The essay must be interpretive.
Don’t just compare what happens in these encounters–assume your reader
knows the stories well. Instead, compare
the stories in terms of the meaning of these encounters. What is the point? Wolff invented these characters and their stories
in order to say something about the human experience. What is Wolff saying through these stories?
You must have a
focussed thesis and three topic sentences that are clearly connected by that
controlling idea.
Introductions
-No
generalizations
-No “this essay
will” statements
-No need to list
body paragraph topics
-Identify your
subject in the first sentence and then set up thesis, which should be the last
sentence of the intro.
-A bit of relevant
summary may be appropriate, but the intro should not be all summary.
-Maintain
integrated comparison structure.
clearly identifiable, comparative thesis
Conclusions
-No
generalizations or “ouverture”
-Reinforce main ideas with the force of your arguments behind you
-Don’t repeat sentences that appeared earlier
saying and lends colour to your conclusion
Titles
-Find a
representative, catchy phrase from one of the novels, something you quote in
the body of the essay.
-Put it
in quotation marks, followed by a colon, followed by a more literal indication
of your essay topic
-Do not
cite the page number for the quotation in the title. Your reader will recognize it when you quote
it later in the essay and will see the page number then.
Sample titles:
“The
Intention of the Contract is Good”: Promises and Contracts in The Mayor of
Casterbridge and Jude the Obscure
“Emotions So Compounded of
Pleasure and Pain”: Affective Contradiction in Jane Austen’s Persuasion and Charlotte Bronte’s Jane
Eyre
One
such contract is that of fellowship, which initially connects Phillotson and young Jude, as well as Henchard and the newly
hired Farfrae, in a bond of reciprocity and
mutual confidence. The betrayal of this fellowship demonstrates the growing
apathy of individuals towards the needs and expectations of others. Initially,
there is a solid foundation of mutual interest in both pacts. After the business
deal between Henchard and Farfrae, made in good faith with the joint goal of
economic success, Henchard declares that Farfrae is “now
… [his] friend” (Mayor 51). Likewise, after Jude helps
Phillotson pack, and offers his aunt’s “fuel-house” (Jude 10) for temporary
piano storage, Phillotson gives Jude a book as a parting gift (and will later
send him more, fuelling Jude’s dream of becoming an academic) and declares that
he “shan’t forget” Jude (Jude 11). In both cases, the importance of the bond is further
cemented by a confession from one of the characters, as an act of trust. Henchard will finally feel comfortable and “confide in [his]
newfound friend” the complicated details of his relations with Susan and
Lucetta (Mayor 51), while Phillotson will profess to
Jude his secret dream of becoming “a university graduate, and then to be
ordained” (Jude 10). Both Henchard, who feels alienated because of his past, and Jude, who is seen as a burden to his aunt, are lonely, so a pact of fellowship is of extreme
importance to them. However, neither of their contracts hold over time, and
there is a betrayal of confidence through forgetting. Phillotson
admits that he “doesn’t remember [Jude] in the least” (Jude 82), and Farfrae later explains that he “had
forgot” the “story of [Henchard’s] life” (Mayor 77), comments which are
not well received by the other party. It is significant that both Farfrae and
Phillotson forget their pacts when they cease to be beneficial for them. Once Phillotson leaves Marygreen, Jude is of no consequence to him, and once Henchard becomes Farfrae’s
competition, it is not convenient for Farfrae to uphold any sort of agreement
with him. The
fact that the forgetting is done in one instance by the
younger man,
and by the older in the other, may indicate
that all people, in the new worldview,
are inclined to ignore the feelings of others when they no longer suit
them.
one of a introduction:
Sample
comparative introduction:
Jane Austen’s Persuasion and Charles Dickens’ Great
Expectations both present characters who are acutely aware of a social
hierarchy around them and who know, or quickly come to know, their place in it.
Austen’s Anne is born into the critical world of the English gentry where,
according to her conservative father, proper standing is paramount. Dickens’
Pip, on the other hand, is exposed to the harsh judgment of the upper classes
at a young and impressionable age and, as a result, yearns for advancement. As
these two characters navigate the social strictures around them, Austen and
Dickens do much to cast their situation in a negative light, criticizing the
character of the upper classes and the rigidity of the class system itself. The
primary target of their criticism is the dehumanizing nature of a social system
that separates character from status and limits meaningful personal
interaction.
Sample comparative conclusion:
Despite the stress accompanied by their crises, Ferris
and Wilhelm come away from the experience enlightened. Through self-examination
they identify the problems impeding their satisfaction with life. Although
Ferris and Wilhelm are pained by the recognition of all that is wrong with
their lives, they do acknowledge that they have the potential to move forward
towards fulfillment. Like Wilhelm at the
stranger’s funeral, both men have “s[u]nk deeper than sorrow,” but
through this process they have come to discover their “heart’s ultimate
need” (Bellow 135).