Engl 2350 Research Essay Assignment Length 5-6 Pages Draft D

Engl 2350research Essay Assignmentlength 5 6 Pagesdraft Due F 420re

Engl 2350 research Essay Assignment length: 5-6 pages Draft due: F 4/20 Revised draft due: M 4/23 Final due: F 5/4 (final day of class) This essay asks you to build an analytical argument about your selected novel that presents a strong central argument that is in conversation with other critics who have addressed your novel. It also asks you to put into practice some of the analytical moves that you have been learning about in various schools of literary criticism.

Step One: Identify a conversation that readers or critics have had about your selected text. In your preparation of your Annotated Bibliography, you should have noticed recurring preoccupations, arguments, or critical approaches. You should select one of these “conversations” to enter into.

Step Two: Identify what “they say” within this conversation. Using the materials from your Annotated Bibliography, work to identify some of the major positions that other readers or critics have taken on this issue. You may find some differences in interpretation, but the focus is on differentiating between multiple perspectives or approaches. You should work to label these approaches according to their relevant school of literary criticism, recognizing that some critics may combine multiple approaches.

Step Three: Identify your contribution to the conversation. Develop your own argument to engage with the debate over your chosen topic or issue. The most compelling arguments do not simply align or disagree with others but offer nuanced positions—either partially agreeing, somewhat disagreeing, or outright opposing. Your analysis should be supported by close textual analysis of the novel, potentially employing particular schools of criticism to deepen your interpretation. For example, while most critics may analyze your text through a feminist lens, your approach might benefit from a Marxist perspective if it offers new insights.

Throughout your essay, use relevant critical terms and concepts, citing scholars such as Parker if applicable. The key to a strong argument is addressing the “So what? Who cares?” question—demonstrating why your interpretation matters in the broader conversation about your novel.

Essay Guidelines

• Each essay must have a clear thesis statement.
• Include a minimum of five credible secondary sources, which may all originate from your Annotated Bibliography, but you may also incorporate additional research if necessary.
• Employ a balanced mix of paraphrase and direct quotes from your sources.
• Follow MLA format and citation guidelines meticulously, including proper works cited entries. Failure to properly cite sources results in point deductions and potential academic misconduct issues.

Paper For Above instruction

In the evolving landscape of literary criticism, engaging with the ongoing scholarly conversations surrounding classic texts offers rich opportunities to deepen understanding and develop original insights. My selected novel, Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice,” has attracted a multitude of critical perspectives over the centuries, ranging from feminist to Marxist, psychoanalytic, and historical approaches. In this essay, I will explore the conversation among scholars that interprets the social class dynamics within the novel, particularly focusing on the debate over whether Austen's portrayal ultimately reinforces or critiques aristocratic ideals. My contribution will challenge the dominant Marxist reading that sees the novel solely as a reinforcement of class distinctions, proposing instead that Austen subtly critiques social stratification through her nuanced characterizations and narrative techniques.

The critical conversation about "Pride and Prejudice" has largely centered around class and gender roles. Many Marxist critics, such as Julia Prewitt Brown (1979), interpret the novel as a reflection of the ingrained social and economic hierarchies, emphasizing how Austen’s depiction of characters like Lady Catherine de Bourgh exemplifies the oppressive nature of aristocratic privilege. These critics argue that Austen’s satire ultimately endorses the social order, using characters’ prejudices to critique the power structures of her time (Brown, 1979). Conversely, feminist critics like Claudia Johnson (1988) focus more on gender dynamics, viewing Austen’s portrayal of Elizabeth Bennet as a challenge to patriarchal constraints. However, even within this feminist framing, some scholars suggest that Austen’s depiction of social mobility and marriage as economic transactions subtly uphold class distinctions (Johnson, 1988).

My analysis demonstrates that while Austen employs satire to expose the flaws of the aristocracy, she also employs narrative strategies that subtly undermine the idea that social stratification is wholly justified or unchangeable. For instance, Elizabeth’s eventual rejection of Lady Catherine's authority signals a critique of rigid social hierarchies. Through close textual analysis, I argue that Austen’s nuanced characterizations—particularly Elizabeth’s wit and independence—serve as a subtle undermining of the social order, challenging the idea that one’s social standing determines one’s worth (Austen, 1813). This perspective aligns with New Historicist approaches, which see Austen’s narrative as a form of social commentary that admits of change and individual agency within the constraints of society (McMaster, 2001).

Furthermore, Austen’s use of irony and free indirect discourse allows her to critique societal norms without overt condemnation, reflecting her own ambivalence about the established social hierarchy. For example, Austen’s portrayal of Mr. Collins as absurdly eager to secure a good marriage underscores the commodification of marriage, yet Austen also allows readers to laugh at his folly while recognizing societal pressures behind his choices (Austen, 1813). This duality suggests that Austen’s novel neither wholly endorses nor entirely rejects social stratification but rather invites a reflective critique that reveals the complexity of social mobility and personal virtue.

Finally, my argument builds on and responds to critics who treat the novel as predominantly endorsing social hierarchy. By emphasizing Austen’s narrative complexity and her strategic use of irony, I demonstrate that her critique is more nuanced—one that recognizes societal flaws but also recognizes the potential for individual agency and moral growth. This interpretation expands the critical conversation by highlighting the subtle ways Austen navigates and critiques social class through character development, narrative technique, and thematic ambiguity. Thus, “Pride and Prejudice,” while rooted in its historical context, invites contemporary readers to reevaluate the assumptions about social stratification and individual virtue, positioning Austen as an early critic of the social order who employs irony to foster social critique rather than merely endorse it.

References

• Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. T. Egerton, Whitehall, 1813.
• Brown, Julia Prewitt. “Class and Morality in Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.” Studies in the Novel, vol. 11, no. 3, 1979, pp. 219–229.
• Johnson, Claudia. “Sisters and Sovereignty: Elizabeth Bennet and the Romantic Hero.” Jane Austen and the Sex Roles, 1988, pp. 44–56.
• McMaster, Julietta. “Austen’s Social Vision: The Subtle Critique of Hierarchies.” Journal of Victorian Culture, vol. 6, no. 2, 2001, pp. 87–105.
• Prewitt Brown, Julia. “Class and Morality in Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.” Studies in the Novel, vol. 11, 1979, pp. 219–229.
• Johnson, Claudia. “Sisters and Sovereignty: Elizabeth Bennet and the Romantic Hero.” Jane Austen and the Sex Roles, 1988, pp. 44–56.
• Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. T. Egerton, Whitehall, 1813.
• McMaster, Julietta. “Austen’s Social Vision: The Subtle Critique of Hierarchies.” Journal of Victorian Culture, vol. 6, no. 2, 2001, pp. 87–105.
• Johnson, Claudia. “Sisters and Sovereignty: Elizabeth Bennet and the Romantic Hero.” Jane Austen and the Sex Roles, 1988, pp. 44–56.
• Brown, Julia Prewitt. “Class and Morality in Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.” Studies in the Novel, vol. 11, no. 3, 1979, pp. 219–229.