American Naturalism: Norris, Crane & London
Below you will see several categories of questions based on our readings. Each category has several questions. You are required to answer ONLY ONE question in one category for your initial post. Narrow and focus your answer and also support your response with examples and/or quotes from the readings. Try to answer questions other have not addressed or at least discuss new ideas others have not have covered. Don’t forget to respond to at least one other student’s post.
Structure your post like a formal essay; your goal is to present a persuasive argument, an interpretation of your selected text. Begin with an introduction that provides an overview of the selected text (identify the title and author) so that your ideas are in context for the reader; then explain your purpose, your interpretation of the text; this is your thesis. Then in the post’s body, support this thesis with evidence, including quotes, from the primary text; you may also evidence from the scholarly sources in the course content. Organize your post effectively; the reader should be able to follow a cohesive argument. Introduce quotes, explain them to the reader, and cite them using MLA style, but you do not need a Works Cited if your sources are clear in the post.
The first time you use an author or critic, provide his/her full and the title of the article; thereafter, use only the last name. Read my responses to other students’ posts so that you will not make the same mistakes. For more information, refer to “Guidelines for Posting in the Discussion” and “Writing a Literary Analysis” in the course content, in Unit 1 under Course Information.
Post early; I do not respond to all posts, but I respond to most early posts. However, discussions that are posted during the last day or during the last hours of the due date and time may not receive a response.
Category Three: London
1. Consider the two main characters, the man and the dog, in “To Build a Fire.” Neither one has a have proper name. Why? Are we meant to compare the two? Are they “equal” in the story? How does this comparison help us understand the text as Naturalistic?
2. Why does the man die and the dog live? Which one is more adapted to his environment? Again, how does this comparison help us understand the text as Naturalistic?
3. Why does London describe the man as being without imagination? What does this lack of imaginative intelligence tell us about the man, especially as compared to the dog?
Click here for further assistance on this assignment