Writing Project 2--Compare and Contrast

For this writing assignment, you will be doing a compare and contrast rhetorical analysis of a documentary film we watch in class titled, Letters from Karelia, and the assigned reading, Challenge Accepted: A Finnish Immigrant Response to Industrial America in Michigan's Copper Country.

Letters from Karelia is a pretty incredible documentary, and shows the power filmmaking can have in telling an objective historical story about a very controversial and subjective historical topic. The doc was not made with much money, but has a very powerful tale to tell regarding the struggle for life among the competing "isms" in various social settings.

Challenge Accepted is a non-traditional look at one of the many ethnic groups that have made Michigan an incredibly diverse state. The book was written using a New Social History framework, which chooses to analyze history not from a top down perspective, but rather focuses on the history of people and groups who are customarily overlooked by standard and traditional histories.

We spent last week watching the doc in class. Writing Assignment 2 will consist of doing a rhetorical analysis that compares and contrasts Letters from Karelia and Challenge Accepted. This analysis will look, in form, much like the analyses we have done on the board in class.

So, the idea is to write, in a formal manner, identifying the audience of the doc and book, the doc and book's arguments, and specific instances of the use of ethos, logos, and pathos in Letters from Karelia and Challenge Accepted. In addition to the identification of the above, also compare and contrast how these two sources present similar and different perspectives on social history. Be sure to include some type of analysis of how the documentarian and book author use sources, what types of sources are used, and the effectiveness of such sources.

We will use the format presented on the board to outline the rhetorical analysis; so a good way to maybe format this writing project might be as such:

Audience: The audience for Letters from Karelia is..., while the audience for Challenge Accepted is…
Argument: In Letters from Karelia the filmmakers try to get the audience to realize..., while in Challenge Accepted the author attempts to…
Ethos: Give two examples of the use of ethos in the doc and one in the book
Logos: Give one example of the use of logos in the doc and two from the book
Pathos: Give two examples of the use of pathos in the doc and one from the book
Conclusion: In this section include the analysis of sources, and general thoughts on how the doc is like the book and how the doc is different in content, style, and source from the book

We are going to deviate from the structure of a formal essay, so make sure to format your assignment as such. Identification of the audience should take roughly one paragraph; identification of the argument should be approximately 1 or 2 paragraphs; and the sections on ethos, logos, and pathos should be standard 4-7 sentence paragraphs each. Your conclusion should be around 1 to 2 paragraphs. Work hard to keep this writing project "concise" and right around 2 pages, but if you spill over onto a third page that is fine.

A short, two-entry works cited on a third page should contain the correct MLA, APA, IEEE, or Chicago-Turabian entries for Letters from Karelia and Challenge Accepted.

At play for grading this assignment will be the "4Cs": be clear, concise, concrete, and have a current or flow to your work.

For this assignment, especially work on getting the flow or "current" of your writing in good working order. So, no short, choppy sentences that have no lead into one another. Short sentences are fine, as are medium and long sentences, but the trick to writing a good, flowing paragraph is variation of sentence length and structure.

An example of bad short, choppy sentences:

Dick wore short shorts. These shorts were red. Dick did not notice that his shorts had a blue stain on them. When he did he felt embarrassed. He felt so embarrassed. He got as red as his short shorts.

This type of writing is very boring. Again, short sentences are okay to break-up longer sentences, but should be used in conjunction with longer or "medium" sized sentences to complete a paragraph. The reader will get used to the short, choppy sentences and loose interest over time with the writing.

An example of better sentence variation in a paragraph:
Dick wore short, very red short shorts. It happened so, that one day, Dick had a large blue stain on his shorts that caused him to be really embarrassed. He was mortified. At this point Dick became as red as the red on his very short, red shorts.

The above short paragraph's sentences vary in length and structure, and make for a more enjoyable reading experience. Work with this in your rhetorical analysis because the type of analytical writing we are doing in this rhetorical analysis has a chance to become formulaic and that is exactly what we do not want to do for this writing assignment. The documentary is intriguing and powerful; your writing should be the same.

A final note: as with the tests, you need to earn a 3.0 on this assignment (and all other writing assignments) to pass the unit. If you do not receive a 3.0, you will have to edit or re-write your returned writing assignment until it receives a 3.0. As with the test, you also may not move onto another unit until you have passed a unit.

Your assignment will need to be at least two full pages in length, double-spaced, standard 1" margins, 12-point Times New Roman font. Name and class info, of course, need to be on the first page as well.

Best of luck, I am looking forward to reading your work.