On Quixote & Doctor Faustus In the world/ In the tradition”
Use critical reading and writing skills to engage and analyze literary texts.
MUST BE ABOUT 100-350 WORDS EACH AND POSTED.
Responses should not be mere summaries. Rather, they should reflect original thinking about the work/s: claims, suggestions, or critical inquiries on literary elements such as character, theme, setting, tone, style, plot, and so on. Responses MAY BUT NEED NOT address historical-critical sections or head notes (though you are still responsible for those readings). They may address works comparatively or separately, but they must offer some feasible basis for discussion. Responses to In the Worldor In the Traditionclusters (sections of pages shaded blue) may be on any cluster but MUST BE FROM BOOKS OF THE ASSIGNED, CORRESPONDING, OR RESPECTIVE WEEKS. They NEED NOT address all but MUST ANALYZE AT LEAST TWO WORKS OR EXCERPTS therein.
Do not merely summarize the plot. Proper analysis requires detailed examination, most often of A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE FROM THE TEXT (put in the form of an MLA parenthetical citation). Find an appealing description, idea, or character, for example, and write succinctly about it. Discuss the writers philosophy, talk about the significance of themes or linguistic tropes (figurative devices such as metaphor or simile), or offer a close reading of a specific passage or image. These are feasible ways to explore what interests you. Respond to the work intellectually, logically, not so emotionally; tell us what you think, not only how you feel, and USE EXAMPLES FROM THE READING TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION. For examples (in the form of MLA citations), use quotes, paraphrases, and/or summaries, followed by page numbers in parentheses.
Davis, Paul, Gary Harrison et al, eds. The Bedford Anthology of World Literature. Books 1-3.
Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2004.
Don Quixote (257-96) & Doctor Faustus (384-451)
Has to be writing in In the world/ In the traditionresponse.
All the citations should be appears in middle of the writing.
Prof. Christian Clark
In the World/ In tradition Response
Niccolo Machiavelli: The Prince
Machiavellias the Prince is systemically and logically explains that for a leader to be loved by his subjects is best, but that many leaders must rule through fear. Once the shift is made to ruling through fear, he says, one cannot return to benevolent leadership. a?If a prince wishes to maintain himself, a?Machiavelli write, a?he must learn how to be not good, and to use that ability or not as required.a? (p.129) Machiavellias theory is emphasizes personal exertion rather than the direction of fortune and God. Even though he presents a guideline for how to be a good prince, he argues that success as a leader is self-determined because success is never an accident; it is always the result of intelligent effort.
Marguerite de Navarre: The Heptameron
The Heptameron describes the subjugation of women during the Renaissance and explains the ethics of the time. Navarre show the status of women as she describes a manas ridicule of a women who is a?happy enough to kiss the corpsea? of a man (p.186) The text criticizes Amadour, who represents all men, for using a woman to fulfill his sexual desire, but the authoras own anger shows through this unbalanced description of menas actions. The deplorable character Navarre attributes to Amadour through his manipulation of women points to deep personal resentment on the authoras part. I was angry with the character for feigning love to fulfill his own passion, but I am not convinced that Amadour represents the typical man.
Michel Eyguem de Montaigne: Essays
Montaigneas essays are hard to explain in the terms of one united philosophy. Each individual idea Montaigne presents makes sense, but it is impossible to unify the theories or to find the most important one. Montaigneas writing is not like a lesson that is trying to teach us. It narrates his thinking on religious, political, and social issues. The author quotes Plato as saying, a?All our efforts cannot even succeed in reproducing the nest of the tiniest little birda? (p. 217), but Montaigneas own work presents the same impossible task. He uses many philosophersa ideas, but it does not resolve the theories in a satisfying way.