Assignment: So far, you’ve had to write a paper that posed questions about an ambiguous moment or moments in a text we’ve read, and a paper that tried to pose an argument based on addressing one of those questions. For this assignment, we’ll be zooming even more into textual evidence and interpretation. Write a 1-2 page paper about either Sakuntala and the Ring of Recollection or Medea, focusing on a few lines of the text (again, try to use lines that you find ambiguous/are open to multiple ways of reading; you should quote these lines in your paper), and giving your interpretation of what they mean and why they are important. Pay attention to details (specific word choices, imagery, etc) in your interpretation. At the end of this interpretation, pose an argument that you think your interpretation of these lines could support.   Please do some close reading (of no more than 4–5 lines if possible; however, you may refer back to other lines/phrases in the text in your interpretation), and annotate those lines–again, provide evidence of your annotation in the form of a photocopy or photograph or show it to me in class (and the annotation should not just be you highlighting the lines–make some marginal notes, underline certain words that are important).

(If you want more specific questions to address about either of the plays in order to fulfill the goals of this assignment, click here: More specific questions about Medea and Sakuntala. You will still need to find a passage and interpret it, but these questions might help you to focus your ideas.)

Purpose: Fundamental to making an argument convincing is the use of  evidence to support it. In the case of literary analysis this means quoting the text. However,  for the use of textual evidence to be meaningful in terms of making an argument, you need to explain how the evidence does what you claim it does. That is, you see the language (or  structure or character, etc.) as ambiguous in some sense and in need of analysis to fully explain how to understand what the text is conveying.

Yet it is important to remember that there are multiple possible interpretations for any moment of ambiguity and you are making a case for one of those. Therefore, it is necessary to show what the ambiguity is and then show evidence from the text that supports your interpretation (disambiguation) of that ambiguity. You need to explain how it does what you claim because your audience does not necessarily read the same way you do. Your interpretation is immediately clear to you because you have made the connections in your head, but you need to make them clear to someone else.