How do we begin to formulate an argument that includes literature, images, the law, and political
theory?
Begin with (this is NOT your argument, but a way to work towards it):
(i)
A quick description of the topic/your interest: what are you interested in? What’s
happening that grabbed your attention? What led you to this issue?
You can actually use this personal story as a point of entry to your argument. Don’t
ramble, but use it as a “vehicle” to direct your readers towards the important point you
want to make.
(ii)
Formulate a set of research questions that you will pursue: what are the questions you
want to ask, given the background information, articles, etc. What do you want your
readers to “get” or see?
REMEMBER: a good argument is essentially a question. So it’s a good idea to
identify your questions…
(iii)
These questions lead us towards a clear thesis statement of argument.
A well-formulated argument is NOT simply a statement of fact, or a sentence that
“describes” a text.
INSTEAD: an argument forwards a hypothesis – a speculation that you “PROVE” using
the paragraphs in your paper.
A well-formulated argument sentence will consist of at least two clauses, connected
with a “because”. You have to “set up” the argument first, and then get to your point – yr
in a seminar class; a thesis statement is not going to consist of one sentence.
THEN:
a) Formulate some sort of introduction/flashy way to draw your reader in...(it could be your
personal interest/what drew you to this topic). This little intro can be connected to how
you introduce your “Primary Source” (the book) – in fact, as long as all the elements
are present (novel, author, argument, and an interesting hook to draw in your
reader’s interest), you can play with the order.
b) Present your argument.
FIRST: introduce your "Primary Source" - that is, the novel, the memoir that you are
writing about, and the author is, too (Ten Little Indians by Sherman Alexie is a collection
of nine short stories about……..).
THEN: connect your argument to the book.
c) LIST 10 sources (secondary - which means: books, articles, interviews, etc. that comment
ON/critique/have relevant arguments pertaining to your argument or Primary Source).
FOR EACH ENTRY, INCLUDE:
 MLA listing (a must)
 What is the author's main point/set of arguments? Describe briefly.
 What is the relevance of these arguments/information to your topic/paper? How will
this be helpful to your paper?
ENGLISH 360: POSIBLE PAPER IDEAS
The following are just ideas…use these as a guide to formulating your own theses, in your own
words. You can combine ideas/change them, apply one thesis for a different book, etc. These are
just ideas meant to help you get started.
1. Sherman Alexie’s Ten Little Indians:
He is the quintessential modern American writer: Spokane/Coer d’Alene writer Sherman Alexie
is (give your reader a short, exciting intro to the writer). He is not satisfied with being either a
romanticised “Indian” or a plain “American”; rather, he explains on an NPR interview that he is
comfortable on “both sides of the hyphen” (cite the source here – the interview…).
a) Alexie argues that four centuries of conquest, and two centuries of writing and films about
“Indians” have ingrained a dangerous mythology in the minds of all Americans – including his
own (explain). His own characters continuously defy our pre-conceived ideas of what an
(American) “Indian” is supposed to behave like – and humour and unabashed use of vulgarity are
part of the weaponry Alexie uses to dispel the myths about peace-loving Indians. Alexie uses his
own prolific writing career (look up all he’s published/done) as a counterpoint to all those
troubling misrepresentations of Indians, thereby attempting to “correct” the existing problematic
views….
How does Alexie gets us to problematise/critique our obsession with romanticising Indians?
Why does Alexie give us stories about characters, who, for the most part, have “unromantic”, and
quite boring lives/ordinary problems? (Use the NPR interview/John Newton’s article to help
back up your point).
b) Alexie’s stories of “ordinary” and “white collar” Indians (use his interview here to help add to
your argument) illustrate the value he places on family, love, and togetherness for survival and
advancement – especially for those peoples who have been marginalised and nearly destroyed by
a history of conquest and genocide. While Indians are expected to fall into the stereotype – the
drunk, the deadbeat, the reservation loser – and be stuck there, Alexie attempts to illustrate that
you can go beyond the mediocrity that’s expected of you – the expectations of your own group,
and those outside your group – with the support of family and education. But often, there’s a
price to pay for going outside of expectations, too: some subtle lessons, others more painful. It is
as if Alexie, through his stories, is exploring the central position of family (in its many forms),
love, and the importance of humour in survival – while also illustrating the negative aspects of
going beyond low expectations. (You can use a lot of the same material as above.)
c) Alexie’s use of humour in his writing: his brand of humour conveys a whole list of things,
including some contradictory things. How does Coulomb show that Alexie’s humour both
“creates” and “breaks” bonds? Why is humour – especially humour that almost goes beyond the
limits of acceptability” important – especially when Alexie actually “teaches” us/gets us thinking
about “less palatable” US history?
2. Marjanne Satrapi’s Persepolis 1 and 2 (treat these books as one – refer to BOTH):
Marjanne Satrapi was born in 197X in Iran, to a family that valued independent thought,
education, and laughter. In interviews, she describes her childhood as……and her parents and
grandmother as people who, above all, wanted to impart her with the ability to make strong,
informed, and intelligent decisions.
a) One of Satrapi’s main goals is to communicate the message of her people’s humanity to those
Others who may make decisions about Iranians without a clear understanding of the “real”
picture. Satrapi’s decision to create a “comic memoir” – rather than write a conventional memoir
– means that she is able to draw in a far greater audience than any narrative, because……Jennifer
Worth argues that Persepolis is an example of “theatre” and “performance art” in which Satrapi
does a sort of “solo performance”, telling a story/a version of history that is not allowed/is not
acceptable. Satrapi’s drawings and captions form a type of “embodied performance” that convey
a greater, more reliable “truth” than an ordinary narrative. (So your paper/argument is about what
comics, specifically, do – for the creator of the comics, and the audience.)\
b)
Satrapi’s powerful desire to narrate her experience, and blurt out the “truth” of her
experience: Ochs and Capps state that “narrating the self” (or telling one’s story) as an adult is a
fundamental means of making sense of experience, especially when one’s experiences may have
been completely confusing, disrupted (by personal or political upheaval), “silenced”, discounted, or
disregarded for various reasons. Ochs and Capps argue that rather than there being an “absolute”
truth, narratives are, in fact, “versions of reality” (21), which “can transport narrators and audiences
to more authentic feelings, beliefs, and actions and ultimately to a more authentic sense of life”
(23). What’s the value, for Satrapi, to narrate her e xperiences in Iran and Austria, as a child and as
a young adult? What do we get out of reading these narratives? Use relevant quotes from the Ochs
and Capps article to support your points.
5. Tarquin Hall’s Salaam Brick Lane
Tarquin Hall’s Brick Lane presents a new kind of Britain: multiplicitous, cacophonous,
multicultural: cool, different, funny, ironic – an inclusive and exclusionary place at the same time.
Brick Lane is the street on which the nation’s changing image, and changing history seems to
take place – it is the both a location of possibility, and a location on which hopeful immigrants
and asylum seekers find out how impossible life will be.
a) Whether a nation is “imagines” itself as one built on immigration and immigrants (the US, for
example) – or one which has a more monolithic mono-cultural identity (the United Kingdom, for
instance) has a considerable impact on whether newcomers are seen as a welcome part of the
developing national community or are viewed as a “threat” that dilutes and pollutes a particular
vision of national identity. A nation such as the UK, with a strong sense of national identity as a
monoculture might act more “exclusive” and “insider”, excluding others using both visible and
invisible barriers. The level of difficulty immigrants experience increase when the boundaries of
the new nation (or “imagined community”) that the immigrants enter are harder to penetrate,
and/or when the immigrants came from a cultural/class background that made it especially
difficult to forge an “inroad” into the new nation. Why does class and one’s national history
matter? What things determine whether someone “makes it” or does not?
b) OR: Does it seem as though gender has a lot to do with the way in which
assimilation/adjustment to a new nation happens? Does gender have something to do with the
level of “Success” or ease with which people adjust? Why so? You can use Salaam Brick Lane,
OR Small Island…OR!!! You can do a comparison of the characters in the two books – one a
novel about Post WWII Britain, the other a memoir about the “new Britain at the end of the 20th
Century.
c) What about a comparison between what Britain then and Britain now is like for immigrants
(another possibility for comparing Small Island and Salaam Brick Lane)? Why would making
this comparison be important/what might it reveal? (again the WHY is important here – or you
just list off “it was like that then” but “it’s like this now”).