I found this essay, despite other posts, to be easier than the first essay. I hate it when I’m given freedom to write about whatever I want. Given such freedom I struggled to find exactly what I wanted to write about. This second essay limits the choices I have and since it is a close reading so one’s thesis is basic what one believed the purpose of the reading is. Being forced to used contextual evidence is easier than thinking of something off the top of my head. Everything needed for the second is right before our eyes. I haven’t had much experience doing a close reading like others since I dropped out of my AP Eng class in high school. Guess that was my fault.
The editing process is dull but we know we must do it. I am currently dusting my essay for grammatical errors but it is difficult to find any because my sentences sounds correct in my head. I am having difficulty in really making my thesis apparently and being an actual thesis but my mind can’t think straight, I think I’ve caught a cold. My head is boiling, I wonder if I’m just frustrated cause I hate editing. I have one question that I need answered. May I analyze the reading using rhetoric? I just remember the basic to close reading speeches and such required identifying rhetoric and literary devices. I believe ethos, pathos and logos can work well in analyzing the reading and might just be a better method of analyzing Luc Sante’s preface of “Low Life” then reading in between the lines.
I didn’t read other people’s posts and yours is the first thing I clicked on after I completed mine. I read the first sentence and decided to comment. I thought this one was A LOT easier than the first paper. I don’t know why exactly, but in the end, I’m happy it was this assignment and not something more difficult.
I thought this was easier because in this case you analyze the writing and fit a thesis into it. In the other one, it’s more like you make a thesis and fit the writing into it. The latter has more room for error.