Order your essay today — written by real experts, guaranteed plagiarism-free, and ready to impress your professor!
First, as you revise, keep reading and going back to the AGWR and handouts: re-read my critical reading chapter to remind yourself what kind of ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions to ask. And re-read any portions of the AGWR dealing with thesis statements, arranging your essay, paragraphs, analysis, development, etc. Go back to all of our handouts and powerpoints.
General notes:
Need Help Writing an Essay?
Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper.
Write My Essay For MeContent:Focus is a good thing. It’s okay if you talk about just a few strategies. In fact, this can ensure that you’re reading very CLOSELY and looking closely at specific rhetorical devices. Plus this is a short piece and you need to be selective. However, while you can’t write about EVERY aspect of the text, you can’t IGNORE really noteworthy ones. And you can’t pretend something isn’t there if it is. So think about this – are there key aspects of what makes Steinbeck’s text so… Steinbeckian…that you are ignoring? Should you cover these?
My biggest piece of advice with academic analytical writing: MAKE THE IMPLICIT EXPLICIT. Never let your work, or Steinbeck’s, speak for itself; never hope your reader sees things the same way you do or that they caught the same thing you caught while reading. I’d rather have you SLOW DOWN too much and be too EXPLICIT about how a quote works, why a technique is being used, what a style choice does, etc. – than leave things unsaid and undeveloped to the point that your reader has to guess at your thought process, has to make assumptions, or is just plain confused. Even if it seems obvious, you will impress your reader with your ability to put that thing we all just sort of ‘get’ into clear language.
Words are all we have to communicate with! We do not believe in telepathy here.
HOWEVER this needs to be coupled with your trusting your reader’s general intelligence and knowledge; you need to assume they know basic terms in the field and are basically familiar with the texts at hand (though you also need to assume that they may need brief refreshers, and that they are not simultaneously reading the text at the same time as your paper).
General purpose and Structure:
EACH technique you discuss should be clearly connected to each other, under a larger umbrella of strategy/purpose. This larger purpose and how each item connects should be explained explicitly in your introduction, in your topic/transition sentences, and in your concluding paragraph. Those are the elements that make the outline, structure, or skeleton of your paper.
And that skeleton is how your reader stays on track with your overall purpose: which is for you to explain the big idea you have about Steinbeck’s style and how you’ve used specific style elements to achieve it yourself.
Ultimately, everything should be working towards a single coherent argument (in statement of purpose and rest of the paper). If you find yourself with a bunch of disparate points (in thesis and rest of the paper), how can they coalesce to form a single complete thought about your text? Things could also be connected by OPPOSING each other – ideally, we want MOVING PARTS in our arguments. So maybe one technique undercuts another, or seems to contradict it somehow – that’s still a connection!
One key point that I’d like to emphasize: you’re not only identifying style techniques and strategies, in this memo – you are ALSO claiming and analyzing the purpose and/or effect of those techniques.
Introductions, Transitions, Topic Sentences
Towards the single coherent argument discussed above, you need to avoid an exam-style 5-paragraph-style introduction and thesis. That is, avoid the single-sentence paragraph that says “I imitated three things, which are X, Y, and Z”.
Instead, start with an introduction that describes the general style and purpose of Steinbeck as you see it (how would you describe his writing style, overall, in a sentence or two? That’s a great exercise in and of itself), and how you connected that to your place and story. Then, sure, maybe end that first paragraph with a brief ‘map’ of what the rest of the paragraphs will cover.
Again, to be clear: in the intro/thesis (and beyond), the specific strategies you are analyzing should be clearly connected to a larger style or theme or purpose of Cannery Row. If you’re looking at long sentences, figurative language, and duality, you can’t just list those as ‘strategies Steinbeck uses’. They need to be ‘strategies Steinbeck uses in order to achieve/contribute to X larger style or message or experience of the book’ (and that you are using too, to achieve a similar overarching style/experience). THIS is how we move beyond high school five-paragraph lists.
Transitions! Don’t begin paragraphs with ‘first’ and ‘then’ and ‘another’ and ‘also’ – these might as well be numbers or letters, and the paper might as well be an outline. I’m seeing a lot of disparate, disconnected-seeming devices just piled on top of each other (which is fine for a first draft!). How does X technique connect to Y? Again, don’t just say ‘also’ or ‘along with’ or ‘as well as’. That’s the same as a list. That’s the same as just saying ‘and’. Paint us a coherent, cohesive picture and point out RELATIONSHIPS between the elements of style that you’re considering.
To drill down into that idea, try to find a SPECIFIC way that the paragraphs are connected. Is one about metaphor, and the next about image? Maybe say something like ‘while his ______ type of metaphors help Steinbeck do X, his very ________ images create Y impression in the reader, and help him add Z to the story. I decided to also use ________ images, except my place necessitated a slightly different approach”. Or, is one about figurative language, and the next about overall structure? Say something like “
Topic sentences: please think of them as CLAIM sentences instead. Notice my metaphor/image transition/claim sentence above: I’m making a specific claim about what’s done and why, and how I am similar/different from Steinbeck. Not just ‘Steinbeck uses metaphors” – but a CLAIM about what kind of metaphor, and what purpose it serves, and if I’m doing the same, etc. Not just the ‘topic’ or subject matter, then, belongs in a claim sentence – but also a specific argument about it.
Evidence and Analysis:
Use evidence, from BOTH Steinbeck AND from your own piece. Many of you are only doing one or the other. Claiming that you use a particular syntactical style without proof is not very convincing, and you don’t want to force your reader to go comb through your text or Steinbeck’s. You are your reader’s host, and you want to assume they’re familiar with Steinbeck and your work but not that they are reading it at the same time they’re reading the memo. So you must quote and use specific details from both texts.
Again – think of, always, leading the reader by the hand and never leaving them confused or with gaps, and never making them consult the text/s themselves. Give them everything they need to be convinced! This paper, your job is to convince your reader that you understand the techniques and their purposes, and that you’ve successfully imitated them.
Analyze the evidence: this means, break it apart in writing. Lead your reader by the hand. Don’t just say “I use metaphors too: QUOTE, the end”. Point out – re-quote, if necessary – the metaphor.
AND explain how it works/why it matters/what effect it has. This is important generally – when you discuss a technique or strategy of Steinbeck’s, analyze why it matters, what effect it has. If you don’t understand the purpose of the strategy – whether for an emotional effect, or to create a particular meaning, underline a particular theme – then you only understand half of it. So explain that purpose. AND, do the same with your own work – explain what you’re doing and why. If you use a metaphor, explain what it makes us feel about your place, etc.
To reiterate: DO NOT leave your quotes to speak for themselves, or just summarize WHAT the quotes say. Remember always: explain thoroughly HOW a quotation is enacting the technique you claim, and what effect it has or what purpose it serves within the text.
Too many trains of thought abruptly cut off without development. Statements with no proof, reasoning, or followup are not generally a good idea in academic analysis. Always make sure you answer HOW and WHY questions that might come up. Be specific! Show evidence! E.g., of course, if you claim you use metaphors, your reader will want to know HOW and WHY, so you’ll provide evidence and analyze them. Or if you say ‘I decided not to use dialogue’, answer WHY and what you replaced it with.
Another way of talking about this: if Steinbeck or your text uses x,y,z style elements – always consider, does my reader need to know SO WHAT? Towards what purpose? And WHY those devices for that purpose? And HOW do those devices work to achieve that purpose? This goes for your statement of purpose/thesis, and for any smaller subclaim and analysis you’re doing later. Ask those how, why, and so what questions.
General points about paragraphs:
Make sure you have a clear focus to each paragraph. Don’t jump around from technique to technique – slow down, break up your paragraphs, and provide ample evidence and analysis for each technique.
This is NOT A SMALL THING. Our ability to follow you sentence by sentence is HUGE. Remember – make those IMPLICIT connections EXPLICIT. And always SIGNPOST to your reader – hold them by the hand so they’re never lost.
Paragraphs are a big way we signpost as writers, giving our readers clear, digestible ‘chunks’ that is each signaled to be a specific part of the skeletal structure (laid out in our thesis). They should be FOCUSED and UNIFIED.
There is no specific length a paragraph should be, but a rule of thumb is that if it’s shorter than 3-4 lines or longer than a page, you should go and look closely at it: if short, can you develop this idea more or does it belong in the same paragraph with another idea? OR, if long, are there too many ideas here that should be split up, too many long quotations that should be cut, or irrelevant information that should be cut?
