This SECOND paper [MLA format, 3-4 pgs] will be a response/examination/analysis

This SECOND paper [MLA format, 3-4 pgs] will be a response/examination/analysis of any of the essays we’ve read up to this point in the class. This includes Plato’s Allegory, Douglass’s How I Learned to Read, Seneca’s Liberal and Vocational Studies, Martha Nussbaum’s Education for Profit/Democracy, John Adams’s Eloquence is the Child of Liberty, Virginia Woolf’s “Shakespeare’s Sister,” Thucydides’ “The Melian Dialogue,” Gandhi’s “Moral and Economic Progress,” and MLK’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” That’s EIGHT essays. You may choose to write about one or perhaps do a comparison of two or analyze three or more. See the module for Paper #1 Prompt for more ideas. The paper is due Sunday, October 22.
This essay adds as possible paper topics, the essays of Woolf, Gandhi, and MLK. The following are a series of possible paper topics for either of these three:
PROMPT #2
Consider these added questions. You may write about any of these or go back to the beginning and write about any of the authors we’ve read so far.
Virginia Woolf’s “Shakespeare’s Sister” represents one woman’s attempt to understand the absence of women from history [they seem “insignificant”] and the presence of women in great works of literature [they’re valued in a way they were never valued in reality]. Explain this dichotomy. What does she find?
Woolf’s essay is broken up into approximately five parts, and each part represents a part of her journey into this problem. Explain.
When Virginia Woolf tells the “story” of Shakespeare’s sister Judith at the end of the essay, describing her climbing down the rope from her father’s house, walking the road to London, experiencing the neglect, the abuse, and then dying by a crossroads, she builds a character and we sort of know her. Is this Woolf’s way of actually doing for us what she explains she sees in the absence of women from history [the insignificant woman] and the presence of women as valuable and knowable in the fiction? Explain.
Woolf was a “feminist” at the beginning of the movements for women’s rights worldwide [but specifically here in England and America]. In what ways would this essay contribute to our knowledge of and appreciation for the difficulties women have experienced historically? In other words, does the essay move you? How?
The Melian Dialogue is a conversation [dialogue] between superpower Athens and the small city-state of Melias. The argument is both practical [from the point of view of the Athenians] and moral [from the point of view of the Melians]. Explain this dichotomy of points of view.
Which side is more in the right and why?
This dialogue in some ways represents a point/counterpoint argument. The Melians make a number of points and the Athenians counter. Explain.
Look up any criticism [analysis] if this very interesting historical anecdote by Thucydides and break it down. Do you agree? Disagree? Something in between?
Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” is an argument or refutation of the words of certain clergy in the community. So, how is King’s letter an open “refutation” of someone else’s ideas? And how does King go about refuting these ideas? His letter is a classic “point/counterpoint” argument. Describe it and show how it works [and argue whether it is effective or not].
Discuss King’s use of “pathos, ethos, and logos” in his argument. In what ways specifically does he employ pathos? In what way ethos? How pathos?
Discuss King’s four-point plan for putting together a non-violent demonstration. How might these work? Is it effective? Do you agree with King? Disagree? Is there more that you would do if it were you putting together such a demonstration?
Discuss MLK’s Letter as a point/counterpoint argument. What are the points he contends with? Is he convincing? Why?
Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” is an argument in three major parts. He challenges his opponents with regard to the problem of time, the breaking of laws, and extremism. Discuss.
Martin Luther King attacks the white moderates and the church moderates. Why does he do this and where does he do this?
Gandhi’s “Economic and Moral Progress” suggests that morality and economic prosperity do not go hand in hand. In fact, he argues, oftentimes, one loses one’s morality when one becomes wealthy. Do you agree with Gandhi? Does wealth correlate with immorality? Yes or no. Explain by referring to passages from the essay.
Discuss the ways in which Gandhi supports his argument—first with historical examples, then with famous people, then by using the writing of a famous scientist. Is his essay more effective as he adds this type of support? That would be your argument.
Gandhi does something interesting in his speech. He brings in as evidence the writings of Alfred Russell Wallace, a leading intellectual voice in Britain. How does bringing in this heavyweight intellectual strengthen Gandhi’s argument? What other evidence does he use to support his thesis?