Author: admin

Rubric for this Deep Dive
Nuanced and Debatable Conceptual Claims with Significance
Max: 20 points
4 Exemplary
4
Exemplary
3 Accomplished
3
Accomplished
2 Developing
2
Developing
1 Beginning
1
Beginning
Makes a nuanced, original claim that responds to a conceptual problem arising when interpreting the texts comparatively. Shows insight into the texts and their context. The claim’s multiple components trace out a deep argument, where each new paragraph offers a new conceptual step (sub-claims that are steps in the main claim). Claims are situated relative to possible alternative views, showing complexity of thought.
Makes an original claim that responds to a conceptual problem, though the claim may lack some nuance or require further development in its conceptual components. The claim recognizes the possibility of alternative views but may require additional development to respond to them fully. The comparison makes sense.
Makes a claim that has conceptual value, but the claim may be overly reductive (too simple), lack awareness of alternative perspectives, or lack argumentative depth. The claim does not respond to a conceptual problem and/or seems unoriginal. Comparison might lack a firm basis or be unclear. Sub components of the claim are not developed.
Does not make a clear and cohesive main claim that can structure the argument. May simply state or summarize things about the texts. Makes some kind of point but in a way that does not allow for the development of a conceptual argument. May not be comparative.
Analysis/Close Reading (use of evidence and reasoning)
Max: 20 points
4 Exemplary
4
Exemplary
3 Accomplished
3
Accomplished
2 Developing
2
Developing
1 Beginning
1
Beginning
The essay substantiates the claim with insightful analysis of textual evidence and clear reasoning that provides for original and conceptually rich interpretations. The argument develops all necessary conceptual components to convince a skeptical reader of the paper’s main claim. Analysis recognizes textual complexity.
Uses evidence and reasoning to substantiate the main claim, but perhaps overlooks a couple of important issues or requires further development in some close readings. Substantiates most aspects of the claim but may not be fully convincing and may require additional development to articulate the claim’s nuance.
Uses textual evidence and explicates the author’s reasoning, but simply rephrases or summarizes chosen text without adding any analysis or interpretation or skips steps in reasoning or key pieces of evidence or both.
Lacks textual evidence and logical articulation of reasoning (ie just asserts opinions with no grounding, or seems to make irrelevant, scattered points, etc.).
Coherence of Argument and Structure (clear logical relations among parts)
Max: 20 points
4 Exemplary
4
Exemplary
3 Accomplished
3
Accomplished
2 Developing
2
Developing
1 Beginning
1
Beginning
Essay’s ideas are coherent and convincing overall. The essay’s paragraph development is coherent, logical & rhetorically effective. All paragraphs relate to the argumentative point of the close readings. Each new step adds depth and further enriches the argument, engaging in debate and bringing the textual passages and analysis into meaningful contact that develops a progressively refined argument. Every element feels necessary, valuable, and interesting.
Essay’s ideas and paragraph development are generally coherent & logical. May contain some structural issues impeding argument development, like repetition, unclear links among parts of the argument, missing transitions, etc. Some of the ideas may feel vague or their relation to one another may feel they require further development.
May contain details or observations irrelevant to the close reading’s conceptual ideas. May present some instances of incoherent development of essay or paragraphs.
Reading shows incoherent or illogical development, making it difficult to follow and understand.
Clarity of Thought
Max: 10 points
4 Exemplary
4
Exemplary
3 Accomplished
3
Accomplished
2 Developing
2
Developing
1 Beginning
1
Beginning
The ideas come across in a clear and convincing way, highlighting something valuable for the reader that they can easily grasp thanks to the guidance of the author’s writing. The writing itself is clear and easy to follow, presenting information in a way that makes it accessible for a reader who doesn’t already share the writer’s ideas. Exhibits a mature and, ideally, graceful style
The ideas are clear enough, although they may not feel convincing or might sometimes feel vague or difficult to follow in some respects. The essay is generally clearly written, but sentence structure may be unvaried and simple or style may feel like it requires more development to showcase the author’s voice.
It is difficult to follow the ideas in key moments and the concepts end up feeling unclear and unconvincing – this could be due to incomplete or unclear expression of ideas, problems with writing style (inept or imprecise phrasing, problematic word choice, etc.), or major problems with syntactical, grammatical, and/or punctuation errors that prevent the communication of meaning.
The ideas are incomprehensible to the reader. This may be due to a conceptual problem, and it also may be due to so many mistakes in standard prose style (e.g., diction, grammar, syntax, punctuation, spelling) that reader can’t understand individual sentences or paragraphs and is unable to follow the argument.
Improvement
Max: 5 points
4 Exemplary
4
Exemplary
3 Accomplished
3
Accomplished
2 Developing
2
Developing
1 Beginning
1
Beginning
Shows excellent attention to previous feedback and significant improvement over previous written assignments.
Shows attention to previous feedback and improvement on the most important aspects of writing. There is still room for more improvement, but things are going in the right direction.
Shows some engagement with previous feedback and some improvement in writing, although more thorough reflection on how to use feedback to improve is needed.
Shows some attempts at improvement, but these may not align with the previous feedback or might show misunderstanding of what was highlighted as needing development. More attention to feedback and improvement is needed.
Requirements Details
Max: 
25 points
Word Count & Depth
Did this Deep Dive meet word count range requirement?
1,200 – 1,500 Words Max: 4 points
Formatting
Did this Deep Dive use appropriate formatting?
MLA Style
Max: 1 points
Grammar & Mechanics
Did this Deep Dive use effective grammar with minimal errors?
No Details
Max: 10 points
Flow & Structure
Did this Deep Dive flow logically and use expected structural elements?
Max: 10 points
Total Assignment Value
100 Points
For your midterm essay you will need to develop a nuanced argument about more than one of the texts we have read in class. Below, you will find (1) a prompt to help you frame your argument, (2) guidelines about what constitutes a good essay, (3) general guidelines for this specific assignment, and (4) a rubric for how your essay will be graded. On the course Canvas site you will also find a sample essay (from a different class context) that models effective rhetorical devices. That sample essay is shorter than this midterm assignment, but it may still be helpful as a model of effective argumentative strategies. We will discuss elements of the sample essay in lecture when covering the rhetoric of writing an effective argumentative essay.
(1)   Prompt: How does fantasy mirror, distort, or reconfigure our perception of the world? Compare two texts we have read in class to consider the complex relationship between fantasy and reality. (Hint: your argument does not need to “answer” this prompt in a direct response, i.e. you don’t want to choose two texts and just list ways that they mirror our perception of the world, ways they reconfigure it, and ways they distort it; rather your paper should use the prompt as a starting point to generate an argument rooted in specific textual passages and details. The best arguments will begin with problems or conflicts that you are able to identify through a close reading of the text and will then use those textual problems to highlight larger conceptual issues.)
(2)   Guidelines for How to Approach Writing a Persuasive, Argumentative Essay:
a.      Start by finding passages in the texts that seem interesting because they allow for multiple possible interpretations or raise questions, rooted in conceptually complicated or difficult aspects of the text. This could involve passages that seem to conflict with or be in tension with one another, or it could involve multiple passages that reveal a similar conflict within themselves.
i.     For example, a passage where, after reading it, you are able to think “it seems like the passage is saying X, but at the same time it also appears to be saying Y, and Y conflicts with/challenges/problematizes X… so the passage ends up raising a question or creating a problem that requires interpretative work to resolve.”                                                           
ii.     Or, for example, a couple of passages where the way you interpret one passage implies something about the text (a conceptual point) but the way you would interpret another passage implies something conflicting about the text, creating a tension or problem to resolve.
b.     With this textual conflict in mind, you should think about what reading or interpretation of the text it leads you to.
c.      Now, compare that reading/interpretation of one text with a reading/interpretation of another text (rooted in the same process of finding conflicts and positing responses to them outlined in a-b above). Make sure that your comparison refers to a shared set of conceptual keywords – like, for instance, ‘fantasy’, ‘reality’, ‘mirroring’, etc.
i.     Your main argumentative claim will derive from what you see when you compare these different texts’ ways of helping you understand those conceptual keywords.
ii.     The logical relations among these multiple steps could look something like the following: “While Text A suggests that fantasy relates to reality in way X, Text B suggests a relation between fantasy and reality that conflicts with X: Y. This conflict makes us question whether one or the other vision of this relation is more convincing. My answer to that question is Z.”
d.     Now you’re ready to write! Make sure your essay does the following:
i.     Makes a debatable argument that shows nuance in its interpretation of the textual
sources
a)     A debatable claim offers an interpretation that the text itself provides the resources to disagree with, so that your reader has convincing grounds to take a position other than your own.
b)     An argumentative claim will use the text to focus on a conceptual issue or set of conceptual issues – it will not be limited to a simple textual confusion (ie the motivation of a character, which is later clarified, etc.)
c)     A nuanced argument involves multiple conceptual components with complex logical relations to one another (ie not “passage 1 shows us X, and passage 2 shows us X, and passage 3 shows us X, therefore, X” but rather something like “passage 1 shows us X; however, passage 2 disagrees with X because of Y; Y implies Z, as passage 3 shows us; and Z relates to X because of A; therefore, we can say ________” – in other words, the logic connecting the pieces of the puzzle is complex, involves multiple steps pushing deeper, and enables you to unpack the text’s complexity in a conceptually interesting way that is attuned to the many different factors at play within it)                                                            
ii.     Uses compelling textual analysis (close reading) to substantiate that claim
a)     Since a nuanced claim is multifaceted and involves multiple steps, the textual analysis will have to substantiate each of those steps in turn
b)     The claim will thus require close reading of multiple textual moments to be fully substantiated
c)     The close reading will use evidence and reasoning to argue for insightful interpretations of the text                                       
iii.     The claim’s conceptual significance is clearly articulated – why it matters which side of the argument you come down on or what interpretation you choose.
(3)   Guidelines for Assignment:
a.      The midterm is due on Packback by 11:59PM on 5/17/24
b.     It should be around 1,250-1,500 words in length (about five double-spaced pages)
c. Include citations for all quotations and a bibliography for all works cited
d. You may use secondary/critical sources in addition to primary texts from the syllabus
Questions to Answer In This Deep Dive
How do fantasy worlds relate to our reality?
What are the differences between how different texts construct that relation?
How do fantasy worlds challenge or alter our perception of actual reality?
What are the differences in how different texts construct those kinds of challenges or lead to different forms of altered perception?
Do texts have goals in terms of what they aim to do to the reader through their fantasy world?
What does it mean to reconfigure or change the way we view the world?
For your midterm essay, given the prompt and the guidelines, I recommend choosing “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” and “The Rule of Names,” both by Ursula K. Le Guin. Here’s why these two texts would be a good fit:
Complex Relationship Between Fantasy and Reality:
“The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”: This story explores a utopian city whose happiness depends on the suffering of a single child. It mirrors our perception of moral and ethical dilemmas in society, distorting the notion of a perfect world by revealing the hidden cost of such perfection. The contrast between the apparent joy and the underlying horror reconfigures our understanding of societal happiness and ethical compromises.
“The Rule of Names”: This story delves into the significance of names and identity in a fantasy setting, where Mr. Underhill’s true nature as a dragon named Yevaud is revealed. It challenges our perception of identity and reality, highlighting how names and knowledge can shape power dynamics and self-conception.
Passages with Multiple Interpretations:
In “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”, the descriptions of the city’s joy juxtaposed with the misery of the child allow for multiple interpretations regarding societal complicity and individual morality. The tension between collective happiness and individual suffering raises questions about the ethical foundations of societies.
In “The Rule of Names”, Mr. Underhill’s interactions with the villagers and the revelation of his true identity create a conflict between appearances and reality. This tension invites exploration of themes related to truth, deception, and the power inherent in names and identities.
Shared Conceptual Keywords:
Both texts can be compared through conceptual keywords such as ‘fantasy’, ‘reality’, ‘identity’, ‘power’, ‘ethics’, and ‘society’. By examining how each text handles these concepts, you can develop a nuanced argument about how fantasy in Le Guin’s works reflects, distorts, and reconfigures our perception of reality and ethical issues.
Close Reading and Textual Analysis:
Both stories offer rich material for close reading. In “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”, you can analyze the detailed descriptions of the city and the stark contrast with the child’s condition. In “The Rule of Names”, you can examine Mr. Underhill’s behavior, the villagers’ perceptions, and the climactic revelation of his true identity.
By choosing these two texts, you can construct a compelling argument about the interplay between fantasy and reality, supported by detailed textual analysis and a comparison of how each story uses fantasy to explore complex moral and philosophical issues.