Ms. Crandell
AP English Literature
The God of Small Things/Heart of Darkness analysis essay (100 points)
This essay allows for more latitude than with our previous essays; in a well-developed paper, you may:
1. Extend and expand one of your timed writes on The God of Small Things
2. Focus on post-colonialism as a lens for examining identity within The God of Small Things
3. Using New Historicism, compare and contrast Heart of Darkness with The God of Small Things
4. Develop your own approach to this essay (you will most likely draw from Formalism, Cultural
Criticism--particularly if you discuss the political dimensions of the novel(s)--, or Feminism). Your warmup responses may be helpful!
There is no requirement for outside sources, but you may use and cite other literary critics, historical
documents, etc.
Recommended length: 3 pages, double-spaced.
Ideas for topics: tragedy, interdependence, loneliness, love, oppression, power, death, strength,
change, survival, justice
Directions:
1. Create a strong, specific, arguable thesis.
2. Write a complete draft for peer review.
3. Write a final draft, upload to turnitin.com and google classroom, and print out
Rubric:
A
Persuasive
B
Reasonable
C or below
Introduction and
Thesis
--Opening gives dramatic situation,
name of work, and author.
--Thesis guides the paper and will
usually be a complex sentence.
--Thesis is strong, specific, and
arguable.
--Opening gives dramatic situation
but does not identify author/name
of work.
--Thesis is clearly stated.
--Irrelevant or vague
lead sentence.
--Thesis is a simple
statement of fact.
--Introduction contains
flawed logic.
Organization and
Structure
--Well organized.
--Smooth transitions that lend a
sense of continuity.
--Coherent progression of ideas.
--Consistently deepens its
argument with details and
references to previous ideas.
--Generally organized.
--Some choppiness due to
elementary transitions or missing
transitions.
--Organization is clumsy
and not readily apparent.
--Very choppy and does
not flow well.
--Few or no transitions.
Evidence
--Smoothly integrates textual
evidence.
--Offers vivid and specific detail,
without quoting more than is
necessary.
--Evidence is integrated
somewhat haphazardly.
--Evidence may be general.
--Textual support, if any,
is clumsily incorporated.
--Relies on plot summary
or mere observation.
Content/
Commentary
--Persuasive analysis.
--Controlled reasoning.
--Identifies and analyzes complexity
and/or irony.
--Reasonable analysis.
--Some insight, with implicit
analysis.
--Adequate, plausible
analysis, but marred by
‘filler’.
--May not support the
thesis.
Voice/ Diction
--Clear, active voice.
--Uses literary present tense.
--Collegiate diction and appropriate
literary terminology.
--Mixed active and passive voice
to no rhetorical end.
--Diction is generally appropriate
but is limited.
--Uses some literary terminology,
but doesn’t explain the ‘so-what’
behind it.
--Limited or incorrect
usage.
--Limited or no literary
terminology.
Syntax
--Uses a variety of simple,
compound, and complex
sentences.
--Linguistic nuance.
--Some varied use of sentence
structure, but is repetitive.
--Little sentence
variation or poor
sentence structure.
Conclusion
--Provides a sense of closure.
--Restates thesis in a refreshing
way.
--Simple restatement of thesis.
--Summary of earlier points in
paper.
--No apparent
conclusion.
Mechanics and
Usage
--Virtually no mechanical and
grammatical errors.
--Generally free of mechanical
and grammatical errors.
--Many distracting
mechanical and
grammatical errors.
Overall
Workmanship
--Length is appropriate for scope of
thesis.
--Correct formatting, including MLA.
--Uploaded to turnitin.com in timely
manner
--Length is sufficient.
--Some small formatting errors.
--Uploaded to turnitin.com
--May be too short.
--Many formatting errors.
--Uploaded to
turnintin.com