Question about literary analysis

[Kassia]

When you're writing a body paragraph and you mention a character or characters, should the new character be introduced/explained?  

 

For example: 

 

"Bob gave Joe a book."  This paragraph focuses on both Bob and Joe, but the paper itself is mostly about Bob.  Joe isn't mentioned again in the paper.  Does it need to be: "Bob gave Joe, his cousin's husband, a book?"  

 

 

Does it depend on your audience?  In this case, my daughter is writing it to her teacher who has obviously read the book.  

 

Hope this makes sense!  

[maize]

Yes, I would give a brief description so that the character has substance beyond a name. Something like what you posted that shows how character B relates to character A.

Edited February 12, 2017 by maize

[Kassia]

Yes, I would give a brief description so that the character has substance beyond a name. Something like what you posted that shows how character B relates to character A.

 

Thank you!  That's what I thought, but my dd is resisting even though it's a simple fix! 

[regentrude]

Depends on the audience.

All of DD's literature professors wanted essays to be written for an audience familiar with the work.

Which makes a lot of sense, because any deep analytical argument is pointless if directed to somebody who does not know the work - if you have to explain what the book is about, the reader is not in a position to appreciate the analysis.

Edited February 12, 2017 by regentrude

[Kassia]

 

Which makes a lot of sense, because any deep analytical argument is pointless if directed to somebody who does not know the work - if you have to explain what the book is about, the reader is not in a position to appreciate the analysis.

 

Good point!  That's why dd is resistant to changing it.  

[Muttichen]

Depends on the audience.

All of DD's literature professors wanted essays to be written for an audience familiar with the work.

Which makes a lot of sense, because any deep analytical argument is pointless if directed to somebody who does not know the work - if you have to explain what the book is about, the reader is not in a position to appreciate the analysis.

 

I teach AP English Lit and it is essential for students to avoid plot summary.  They should always assume the reader is familiar with the work.  The essay should be focused on analyzing the meaning of the work, not on plot details like who the characters are.

[Kassia]

I teach AP English Lit and it is essential for students to avoid plot summary.  They should always assume the reader is familiar with the work.  The essay should be focused on analyzing the meaning of the work, not on plot details like who the characters are.

 

Thank you so much!  

[Harriet Vane]

I have an English degree,

 

I agree with Regentrude and Muttichen 100%.

[The Girls' Mom]

I teach AP English Lit and it is essential for students to avoid plot summary.  They should always assume the reader is familiar with the work.  The essay should be focused on analyzing the meaning of the work, not on plot details like who the characters are.

I've taken college level Comp/Lit classes for the past 4 semesters, and this is how all of my professors have approached it.  

[Kassia]

I have an English degree,

 

I agree with Regentrude and Muttichen 100%.

 

 

I've taken college level Comp/Lit classes for the past 4 semesters, and this is how all of my professors have approached it.  

 

 

I'm so glad I asked because I was telling dd that she needed to explain who the characters were.  

 

Thank you all so much!  :)

[Lori D.]

My 2 cents worth (having led 4 co-op classes now through literary analysis essays, and now a film analysis class with film analysis essays) combines both the Maize response and the Regentrude/Muttichen response. ;)

 

Absolutely avoid "retelling the story". But you always give context to avoid confusion. In the specific case you are citing, if the secondary character is ONLY showing up in that one example, then ideally, state it in a way that avoids even needing to use the name, esp. if the secondary character is not even going to show up in the analysis/explanation later in the paragraph. 

 

So in your example, I'd go with with: "In the scene in which Bob gives his cousin's husband a book, _________", with the blank being filled in with the purpose of even including the example -- like, it reveals something about Bob's character, or develops a point about relationships of the times or in the context of the work of Literature, and then expand on that. No need for Joe's name at all that way, AND it gives enough context to avoid confusion. win-win. :)

 

Yes, I am familiar with the work I'm having the student write about, but it's good critical thinking practice to learn how to phrase things concisely AND precisely, that leaves no confusion. The greater the number of names (esp. if only being "name-dropped" in examples) equals the greater the potential for confusion, even with AP essays and AP essay evaluators. The problem I see students often running into is in giving a stack of names that are not needed, when defining the relationship or stating the context is what supports the student's point and adds so much more to the analysis.

 

YMMV. :)

Edited February 13, 2017 by Lori D.

[Kassia]

My 2 cents worth (having led 4 co-op classes now through literary analysis essays, and now a film analysis class with film analysis essays) combines both the Maize response and the Regentrude/Muttichen response. ;)

 

Absolutely avoid "retelling the story". But you always give context to avoid confusion. In the specific case you are citing, if the secondary character is ONLY showing up in that one example, then ideally, state it in a way that avoids even needing to use the name, esp. if the secondary character is not even going to show up in the analysis/explanation later in the paragraph. 

 

So in your example, I'd go with with: "In the scene in which Bob gives his cousin's husband a book, _________", with the blank being filled in with the purpose of even including the example -- like, it reveals something about Bob's character, or develops a point about relationships of the times or in the context of the work of Literature, and then expand on that. No need for Joe's name at all that way, AND it gives enough context to avoid confusion. win-win. :)

 

Yes, I am familiar with the work I'm having the student write about, but it's good critical thinking practice to learn how to phrase things concisely AND precisely, that leaves no confusion. The greater the number of names (esp. if only being "name-dropped" in examples) equals the greater the potential for confusion, even with AP essays and AP essay evaluators. The problem I see students often running into is in giving a stack of names that are not needed, when defining the relationship or stating the context is what supports the student's point and adds so much more to the analysis.

 

YMMV. :)

 

Thank you!  

 

In this case, the secondary character's name is used throughout the one paragraph and never used again in the paper.