THESIS FORMULATING AND JUSTIFYING
Essays are analytical only if expressing thesis (position)
and justification (argument). Essays lacking thesis and
justification tend to be merely descriptive (like highschool essays, book reports or laundry listing).
How to start writing analytically? Start by formulating
your thesis. Remember: your thesis must make a claim and
answer a ‘why’ question. It’s easy – we do it whenever we
want to make a point.
For example, in Blog Essays context, you could claim
Castells is right and Forster’s wrong – and answer why so
by boldly claiming, “Because Castells seems quite the
networking expert – whereas Forster had only his overactive
imagination to rely on and, as if that weren’t enough,
appears to have been suffering rather acute anterograde
paranoia.”
You can claim anything you want – Forster’s right or wrong,
Forster’s partly right or partly wrong, Forster’s a
prophet, Forster’s inane – even that Forster’s incoherent.
You can claim anything you want. So claim what you want –
but don’t forget to finish formulating. That is, give your
reasons. Use terms or phrases like because, since, due to,
as a consequence of, based on and etc.
Afterward, in the body of your essay, proceed to justify
what you’ve claimed. Use examples – but don’t forget to
declare what your examples are supposed to prove. The
latter is more important than the former.
We argue for and justify our positions all the time. It’s
as natural as breathing. Now, start doing it in your
essays. Take a look at some examples from your essays,
below.
"The premise that society is becoming dependant on machines to such a great
extent that the machines are replacing God and all forms of nature is the
central theme of E.M Forster’s ‘The Machine Stops’. This idea relates directly to
how Castells describes societies need to be networked with technology in order
for humanity to progress."
What’s your thesis? Yes, Forster and Castells’ ideas may be related. So:
declare how you relate them. How does Castells agree – or disagree – with
Forster? Then, justify what you’ve declared. Is Castells right to agree – or
disagree – with Forster? Why – or why not?
“The machine.. is a good metaphor for new media in that it embodies its central
issues as set forth by Wendy H.K. Chun..”
Don’t declare what someone else says as your thesis. Forster’s right because
Chun says so? Fine – but what do you say? What’s your thesis?
“.. the author does bring up some interesting points in how ‘new media’ can be
quite detrimental in the progress of humanity if we are not careful of its
presence in our day to day livelihood.”
It’s true, what you say Forster says. It’s all true. But you’re not writing a
book report. You’re writing an analytical essay. So what’s your thesis? It’s
not enough, saying (only) what Forster says. What do you say? Is Forster
right saying what he says – and, if so, why is he right?
“It is clearly obvious that in today’s day and age, computers or machines play a
huge role in our daily lives, and thus we find ourselves submitting to
technology…”
There’s a thesis in there – but not very clear. Your phrase “submitting to
technology” suggests technology is chiefly harmful. Well, don’t just suggest
it – declare it in your introduction. Say it loud and clear. Trumpet your
thesis. Then, proceed to justify it in the body of your essay. What does
Forster say about it? What does Castells say? Why are they right – or wrong –
to say so? And one more thing: avoid phrases such as “it is (clearly) obvious”
or “it is apparent” or “it is indisputable”. Because when you say “it’s
obvious” you’re saying you don’t have to explain or justify it – everyone
already knows. It’s just obvious. No need to justify it. But what are jobs 1
and 2 in an analytical essay? You got it: trumpeting your thesis/position and
justifying your thesis/position.
“.. tools themselves certainly do not make us less social or cause us to loose
skills or our identity. Our abuse of technology is the confounding variable. A
pattern seems to exist: we create new tools, abuse our usage of them and in
turn must create a new tool to “fix” the problem.”
Your thesis sounds terrific –
and clear. Don’t hesitate to
tools don’t abuse us. To the
abuse ourselves – and use our
abuse.”
yet remains needlessly ambiguous. Say it loud
hammer it all the way home. For instance: “Our
contrary. We abuse ourselves with our tools. We
tools to ensure there’s no recovering from the
“.. in Castells’s text the power of technology is a tool that will set us free, but
in Forster’s text it is a prison in which we live and it will destroy humanity.
Both authors have compelling arguments.”
They sure do, don’t they? They’ve done their job. Now you’ve got to do yours.
So get off the fence, take a position and trumpet your thesis. They can’t both
be right if they disagree as fundamentally as you say. Pick a side. Take a
position. And don’t wait to declare the position you’ve taken until the end.
Declare it right up-front. It’s an analytical essay you’re writing – not a
murder mystery.
“‘The Machine Stops’ represents the limitations brought upon us by technology,
while ‘Why Networks Matter’ discusses the idea that humans hold the power to
change the structures of society, and that technology is important to collective
advancement. Both of the authors are correct in their interpretations since
new media has created a dualistic state of affairs.”
Oh… So you say both authors are right despite their fundamental disagreeing.
Well, it’s arguable. But, right or wrong, whether or not you manage to justify
your thesis, you could not have said it any clearer. Terrific.
“The machine in "The Machine Stops" is a good metaphor for new media
because people desire new forms of technology that are faster and require less
man power, new media encourages unnatural selection in our society, and is
leading towards social instability.”
Fairly clear – though awkward. Listing all particulars due which you think
Forster’s right is premature in introduction. Get punchy with your thesis.
For instance: “Forster’s vision was true. (since) We are indeed addicted to
technology as if characters in his story.” Then, in the body of your essay,
proceed elaborating particulars of our addiction to technology – and justifying
significance of the particulars you elaborate.
“According to Forster, in his story “Machine stops”, humans are powerless.
Human life is completely dependent on the machine. But I think we are
dependent on technology to a certain extent, but not completely. I agree with
Castells, where power is with us. Network is an extension of our nervous
system, mind, senses etc.”
Clear introduction. Loud and clear – however awkward grammatically. That’s
trumpeting your thesis. Now all you’ve got to do is justify why you think
Castells’ right and Forster’s wrong.
“I agree with Manuel Castells’s opinion of networks because it relates more to
the present day, and how networks work now. E.M. Forster’s idea of how
networks work seems very dark and unrealistic to the modern view..”
Perfectly clear.
Repeat. Done.
Castells is right.
Forster doesn’t have a clue.
Justify.