I have an essay to write based on this question, but I'm unsure of exactly what it wants me to analyze/write about:
More than one hundred years ago, a writer for the Atlantic Monthly confronted an issue that is still timely. Read the following essay carefully. Then write an essay in which you analyze the nature of the writer's arguments and evaluate their validity for our own time.
Basically, the article is about censorship with books, statues, etc.
I am unsure if it wants me to write purely on the author's (of the lecture) point of view and what they specifically think or if I'm to nitpick details in their writing, or something.
However, I feel like I am supposed to formulate my own opinion based on the information given to me by the writer and then reflect on the writer's stance based on my own opinion.
6 answers
It seems you are to react to the author's arguments. Are they logical, defensible, arguments, or do they not really make sense to you? Then give your opinion about whether those arguments still apply in our own time. Since I have not seen the essay, I will assume that he was arguing against censorship of books, art, etc. The arguments FOR censorship are still being made. Every year someone tries to get books banned from libraries and schools for some reason. They depict sex acts that people disapprove of, they are interpreted as racist, they discuss violent crime, or something that somebody thinks no one should read about or see. As to your essay, did the author of the magazine essay convince you of his point of view or not? Why? How does his advice apply today (or doesn't it)?
I don't know why this isn't showing up on the main screen, but be sure to read Reed's reply above -- or below:
It seems you are to react to the author's arguments. Are they logical, defensible, arguments, or do they not really make sense to you? Then give your opinion about whether those arguments still apply in our own time. Since I have not seen the essay, I will assume that he was arguing against censorship of books, art, etc. The arguments FOR censorship are still being made. Every year someone tries to get books banned from libraries and schools for some reason. They depict sex acts that people disapprove of, they are interpreted as racist, they discuss violent crime, or something that somebody thinks no one should read about or see. As to your essay, did the author of the magazine essay convince you of his point of view or not? Why? How does his advice apply today (or doesn't it)?
It seems you are to react to the author's arguments. Are they logical, defensible, arguments, or do they not really make sense to you? Then give your opinion about whether those arguments still apply in our own time. Since I have not seen the essay, I will assume that he was arguing against censorship of books, art, etc. The arguments FOR censorship are still being made. Every year someone tries to get books banned from libraries and schools for some reason. They depict sex acts that people disapprove of, they are interpreted as racist, they discuss violent crime, or something that somebody thinks no one should read about or see. As to your essay, did the author of the magazine essay convince you of his point of view or not? Why? How does his advice apply today (or doesn't it)?
Ok, that helps me a lot, thank you!
The awkward thing was that the writer never actually gave a "definite opinion." He did vouch for some books being secluded (which I personally agree with) and drawing a parallel between how we should publicly treat the books and statues. He concluded by saying the final vote was purely up to the public.
So, I guess I'll revolve my essay around those points.
The awkward thing was that the writer never actually gave a "definite opinion." He did vouch for some books being secluded (which I personally agree with) and drawing a parallel between how we should publicly treat the books and statues. He concluded by saying the final vote was purely up to the public.
So, I guess I'll revolve my essay around those points.
Well, does he make the case that the public should decide such things? Are you convinced? Why? Does his conclusion apply today? Why? And let me ask, how would the public make a decision? One complaint? Two? A dozen? A public vote on whether or not a specific book belongs in the library or a statue belongs in the museum? If someone complains of a picture of The Apollo Belevedere (in the Vatican collection) because the figure is a male, should the Vatican remove the statue, which is recognized as a work of superb art? Who decides these things? Who is "the public". Think about it!
did you ever get it?
This is even tough for me back then I was terrible at writing essay's so sorry but I can not help you.
5 answers