Writing a Multi-page Critical Analysis Essay
| Learning Objective: - Write a multi-page critical analysis essay using at least one direct quote and one paraphrased citation.
|
LESSON
In your college courses, you will be asked to write many different kinds of essaysA short piece of writing that focuses on at least one main idea. Some essays are also focused on the author's unique point of view, making them personal or autobiographical, while others are focused on a particular literary, scientific, or political subject. . Some are more challenging than others. Analysis essaysA written evaluation of a topic, such as an article, piece of art, person’s life, etc. An analysis essay may include a summary of the subject, but is mostly used to evaluate and discuss: Is it good? Is it bad? Is it poorly written? Was the author misguided or very accurate?, in particular, require close and careful reading of textsWords that make up a book, essay, article, poem, or speech.. There is more than one kind of analysis essay. The most in-depth is called a critical analysis essayA written evaluation of a topic, such as an article, piece of art, person’s life, etc. A critical analysis essay analyzes and evaluates the content or ideas of a work as well as how the author presents his or her ideas or arguments..
In a critical analysis essay, you not only analyzeTo make a thoughtful and detailed study of something. the contentThe text in a writing that includes facts, thoughts, and ideas. The information that forms the body of the work. or ideasA thought, opinion, or impression. of an author'sA person who wrote a text. work, but also how the author presents them. You only summarizeTo give a short version of the main points of a text. the author's main pointsThe most important idea in a paragraph. Main points support the main idea of a reading. at the beginning of the essay; your analysis and evaluationTo make a judgment about the quality of something. For example, you can evaluate an essay by examining the accuracy of the information or the strength of the arguments. of the author's argumentA set of statements or reasons making a case for or against something. make up the majority of your writing. In this lesson, you will learn how to write a multi-page critical analysis essay using quotationsAn exact copy of the words from a speech or text. These words are placed inside quotation marks to show that they are a perfect repeat of the original. and paraphrasesThe use of different words to express the meaning of an original text or speech. to support your claims.
Step 1: Understand the assignment.
Understanding your specific assignment is the first step in writing a critical analysis essay. Remember that what makes a critical analysis essay unique is that you are evaluating the quality of someone else's work; you are offering your perspectiveThe point of view from which an author considers a subject or issue. on it. Since you should strengthen your argument by including quotations and ideas from other authors, you will need to include in-text citationsInformation about a source, such as the author, date, and page number, in an essay or research paper that helps readers find the source in the works cited or references page. There are different rules for how to use in-text citations depending on the context of the citation and the style of formatting you are using. and a works cited pageAn alphabetized list of publication information about the sources used in an MLA-formatted essay or research paper. in your essay.
Step 2: Gather ideas for your essay.
The next step is to gather ideas for use in your essay. Generally, there are four categories to focus on when doing a critical analysis: the work's message, the foundation (thesisAn overall argument, idea, or belief that a writer uses as the basis for a work., supporting claimsA statement that something is true, such as the thesis of an essay. A successful writer must present evidence to prove his/her claim., and evidenceFacts, statistics, or expert testimony that supports a claim.), structure (organization and cohesiveness), and purposeThe reason the writer is writing about a topic. It is what the writer wants the reader to know, feel, or do after reading the work./impact. The following are some specific questions you might ask yourself about an author's work or a topicThe subject of a reading. to help you explore these categories further as you gather ideas:
The Work's Message:
- What is the author's goal, and does he or she accomplish it?
- Is the author consistent, or does he or she shift positions?
Foundation:
- Are the author's claims sufficiently supported with information from credible sourcesA person, book, article, or other thing that supplies information., or does the author make assumptions?
- Is there other evidence of author biasIn writing, bias indicates a writer's personal prejudice for or against an idea, person, activity, or object. Being objective, or displaying no tendency toward a preference, is the opposite of showing bias. or reason to question his or her claims?
Structure:
- Is the author's argument logical and clear?
- Does the author ignore or hide evidence that might weaken his or her argument?
Purpose/Impact
- Are there implications of the author's argument that he or she does not address?
Keeping these questions in mind will help you stay focused on evaluating the author's work, not just summarizing it or giving your opinionPoint of view that shows a personal belief or bias and cannot be proven to be completely true. on the topic.
Your answers to these questions may require you to do additional reading and research on the topic. You should consider this research to be preliminary; more in-depth research will be needed after you have formulated your thesis and have a better idea of the structure of your analysis.
Step 3: Develop the thesis and rough outline of the essay.
At this point, you will be ready to develop a working or tentative thesis statementAn early form of a thesis statement that can be developed into a more formal thesis statement by creating supporting details. and create a rough or informal outlineA simplified outline that presents an overview of the placement of information in a reading. of your essay. You will almost certainly adjust the thesis statementA brief statement that identifies a writer's thoughts, opinions, or conclusions about a topic. Thesis statements bring unity to a piece of writing, giving it a focus and a purpose. You can use three questions to help form a thesis statement: What is my topic? What am I trying to say about that topic? Why is this important to me or my reader? and outline as you work through your essay and think more deeply about your topic; they function as a starting point. In a critical analysis essay, your thesis statement should include the topic, subjectThe people, places, things, or ideas being discussed or described. , or item that you are analyzing and the point that you are making about it.
Your rough outline does not need to be comprehensive or carefully written; it is an informal plan of where you believe your argument will go. It should include the main points you intend to make and any pieces of evidence that you may already have for each point. You will flesh out these ideas later in the process.
Step 4: Research your topic.
The next step is to research your topic using the ideas you gathered and the thesis statement and rough outline you developed to guide you. For example, imagine you are asked to respond to George Packer's 2013 book The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America. In it, he argues that the foundation of the middle class in America began crumbling in the nineteen-seventies. In Step 2, when you gathered ideas, you might have asked yourself if other authors would argue that this occurred earlier, later, or whether it has truly occurred at all. Initial research suggests that Packer is politically liberal; your next step should be to seek out what reputable conservative writers or publications have published about this book or topic. What you read there may lead to additional questions and research.
As you conduct your research, be sure to focus on reputable sources. Peer-reviewedWritings that have been evaluated by experts in a subject before they are published. journals and well-established magazines, authors, and websites are generally reputable sources; many blogsA website that hosts a series of articles, photos, and other postings, sometimes by a single writer (blogger) or by a community of contributors., Wikipedia, research articles without citationsA reference within a text to an outside source of ideas, quotes, or information. Citations can be placed within sentences or in a separate works cited or reference section, as specified by the style guide in use., and materials that are over fifteen years old or otherwise dated are not. Anything that someone self-publishes is suspect. Do not automatically trust any one source; you should always cross-reference your factsA piece of information that can be proven. Something that is true and indisputable. to verify their validity.
Finally, as you research, be sure to take clear notes on the sources of the information that you incorporate into your essay and note any particularly compelling ideas or writing that you encounter. You may want to incorporate some of these ideas as quotations or paraphrases. Carefully noting where they come from will be important when you write your essay and create your works cited page.
Step 5: Write your body paragraphsThe part of an essay that comes after the introduction and before the conclusion. Body paragraphs lay out the main ideas of an argument and provide the support for the thesis. All body paragraphs should include these elements: a topic sentence, major and minor details, and a concluding statement. Each body paragraph should stand on its own but also fit into the context of the entire essay, as well as support the thesis and work with the other supporting paragraphs. .
After you have conducted your research, you are ready to begin writing the body paragraphs, which are the main part of your essay. At this stage, do not concern yourself with the exact words you want to use; instead, spend your time getting your major ideas and their support down on paper. Be sure to limit the scopeThe extent or aims of a project. of your writing to the most significant points; nobody wants to read everything you know and have discovered about a topic. Restricting yourself to your strongest arguments will make your writing more effective.
Step 6: Formalize the outline.
Once your rough draftThe first version of a writing that will undergo rewriting, additions, and editing before it becomes the final draft. is complete, you should pause to review it to ensure that your direction is accurate and you have supported your ideas sufficiently. To do this, create a formal outlineAn outline that is traditional and structured, follows a set pattern, and uses a combination of Roman numerals, letters, and numbers to show a hierarchy of information based on the major and minor details or ideas. of your rough draft. Identify any gaps in your argument and areas where readers might question your claims. Be sure to fill in those gaps. This may require more research to find quotes and paraphrases to use to support claims. It also will likely require fine-tuning your thesis.
Step 7: Rewrite your essay.
Use this new information to fill in the gaps in your essay. This is also the time to focus on crafting the language you use. Select your words and ideas carefully and organize them logically to clearly and powerfully argue your position.
Step 8: CiteTo give credit to the source of ideas or information. your sources.
Any ideas or quotations that come from other sources must be properly cited in your essay. You do this by providing in-text citations, attributive phrasesA short introduction to source material that identifies the author and often the title of a work that will be quoted or discussed in an essay or research paper. , and eventually, a works cited page or reference list. In-text citations give the readers the necessary information to find the original source and typically include author's name, page number, and/or the year published within parentheses. Check to see whether your professor requires MLAA grammar and reference guide used mainly by students and scholars writing about the humanities (languages and literature). - or APAA set of guidelines for citing sources used in literary and academic writing. APA style is most commonly used in the social sciences.-style citations because the two styles differ.
An attributive phrase is where you indicate within your sentence where the quotation comes from. For example:
In her book Happier at Home, Gretchen Rubin remarked, "the proper relationship of possessions to happiness is hotly debated" (21).
The underlined portion of the sentence above is an attributive phrase; these transitionsTying two events, passages, or pieces of information together in a smooth way. In writing, transitions are sometimes called links. help to smoothly incorporate direct quotationsAn exact copy of the words from a speech or text. These words are placed inside quotation marks to show that they are a perfect repeat of the original. and indirect quotationsA summary or paraphrase of another’s words or ideas. An indirect quotation does not require quotation marks. and paraphrases into your writing.
The importance of properly citing your sources cannot be emphasized enough. If you do not properly cite your sources, it will appear that you have either deliberately or accidentally plagiarizedTo take someone else's ideas, words, or work and pass it off as your own; copying without giving credit. someone else's work. This is a very serious offense in both career and academia. In some cases, you risk expulsion from school or termination from a job for it.
Step 9: Write the introduction.
When the bodyThe main portion of a writing that contains the main ideas and supporting details of the writing. This is where the author's purpose and thesis statement are supported and/or developed. of your essay is close to complete, it is time to write your introductionThe first paragraph of an essay. It must engage the reader, set the tone, provide background information, and present the thesis.. It may seem strange to wait until the end to do this, but it can be difficult to introduce your readers to an idea that has not been written. If you let a weak, preliminary introduction drive the writing of your essay, you will end up with a weak essay.
A strong introduction hooksIn writing, a device used to grab a readers' attention, often in the form of interesting, surprising, or provocative information. the reader's interest, provides your thesis statement, includes background information on your topic, and gives the reader an indication of what to expect as he or she reads. It also establishes a toneThe feeling or attitude that a writer expresses toward a topic. The words the writer chooses express this tone. Examples of tones can include: objective, biased, humorous, optimistic, and cynical, among many others. that the reader will expect to be maintained throughout your essay.
This is also the time to make sure that you have provided enough backgroundInformation that describes the history or circumstances of a topic. information about the work that you are critically analyzing for the reader to understand your argument. Remember, background information is just a summaryA brief restatement of an author’s main idea and major supporting details. Summaries are factual and should be written in the third-person with an objective point of view., not a significant portion of your overall essay. Your reader is interested in reading your ideas, not those in the source materialInformation that is quoted or paraphrased from outside works, such as journal articles, online documents, and books. .
Step 10: Write the conclusion.
Now you are ready to write your conclusionThe end portion of a writing that contains a summary or synthesis of the idea in the work. This includes a recap of key points and reminders of the author's purpose and thesis statement.. The goal of the conclusion is to summarizeTo give a short version of the main points of a text. and synthesizeTo combine ideas, as in the writing at the end of an essay that ties all the discussion and evidence together into a unified concept. the important details of the essay. Remember that a strong conclusion reflects the main idea of your essay but does not repeat it, nor does it introduce new ideas or facts that would be more logically included in the body of your essay. Your conclusion is the last thing a reader sees, so it stands to reason that this is what he or she will remember most clearly. Some powerful techniques include asking a question, proposing an action item, making a prediction, providing a solution, or including an intriguing or provocative quotation.
Step 11: Create a works cited or references page.
The in-text citations do not necessarily include all the information to find the original source, but they do when combined with the works cited or references pageAn alphabetized list of publication information about the sources used in an APA-formatted essay or research paper.. MLA format uses a works cited page while APA uses a references page. Both types of citation pages come at the end of the work and include information required to locate a source, including author(s) name(s), title of the work, publication date, and location information such as the name and volume of a journal, url of a website, or network of a television broadcast. Because you will potentially use a wide variety of sources, there are many specific rules for how to do this. Be sure to consult the most recent MLA or APA style guideA set of rules for punctuation, grammar, and other facets of writing, used to produce consistency and promote understanding. Different publications and types of writing often follow different style guides. Well-known style guides in the U.S. include The Chicago Manual of Style, the MLA Style Manual, and the Associated Press Stylebook., and use the exact process described.
Step 12: ReviseThe process of making changes to a work by editing and proofreading it to improve, correct, and increase clarity. your essay.
By now, you are probably so deeply engaged in your writing that you need a new perspective, which is why it can be helpful to enlist an outside reviewer to give you feedback. You should both review the essay with the following questions in mind:
- Did I follow the assignment?
- Is this a critical analysis essay? Have I examined a work or topic and focused primarily on my own perspective on it?
- Does my body support my thesis?
- Is all of my support relevant?
- Do I need more or less support? Do I use quotations to complement my writing, or did I merely repeat other people's ideas?
- Have I included the transitions necessary to guide the reader from point to point?
- Does my introduction hook the reader and provide adequate background on my topic? Did I provide sufficient context for the reader?
- Does my conclusion summarize and synthesize the important details?
- Did I properly cite all of my sources, including those ideas that I paraphrased and any broad ideas that were not my own originally?
+ PRACTICAL APPLICATIONCritical analyses can take many forms. They may be as minor as a restaurant review or as significant as a political treatise. Given this wide variety, there is little doubt that you will be called upon to write a critical analysis at some point in your academic or workplace career. Your employer may ask you to analyze a competitor's marketing strategy and figure out how to respond to it. Or perhaps you will work at a non-profit organization that needs to analyze how to most effectively use its donations, which is crucial to maintaining its public profile—and generating more donations. Developing critical analysis skills in any profession will help you to prioritize your work and make good decisions.
Follow the twelve steps above and observe how to write a multi-page critical analysis essay. This example follows MLA citation style. The same essay following APA style can be found at the end of the section.
Step 1: Understand the assignment.
The assignment is to write a multi-page critical analysis essay of a book. The first step is to choose a book that makes a thoughtful argument that interests me.
My choice is Seabiscuit: An American Legend, by Laura Hillenbrand.
Step 2: Gather ideas for your essay.
Purpose and Impact: After reading the book, I think the author has two main goals. The first is to document the story of a famous racehorse and the colorful history of the men who owned, trained, and rode the animal. This is beautifully done, but there isn't much to say about it. The facts are the facts.
The second goal is to convince the reader that the horse was not just a horse but a legend, and that the story of the horse is a reflection of the story of America during the Great Depression. This goal is the interesting, possibly controversial, one.
Foundation: The book is based on extensive research – scrapbooks, letters, newspaper articles, magazines, books, videos, and radio broadcasts of the time, and personal interviews with surviving eyewitnesses today. Very credible.
Structure: All arguments are consistent; themes run throughout the book.
Step 3: Develop the thesis and rough outline of the essay.
Rough Outline:
- Introductory Paragraph
- Thesis statement: Laura Hillenbrand's Seabiscuit: An American Legend is an ambitious and ultimately successful attempt to show that the career of a racehorse mirrors the rise and fall of America's fortunes during the last half of the Great Depression.
- Body Paragraphs
- Point 1: Seabiscuit's racing career reflected class struggle.
- Working-class vs. high-class horses
- Disdain of racing's rich establishment toward western upstarts
- Tension confirmed by articles from the time
- Point 2: The Jockey's life mimicked fears of ordinary citizens.
- No security
- Dangerous working conditions
- Treated as interchangeable by "the man"
- Point 3: Seabiscuit's career provided hope.
- The horse and jockey had many tragedies and setbacks
- By never giving up, they triumph in the end
- American dream – success comes from grit and hard work
- Concluding Paragraph
Step 4: Research your topic.
- Primary research: reading and rereading the book. Book includes thirty-four pages of notes and sources.
Step 5: Write your body paragraphs.
Seabiscuit: An American Legend
During the late nineteen-thirties, the number one newsmaker wasn't a politician or movie star, it was a horse. Seabiscuit toys, games, clothes, and knickknacks with his name and picture were sold. Whenever he raced, roads clogged, extra trains and buses had to be run to carry the crowds, and grandstands overflowed. Forty million people regularly tuned in on the radio to hear Seabiscuit's races called, including President Roosevelt, who sometimes delayed cabinet meetings to listen.
What was it about the horse that captured the public's heart? According to Hillenbrand, part of the appeal was that he seemed so ordinary. He was short, fat, and thick-kneed, and he had an awkward way of running, with one leg that swung out sideways. Seabiscuit's rival was a horse with high-class credentials. War Admiral was tall, sleek, elegant, and high-strung. He'd won the Triple Crown and set speed records back when Seabiscuit was struggling even to finish races. For the average American, rooting for this homely underdog was like rooting for themselves in their daily struggle just to get by. Seabiscuit gave hope that the ordinary guy could win.
Like many people, Seabiscuit's jockey, Red Pollard, had lost everything in the depression. By his mid-twenties, he was broke and homeless, on the edge of financial disaster. He had no job security, no insurance, and was treated as disposable by horse trainers and owners. Like Pollard, the average American knew how it felt to live in constant fear of falling into unemployment and despair.
Americans were inspired by the determination of Seabiscuit and Red Pollard. Although horse and man were cursed with bad luck, they never gave up. In 1938, Pollard's chest was crushed when a horse fell on him. He later broke one of his legs in another riding accident. Doctors warned he'd never walk again, much less ride a horse. A year later, Seabiscuit ruptured a ligament in one leg, and most assumed his racing days were over. But they fought back, and in 1940 they won one last race—the richest race in the country. They set a speed record for the distance and topped the world record in race winnings. The story of this comeback is seen as a symbol of what hard work and determination can do.
Step 6: Formalize the outline.
- Introductory Paragraph
- Hook: Laura Hillenbrand's Seabiscuit: An American Legend is an exciting, thought-provoking look at one of America’s most enduring icons – a lazy runt of a racehorse that ran his competition into the ground.
- Background: Seabiscuit was a wildly successful and enormously popular racehorse in the late nineteen-thirties.
- Thesis: The book is an ambitious and ultimately successful attempt to show that the career of a racehorse mirrors the rise and fall of America's fortunes during the last half of the Great Depression.
- Body Paragraphs
- Main Point #1: Seabiscuit's racing career reflected the class struggle within American society.
- Evidence: Seabiscuit was a funny looking horse with a rough beginning, from the unsophisticated west coast.
- Evidence: His main rival, War Admiral, looked and acted like a thoroughbred and represented the wealthy eastern establishment.
- Analysis: The differences between the two horses and the way they were viewed by the public and the racing community is well established in photos, films, and newspaper accounts of the day.
- Link: Rooting for the homely underdog was like rooting for themselves in their daily struggle just to get by. People found hope in the idea that heart and grit might someday carry them where looks and class could not.
- Main Point #2: The hard life of Seabiscuit's jockey mimicked the fears of ordinary citizens.
- Evidence: Jockey Red Pollard had lost everything in the stock market crash.
- Evidence: Broke and homeless, he risked his life for little pay, in horrible working conditions, and was only a fall or an owner's whim away from unemployment.
- Evidence: Direct quote: In the author's words, "Red Pollard was sinking downward through his life with the pendulous motion of a leaf falling through still air." (page 49)
- Analysis: Terrible working conditions are well documented, as are Pollard's ups and downs.
- Link: Like Pollard, the average American knew how it felt to live in constant fear of falling into unemployment and despair.
- Main Point #3: Seabiscuit and Pollard's careers provided hope that there was always the possibility of second, even third chances no matter how bleak things appeared, as long as you never gave up.
- Evidence: At the height of their success and popularity, Pollard suffered two crippling accidents that easily could have killed him, and he was written off as a jockey.
- Evidence: A short time later, Seabiscuit was also injured, and it was assumed he'd never race again.
- Evidence: They staged a comeback a few years later, winning the biggest cash prize in U.S. racing.
- Analysis: The injuries and comebacks of both horse and man were well documented in contemporary accounts. Their courage and triumph were written about in glowing terms.
- Link: The story of this comeback is seen as a symbol of what hard work and determination can do.
- Concluding Paragraph
- Summary: Hillenbrand makes a convincing case that Seabiscuit was indeed an American legend.
- Synthesis: Seabiscuit is both a sports story and also a journey into a nation's heart and soul. The writing is lyrical, the arguments are logical, and the documentation is extensive. The story is so inspiring and so thoroughly American, that if it wasn't true, it would be too hard to believe.
Step 7: Rewrite your essay.
During the late nineteen-thirties, a turbulent period not only in the U.S. but also in the world, the number one newsmaker wasn't a president, world leader, movie star, or sports hero, it was a horse. And people didn't just read about Seabiscuit—they bought toys, games, clothes, food, drinks, and knickknacks decorated with his name and picture. Thousands of people would line up to see him train for races, or even just watch his railroad car pass by. Whenever he raced, roads clogged, extra trains and buses had to be run to carry the crowds, and grandstands overflowed. Forty million people regularly tuned in on the radio to hear Seabiscuit's races called, including President Roosevelt, who sometimes delayed cabinet meetings to listen.
What was it about the horse that captured the public's heart? According to the author, part of the appeal was that he seemed so ordinary, so "everyman." Seabiscuit didn't look like anyone's idea of a thoroughbred. He was short, fat, and thick-kneed, and he had an awkward way of running with one leg that swung out sideways. He even had a bland-sounding name – a sea biscuit is a dry, tasteless cracker that sailors used to take on long voyages because they would not rot. Seabiscuit's nemesis and most famous rival, on the other hand, was a horse with high-class credentials, from his name to his behavior. War Admiral was tall, sleek, elegant, and high-strung. He'd won the Triple Crown and shattered speed records back when Seabiscuit was struggling even to finish races. He was the darling of the wealthy east-coast racing establishment, all of whom looked down on Seabiscuit's humble appearance and western roots. In this rivalry, the regular people could see a reflection of the gulf between the "haves" and the "have-nots" in American society. Rooting for the homely underdog was like rooting for themselves in their daily struggle just to get by. People found hope in the idea that heart and grit might someday carry them where looks and class could not.
Americans could also see themselves in the story of Red Pollard, Seabiscuit's jockey. When he was a teenager, his family lost everything in the Great Depression. By his mid-twenties, he was broke and homeless, sleeping in stables while drifting around the country in search of jobs. Hillenbrand describes Pollard as a man "sinking downward through his life with the pendulous motion of a leaf falling through still air." He had no job security, no insurance, and was treated as disposable by horse trainers and owners. Like Pollard, the average American knew how it felt to live in constant fear of falling into unemployment and despair.
Americans were inspired by the determination of Seabiscuit and Red Pollard; although horse and man were cursed with bad luck, they never gave up. In 1938, Pollard's chest was crushed when a horse fell on him. He later broke one of his legs in another riding accident. Doctors warned he would never walk again, much less ride a horse. A year later, Seabiscuit ruptured a ligament in one leg, and most assumed his racing days were over. But they fought back, and in 1940 they won one last race—the richest race in the country. They set a speed record for the distance and topped the world record in race winnings. The story of this comeback is seen as a symbol of what hard work and determination can do.
Step 8: Cite your sources.
Paraphrasing in 2nd paragraph from Hillenbrand, 2001, pages 141-143
Quote in 3rd paragraph from Hillenbrand, 2001, page 49
Step 9: Write the introduction.
Author Laura Hillenbrand throws down the challenge on the title page. Seabiscuit: An American Legend is about much more than just a horse and a race. By the end of the preface, her argument is clear – Seabiscuit's story is the story of the country itself, a scrappy, can-do fighter that never gives up or backs down.
Step 10: Write the conclusion.
Hillenbrand succeeds in making Seabiscuit not just a thrilling sports story, but also a journey into the American heart and soul. Her writing is lyrical, her arguments are logical, and the stories told both then and now reveal a great deal of unashamed love for the plucky little horse. But it's difficult to assess the mood and thoughts of an entire nation eighty years later. Especially when the story is so moving that I can't help but want it to be true.
Step 11: Create a works cited or references page.
Work Cited
Hillenbrand, Laura. Seabiscuit: An American Legend. Ballantine, 2001.
Step 12: Revise your essay.
Here is a list of revisions to make to the essay:
Body Paragraph A:
- Add an attributive phrase to the beginning of the paragraph.
- Add a citation and analysis to the last sentence about the president.
Body Paragraph B:
- Add a citation about Seabiscuit's appearance.
- Add a citation about War Admiral's appearance and accomplishments.
Body Paragraph C:
- Expand on Pollard's history.
- Add a description of jockey's lives; add citations.
- Add a citation for the direct quotation.
Body Paragraph D:
- Elaborate on the last race they won.
Concluding Paragraph:
- Add further analysis of why Hillenbrand succeeds in her purpose.
- Elaborate and clarify the end of the paragraph for a stronger ending.
(Note: The following essay has been properly cited, but it is not formatted according to MLA guidelines for final essays.)
Final Essay (MLA citation style)
Fact or Fancy—A Critical Analysis of Seabiscuit: An American Legend
Author Laura Hillenbrand throws down the challenge on the title page of her book. Seabiscuit: An American Legend is about much more than just a horse and a race. By the end of the preface, her argument is clear – Seabiscuit's story is the story of the country itself, a scrappy, can-do fighter that never gives up or backs down.
Through tidbits scattered throughout the book, Hillenbrand makes an effective case that Seabiscuit wasn't merely a popular racehorse, but more of a cultural phenomenon. During the late nineteen-thirties, a turbulent period not only in the United States, but also in the world, the number one newsmaker wasn't a president, world leader, movie star, or sports hero, it was a horse. And people didn't just read about Seabiscuit—they bought toys, games, clothes, food, drinks, and knickknacks decorated with his name and picture. Thousands of people would line up to see him train for races, or even just watch his railroad car pass by. Whenever he raced, roads clogged, extra trains and buses had to be run to carry the crowds, and grandstands overflowed. It is impossible to disagree with her contention, not when forty million people regularly tuned in on the radio to hear Seabiscuit's races called, including President Roosevelt, who sometimes delayed cabinet meetings to listen (Hillenbrand xvii).
What was it about the horse that captured the public's heart? According to the author, part of the appeal was that he seemed so ordinary, so "everyman." Seabiscuit didn't look like anyone's idea of a thoroughbred. He was short, fat, and thick-kneed, and he had an awkward way of running with one leg that swung out sideways (Hillenbrand 37-38). He even had a bland-sounding name – a sea biscuit is a dry, tasteless cracker sailors used to take on long voyages because they would not rot. Seabiscuit's nemesis and most famous rival, on the other hand, was a horse with high-class credentials, from his name to his behavior. War Admiral was tall, sleek, elegant, and high-strung. He'd won the Triple Crown and shattered speed records back when Seabiscuit was struggling even to finish races. He was the darling of the wealthy east-coast racing establishment, all of whom looked down on Seabiscuit's humble appearance and western roots (141-43). In this rivalry, Hillenbrand asserts, the regular people could see a reflection of the gulf between the "haves" and the "have-nots" in American society. Rooting for the homely underdog was like rooting for themselves in their daily struggle just to get by. People found hope in the idea that heart and grit might someday carry them where looks and class could not.
Americans could also see themselves in the story of Red Pollard, Seabiscuit's jockey. When he was a teenager, his family lost everything in the Great Depression. By his mid-twenties, he was broke and homeless, sleeping in stables while drifting around the country in search of jobs. Hillenbrand describes Pollard as a man "sinking downward through his life with the pendulous motion of a leaf falling through still air" (49). Like most Americans during the Great Depression, jockeys lived on the edge of financial disaster. They had no job security, no insurance, and were treated as disposable, interchangeable drones by their employers. The author's description of a jockey's life is chilling. In order to keep their weight down, the men would wear rubber suits or sit up to their necks in piles of manure to sweat the weight off. They'd swallow foul, caustic brews to purge themselves and starve to the point of blacking out. If they became too heavy or got sick or got hurt, they'd be fired on the spot (65-80). The book includes several stories of injured jockeys who had to wait in agony until someone could be spared to drive them to the hospital. Any jockey who talked about organizing, or even taking up a collection to pay for medical care, was instantly banned from racing. In Hillenbrand's view, average Americans identified with Pollard because they too knew how it felt to live in constant fear of falling into unemployment and despair.
Americans saw in Seabiscuit and Red Pollard not only reflections of themselves, but also representatives of who they hoped to be. Even though horse and man were both cursed with bad luck, unfortunate looks, and odds that were stacked against them, they never gave up. The last third of Seabiscuit describes a remarkable story of tragedy and triumph. In 1938, Pollard's chest was crushed when a horse fell on him. He recovered, only to shatter one of his legs in another riding accident. Doctors warned he would never walk again, much less ride a horse. A year later, Seabiscuit ruptured a ligament in one leg, and most assumed his racing days were over. But somehow, slowly, both horse and man began to heal. In 1940, Seabiscuit and Pollard returned to the track for the Santa Anita Handicap—the richest race in the country and the one race Seabiscuit had never managed to win. This time, they did, not only setting a record pace that would last for a decade but also giving Seabiscuit the world record in race winnings over his career. The story of this comeback was trumpeted far and wide as proof that Americans could beat any odds, if only they worked hard enough.
Hillenbrand succeeds in making Seabiscuit: An American Legend not just a thrilling sports story, but also a journey into the American heart and soul. However, Hillenbrand's ideas about how much people identified with Seabiscuit and Pollard have to be considered at least somewhat speculative. The book is exhaustively researched and documented. The author read thousands of articles and written accounts of the time, spoke to dozens of eyewitnesses, and pored over hours of video footage and radio transcripts. Her writing is lyrical, her arguments are logical, and the stories told both then and now reveal a great deal of unashamed love for the plucky little horse. That said, it is difficult to objectively assess the mood and thoughts of an entire nation eighty years later. The story is so inspiring and so thoroughly American, that it is almost hard to believe. Did Americans truly have a sacred bond with this long shot of a horse? Is it really the story of us all? For this reader, Seabiscuit's story is so moving, I cannot help but want it all to be true.
Work Cited
Hillenbrand, Laura. Seabiscuit: An American Legend. New York: Ballantine, 2001. Print.
(Note: The following essay has been properly cited, but it is not formatted according to APA guidelines for final essays.)
Final Essay (APA citation style)
Fact or Fancy—A Critical Analysis of Seabiscuit: An American Legend
Author Laura Hillenbrand (2001) throws down the challenge on the title page of her book. Seabiscuit: An American Legend is about much more than just a horse and a race. By the end of the preface, her argument is clear – Seabiscuit's story is the story of the country itself, a scrappy, can-do fighter that never gives up or backs down.
Through tidbits scattered throughout the book, Hillenbrand makes an effective case that Seabiscuit wasn't merely a popular racehorse, but more of a cultural phenomenon. During the late nineteen-thirties, a turbulent period not only in the United States, but also in the world, the number one newsmaker wasn't a president, world leader, movie star, or sports hero, it was a horse. And people didn't just read about Seabiscuit—they bought toys, games, clothes, food, drinks, and knickknacks decorated with his name and picture. Thousands of people would line up to see him train for races, or even just watch his railroad car pass by. Whenever he raced, roads clogged, extra trains and buses had to be run to carry the crowds, and grandstands overflowed. It is impossible to disagree with her contention, not when forty million people regularly tuned in on the radio to hear Seabiscuit's races called, including President Roosevelt, who sometimes delayed cabinet meetings to listen (Hillenbrand, 2001, p. xvii).
What was it about the horse that captured the public's heart? According to the author, part of the appeal was that he seemed so ordinary, so "everyman." Seabiscuit didn't look like anyone's idea of a thoroughbred. He was short, fat, and thick-kneed, and he had an awkward way of running with one leg that swung out sideways (Hillenbrand, 2001, pp. 37-38). He even had a bland-sounding name – a sea biscuit is a dry, tasteless cracker sailors used to take on long voyages because they would not rot. Seabiscuit's nemesis and most famous rival, on the other hand, was a horse with high-class credentials, from his name to his behavior. War Admiral was tall, sleek, elegant, and high-strung. He'd won the Triple Crown and shattered speed records back when Seabiscuit was struggling even to finish races. He was the darling of the wealthy east-coast racing establishment, all of whom looked down on Seabiscuit's humble appearance and western roots (pp. 141-143). In this rivalry, Hillenbrand asserts, the regular people could see a reflection of the gulf between the "haves" and the "have-nots" in American society. Rooting for the homely underdog was like rooting for themselves in their daily struggle just to get by. People found hope in the idea that heart and grit might someday carry them where looks and class could not.
Americans could also see themselves in the story of Red Pollard, Seabiscuit's jockey. When he was a teenager, his family lost everything in the Great Depression. By his mid-twenties, he was broke and homeless, sleeping in stables while drifting around the country in search of jobs. Hillenbrand (2001) describes Pollard as a man "sinking downward through his life with the pendulous motion of a leaf falling through still air" (p. 49). Like most Americans during the Great Depression, jockeys lived on the edge of financial disaster. They had no job security, no insurance, and were treated as disposable, interchangeable drones by their employers. The author's description of a jockey's life is chilling. In order to keep their weight down, the men would wear rubber suits or sit up to their necks in piles of manure to sweat the weight off. They'd swallow foul, caustic brews to purge themselves and starve to the point of blacking out. If they became too heavy or got sick or got hurt, they'd be fired on the spot (pp. 65-80). The book includes several stories of injured jockeys who had to wait in agony until someone could be spared to drive them to the hospital. Any jockey who talked about organizing, or even taking up a collection to pay for medical care, was instantly banned from racing. In Hillenbrand's view, average Americans identified with Pollard because they too knew how it felt to live in constant fear of falling into unemployment and despair.
Americans saw in Seabiscuit and Red Pollard not only reflections of themselves, but also representatives of who they hoped to be. Even though horse and man were both cursed with bad luck, unfortunate looks, and odds that were stacked against them, they never gave up. The last third of Seabiscuit describes a remarkable story of tragedy and triumph. In 1938, Pollard's chest was crushed when a horse fell on him. He recovered, only to shatter one of his legs in another riding accident. Doctors warned he would never walk again, much less ride a horse. A year later, Seabiscuit ruptured a ligament in one leg, and most assumed his racing days were over. But somehow, slowly, both horse and man began to heal. In 1940, Seabiscuit and Pollard returned to the track for the Santa Anita Handicap—the richest race in the country and the one race Seabiscuit had never managed to win. This time, they did, not only setting a record pace that would last for a decade but also giving Seabiscuit the world record in race winnings over his career. The story of this comeback was trumpeted far and wide as proof that Americans could beat any odds, if only they worked hard enough.
Hillenbrand succeeds in making Seabiscuit: An American Legend not just a thrilling sports story, but also a journey into the American heart and soul. However, Hillenbrand's ideas about how much people identified with Seabiscuit and Pollard have to be considered at least somewhat speculative. The book is exhaustively researched and documented. The author read thousands of articles and written accounts of the time, spoke to dozens of eyewitnesses, and pored over hours of video footage and radio transcripts. Her writing is lyrical, her arguments are logical, and the stories told both then and now reveal a great deal of unashamed love for the plucky little horse. That said, it is difficult to objectively assess the mood and thoughts of an entire nation eighty years later. The story is so inspiring and so thoroughly American, that it is almost hard to believe. Did Americans truly have a sacred bond with this long shot of a horse? Is it really the story of us all? For this reader, Seabiscuit's story is so moving, I cannot help but want it all to be true.
Reference
Hillenbrand, L. (2001). Seabiscuit: An American legend. Ballantine Books.
Follow the twelve-step writing process to write a multi-page critical analysis essay of a film of your choosing. Make sure to include at least one direct quote and one paraphrased citation. You may use either MLA or APA format for your citations, depending on your instructor's preference. (The sample student work follows MLA style; an alternate version of the final essay using APA style is also provided.)
Step 1: Understand the assignment.
The assignment is to write a multi-page critical analysis essay of a movie. The first step is to choose a movie that makes arguments I'd like to discuss.
I chose Jurassic Park, the 1993 film directed by Steven Spielberg.
Step 2: Gather ideas for your essay.
Purpose and Impact: The film's first goal is to use special effects and clever writing to create a believable conflict between humans and living dinosaurs.
The less obvious goal is to resurrect another old idea: scientists should not meddle with things man is not meant to know.
Message: The movie's arguments are clear and consistent, though ultimately illogical. We do not have access to 100-million-year-old DNA, and we cannot clone dinosaurs. The other argument, that there are things in nature that man should not meddle with, is a philosophical one that can't really be resolved. However, the film's presentation of it is definitely one-sided and unconvincing.
Foundation: The movie referenced the current knowledge of genetics, biology, and paleontology. Although scientists can't recover dinosaur DNA or clone extinct species now, the process described is close enough to what can be done to seem credible. The people who created the animatronic and digital dinosaurs consulted with paleontologists and paleoartists to make the appearance and movement of the creatures look quite believable.
Step 3: Develop the thesis and rough outline of the essay.
Rough outline:
- Introductory Paragraph
- Thesis Statement: The movie Jurassic Park is a beautifully made adventure film that both celebrates and attacks the power of science. It creates a wondrous land filled with dinosaurs so convincingly alive that you immediately want to go there, but at the same time it demonizes the people who made such a marvel possible.
- Body Paragraphs
- Point 1: At first glance, the movie celebrates science and its infinite possibilities.
- Science brings dinosaurs back from extinction, and dinosaurs are very, very cool.
- All the scientists are smart, good-looking, and heroic.
- Scientists save the day, caring for sick animals, rescuing children and old men. They risk their lives for others, while non-scientists (the lawyer, the IT guy) run away.
- Point 2: Under the surface, scientists are portrayed as foolish.
- Paleontologist has poor social skills and can't deal with even simple technology.
- Geneticists are arrogant and dismissive of concerns.
- Scientists need a mathematician (code for smart but not an egghead) to point out the wider implications of their work. Mathematician also gets all the good jokes.
- Science is the ultimate villain.
- Point 3: Jurassic Park is a variation on the old theme that there are things in this world that man is not meant to know, and we meddle with them at our peril.
- Dates back to nineteenth-century works like Frankenstein, and continues on to today's hysteria over "Frankenfoods."
- Concluding Paragraph
- Jurassic Park is a fun but flawed movie. Tie in the theme of man meddling, public fear of this meddling, and modern scientific advances.
Step 4: Research your topic.
- Rewatch Jurassic Park
- Look up discussions of "meddling with things man is not meant to know" theme. Sources include tvtropes.org website, books, and book and movie reviews.
Step 5: Write your body paragraphs.
Jurassic Park is a visual delight. Even twenty years after it was released, the special effects are convincing. From the first glimpse of a gigantic sauropod striding across a grassy meadow to the final shot of T. Rex roaring its bloody triumph to the sky, I bought into the fantasy. Dinosaurs were back, they were awesome, and I wanted to go there. If there was any way science could actually reverse extinction, I was on board, and judging by the box office, so was just about everyone else.
The movie made science seem cool —look what it could do!— and scientists almost as good. Paleontologists Alan Grant (played by Sam Neill) and Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) were good-looking, smart, and heroic. When others ran away, they risked their lives to save an old man, children, and the wounded. They shoot and climb and even kick attacking velociraptors in the teeth.
But under the surface, the movie actually portrays its scientists as fools with poor social skills. Dr. Grant is confused by both children and simple technology. Dr. Sattler would rather root through animal poop than flirt with a handsome man. The geneticists in charge of cloning the dinosaurs are arrogant and dismissive of obvious concerns about the animals. All of them are at first oblivious to the implications and dangers of this enormous experiment. The only one who can see clearly is Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), who is a mathematician (code for smart but not an egghead). In the end after everything goes wrong, the best science can do is flee, leaving the mess it created behind for someone else to pick up.
This idea of scientists foolishly unleashing powers they cannot control is an old but persistent one. Frankenstein's monster is one of the first and best known examples – a mad scientist means well, wanting to raise the dead, but in the end only creates a tragic monster he cannot control. This became a popular theme in books and later in movies, especially low-budget science fiction films of the nineteen-fifties. Scientists tinker with radiation or robots or space travel, mayhem ensues, and in the end the survivors can only shake their heads over the foolishness of man meddling in things he was not meant to know.
It is easy to shrug off old movies about rabbits turned into man-eating killing machines by a lab experiment gone wrong as harmless entertainment. But Jurassic Park and its kind have helped to keep this old and dangerous idea alive. Surveys have shown that the majority of Americans don't trust science or scientists. This is dangerous, and contributes to troubling trends like climate change skepticism, vaccination fears, and a widespread fear of genetically modified foods.
Step 6: Formalize the outline.
- Introductory Paragraph
- Hook: Jurassic Park makes the argument that science, like a dinosaur, is a dangerous brute that should be kept in a cage where it can provide amusement but not cause any trouble.
- Background: The Jurassic Park for which the movie is named is a tropical island zoo featuring living dinosaurs. These animals are all test tube babies, cloned from dinosaur DNA recovered from fossils. Over the course of the movie, the dinosaurs escape their enclosures and go on a rampage. We soon discover that the animals have broken free of their genetic constraints as well, and developed the ability to reproduce on their own.
- Thesis: The movie Jurassic Park is a beautifully made adventure film that both celebrates and attacks the power of science. It creates a wondrous land filled with dinosaurs so convincingly alive that you immediately want to go there, but at the same time it demonizes the people who made such a marvel possible.
- Body Paragraphs
- Main Point #1: Dinosaurs are cool and scientists are heroic.
- Evidence: Lavish visual effects make the reincarnated dinosaurs seem real.
- Evidence: The scientists in the movie are good looking.
- Evidence: The scientists save the day, managing to outwit and outrun the rampaging carnivores.
- Evidence: When others run to save themselves, the scientists risk their lives for children, the elderly, and the injured.
- Analysis: You want to go to Jurassic Park yourself, pet some dinosaurs on the snout, and watch in awe as they wheel and dart in graceful herds.
- Analysis: The actors and the storyline make Drs. Grant and Sattler appealing. You root for them, admire their brains and courage, and want them to survive.
- Link: Scientists can kick velociraptors in the teeth and get away with it, but they won't be able to shake off their part in the ecologic disaster they have unleashed.
- Main Point #2: Under the surface, the movie actually portrays its scientists as blind fools with poor social skills.
- Evidence: Dr. Grant is nervous and fidgety around children, unable to even ride comfortably in a car with one.
- Evidence: Dr. Grant is brilliant with fossils, but cannot even work a seatbelt or computer.
- Evidence: Dr. Sattler is so fixated on plant life that she fails to notice the attentions of a charming man.
- Evidence: It takes a mathematician to point out to paleontologists that dinosaurs do not belong in the modern world.
- Evidence: Dr. Malcolm (who is a doctor, so we know he is smart but a mathematician so we know he's not an egghead like the paleontologists) gets to deliver all the good jokes.
- Analysis: The paleontologists are very likeable, but we're also meant to find them odd and to laugh at their quirks. They have more book sense than common sense.
- Link: In the end after everything goes wrong, the best science can do is flee, leaving the mess it created behind for someone else to clean up.
- Main Point #3: The film promotes the idea that there are things that man is not meant to know, and scientists put all of us at risk when they meddle with them.
- Evidence: Before the trouble even starts, there is talk of how chaotic and unpredictable the world is. There are lectures about crossing the line: Direct quote - Ian Malcolm: "I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you wanna sell it. Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
- Evidence: Eventually, even the scientists see the error of their ways: Direct quote - Dr. Ellie Sattler: "You never had control, that's the illusion! I was overwhelmed by the power of this place. But I made a mistake, too, I didn't have enough respect for that power and it's out now." (paraphrase this)
- Evidence: The scientists cannot solve the problem they've created. At the end of the movie, they just run away, leaving the dinosaurs in control. There are hints – hatched eggs, the lost container of embryos - that there will be no containing them.
- Analysis: The movie's argument is heavy-handed and one-sided. The characters are all afraid for their lives, so in the end they all agree that creating Jurassic Park was wrong. But no one speaks up for the benefits of scientific progress.
- Analysis: The idea that there are things in the world that man should not even try to understand is both old and ignorant. Mary Shelley's book Frankenstein was among the first to popularize the notion. But would anyone really want to live in a world in which scientific knowledge was still stuck in 1818?
- Link: The idea that limits should be put on the search for knowledge is old and outdated. This is a worldview based on fear, not reason.
- Concluding Paragraph
- Summary: Jurassic Park is a fun but flawed movie that doesn't let contradictory viewpoints keep it from showing us a good time.
- Synthesis: Spielberg and the scriptwriters dig up two old ideas that both belong to the past: dinosaurs, and the notion that there are places science should not be allowed to go. We can't actually resurrect the ruling reptiles, but we are battling an unhealthy and unwarranted distrust of science. In old books, this fear leads villagers to attack what they don't understand with pitchforks and torches. In the modern world, it causes an uninformed public to reject genetically modified foods and lifesaving medical advances.
Step 7: Rewrite your essay.
Jurassic Park is a visual delight. Even twenty years after it was released, the special effects are convincing. From the first glimpse of a gigantic sauropod striding across a grassy meadow to the final shot of T. Rex roaring its bloody triumph to the sky, I bought into the fantasy. Dinosaurs were back, they were awesome, and I wanted to go there. If there was any way science could actually reverse extinction, I was on board, and judging by the box office, so was just about everyone else.
The movie makes science seem cool—look what it can do!— and scientists almost as compelling. Paleontologists Alan Grant (played by Sam Neill) and Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) are well-cast as a good-looking couple; when trouble strikes, they prove to be smart and heroic as well. With little more than their brains and their bare hands, they manage to outwit and outrun the rampaging carnivores. When others run away, they risk their lives to save children, the elderly, and the wounded. By the end of the film, I wanted to go to Jurassic Park myself, to pet dinosaurs on the snout and watch in awe as they wheel and dart in graceful herds. But only if I can take these heroic scientists with me, just in case.
Under the surface, the movie actually portrays its scientists as fools with poor social skills. These eggheads may be likeable, but it is clear we are also meant to find them odd and to laugh at their quirks. Dr. Grant is confused by both children and simple technology. Dr. Sattler would rather root through animal poop than flirt with a handsome man. The geneticists in charge of cloning the dinosaurs are arrogant and dismissive of obvious concerns about the animals. All of them are oblivious to the implications and dangers of this enormous experiment. It takes a mathematician, Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), to point out that dinosaurs don't belong in the modern world. In the end after everything goes wrong, the best the scientists can do is flee, leaving a mess behind for someone else to clean up.
This subtle mocking of the paleontologists is part of an unsettling message running throughout Jurassic Park: the idea that there are things that man is not meant to know, and scientists put all of us at risk when they meddle with them. Even before the trouble starts, Ian Malcolm warns of the danger in no uncertain terms:
I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you wanna sell it. Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.
It takes a while, but eventually even the scientists get a clue. Dr. Sattler admits to being so overwhelmed by excitement that she refused to see how perilous it was to revive prehistoric life until it was too late. The idea that there are things in the world that man should not even try to understand is both old and ignorant. Mary Shelley's book Frankenstein was among the first to popularize the notion. But would anyone really want to live in a world in which scientific advancement stopped in 1818? But the movie's argument is narrow, heavy-handed, and one-sided. The characters are all afraid for their lives, so in the end they all agree that creating Jurassic Park was wrong. But no one speaks up for the benefits of scientific progress.
Step 8: Cite your sources.
Quote from Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park
Paraphrase of Ellie Sattler quotation from Jurassic Park
References to plot of Frankenstein from Shelley, 1818
Reference to Rollin, Frankenstein Syndrome
Step 9: Write the introduction.
The movie Jurassic Park is a beautifully made adventure film that both celebrates and attacks the power of science. It creates a wondrous land filled with dinosaurs so convincingly alive that you immediately want to go there, but at the same time it demonizes the people who made such a marvel possible. The Jurassic Park for which the movie is named is a tropical island zoo featuring living dinosaurs. These creatures are test tube babies, cloned from dinosaur DNA recovered from fossils. Over the course of the movie, the dinosaurs escape their enclosures and go on a rampage. We soon discover that the animals have broken free of their genetic constraints as well, and developed the ability to reproduce on their own. In between moments of excitement and terror, Jurassic Park tries to convince the viewer that science, like a dinosaur, is a dangerous brute that should be kept in a cage where it can provide amusement but not cause any trouble.
Step 10: Write the conclusion.
Jurassic Park is a fun but flawed movie that does not let contradictory viewpoints keep it from showing us a good time. But after the adrenaline faded, it left this viewer dissatisfied. Spielberg and the scriptwriters dig up two old ideas that both belong to the past: dinosaurs, and the notion that there are places science should not be allowed to go. We cannot actually resurrect the ruling reptiles, but we are battling an unhealthy and unwarranted distrust of science. In old books, this fear leads villagers to attack what they don't understand with pitchforks and torches. In the modern world, it causes an uninformed public to reject genetically modified foods and lifesaving medical advances. Science gave Steven Spielberg the knowledge and technology to make this movie possible. Surely he could have given science a fairer hearing in return.
Step 11: Create a works cited page.
Works Cited
Jurassic Park. Directed by Steven Spielberg, performances by Richard Attenborough, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, Sam Neill. Universal, 1993.
Rollin, Bernard E. The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals. Cambridge UP, 1995.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones, 1818. Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org-/files/84/84-h/84-h.htm.
Step 12: Revise your essay.
Introductory Paragraph:
- Condense the paragraph to make it less repetitive and stronger.
Body Paragraph A:
- Add analysis for the main point.
- Fix the fragment sentence (last sentence).
Body Paragraph B:
- Add a better transition from Paragraph A with a more interesting hook to start this paragraph.
Body Paragraph C:
- Add a citation for the paraphrase.
Body Paragraph D:
- Add a citation for the book referenced.
- Expand analysis of the movie's argument.
- Revise repetitive language ("but").
Concluding Paragraph:
- Add an outside source to add support to the argument about the public's reaction to science.
*Note: The following essay has been properly cited, but it is not formatted according to MLA guidelines for final essays.
A Review of Jurassic Park: Pitchforks Not Included
Jurassic Park is a beautifully made adventure film with a split personality. It takes place in a tropical island zoo called Jurassic Park, featuring living dinosaurs. These creatures are test tube babies, cloned from dinosaur DNA recovered from fossils. Over the course of the movie, the fearsome reptiles escape their enclosures and go on a rampage. Director Steven Spielberg brings dinosaurs to life in glorious detail, from the first glimpse of a gigantic sauropod striding across a grassy meadow to the final shot of T. Rex roaring its bloody triumph to the sky. But at the same time that he celebrates the awesome power of science, he demonizes the people who made such a marvel possible. The movie tries to convince the viewer that just like a dinosaur, science is a dangerous brute that should be kept in a cage where it can provide amusement but not cause any trouble.
At first, the movie makes science seem cool—look what it can do!—and scientists almost as compelling. Paleontologists Alan Grant (played by Sam Neill) and Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) are well-cast as a good-looking couple, and when trouble strikes, they prove to be smart and heroic, as well. With little more than their brains and their bare hands, they manage to outwit and outrun the rampaging carnivores. When others run away, they risk their lives to save children, the elderly, and the wounded. The actors and the storyline make Drs. Grant and Sattler appealing. I rooted for them, admired their brains and courage, and wanted them to survive. By the end of the film, I wanted to go to Jurassic Park myself, to pet dinosaurs on the snout and watch in awe as they wheel and dart in graceful herds—but only if I can take these heroic scientists with me, just in case.
However, somewhere along the way, the movie turns on our heroes and on their scientific brilliance. They can kick velociraptors in the teeth and get away with it, but they will not be able to shake off their part in the ecologic disaster they have unleashed. Under the surface, the movie actually portrays its scientists as blind fools with poor social skills. These eggheads may be likeable, but it is clear we are also meant to find them odd and to laugh at their quirks. Dr. Grant is confused by both children and simple technology. Dr. Sattler would rather root through animal poop than flirt with a handsome man. The geneticists in charge of cloning the dinosaurs are arrogant and dismissive of obvious concerns about the animals. All of them are oblivious to the implications and dangers of this enormous experiment. It takes a mathematician, Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), to point out that dinosaurs do not belong in the modern world. In the end after everything goes wrong, the best the scientists can do is flee, leaving a deadly mess behind for someone else to clean up.
This subtle mocking of the paleontologists is part of an unsettling message running throughout Jurassic Park: the idea that there are things that man is not meant to know, and scientists put all of us at risk when they meddle with them. Even before the trouble starts, Ian Malcolm warns of the danger in no uncertain terms:
| | I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you wanna sell it. Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should. (Jurassic Park 35:30 - 36:08) |
It takes a while, but eventually even the scientists get a clue. Dr. Sattler finally confesses to being so overwhelmed by excitement that she refused to see how perilous it was to revive prehistoric life until it was too late (Jurassic Park). The idea that there are things in the world that man should not even try to understand is both old and ill-informed. Mary Shelley's 1818 book Frankenstein was among the first to popularize the notion. However, would any of us really want to live in a world in which scientific advancement stopped two hundred years ago? This is a worldview based on fear, not reason. The ethics and morality of what people do with science and technology are important, necessary discussions. But the movie's argument is narrow, heavy-handed, and one-sided. The characters are all afraid for their lives, so eventually they all agree that creating Jurassic Park was wrong. In the end, no one speaks up for the benefits of scientific progress.
Jurassic Park is a fun but flawed movie that does not let contradictory viewpoints keep it from showing us a good time. But after the adrenaline faded, it left this viewer dissatisfied. Spielberg and the scriptwriters dig up two old ideas that both belong to the past: dinosaurs, and the notion that there are places science should not be allowed to go. We cannot actually resurrect the ruling reptiles, but we are in fact battling an unhealthy and unwarranted distrust of science. In old books, this fear leads villagers to attack what they do not understand with pitchforks and torches. In the modern world, it causes an uninformed public to reject genetically modified foods and lifesaving medical advances (Rollin). Science gave Steven Spielberg the knowledge and technology to make this movie possible. Surely he could have given science a fairer hearing in return.
Works Cited
Jurassic Park. Directed by Steven Spielberg, performances by Richard Attenborough, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, Sam Neill. Universal, 1993.
Rollin, Bernard E. The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals. Cambridge UP, 1995.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones, 1818. Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org- /files/84/84-h/84-h.htm.
*Note: The following essay has been properly cited, but it is not formatted according to APA guidelines for final essays.
A Review of Jurassic Park: Pitchforks Not Included
Jurassic Park (Spielberg, 1993) is a beautifully made adventure film with a split personality. It takes place in a tropical island zoo called Jurassic Park, featuring living dinosaurs. These creatures are test tube babies, cloned from dinosaur DNA recovered from fossils. Over the course of the movie, the fearsome reptiles escape their enclosures and go on a rampage. Director Steven Spielberg brings dinosaurs to life in glorious detail, from the first glimpse of a gigantic sauropod striding across a grassy meadow to the final shot of T. rex roaring its bloody triumph to the sky. But at the same time that he celebrates the awesome power of science, he demonizes the people who made such a marvel possible. The movie tries to convince the viewer that just like a dinosaur, science is a dangerous brute that should be kept in a cage where it can provide amusement but not cause any trouble.
At first, the movie makes science seem cool—look what it can do!—and scientists almost as compelling. Paleontologists Alan Grant (played by Sam Neill) and Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) are well-cast as a good-looking couple, and when trouble strikes, they prove to be smart and heroic, as well. With little more than their brains and their bare hands, they manage to outwit and outrun the rampaging carnivores. When others run away, they risk their lives to save children, the elderly, and the wounded. The actors and the storyline make Drs. Grant and Sattler appealing. I rooted for them, admired their brains and courage, and wanted them to survive. By the end of the film, I wanted to go to Jurassic Park myself, to pet dinosaurs on the snout and watch in awe as they wheel and dart in graceful herds—but only if I can take these heroic scientists with me, just in case.
However, somewhere along the way, the movie turns on our heroes and on their scientific brilliance. They can kick velociraptors in the teeth and get away with it, but they will not be able to shake off their part in the ecologic disaster they have unleashed. Under the surface, the movie actually portrays its scientists as blind fools with poor social skills. These eggheads may be likeable, but it is clear we are also meant to find them odd and to laugh at their quirks. Dr. Grant is confused by both children and simple technology. Dr. Sattler would rather root through animal poop than flirt with a handsome man. The geneticists in charge of cloning the dinosaurs are arrogant and dismissive of obvious concerns about the animals. All of them are oblivious to the implications and dangers of this enormous experiment. It takes a mathematician, Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), to point out that dinosaurs do not belong in the modern world. In the end after everything goes wrong, the best the scientists can do is flee, leaving a deadly mess behind for someone else to clean up.
This subtle mocking of the paleontologists is part of an unsettling message running throughout Jurassic Park: the idea that there are things that man is not meant to know, and scientists put all of us at risk when they meddle with them. Even before the trouble starts, Ian Malcolm warns of the danger in no uncertain terms:
| | I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you wanna sell it. Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should. (Spielberg, 1993, 35:30 - 36:08) |
It takes a while, but eventually even the scientists get a clue. Dr. Sattler finally confesses to being so overwhelmed by excitement that she refused to see how perilous it was to revive prehistoric life until it was too late (Spielberg, 1993). The idea that there are things in the world that man should not even try to understand is both old and ill-informed. Mary Shelley's book Frankenstein (1818/2020) was among the first to popularize the notion. However, would any of us really want to live in a world in which scientific advancement stopped two hundred years ago? This is a worldview based on fear, not reason. The ethics and morality of what people do with science and technology are important, necessary discussions. But the movie's argument is narrow, heavy-handed, and one-sided. The characters are all afraid for their lives, so eventually they all agree that creating Jurassic Park was wrong. In the end, no one speaks up for the benefits of scientific progress.
Jurassic Park is a fun but flawed movie that does not let contradictory viewpoints keep it from showing us a good time. But after the adrenaline faded, it left this viewer dissatisfied. Spielberg and the scriptwriters dig up two old ideas that both belong to the past: dinosaurs, and the notion that there are places science should not be allowed to go. We cannot actually resurrect the ruling reptiles, but we are in fact battling an unhealthy and unwarranted distrust of science. In old books, this fear leads villagers to attack what they do not understand with pitchforks and torches. In the modern world, it causes an uninformed public to reject genetically modified foods and lifesaving medical advances (Rollin, 1995). Science gave Steven Spielberg the knowledge and technology to make this movie possible. Surely he could have given science a fairer hearing in return.
References
Spielberg, S. (Director). (1993) Jurassic Park [Film]. Universal Pictures.
Rollin, Bernard E. (1995). The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals. Cambridge UP.
Shelley, M. (2020). Frankenstein; Or, the modern Prometheus. Project Gutenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/84/84-h/84-h.htm (Original work published 1818)
What is the most difficult step for you when writing a critical analysis essay and why?
Writing a strong thesis is always hard for me. It's also hard to think of what will hook the reader and describe the main idea of what I am writing, especially when it's a complicated idea, without using so many words that the reader gets lost.
When writing a critical analysis essay, will you follow a different process than the one listed in this lesson? Why or why not?
I'll try to use the process that is described here, but doing more than one round of revisions is sometimes impossible because it's time-consuming. I might bring someone in to review my work earlier so that my first round of revision is also my last.
This lesson follows the 7th edition of the APA Publication Manual, published in 2019, and the 9th Edition of the MLA Handbook, published in 2021. Check the APA Publication Manual and the MLA Handbook for updates to the standards.
Copyright ©2022 The NROC Project