Help on choosing in essay... PLEASE.

<p>Alright. My school makes us do portfolios at the end of the year. It must contain 3 essays: a personal narrative, a literary analysis, and a 25-minute write.</p>

<p>I already chose which personal narrative and 25-minute write to use, but I am still undecided on which literary analysis to choose.</p>

<p>So if you're bored, or just want to be helpful, I'm gonna paste both of my literary analysis essays. Tell me which one I should use.</p>

<p>The first one is about Lord of the Flies</p>

<p>The second one is about Much Ado About Nothing.</p>

<p>A novel would not be as powerful without metaphor. It allows mankind to use their imagination more efficiently, and it makes the novel more enjoyable as a whole. William Golding seems to realize this in his first and most successful novel, Lord of the Flies. The fact that the story is filled with symbols makes it one of the most well-written books of all time. In Lord of the Flies, Golding uses metaphor and symbolism effectively to reveal the theme of the novel.</p>

<pre><code>The first symbol that Golding introduces in Lord of the Flies is the conch. This object symbolizes the civilization and order of the entire island. Early in the novel, Ralph is chosen leader of the group of boys. Piggy suggests that by blowing the conch, he and Ralph can call meetings. "We can use this to call the others. Have a meeting. They’ll come when they hear us" (pg.10). Also, Ralph says that in order to be able to speak during meetings, the boys must raise their hands first, and they will be handed the conch to do so. This makes the process much more organized. Ralph’s idea is very effective throughout a good part of the novel, but the conch’s importance starts declining when most of the boys join Jack’s tribe. Jack brainwashes a lot of “littluns” and “bigguns” by saying that he will protect them from the so-called “beast”. What they do not realize is that they are the “beast”. Because of Jack’s idiocy, they eventually turn into blood-thirsty savages. At this point, obviously, the order of the island becomes almost non-existent. The conch basically means nothing to most of the children anymore. At one point, Simon realizes that the beast they have been fearing all along is actually a parachutist. Simon cannot wait to tell the group the good news. But as he is on his way to inform them, the savages think that he is the beast and run to attack him. Simon screams his lungs out, but he is killed in a ferocious manner. His body is washed out to the sea. This becomes the death of innocence, and the birth of absolute chaos. When Ralph starts thinking about his involvement in the death of the only naturally kind character in the novel, he starts trembling and holds the conch tightly. He feels a sense of guilt. Piggy tries to contradict Ralph’s beliefs by saying that it was an accident, but deep inside he knows that what happened was wrong. Later in the novel, Ralph tries to blow the conch in Jack’s area to try to restore any kind of order, only to be thrown rocks at. Ralph then realizes that the effectiveness of the conch no longer exists. Because of the sudden disobedience towards the conch, civilization has disappeared and disorder has begun. The symbol of the conch is very unique because it is not one-dimensional. Not only does it symbolize the order of the island, but it symbolizes the exact opposite, the demise of it.

There are many ways to symbolize wisdom and intelligence in literature. In this novel, William Golding chooses Piggy’s glasses to represent his underrated mind. Piggy may not be the most popular person in the island because of his physical appearance, but he is by far the smartest and most reasonable. His rational and clever thoughts are never appreciated by the rest of the group. If his ideas were considered, there would have been a quicker and much different ending to the story. The importance of Piggy’s specs is realized early in the novel. They are used to focus sunlight and create signal fires so that somehow the group could be miraculously rescued. When Jack and his hunters decide to steal Piggy’s specs to make fire of their own, it foreshadows some kind of catastrophe. "They blinded me. See? That's Jack Merridew” (Pg. 169). The glasses being stolen is basically like knowledge being taken away. Not so long after the robbery, Roger kills Piggy by rolling a boulder onto him. Because of the loss of the specs and the death of Piggy, there is no longer much wisdom that Jack can utilize to prevent his near-death experience. Oddly enough, after Piggy’s death, an unintentional fire is what rescues Ralph and the boys at the end of the novel.

The most important symbol in the novel is the feared “beast”. It all starts early in the book when one of the “littluns” frightens everyone on the island, including the older children, by saying that he saw a “beastie”. Strangely enough, this character is the first one to disappear, and was most likely killed by fire. Later in the novel, it is suggested that the beast hides in the ocean during the day, and only comes out at night. This theory is extremely frightening to the boys. Sadly, after this moment, the group is never the same again. Simon becomes the first character in Lord of the Flies to realize that there is no actual beast, and that maybe the “beast” are the boys themselves. “What I mean is . . . Maybe it’s only us . . .” (pg. 89). This is difficult for him to explain, and the boys giggle at his correct assumption. As the boys become savages, they start believing even more that there is a beast. This is Golding’s best use of symbolism in the novel. The reader would think that this would cause the boys to realize that the creature is within themselves, but the more savage and wild they become, the more realistic the beast seems.

It is unclear whether Golding uses all of these devices intentionally, or whether it is just an instinct. Either way, the symbolism by itself makes Lord of the Flies an instant classic. Whether he is linking two obvious things together, like glasses and intelligence, or whether he is linking two unlike things, like a conch and civilization, he does it beautifully. William Golding uses symbolism effectively to reveal the theme of the novel, and it has been exemplary to many other authors for over half a century.
</code></pre>

<p>Fate cannot ever be predetermined. Especially when the love of two human beings is involved. The rollercoaster-like relationship between Benedick and Beatrice in William Shakespeare’s most popular comedy, Much Ado About Nothing, is a prime example of this. The reader is intrigued by this conflict in the play because of Shakespeare’s use of wit amongst the characters. In Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare uses diction to effectively develop the characters of Benedick and Beatrice.</p>

<p>One of the key elements in this play is the point of view that Benedick and Beatrice have about love and marriage. They claim that it is foolish, and in a way, out of reach. Shakespeare is very straight-forward with the dialogue that involves such references. Early on in Much Ado About Nothing, Benedick expresses his disapproval of love after Claudio shares his sentiments for Hero. He mocks Claudio and laughs at him by claiming that having a wife makes a man a coward, in a sense. In this scene, the reader also realizes the competitive nature among Benedick and Beatrice. When both of the characters are insulting each other, they start talking about love. Shakespeare takes advantage of this scenario by showing the characters’ true emotions in their witty dialogue. “I had not a hard heart; for truly, I love none” (1.1.95), says Benedick. Beatrice says that Benedick’s inability to love gives a sigh of relief to all women. She also states that love is not one of her desires, either. “I had rather have my dog bark at a crow than a man swear he loves me” (1.1.98-99). Beatrice uses much more wit than Benedick in expressing her feelings about love. Shakespeare makes the reader realize how against love Beatrice truly is. In a way, he also hints how intimidated she can be by the thought of it.</p>

<p>Whether the subject is love or not, the clever dialogue that Shakespeare creates between these two characters develops their personalities astoundingly. It is also very comical and memorable. During Much Ado About Nothing, the reader realizes that Beatrice seems to care more about the battle of wit. Even Benedick, at times, realizes how big Beatrice’s mouth is. “Well, you are a rare parrot teacher” (1.1.104), he says. Beatrice replies, “A bird of my tongue is better than a beast of yours” (1.1.105). The rapid cleverness of Beatrice stuns the reader, and deep down, mankind realizes that all this dialogue was written by the great Shakespeare himself. During the second scene, Beatrice acknowledges her own sense of humor. “[…] that I had my good wit out of Hundred Merry Tales” (2.1.101-102). In a way, this makes the reader feel that Beatrice is a bit conceited. A few scenes later, Beatrice is sent out to call Benedick to dinner. Benedick, after overhearing that Beatrice supposedly has feelings for him, acts more nonchalant than usual. He asks “You take pleasure in the message?” (2.3.194). Beatrice replies, “Yea, just so much as you may take upon a knife’s point […]” (2.3.195). That is a great use of diction, and perhaps one of the most memorable lines of the play. The reader, without a doubt, is more aware of the characters’ personalities simply because of the dialogue between them.</p>

<p>The use of diction in Much Ado About Nothing does not simply revolve around two specific characters. Other characters in this novel have a vital role in developing the characters of Beatrice and Benedick. Don Pedro, Leonato, Hero, Claudio, and others participate in a scheme to make Beatrice and Benedick believe that they have feelings for each other. Benedick is the first victim of this prank by eavesdropping on a conversation between Don Pedro, Leonato, Claudio, and Balthasar. Leonato says, “[…] she loves him with enraged affection.”(2.3.77). Benedick is in disbelief after hearing this. “Is’t possible? Sit’s the wind in that corner?” (2.3.76). The next victim is Beatrice, obviously. As she is walking by Leonato’s garden, she overhears a conversation. “But are you sure that Benedick loves Beatrice entirely?” (3.1.38), Ursula asks. “So says the prince […]” (3.1.40), replies Hero. Beatrice is just as shocked as Benedick. “What fire is in my ears? Can this be true?” (3.1.111). After all this confusion, and many other ones, Benedick and Beatrice eventually express their love for each other towards the end of the play. Without the mischievous dialogue of the pranksters, the most intriguing thing of Much Ado About Nothing would be non-existent.</p>

<p>Much Ado About Nothing’s intended main conflict is the one of Claudio and Hero, but the reader will be left in awe after reading the comical disputes of Benedick and Beatrice. Shakespeare’s use of diction makes this play an unforgettable one. His characters have been remembered for centuries, so he was much ado about something.</p>

<p>I just skimmed the Lord of the Flies essay, and I thought it was OK. I'll read the other one later.. if I'm feeling bored.</p>

<p>But could you tell us what grade you're in?</p>

<p>I'm in 11th grade. I just kind of procrastinated on both of these essays, but i still want to know which is better. Heh. thanks for your help.</p>

<p>edit: i just realized that i typed "in" instead of "an" on the thread title. that is my first spelling error in a long time, and a very stupid one. haha.</p>

<p>Hmm.. I guess I like the second one more. Having read much on Lord of the Flies, I found the essay somewhat trite.. </p>

<p>But, I don't know, talking about diction only is odd, as every author uses it.</p>

<p>There's a grammatical error in the second line "It allows mankind to use their imagination more efficiently"....'mankind' is singular and general. rewrite it as "mankind to use its imagination"</p>

<p>is your thesis "In Lord of the Flies, Golding uses metaphor and symbolism effectively to reveal the theme of the novel" ?</p>

<p>Nothing personal, it isn't very strong. There's no assertion to it and no insight how he uses metaphor and symbolism to convey the theme of the novel. You should also mention what the theme is in your thesis.</p>

<p>I'm not going to read the rest of the essay cuz I gotta run, but all your topic sentences aren't really topic sentences. Once again, you need an assertion about the symbols you're discussing. You must include how Golding uses them to convey the theme in the novel. Don't simply claim that "This object symbolizes the civilization and order of the entire island"--you need to connect it to your thesis which discusses Golding's rhetorical strategy...not the actual symbol/metaphor itself.</p>

<p>You also should work on varying your sentence structure, diction, and make your style more formal. AVOID using colloquialisms like "Simon screams his lungs out" </p>

<p>I hope this helps.</p>