populum—appealing to emotions like jealousies, hatreds, fears, prejudices

  • Emotional appeal—appealing to the audience’s sympathy rather than its reason. “Why re-elect me? Elect me because I’ve survived an assassin’s bullet and because I love America.”

  • Bandwagon appeal—encouraging someone to be like other people instead of thinking for oneself. “Don’t be left out in the cold; come join your friends at the concert.”

 

Intentionally misleading—purposing misrepresenting something

• taking something out of context—separating an idea or fact from the material surrounding it, resulting in misleading, distorted, or false information

• misquoting—incorrectly quoting someone, either accidentally or on purpose—“Reds, … is most moving and unforgettable. It approaches epic proportions.” —Rex Reed (movie critic). The entire quotation reads, “[The movie] Reds, when it abandons historical movements for personal relationships, is most moving and unforgettable. It approaches epic proportions, but only in a ponderous, stumbling way.” —Rex Reed (movie critic)

• ambiguity and equivocation—using expressions that are not clear because they have more than one meaning

• card-stacking—inflating one’s own argument by ignoring evidence on the other side of a question

• false authority—supporting an argument with claims by someone who is not a reliable authority on the topic in question or has lost credibility over time. “Prince Charles has chosen the Cincinnati Bengals as three-point favorites in the Super Bowl.”

 

 

Assignment

Writing a Literary Analysis of an Essay

 

          A literary analysis "takes apart" a piece of literature and closely examines literary techniques used in the text in order to show how they contribute to its overall theme. The purpose of this essay is to give you practice closely examining the various points of view represented in a text, then writing about how each one contributes to the theme of the entire piece. 

​

NOTE:  An analysis is NOT a line-by-line explanation of the meaning of the text. Nor is it merely a summary of the text. A literary analysis attempts to identify the use of specific literary devices AND establish the relationship between that device and the meaning of the text. Think of it as attempting to show the relationship of the parts to the whole.

​

          For this paper, you will be required to identify at least three techniques the author used in the essay, including the narrative point of view, and explain how each one contributes to the theme of the entire selection.

 

Essay Structure Guidelines

I.    The introduction must include the following:

• the author and title of the work

• a brief statement of the theme you wish to illuminate, (one of the author’s points)

• a clear, precise thesis statement that indicates the paper’s topic, focus, and implies its purpose (to inform or to persuade).

 

Sample Thesis Statement: In "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., uses the classic methods of persuasion--logos, pathos, and ethos--to persuade readers of the justice of breaking an unjust law by supporting a non-violent demonstration for civil rights in Birmingham, Alabama.

 

II.   The body of the essay must include the following:

Summary Paragraph: Summarize the main points and evidence so the reader understands the content and structure of King’s letter.

 

Body Paragraph 1: (explain the use of logos). Define logos as reasoning and cite examples of how King uses reason and builds on established principles and sources to support this point.

 

Body Paragraph 2: (explain the use of pathos). Define pathos as emotion and empathy and cite examples of King’s use of emotion to persuade. Identify the point of view of a character (other than the narrator) and explain how that point of view contributes to the meaning of the entire piece.  Include examples from the work (quotations, summaries of scenes, etc.) to support your explanation.

 

Body Paragraph 3: (explain ethos) Distinguish between ethical considerations and actions (that may be argued as part of logos) and ethos as it refers to the ethical reputation of the author; how does King gain the reader’s trust; why do we consider him to be a good person? What does he cite to establish ethical authority? Include examples from the work (quotations, anecdotes, etc.) to support your explanation.

 

NOTE: You may discuss more than three persuasive devices if there are more, but you MUST discuss at least the three identified above.

 

Each body paragraph MUST have the following:

• a clear topic sentence stating the perspective being analyzed

• quotes from the text that identify and explain the perspective. (Quote accurately and use parenthetical references.)

• full explanations of how the perspective identified contributes to the work as a whole.

• a concluding sentence and/or sense of closure

 

III.  The conclusion must rephrase your thesis and summarize your main points; draw general conclusions about how the author uses the various literary techniques to convey his/her purpose to the reader. BE CREATIVE.  Do not flatly list your major points.  The conclusion is the last (and often lasting) impression.

 

General Reminders about Academic Writing:

• Refer to the text using present tense verbs (NOT “King stated,” BUT “King states”)

• If you refer to the author by name, use his or her full name initially, then refer to him or her by the last name in subsequent references.

• Document thoroughly and accurately using MLA format.

• Write all paragraphs, except the personal response paragraph, in the third person.  Do not use first person pronouns (I, we, our) or second person pronouns (you, your).

• Maintain an appropriately academic tone; avoid clichés, slang, colloquial expressions, and religious jargon.

• Assume your audience has NOT read the text you are analyzing.

 

 

Selections for Writing a Literary Analysis of an Essay

Margaret Sanger......................................................... “The Turbid Ebb and Flow of Misery”

Dorothy L. Sayers..................................................................... “The Dogma Is the Drama”

Jonathan Swift................................................................................... “A Modest Proposal”

Garrison Keillor....................................................................................... "Letter from Jim"

Martin Luther King, Jr..............................................................“Letter from Birmingham Jail”

C. S. Lewis..............................................................“What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?”

Mark Helprin..................................................................... “Statesmanship and Its Betrayal”

Zora Neale Hurston........................................................... “How It Feels to Be Colored Me”

Malcolm X................................................................... “Freedom through Learning to Read”

Frederick Douglass....................................................... from The Life of Frederick Douglass

​