In addition to college apps, my English teacher wants everyone to write their World Lit Assignment 2 now. Yay! I'm not sure whether to write a detailed study, a creative assignment or a comparative study of one of the following books.
The topic should focus on the literary aspects of the work(s) to be used and discuss more than just the descriptions or events in the novels.
Does anyone remember themes in/thematic connections between any of those books? I'm a bit rusty on them.
Thanks
No Exit by Sartre
The Stranger by Camus
Chronicles of a Death Foretold by Gabriel García Márquez
The Trial by Kafka.
Well... you can google any of them and get a great overview. In fact, try googling one of them right now and include the word theme in your search. You will get a lot. Another technique I always use is to google the title along with the word analysis.
You can get of to a great start by also googling 2 of those titles together with the word comparison or the word comparative.
Obviously, it is best to go deep into each work, actually reading it after you see the overview, so that you can really appreciate it. Human expression is what makes life meaningful, and these are the works of the masters.
Ok...I decided to just analyze an excerpt from The Trial.
Here's a summary of the section: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_the_Law
This is my proposed topic: How does the excerpt reflect the connection K has with the Court? Focus on identity and justice.
In this excerpt from Kafka's The Trial, a priest presents a fleeting yet meaningful introduction to the law that governs the Court. Symbolic on several levels, the priest's dialogue attests to the situation in which K finds himself. Within this brief text of the law lie numerous correlations between K and the man, and between the doorkeeper and the Court. The saddening fact is that K does not realize the more symbolic connotations of the law, but he only reflects on the characterizations of those involved in the narration. Like snippets of unnoticed evidence, those subtle associations demonstrate how the indicted, in their quests to face the law, become fools trying to delay their fate.
The story of a man and doorkeeper fills the bulk of the opening to the law, effectively trapping many in its analytical significance and their critical ignorance. Even Joseph K becomes clouded about the story after pondering over the implications. This account is like a mirage that blinds everyone's understanding, which naturally draws upon the information as if it were significant for debate. The accused fail to pass over this obstacle but instead succumb to the debacle presented them. Because they cannot see further into the rules of the Court, the accused are left to the mercy of their lawyers.
All are fools who try to enter the doors of the law or hope to accomplish change in a system they have no knowledge of or any control over. As the priest tells K, "You fool yourself in Court." This statement immediately shows that no hope remains for fools, for those who try to face the Courts' orders. His additional statement, that K's hope to evade the Court is deceitful, confirms that the Court knows of the reservations that people have before when they seek the law. Embarking on his story of the law, the priest ensnares K into the trend that so many before him have fallen. Instead of finding the law, they find a contemplative narrative of a man who never gains admittance to the law and dies in his attempt.
Just as the man from the countryside is a neophyte in the law, the accused are also inexperienced in its workings. They find a doorkeeper barring their way to what is supposedly open to all. Throughout the novel, this doorkeeper is present in the stale, suffocating air of the Court, as well as in the mysterious actions of the lawyers. The fact that a doorkeeper guards the flow of people to the law, which is thus paradoxically open yet closed. While invited to pass through the gates, these people remain on one side of the gate, just like those who are puzzled reading the law and stumped by the law's perplexities. Without passing through the gates in the initial stage, they learn of nothing other than their own shortcomings.
The doorkeeper stands by the door and executes his duty, but his actions reflect those of the lawyers of the Court. It is remains a possibility that people can enter the law, "but not now." The accused have to wait upon lawyers to make their case for them, without any real evidence or anything to benefit their position. All that stands in their way is the word of the lawyer, the doorkeeper who accepts the bribes given to him. Described like a bully with his snug coat, his overbearing nose, beard of knowledge, the doorkeeper asks disinterested questions, just like the lawyers do. These reflect the immunity of the law to the peoples' desperate needs and doubts.
...I'm not done yet, but any advice would be great, about the analysis or focus, etc
Thanks
Symbolic on several levels, the priest's dialogue exposes the situation in which K finds himself.
Maybe "exposes?" It the priest's dialogue expository?
The thesis is clear at the end of that paragraph, but I am not sure what you mean throughout the paragraph. Why is it sad that the prisoner does not know the symbolic meanings? You should explain for people like me who are not familiar with the story. It seems that the first paragraph should be about the indicted acting like fools...
As I read the rest of it, I get a better understanding, but I think para #1 needs to be reworked.
:-)