I’m trying to learn for my Literature class and I’m stuck. Can you help?
Instructions
Most weeks, one of the four discussion board groups must submit synthesis posts. (We do not have a synthesis post due at the end of the first week, and the final synthesis post in the course is optional.) A synthesis post asks you to pull together some of the readings and discussions from the prior week. In each synthesis post, you must quote and respond to at least two reading posts by your classmates that have come in since the prior synthesis post. Whenever quoting a passage from another post, do not include the whole original message in your post: always cut everything except the passage you want to quote. You should also quote from the readings from the prior week at least once, and the quotation should not be the same as one that your peers whom you have quoted took for their reading posts. Your goal is to make use of the class lectures and discussions to answer questions and respond to points people had made in their reading posts — whether that means building on their ideas to support your own, slightly modifying the original idea, or rebutting it — and to draw some tentative conclusions. Synthesis posts should be between 425 and 475 words long, not including quotations, and they are due by midnight on Saturday (in other words, at the end of the day). Again, excessive length is a detriment, not a sign of superior effort.
Unlike reading response posts, synthesis posts do not have prompts. They have their own discussion board forums, and you should post your synthesis as reply to my initial post.
As with reading response posts, the key to synthesis posts is working effectively with quotations. Do not begin a paragraph (let alone the whole post) by quoting a peer; that’s like being a tennis player who refuses to serve. If you start out a paragraph with something like “Ashley says,” you surrender both your initiative and your authority. Again, start by establishing a point you want to make or an issue you want to explore. Then, quote the text and your peers in any way that helps you make your point. Always set up and comment on each quotation, which means you should never present two quotations back-to-back. Also, do not quote your peer quoting the text: quote peers for their ideas, not their evidence.
Your goal is to engage with your peer’s response thoughtfully. That means you cannot simply agree with it. You must respond in one of the following three ways:
1) Extension: This means you think your peer makes a valid point, and you build on their comment logically as the foundation for deeper analysis of the same issue. Think of this as mentally inserting the phrase (note that I say mentally — you shouldn’t write this) if this is true, then I would go further and argue that between the quotation and your own commentary. You then should bring in more textual evidence to support your point.
2) Application: This means that you think your peer makes a valid point, and you use their comment as a way to analyze a different portion of the text. You may find a similarity or a difference between the passage you quote and the one your peer quoted; either way, you still agree with your peer, because any differences result from the passage itself.
3) Rebuttal: This means you find a flaw in your peer’s analysis. This flaw may result from a problem in the logic of the analysis itself, or it may result from your peer misreading or ignoring evidence from the reading that contradicts their point. In either case, keep your criticism focused on the analysis, not the writer, and never indicate that you disagree with the quotation in the set-up for it — always let your reader read the quotation without prejudice.
Following is an example of an excellent synthesis post. Again, the post is not particularly long (432 words plus quotations). In this case, note how well the writer weaves together quotations form the text and from peers. Note also that the writer does not merely agree or disagree with what others in the class have written, but builds on the other posts in both cases. Finally, this post is well-written: grammatically correct, of course, but also concise, with some graceful turns of phrase, and correctly formatted quotations:
Subject: C4 Synthesis: Nature as a Therapeutic Agent
When initially reading Frankenstein, I was primarily concerned with the effects of Percy Shelley’s additions to Mary’s manuscript. Percy’s changes show why this novel is a product of the Romantic movement. The various roles nature plays in the book, especially the role of therapeutic agent, are key to this understanding and provide insight on Romanticism’s theoretical foundations.
Throughout my reading, I noticed how the book depicts nature as separated from society and man-made institutions, creating a powerfully destructive dichotomy. Failure to understand this dichotomy resulted in some confusion over Victor Frankenstein’s character. From the beginning, the Shelleys represent Nature as both spiritual and moral, so Frankenstein — whose entire project defies the natural processes of both birth and death — may well seem unlikeable. Moreover, his desire for his creation to look up to him as to a god strikes some readers as unseemly: “This desire to be blessed by his creation suggests he may be too human, too needy, to be taking on the role of Creator” ([name redacted] A8). However, what makes Frankenstein seem narcissistic is not any fault of his own character, but rather his indoctrination by human institutions: educational, scientific, and religious. Deep into his studies, Frankenstein says, “Learn from me, if not by my precepts at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge and how much happier that man is who believes his native town the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow” (76-77). The fantasy he has of himself as a divine Creator to his Creation is not far from the Old Testament and YHVH’s continual demands for worship. Thus, Frankenstein is not being portrayed as an inherently unsympathetic character, but as someone whose essentially noble self has been twisted by society’s corrupt institutions.
Institutions are also to blame for Frankenstein’s inaction at Justine’s trial. Several people expressed frustration that he does nothing to save an innocent woman for whom he expresses great affection. [Name redacted] points out that this is not what we expect from a Romantic hero in the Byronic tradition: “If Percy Shelley and Lord Byron are indeed the inspirations for Victor Frankenstein, then what does this inaction say about Mary’s opinion of them? Both men write passionately about injustice, yet faced with the opportunity to prevent it, Frankenstein does nothing” (D7). In this instance, once again, Shelley portrays human institutions, in this case the judicial system, as the problem; Frankenstein is helpless. And in reality, Byron’s and Shelley’s dreams of bringing in a new and better age came to nought, at least during their lifetimes. Regardless, the point is that society and man-made institutions are the antagonist, not Frankenstein.
The dichotomy between nature and man-made institutions is tangible throughout the novel and gives further credence to this point. From a plot standpoint, when Frankenstein is in Geneva, he becomes overzealous in his studies to the point where he becomes sick. [Name redacted] briefly discusses Frankenstein’s relationship to nature: “Instead of going to nature of answers, he seeks to control it and tame it, to make it a man-made creation” (A8) Once again, it’s not that Frankenstein seeks to control nature, but that society seeks to control nature, and furthermore nature’s effect on Frankenstein and nature is therapeutic. After his troubles in Ingolstadt, Frankenstein says, “By degrees this calm and heavenly scene restored me, and I continued my journey towards Geneva” (99). Whenever Frankenstein is on the verge of losing it, an escape from civilization and into nature heals him.
[name redacted]
So why is this a superb post?
1) The author starts out with an observation of his or her own before quoting and responding to the initial poster. This helps ensure that this post will demonstrate original thought and not just be a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with someone.
2) As with the reading response post example, the author uses quotations effectively by setting them up in a substantive way that integrates them with the overall argument and by commenting on them at length. In this case, she respectfully rebuts the original poster and uses evidence from the text to support that rebuttal. (Note that this post quotes the reading response post example above.
3) This author also writes well.
0 comments