#enl3notes

My analysis 1 was weak in parts where I was summarizing the poem more than analyzing it. This has always been a major weakness of my writing and I plan to work on it throughout the course of this class. I am really interested in diving deeper into the motives of the wolf and the meaning behind the rhetoric line, "couldn't I have". I think that the wolf is seeking to be the master of his own destiny and desires to create something that will last long after he is dead. The wolf does seem to have enough self awareness to know the importance of clearing his name and moral conscence before he dies. This causes me to question his intentions because why would he want to be portrayed in such a positive light before his death, had he not lived a noble life up to that point so this was his last effort to paint himself in a postitive light? 

Reflecting on Analysis 1 -  The ideas that I tried to convey in my analysis came off as an opinion rather than an analysis. I think that is what I struggle with the most (being able to word things so that it doesn't sound opinionated). I also skimmed over the text rather than staying close to it and using the words in the book to do the analysis (as stated in my one-on-one) and I recognize that now after reading through it again. Instead of giving textual evidence in my analysis and implications, I only worte down my ideas based off the text, so it read more of an opinion. In the analysis I was trying to show Prospero's "self-centered" nature, but it was hard to do that without actually using those words. For the next time around, I will use sprecific traces of evidence in the text to add to my claim so that it is credible. 

This is the same laziness that is causing me to turn in my analysis 2 late - I'm still trying to figure out what 'implications' can be made out of the monarchy in Shakespeare's 'The Tempest'.  Thus far I'm doing a good job paraphrasing, but that's about it.

Looking back at my first analysis and the feedback I received, I would have to agree that the implications I pointed out were leaning more towards observations. Had I gone further, looking at the observations from different angles, I think I would have been able to come up with actual implications that could then be analyzed. I think this struggle comes from the assumption that a text appears one way and can only be interpreted in a certain way. In other words, fear of distorting the meaning of the text all together. One thing I did notice, however, is that an implication or getting at an implication can be a lot easier or more meaningful when there is textual evidence to support it. For example, I found the second piece of evidence could really drive what the first piece of evidence was saying. It also made my claims much more interesting, bringing in more ideas. For improvement, I would have to consider our class discussion on Mignolo and specifically about objectivity. I think that by avoiding interpretation of the text in just one way, considering all the other possibilities, would really allow for better, more engaging, and knowledgeable literary analysis.

After reflecting back on Analyses 1 and reading the comments generated by Karolyn, I realized that much of my "analysis" was too summary oriented in that I tried to convey the meaning of the paragraph and the chosen word "posterity" instead of exploring the implications of the words and patterns throughout the paragraph. Another issue I had with the analyses was that I jumped to conclusions when trying to analyze each section. Instead of just using my own perspective to try and define the section to what the author is indicating, I should use the words that he/she uses as evidence to form possible ideas of how they work together.  We can see in, "I did it for posterity, for kindergarten teachers and a clear moral: Little girls shouldn’t wander off” (stanza I, 2-5), that the wolf chooses to use many words indicating a future generation such as posterity, kindergarten, teachers, little, and moral. These all follow the category of children and learning, which can imply the theme of the whole poem. Using direct evidence like this can make analyzing much more effective. 

What I struggle with the most in my writing is to stick to few examples and to analyze those few examples. Writing becomes hard for me when I jump from one example to another instead of focusing on explaining one of them fully. In analyses one I should have only given examples for the way that both Prospero and Ferdinand believe in balance. Instead, I started to jump to examples of Alonso and Ariel. My analyses would have been stronger if I had expanded on the connection between Ferdinand's belief in balance and Prospero's belief. Ferdinand actually believes that fate will turn bad into good. so he has confidence in fate. He also believes  that some lowly activities that are done for noble reasons can reach rich end points. Prospero also has confidence and belief in balance, but his confidence has to do with his control over fate. While Ferdinand goes with the flow or fate, Prospero goes against the flow by controlling fate and manipulating it to his advantages. Both seek a balance in good and bad, but both have different ways of reaching to good from bad. Ferdinand does not do anything other than what he has to do such as stack logs to win his love, but Prospero controls fate with his magic. Ferdinand is a hopeful person who will let things happen, while Prospero is greedy, ambitious, and manipulative. Prospero's desire for revenge shows that he will not let fate take away his dukedom. Prospero utilizes his magic in order to gain back his title of duke.  

I’ve mostly written paragraphs starting out with some background information before moving into deeper analysis, so it was difficult for me to leave out the “broader material” in my analysis because I don’t know how to really jump into analyzing my quote without giving the reader more information about the evidence. After realizing the critique that there are gaps in my logic, I agree. I based my analysis more on my own opinion rather than what was explicitly stated in the text, which makes it harder to build analysis upon that because then my argument would not tie in as well to the evidence. For example, I wrote that the quote “implies that the story of Little Red Riding Hood is supposed to teach the importance of right and wrong based on the suggestions and demands given to children by their parents, as they know that what they tell their children is generally in their best interests.” However, I don’t know for sure that the story is supposed to teach the importance of right and wrong due to the suggestions of parents. What I said seems to imply that I personally believe that parents generally give suggestions that are for the well-being of their children. In addition, now that I’m looking back on my paragraph, it doesn’t seem like my ideas flow very well; it seems like I’m trying to go back and forth between several ideas without solidly sticking to one. For instance, the sentence after, I talk about the wolf’s role in the story and how he believes himself to not be an antagonist, which doesn’t have much connection with my evidence. Lastly, I see that I do not actually analyze the focal word, “mustn’t”; I gloss over it at the end of the paragraph. However, I think that it was good that I had so many ideas going through my mind. For my next analysis, I will try to hone in on one specific idea and one quote/evidence, and then build my argument around those.

My goal for all future writings and analyses is to better justify my claims with solid incontrovertible evidence, and most importantly, to think deeper so as to find more profound interpretations and messages deeply embedded within the context.