{"id":26957,"date":"2024-05-27T21:11:37","date_gmt":"2024-05-27T21:11:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/questions\/literary-synthesis-of-the-two-short-stories-the-death-of-ivan-ilyich-three-deaths-by-leo-tolstoy\/"},"modified":"2024-05-27T21:11:37","modified_gmt":"2024-05-27T21:11:37","slug":"literary-synthesis-of-the-two-short-stories-the-death-of-ivan-ilyich-three-deaths-by-leo-tolstoy","status":"publish","type":"questions","link":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/questions\/literary-synthesis-of-the-two-short-stories-the-death-of-ivan-ilyich-three-deaths-by-leo-tolstoy\/","title":{"rendered":"Literary Synthesis of the two short stories “The Death of Ivan Ilyich” & “Three Deaths” by Leo Tolstoy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
\n

Write an essay of 1300-1500 words that <\/span>synthesizes<\/strong> two<\/em> <\/span>texts<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • 1)  “The Death of Ivan Ilyich” by Leo Tolstoy<\/em><\/li>\n
  • 2) “Three Deaths” by Leo Tolstoy<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
    Both texts can be found on the pdf I have encrypted below. <\/div>\n

    In the essay, establish and demonstrate a significant <\/span>connection or relationship<\/em> <\/span>between the two texts. You might <\/span>compare<\/em> <\/span>the two texts, exploring thematic or philosophical similarities; you might <\/span>contrast <\/em>the two, exploring differences. You might apply<\/em> a relevant nonfiction text to one of the novellas, using it to analyze the novella and elucidate its meaning. <\/p>\n

    In your thesis statement, clearly state your synthesis — the precise connection you’re drawing between the two texts. In the proof section, use evidence from both texts to demonstrate that connection quoting and using MLA citation. In your conclusion paragraph, explain the significance of the connection you’ve demonstrated — What important insight or truth comes to light after looking at these two texts in combination? <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    Below, I’ll describe a few possible approaches to this assignment:<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
    • \n

      Synthesizing “The Death of Ivan Ilyich” & “Three Deaths” by Leo Tolstoy: <\/em><\/strong>you might answer a questions like, “What do the two texts say about mortality (or morality, or community, or marriage\/relationships, or social status, or the law, etc.)? <\/span>How are the two texts conveying similar (or different) ideas about this theme?” <\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      Pursue interesting,<\/em> significant <\/em>connections grounded in interpretation<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n

      A main thing you want to <\/span>avoid <\/em>in literary synthesis is having just two parallel summaries. Sometimes, an attempt at literary synthesis will end up going something like, “This is what happened in one text, and this is what happened in the other.” To avoid this, you should interpret <\/strong>both texts; identify their <\/span>meanings<\/em> <\/span>and <\/span>implications. <\/span><\/em>Once you figure out the meaning or message each writer is trying to convey, you can then put them <\/span>in conversation<\/em> <\/span>with each other. Is there some important difference, some tension between the two writers’ implied world-views or philosophies? Is there significant overlap? Some <\/span>combination<\/em> <\/span>of confluence and tension?  <\/p>\n

      Of course, in order for this “conversation” to happen, the two texts need to be “talking about” the same thing. The first step in synthesizing two literary texts is identifying a <\/span>common theme or subject <\/span><\/strong>in both. If you identify that two texts are both saying <\/span>something<\/em> <\/span>about, say, family dynamics, you can then compare what the two texts are saying about<\/em> <\/span>family dynamics. <\/p>\n

      That is, this essay is building on the type of critical reading and critical thinking you did for Essay One. For Essay Two, you’ll interpret <\/span>both<\/em> <\/span>texts in the way that you interpreted a single<\/em> <\/span>text in Essay One. Then you’ll explain the relationship between those two interpretations.<\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\n

      What I’ve described so far in this section applies to the synthesis of two <\/span>literary<\/em> <\/span>texts. If you’re synthesizing a Tolstoy novella with a <\/span>nonfiction<\/em> <\/span>text, you probably won’t be interpreting the nonfiction text in the same way you would a literary text. Nonetheless, there should be a strong element of interpretation in your approach to the Tolstoy text, and the nonfiction text will likely clarify or deepen that interpretation.   <\/p>\n

      In the conclusion paragraph of your essay, explain the <\/span>significance<\/em> <\/span>of your synthesis, what new or interesting thing “happened” as a result of it. What important insight was generated by looking at these two texts <\/span>in combination<\/em>? If the two texts convey complementary or overlapping meanings, does some richer, more nuanced version of that meaning emerge from the synthesis? If the texts convey conflicting meanings, has the synthesis shown us that one of those meanings is truer or more relevant in today’s world?    <\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      Strive for Focus and Specificity<\/strong><\/h3>\n

      Another common pitfall when writing literary synthesis is <\/span>trying to compare too many things<\/em>, resulting in a jumble of unrelated parallels. You’re not comparing everything that happens in one text to everything that happens in another. Instead, you’re examining the specific aspects of the two texts that overlap in an interesting way. (A Venn diagram might be a useful thing to visualize.) <\/p>\n

      That is, your essay will be cohesive and meaningful if you find a <\/span>specific point of comparison<\/em>. As noted above, a good point of comparison is a common <\/span>theme<\/strong> <\/span>shared by the two texts. However, you might find it useful to pursue an even more narrowly focused comparison. For example, you could focus on characterization<\/strong>, comparing a character or set of characters from each text. You could compare overlapping symbolic motifs<\/strong> <\/span>in the two texts; the way the <\/span>plots<\/strong> <\/span>are structured; the way in which voice<\/strong>, point of view<\/strong>, or figurative language<\/strong> <\/span>are used. Remember though, that all these things contribute to a text’s <\/span>meaning<\/em>. Pointing out, for example, that Ivan Ilyich has a lot in common with the narrator from “The Semplica-Girl Diaries” would be a great start, but you’d ultimately want to compare these characters in order to elucidate the overlapping (or conflicting) <\/span>meanings<\/em> <\/span>in the two texts.    <\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      \n

      How to Structure The Essay<\/strong><\/h3>\n

      There will be more information about how to structure the essay later in the unit, but, for now, here’s a simple outline that should help you to visualize the essay. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      Introduction (1-2 paragraphs): <\/span><\/strong>Prepare the reader for the thesis. Provide an introduction to your topic as well as a brief description of the two texts, with an emphasis on the aspects of the texts relevant to your thesis.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Thesis statement (1-2 sentences): <\/strong>Make a claim about the relationship between the two texts. Embed language in the thesis statement that makes the precise relationship between the texts very clear to the reader. Perhaps the meanings of the two texts contradict<\/em> <\/span>one another; perhaps there’s an interesting tension<\/em> or <\/span>affinity <\/em>between them; perhaps a nonfiction text illuminates <\/em>or <\/span>clarifies<\/i> some aspect of the novella, etc.    <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Proof (3-4 paragraphs): <\/strong>Demonstrate the relationship you described in the thesis statement. Doing so will entail presenting textual evidence from the text, interpreting the texts, and explaining how the textual evidence and the interpretations represent the relationship described in the thesis. (Use PIE structure for every proof paragraph.) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Conclusion (1 paragraph): <\/span><\/strong>Briefly restate the main points from your synthesis and address the significance of your synthesis.<\/p>\n

      Example: <\/span><\/p>\n

      TWO IMPORTANT NOTES ABOUT ESSAY TWO <\/strong><\/h3>\n
        \n
      • A counterargument-refutation paragraph is not <\/em>required for this essay. <\/strong><\/li>\n
      • In the proof section, it’s important to actively and explicitly <\/i>synthesize the evidence from the two texts. Avoid simply presenting evidence from both texts and expecting the reader to figure out the connection. Explain the relationship between the evidence you’ve presented from the two texts. Even if the connection seems obvious to you, it probably isn’t obvious to the reader.  <\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

         <\/p>\n

        Essay Two Structure & Components <\/strong><\/h3>\n

        There is some flexibility in how you can structure this fairly complex essay, but there are also some foundational aspects of essay structure that should be there regardless of what choices you make about how to organize the essay. <\/span>Here is what should <\/span><\/strong><\/span>definitely<\/em> <\/span>happen in the different components of the essay:<\/strong><\/p>\n

          \n
        • \n

          The <\/span><\/span>INTRODUCTION<\/strong> <\/span>should prepare the reader for the thesis statement. <\/span><\/span>Provide an introduction to<\/span> <\/span>your topic as well as a brief descriptions of the two texts, with an emphasis on the aspects of the text relevant to your thesis. Because there’s more information to set up at the beginning of the essay, you might consider writing two<\/em> introduction paragraphs.  <\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

        • \n

          The <\/span><\/span>THESIS<\/strong> <\/span><\/span>should come at the end of the introduction. (Please see the previous lecture on thesis statements for more information.) <\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

        • \n

          The PROOF section <\/strong>should 1) Use textual evidence and analysis to prove the interpretive claims about the texts in the thesis statement; 2) Explain the relationship between the texts and their meanings; this explanation should reflect the relationship (synthesis) you establish in your thesis statement.  <\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

        • \n

          The <\/span>PROOF section<\/strong> <\/span><\/span>should have<\/span> <\/span>active<\/em>, <\/span>explicit<\/em> <\/span>synthesis<\/span>. This does <\/span><\/span>not <\/span><\/span>mean placing evidence from both texts side-by-side and expecting the reader to figure out the relationship. Instead, <\/span><\/span>explain<\/em> <\/span>to the reader <\/span><\/span>why<\/em> <\/span>the evidence represents similar or different ideas.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

        • \n

          The <\/span>PROOF section<\/strong><\/span> <\/span>should have a <\/span>balanced <\/strong>representation of your two sources. <\/span>Because you\u2019re exploring a relationship between two texts, <\/span><\/span>both texts<\/span> <\/span>should get roughly<\/span> <\/span>equal attention<\/span> <\/span>in your essay. The main goal of this essay is to put the two texts in <\/span>conversation<\/em> <\/span>with each other. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

        • Every <\/span>PROOF paragraph<\/strong> <\/span><\/span>should use <\/span>P.I.E.<\/strong> <\/span>structure\u2014POINTS<\/strong> <\/span>should make <\/span>claims<\/em> that set up what the rest of the paragraph will prove, and <\/span>EXPLANATION<\/strong> (interpretation, synthesis) should come after the <\/span>INFORMATION <\/span><\/strong>(textual evidence and analysis). The POINTS and the EXPLANATIONS in each proof paragraph should draw clear connections to the claim made in the thesis.<\/span><\/li>\n
        • \n

          The <\/span><\/span>CONCLUSION<\/strong> <\/span>should restate your position and address the significance of your synthesis. Do you think the ideas in the texts represent something true and useful, or not? Do these ideas have any particular relevance to contemporary issues? Do you think one writer has a more accurate or constructive set of ideas than the other? <\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

           <\/p>\n

          \n

          How to Structure the PROOF Section of the Essay <\/strong><\/h4>\n

          In the proof section, you’ll need to do a few different things. You’ll need to present evidence form both texts, interpret that evidence, and show a relationship between the two texts — all in a way that demonstrates the claim in your thesis statement. This is quite a lot to manage, so you want to be deliberate in how you structure the proof section, so that it communicates everything in a way that’s clear and easy to follow. Below are a few suggestions for how to structure the proof section. (These are approaches that have worked well for students in the past.) You might arrive upon a good structure that doesn’t fit into one of these templates, which is definitely okay. <\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Proof Section Structure #1<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Each<\/em> <\/span>proof paragraph presents evidence from <\/span><\/span>both<\/em> <\/span>texts, interprets that evidence, and synthesizes those interpretations. Here’s an outline representing what Structure #1 might look like:  <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n
          THESIS:<\/strong> “The Death of Ivan Ilyich” and \u201cThe Semplica-Girl Diaries\u201d both imply that status competition results in X, Y, and Z.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          \n
            \n
          • Proof Paragraph #1<\/strong><\/span>\n
              \n
            • POINT:  <\/strong>“Ivan Ilyich” and “Semplica” both imply that status competition causes X.<\/span><\/li>\n
            • INFORMATION: <\/span><\/strong>Textual evidence and analysis from “Ilyich” [Transition to “Semplica” evidence]; Textual evidence and analysis from “Semplica” <\/span><\/li>\n
            • EXPLANATION: <\/span><\/strong>Interpretation of evidence from the two texts (how they both represent X), demonstrating the connection between two texts’ meanings. <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                \n
              • Proof Paragraph #2: <\/strong><\/span>\n
                  \n
                • POINT:  <\/strong>“Ivan Ilyich” and “Semplica” both imply that status competition causes Y.<\/span><\/li>\n
                • INFORMATION: <\/span><\/strong>Textual evidence and analysis from “Ilyich” [Transition to “Semplica” evidence]; Textual evidence and analysis from “Semplica” <\/span><\/li>\n
                • EXPLANATION: <\/span><\/strong>Interpretation of evidence from the two texts (how they both represent Y), demonstrating the connection between two texts’ meanings. <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                    \n
                  • Proof Paragraph #3:<\/strong> <\/span> \n
                      \n
                    • POINT:  <\/strong>“Ivan Ilyich” and “Semplica” both imply that status competition causes Z.<\/span><\/li>\n
                    • INFORMATION: <\/span><\/strong>Textual evidence and analysis from “Ilyich” [Transition to “Semplica” evidence]; Textual evidence and analysis from “Semplica” <\/span><\/li>\n
                    • EXPLANATION: <\/span><\/strong>Interpretation of evidence from the two texts (how they both represent Z), demonstrating the connection between two texts’ meanings. <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                       <\/p>\n

                      Proof Section Structure #2<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

                      Each connection\/synthesis is <\/span>explained over the course of <\/span><\/span>TWO<\/span> <\/span>proof paragraphs. The <\/span><\/span>first<\/span> <\/span>proof paragraph interprets <\/span><\/span>one<\/span> <\/span>text. The <\/span><\/span>second <\/span><\/span>proof paragraph interprets the <\/span><\/span>second text<\/span>, and <\/span><\/span>then<\/span> <\/span>explains how these ideas <\/span><\/span>relate<\/span> <\/span>to the ideas in the first proof paragraph. (The synthesis happens at the end of <\/span><\/span>every <\/span>other<\/em><\/span> <\/span>proof paragraph.) You\u2019d likely have <\/span><\/span>two \u201cpairs\u201d <\/span><\/span>of paragraphs in the whole proof section. This is the paragraphing strategy that the example essay <\/strong>uses.<\/span><\/p>\n

                      Here’s an outline representing what Structure #2 might look like: <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n
                      \n
                        \n
                      • \n

                        Thesis:<\/strong> The two texts say different things about X and Y in communities. <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                      • \n

                        Proof One: <\/strong>“Forged Coupon” says ____ about X aspect of community. (Textual evidence and interpretation) <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                      • \n

                        Proof Two<\/strong>:  “The Lottery” says ____ about X aspect of community. Here’s why that’s different from what “Forged Coupon” says about X. <\/span>(Textual evidence, interpretation, and synthesis)<\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                      • \n

                        Proof Three: <\/strong>“Forged Coupon” says ____ about Y aspect of community. <\/span>(Textual evidence and interpretation) <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                      • \n

                        Proof Four<\/strong>:  “The Lottery” says ____ about Y aspect of community. Here’s why that’s different from what “Forged Coupon” <\/em>says about Y. <\/span>(Textual evidence, interpretation, and synthesis)<\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                         <\/p>\n

                        Proof Section Structure #3<\/strong><\/p>\n

                        The <\/span><\/span>first <\/span><\/span>proof paragraph is devoted to <\/span><\/span>interpreting one text<\/span>; the <\/span><\/span>second<\/span> <\/span>is devoted to <\/span><\/span>interpreting the other<\/span>. The <\/span><\/span>final<\/span> <\/span>proof paragraph is devoted to exploring and explaining the <\/span><\/span>relationship <\/span>between the two texts. The <\/span><\/span>synthesis<\/span> <\/span>all happens in one proof paragraph. <\/span><\/p>\n

                        Here’s an outline representing what Structure #3 might look like: <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n
                        \n
                          \n
                        • \n

                          Thesis:<\/strong> The two texts say different things about X in communities. <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                        • \n

                          Proof One: <\/strong>“The Forged Coupon” says ____ about X aspect of community. (Textual evidence and interpretation)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                        • \n

                          Proof Two<\/strong>:  “The Lottery” says ____ about X aspect of community. (Textual evidence and interpretation)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                        • \n

                          Proof Three: <\/span><\/strong>An in-depth explanation of how the two texts contrast with one another on the subject of X. (Synthesis)<\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                           <\/span><\/p>\n

                          Evidence & Synthesis<\/strong><\/h4>\n

                          Your thesis statement will establish a relationship between the two texts you’ve chosen, but then, of course, you’ll need to demonstrate that connection in the proof section using relevant textual evidence, analysis, and interpretation. <\/span><\/p>\n

                          Below is an outline of a <\/span>proof paragraph<\/strong> that provides an example of how to \u201cpair\u201d evidence from two sources. Notice how there’s a sort of “organic” connection between the passages selected from the two texts — the paragraph combines two passages that relate to literal money. This ends up being a good starting point for examining what the two texts say about the topic of “materialism.” As you figure out what evidence to select from each text, and how to pair the evidence from the two texts, consider doing something similar. Look for moments in the two text that have an “organic” connection, that use similar symbols or represent similar experiences. <\/span><\/p>\n

                          Also pay particular attention to the “explanation” section in the outline below. The <\/span>red<\/strong><\/span> <\/span>part provides interpretation <\/strong>of the <\/span>evidence; the <\/span>purple<\/strong><\/span> <\/span>part <\/span>synthesizes<\/strong>, explaining the connection. (This paragraph, but the way, uses the “Proof Structure #1” described above.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n
                          THESIS:<\/strong> <\/span><\/span>Tortilla Flat<\/em> <\/span><\/span>and<\/span> <\/span>\u201cBattle Royal\u201d<\/span> <\/span>suggest that <\/span><\/span>an ideal community can only take shape once materialism and the hierarchies that come with it have been abandoned.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
                          \n\n\n\n
                          \n
                            \n
                          • \n

                            POINT: <\/span><\/strong>The phalanx\u2019s protection of the Pirate’s money in <\/span>Tortilla Flat<\/em> and the symbolism of the electrified coins in “Battle Royal” both represent how materialism and hierarchy must be abandoned for an ideal community to take shape.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                          • \n

                            INFORMATION\/EVIDENCE 1:<\/strong> <\/span><\/span>Quotes\/paraphrases depicting the way in which Danny\u2019s friends protect the Pirate\u2019s bag of money, with emphasis on the way in which the money \u201cstops being money\u201d and instead becomes representative of the bonds of the phalanx itself.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                          • \n

                            INFORMATION\/EVIDENCE 2:<\/strong> <\/span><\/span>Quotes\/paraphrases depicting the coins on the electrified mat, with emphasis on how the coins are a very tangible representation of the connection between materialism and destructive hierarchy\u2014the boys are made to humiliate themselves and subject themselves to pain as they scrabble for the money, reaffirming their \u201clowness\u201d in the hierarchy.  <\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                          • \n

                            EXPLANATION: <\/span>The bag of money in TF is a potent symbol of how once money and materialism are removed from the equation, a community can begin to thrive. The coins in \u201cBattle Royal\u201d symbolize the corrupting influence of materialism on communities. <\/span><\/span>Though one text shows how the elimination of materialism unites, and the other shows how materialism corrupts, they are both making the same fundamental point\u2014materialism creates hierarchy, competition, and cruelty, which are values antithetical to the construction of an ideal community. <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

                            \n

                            <\/strong>When crafting your own synthesis, organizing evidence into proof paragraphs, and reviewing your work, ask yourself the following questions about your evidence and synthesis: <\/p>\n

                            \n
                              \n
                            • \n

                              Does it seem reasonable to compare these two pieces of evidence? Is it clear that they relate to one another?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                            • \n

                              Does the evidence from the two texts represent the similarity or difference described in the thesis? <\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                            • \n

                              Have you <\/span>explained<\/em> <\/span>what the evidence <\/span>means<\/em> (interpretation) and why it represents the <\/span>relationship<\/em> <\/span>you asserted in your thesis (synthesis)?   <\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

                              The Conclusion Paragraph<\/strong><\/strong><\/h4>\n

                              The conclusion paragraph should first restate your position, and then address the significance of your synthesis. That is, there should be two parts to the conclusion:<\/span><\/p>\n

                                \n
                              1. Summarize<\/strong> <\/span>the main points you made so that the reader leaves your essay with a clear sense of the interpretations and connections that were most important in the essay.   <\/span><\/li>\n
                              2. Address the significance<\/strong> <\/span>of your synthesis. One way (though not the only way) to approach this: <\/span>evaluate the <\/span>ideas<\/em> <\/span><\/strong>in the two texts you’ve interpreted and synthesized. Do you think the ideas in the texts represent something true and useful, or not? Do they shed light on any pressing issues in today’s society? If the two texts forward opposing ideas, do you think one writer has a more compelling set of ideas than the other?<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                In this (slightly edited) conclusion paragraph from the example essay, the second part, in which the writer evaluates the ideas about community in the two texts, is in bold<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
                                Tortilla Flat<\/em> <\/span>and \u201cThe Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas\u201d convey ideas about how communities should operate — and how they shouldn’t. The <\/span>paisanos<\/em> in <\/span>Tortilla Flat <\/em>illustrate how acceptance of diversity and forgiveness contribute to the ideal functioning of a community, while the citizens of Omelas illustrate how rejection of diversity and dependence on punishment without forgiveness make it impossible for a community to thrive. <\/span><\/span>In American society, diversity and forgiveness are two important keywords that deeply relate to its history and culture. America itself was built by immigrants and has been made strong by accepting many different people from different countries and cultures. The fair jurisprudence system and the mature political system of democracy are also important parts of America that closely relates to lawful punishment and forgiveness. However, contemporary American society faces serious perils as these two fundamental values are slowly being reduced and undermined within communities and the nation as a whole. By illustrating how a  community should and should not operate, both  Tortilla Flat<\/em> <\/span>and \u201cThe Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas\u201d teach an important lesson that a community can only thrive and progress when acceptance of diversity and forgiveness are firmly rooted within the foundation of the community.<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                 <\/p>\n

                                Essay Two Sample Outline<\/strong><\/h4>\n

                                Below is an example of how an entire literary synthesis essay could be structured. Here the writer is using “Strategy #1” for the proof section. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n
                                \n
                                  \n
                                • \n

                                  INTRODUCTION:<\/strong> <\/span><\/span>Two paragraphs. The first will be about communities, <\/span><\/span>the difficulty of forming communities, and how capitalist values like materialism and teleological thinking work against communities. The <\/span><\/span>second paragraph will introduce <\/span><\/span>Tortilla Flat<\/em> and the story \u201cBattle Royal.\u201d In this paragraph I will describe the texts briefly but also preview the <\/span><\/span>connection by explaining how, while <\/span><\/span>they are very <\/span><\/span>different, <\/span><\/span>both diagnose a similar set of problems and solutions related to community.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                                • \n

                                  THESIS: <\/span><\/strong>(<\/span>This will come at the end of the second <\/span><\/span>paragraph<\/span>.) <\/span>Tortilla Flat suggests that an ideal community can only take shape once the community has abandoned the main pillars of capitalist society\u2014materialism, social hierarchies, and teleological thinking. \u201cBattle Royal\u201d also represents the incompatibility of capitalist values and thriving communities by portraying a deeply corrupted community that is characterized by materialism, hierarchy, and teleological thinking.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                                • \n

                                  PROOF PARAGRAPH <\/strong>1:<\/strong> <\/span><\/span>I will compare the most vivid examples of actual currency in the two texts\u2014the Pirate\u2019s bag of money and the coins on the electrified mat. Both images function symbolically and show that <\/span><\/span>materialism\u2014and the competition and hierarchy that come with it\u2014is destructive to community<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                                • \n

                                  PROOF PARAGRAPH 2:<\/strong> <\/span><\/span>I will compare the structure of the communities in the two texts\u2014in \u201cBR\u201d it\u2019s rigidly and racially hierarchical; in <\/span><\/span>TF<\/em> <\/span>the organization is more spontaneous; there is no rigid hierarchy. Instead, people fill different roles as their strengths and the situations require. <\/span><\/span>Both texts show that rigid hierarchies hurt communities<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                                • \n

                                  PROOF PARAGRAPH 3: <\/span><\/strong>I will compare the underlying philosophy of the two communities\u2014Danny\u2019s friends are nonteleological, while the culture of \u201cBR\u201d is teleological. I\u2019ll present evidence from Ch. XIV in <\/span><\/span>TF<\/em> <\/span>to show nonteleological thinking, and \u201cBR\u201d\u2019s narrator\u2019s pursuit of success as representative of his adaptation to teleological thinking. <\/span><\/span>Both texts imply that teleological thinking, the ethos of capitalism, creates corrupted communities, and nonteleological thinking creates good ones<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                                • \n

                                  CONCLUSION:<\/strong> <\/span><\/span>I will describe how both texts deliver a very important message, one that resonates today\u2014we live in a state of radical inequality and cultural division, the root cause of which is capitalism and the hierarchies it demands.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                  \n

                                   <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                   <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

                                  Essay Two Goals\/Grading Rubric<\/strong><\/h3>\n

                                  Below is a list of things you should accomplish in Essay Two. These are also the criteria I’ll be using in the grading rubric for the essay. <\/span><\/p>\n

                                    \n
                                  1. Effective synthesis (critical thinking).<\/strong> The essay clearly conveys a meaningful connection between the two texts. The synthesis is active <\/i>and explicit<\/em> <\/strong>— Rather than placing evidence from both texts side-by-side, the writer <\/span>explains<\/i> <\/span>the relationship between the two texts. <\/li>\n
                                  2. Effective interpretation (critical thinking). <\/span><\/strong>The synthesis is based on insightful interpretations of the texts. Rather than comparing surface-level characteristics of the two texts, the synthesis describes a relationship between the texts’ <\/span>meanings<\/em>.  <\/li>\n
                                  3. Persuasive evidence. <\/span><\/strong>The proof paragraphs persuasively support the synthesis claim in the thesis, using robust, germane textual evidence; interpretation; and thorough explanations of the relationships between the texts.    <\/li>\n
                                  4. Essay unity. <\/span><\/strong>Each part of the essay clearly relates to the thesis statement. There are no aspects of the essay that seem irrelevant or unrelated to the central claim in the thesis or the essay’s purpose, which is to prove the thesis.<\/span><\/li>\n
                                  5. Introduction paragraph\/s. <\/strong>The first paragraph\/s of the essay prepare the reader for the synthesis and does some, if not all, of the following: establishes the theme being explored, introduces the texts, explains why these<\/em> <\/span>two texts are worth comparing, defines key terms. <\/li>\n
                                  6. Thesis statement.<\/strong> <\/span>The thesis is arguable and focused, responds to the essay prompt, and previews the rest of the essay. The thesis makes a claim about the relationship between the two texts.   <\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/li>\n
                                      \n
                                    • \n

                                      It should make a claim that <\/span>sets up all of the key ideas in the proof paragraphs<\/strong>, preparing the reader for what’s to come in the essay.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                                    • \n

                                      It should be <\/span>clear, concrete, and succinct <\/span><\/strong>enough that the reader can understand it, hold it in their mind, and use it to navigate the rest of the essay. (The reader should be able to easily and quickly relate each proof paragraph to this central claim.)<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                                    • \n

                                      It should be <\/span>arguable and interpretive<\/strong>. It shouldn’t merely convey surface level observations about the texts. It should convey a claim about their <\/span>meaning<\/em> <\/span>that requires evidence, analysis, and interpretation to support.  <\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/ol>\n

                                      \n

                                      For the literary synthesis essay, your thesis will basically be <\/span>two<\/em> <\/span>interpretive claims, one about each text. The thesis will also state the <\/span>relationship<\/em> between the two interpretations. Simply put, do the two texts convey <\/span>similar<\/em> <\/span>or <\/span>different<\/em> <\/span>ideas?  <\/strong><\/p>\n

                                        \n
                                      • \n

                                        The thesis should clearly answer these two questions:<\/span><\/p>\n

                                          \n
                                        • What do the two texts say about a shared theme you’ve identified?<\/i><\/strong><\/li>\n
                                        • How do these two meanings relate to one another?<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                          If<\/em> <\/span>the thesis asserts a <\/span>difference<\/strong> <\/span>between the two texts, the differing perspectives should still be <\/span>related<\/em>. That is, you\u2019re looking more for an <\/span><\/span>oppositional<\/em> <\/span>relationship<\/em><\/span> <\/span>rather than a simple <\/span>difference<\/em>. You want to put the two texts “in conversation” with each other. You want to avoid an essay (and a thesis statement) that simply bundles together two separate “monologues.” <\/span><\/p>\n

                                          ***<\/span><\/p>\n

                                          \n

                                          Remember that a strong thesis statement will be <\/span>“arguable and interpretive.” <\/span><\/strong>That is, in addition to comparing the observable characteristics of the two texts, you want to also compare their meanings. In fact, what you say about the observable characteristics of the two texts should clarify their meanings and how those meanings relate to each other. <\/p>\n

                                          For example, in your synthesis essay, you might compare the narrative structures of the two texts; you might compare the personalities and experiences of two characters; you might show that the two communities in the two texts have similar or different values. This sort of synthesis is great, and will likely constitute a lot of the <\/span>evidence <\/em>in your essay. But I’d recommend foregrounding an answer to the “So what?” question. If characters from the two texts are different, what does that <\/span>mean<\/em>? Are the texts communicating different <\/span>ideas<\/em> <\/span>through those two characters?    <\/p>\n

                                          That is, in order to get into “arguable” territory, you want to do a bit more than point out similarities or differences between the two texts that most readers could easily see. That’s part of it for sure, but things get interesting when you address the significance <\/em>of those similarities and differences, the way in which the two texts interact at the level of meaning<\/em>.  <\/p>\n

                                          *** <\/p>\n

                                          Two good “literary synthesis” thesis statements<\/strong><\/h3>\n

                                          In the examples below, you’ll see that thesis statements make arguable, interpretive claims <\/span>and <\/em>establish a relationship between the two texts. The interpretive claims are in <\/span>blue<\/span>. The parts of the thesis statements that establishes the relationship (i.e., the synthesis) between the two texts is in <\/span>red<\/span>. (The texts in these examples weren’t assigned in this class.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
                                          Tortilla Flat<\/em> <\/span>suggests that a <\/span>tightly knit community can honor the individuality of each community member; rather than erasing diversity, a community can embrace it<\/span>. \u201cThe Lottery\u201d <\/span>offers a much more pessimistic view of community<\/span>, suggesting that <\/span>any cohesive community is susceptible to conformity and the abolition of diversity<\/span>.<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                          Why this works: <\/strong>Notice how there are arguable, interpretive claims about both of the texts. The writer isn’t yet showing how the surface-level features of the texts relate to each other. Instead, they’re saying something about the meanings<\/em> <\/span>and ideas<\/em> represented in the two texts. <\/span>Tortilla Flat<\/i> <\/span>conveys the idea <\/em>that diversity and individuality can survive in communities, while “The Lottery” conveys the idea<\/em> <\/span>that community tends to erase these things. Moreover, the thesis contains a very clearly articulated <\/span>relationship <\/i>between theses ideas — they’re opposing, with “The Lottery” conveying a “more pessimistic” set of ideas about community.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n
                                          Tortilla Flat<\/em> <\/span>represents how <\/span>a community can only begin to thrive once capitalist values\u2014specifically social hierarchy based on wealth\u2014have been shed<\/span>. \u201cBattle Royal\u201d provides <\/span>a similar critique<\/span>, representing how <\/span>these same capitalist values are the foundation for corrupt communities<\/span>.<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                           Why this works: <\/strong>As with the previous example, we have two arguable, interpretive claims, one about each text. And agin we see a clearly articulated <\/span>relationship<\/em> <\/span>— the two texts convey “similar” ideas. Both texts are, aparrently, critiquing the same thing and the substance of the critiques is similar. It’s worth examining that relationship a bit more closely though. One way to describe it is that the two texts are making the same point “from opposite directions.” To put it simply, <\/span>Tortilla Flat <\/em>is showing the reader all the good things that happen when you get rid of certain capitalist values, and “Battle Royal” shows all the bad things that happen when a community embraces these same values. So, even though one is showing something positive and the other is showing something negative, they both ultimately critique that same set of values. The similarities you find between the two texts you choose may be more straightforward, but do keep an eye out for the ways in which the two texts convey similar <\/span>ideas<\/em> <\/span>but with different emphases or from different perspectives. <\/p>\n

                                          You might have noticed that these two thesis statements don’t say much about the <\/span>content<\/em> <\/span>of the texts. <\/strong>There isn’t anything about the characters, the plot, the imagery, the narrative structure, etc. Remember that your thesis statement should be reasonably succinct. This can be a challenge with a synthesis, as there’s a lot of information to get across in the thesis statement. The way the writers of these thesis statements have chosen to solve that problem is to focus only on the interpretations, the <\/span>meanings<\/em> <\/span>in the two texts and how those meanings relate to each other. However, elsewhere in the essay<\/em> <\/span>the writers would need to, of course, get into the <\/span>content<\/em> <\/span>of the texts. The introduction paragraph\/s should orient the reader to what happens in the two narratives, and the proof paragraphs should pair evidence from the two texts in order to demonstrate the claims in the thesis statement. You might end up taking a different approach, saying something about the content of the texts in the thesis statement. This is perfectly fine; just make an effort to keep the thesis from getting unwieldy or cumbersome.     <\/p>\n

                                          8. <\/span>Proof paragraphs. <\/span><\/strong>Each proof paragraph is focused and fully developed, using PIE structure.  Each proof paragraph begins with a topic sentence that supports the thesis and makes an assertion about the text\/s (POINT). Each proof paragraph then provides evidence from the text\/s supporting the claim in the topic sentence (INFORMATION). Each proof paragraph then concludes with an explanation of why and how the evidence proves the claim in the “point” (EXPLANATION). <\/span><\/p>\n

                                          Improving your proof paragraphs using P.I.E. <\/strong><\/p>\n

                                          <\/strong><\/h3>\n
                                            \n
                                          • \n

                                            Nearly every student made a <\/span><\/span>specific-to-general<\/span>, <\/span><\/span>interpretive<\/span> <\/span>claim in the <\/span><\/span>thesis statement, which is great<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                                          • \n

                                            For Essay Two, such a statement would go something like this \u201cThese two texts both represent this general principle about status competition (or authority or mortality, etc…).\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                                          • \n

                                            What some students <\/span><\/span>struggled<\/span> <\/span>with was making <\/span><\/span>similar interpretive claims <\/span><\/span>in the proof paragraphs. Such claims should happen in the “P” and “E” of a P.I.E. paragraph — that is, in the <\/span>POINT<\/strong>, the first sentence of the paragraph, and in the <\/span>EXPLANATION<\/strong>, which comes at the end of the proof paragraph, after the INFORMATION (evidence).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                             <\/p>\n

                                            POINTS for Essay Two<\/strong><\/h4>\n

                                            The first sentence of a proof paragraph in an academic essay should make a claim<\/em>, an arguable assertion that supports or echoes the arguable assertion in the thesis statement. This is why, in the P.I.E strategy, this first sentence of a proof paragraph is referred to as a “point” rather than, say, a “topic sentence.”<\/span><\/p>\n

                                            A common misstep is to start describing evidence at the very beginning of a proof paragraph.<\/strong> In essays about literature, this might take the form of describing some aspect of the story or poem. This should happen in the “information” (I) section, not in the “point.” When you begin a proof paragraph with evidence, the reader doesn’t know what point it’s supposed to prove. So, you want to start each proof paragraph with a <\/span>point<\/em>, a <\/span>claim<\/em> <\/span>that the textual evidence and analysis (“information”) proves in the second part of the paragraph.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                            As noted above, the point should support or echo the arguable claim in the thesis statement. If your thesis statement makes a <\/span>claim about <\/span><\/em>a work of literature (which it should), then the first sentence of each proof paragraph should also make a claim about<\/em> <\/span>that work of literature.  <\/span><\/p>\n

                                            The first sentence of a proof paragraph in an <\/span>interpretation<\/em> <\/span>essay should do something like this: <\/span>“X aspect of the text <\/span>represents<\/strong> <\/span>the general idea I described in the thesis.”<\/span><\/p>\n

                                            The same basic principle applies to proof paragraphs for <\/span>synthesis<\/em> <\/span>essays. Below are some examples of what POINTS for Essay Two should (and shouldn’t) do. <\/span><\/p>\n

                                            \n\n\n\n
                                            SAMPLE THESIS<\/strong>: Both Tortilla Flat<\/em> <\/span><\/span>and<\/span> <\/span>\u201cBattle Royal\u201d <\/span><\/span>suggest that <\/span><\/span>an ideal community can only take shape once materialism and the hierarchies that come with it have been abandoned<\/strong><\/span>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                            TWO EXCELLENT POINTS (first sentences of proof paragraphs):<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                              \n
                                            • \n

                                              The Pirate\u2019s bag of money, and the way in which Danny\u2019s friends honor it, <\/span>is representative of the way in which <\/span><\/strong>communities must forgo materialism and individual greed in order to thrive.<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                                            • \n

                                              There are vivid examples of actual currency in the two texts\u2014the pirate\u2019s bag of money and the coins on the electrified mat. Both images <\/span>function symbolically and show that<\/strong><\/span> <\/span>materialism\u2014and the competition and hierarchy that come with it\u2014is destructive to community.<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                              *The <\/span>claims<\/em> <\/span>in the sentences are in <\/span>red<\/strong><\/span>. Notice how the claims line up with the interpretive claim in the thesis (also in red). <\/p>\n

                                              *With sentences like these, there’s a claim<\/em> <\/span>that sets up what the rest of the paragraph will prove. This helps the reader understand what the <\/span>purpose <\/span><\/em>of the paragraph is at the very beginning of it<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

                                              *A <\/span>claim <\/em>(or “point”) at the beginning of a proof paragraph works better than starting a proof paragraph with evidence or a description of something from the text. When you start a proof paragraph with a description of something from the text, the reader doesn’t know what the paragraph is setting out to prove, what the purpose of the evidence is. <\/p>\n

                                              TWO NOT-SO-GOOD POINTS\/TOPIC SENTENCES:<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                \n
                                              • \n

                                                Once the Pirate reveals that he is saving money for a noble goal, Danny\u2019s friends protect it, and the bag of money becomes something other than currency for the friends; instead it becomes a representation of their bond. <\/em><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                                              • \n

                                                Communities can only thrive when they stop being overly concerned with material wealth, and begin to honor more immediate and human values like friendship and loyalty.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                                *The first one would work well in the INFORMATION section–it describes some evidence, but it’s not making a point; there’s no interpretive <\/span>claim<\/em>. The second one doesn’t have a stated connection to the texts. <\/p>\n

                                                 <\/p>\n

                                                EXPLANATION for Essay Two<\/strong><\/h4>\n
                                                \n
                                                  \n
                                                • \n

                                                  In Essay One <\/span><\/span>most students did a very good job providing <\/span><\/span>strong summaries of evidence <\/span><\/span>in the proof paragraphs, and insightful <\/span><\/span>commentary<\/span> <\/span>about the text, its imagery, the characters and their motives, etc. This is exactly what you want in the <\/span><\/span>INFORMATION<\/span> <\/span>section; this is the concrete evidence that proves your point.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                                                • \n

                                                  However, at the ending of the proof paragraphs, you also need to provide<\/span> <\/span>EXPLANATION<\/span>, which means drawing a <\/span><\/span>connection <\/span>between the <\/span><\/span>evidence<\/span> <\/span>in the text and the <\/span><\/span>general claim about the text\u2019s <\/span><\/span>meaning<\/span> <\/span>in your <\/span><\/span>thesis<\/span>. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                                                • \n

                                                  At the end of each proof paragraph, you should have an answer to questions like this: <\/span><\/span>\u201cWhat does <\/span><\/span>all of<\/span> <\/span>this stuff from the text I just described REPRESENT? How does this prove some part of the general meaning of the text I described in the thesis?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                                                • \n

                                                  If, at the end of the paragraph, you\u2019re <\/span><\/span>still only talking about the text itself<\/span>, and <\/span><\/span>not <\/span><\/span>what this aspect of the text <\/span><\/span>SAYS ABOUT THE THEME<\/span>, you\u2019re not finished.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

                                                • \n

                                                  The <\/span><\/span>EXPLANATION<\/span> <\/span>section, for this essay, might also be where you SYNTHESIZE, making a clear <\/span><\/span>connection<\/span> <\/span>between the two texts, or articulating the <\/span><\/span>differences<\/span>. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                                   <\/p>\n

                                                  Proof Paragraph Outline<\/strong><\/h4>\n

                                                  As noted above, you can use P.I.E. as a way to frame your evidence and explain its meaning. In the “P” and “E” sections, you’re weaving <\/span>interpretation<\/em> <\/span>and <\/span>synthesis<\/em> into your proof paragraph. In <\/span>red<\/span>, you’ll see where the writing moves beyond textual evidence and analysis and into interpretation<\/em> <\/span>(and, at the end of the paragraph, <\/span><\/span>synthesis<\/i>). <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

                                                  \n\n\n\n\n
                                                  THESIS:<\/strong> <\/span>Tortilla Flat<\/em> <\/span><\/span>and<\/span> <\/span>\u201cBattle Royal\u201d<\/span> <\/span>suggest that an ideal community can only take shape once materialism and the hierarchies that come with it have been abandoned.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                                                  \n
                                                    \n
                                                  • POINT: <\/span><\/strong>There are vivid examples of actual currency in the two texts\u2014the pirate\u2019s bag of money and the coins on the electrified mat. Both images function symbolically and <\/span>show that <\/span><\/span><\/span>materialism\u2014and the hierarchy that comes with it\u2014is destructive to community<\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
                                                  • INFORMATION 1:<\/strong> <\/span><\/span>Analysis of the way in which Danny\u2019s friends protect the bag of money. There will be emphasis on the way in which the money \u201cstops being money\u201d and instead becomes representative of the bonds of the phalanx itself.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                                    [Transition: An opposing set of images appears in \u201cBR\u201d]<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                      \n
                                                    • INFORMATION 2: <\/span><\/strong>Analysis of the coins on the electrified mat. I will emphasize how the coins are a very tangible way to assert the connection between materialism and destructive hierarchy\u2014the boys are made to humiliate themselves and subject themselves to pain as they scrabble for the money, reaffirming their \u201clowness.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
                                                    • EXPLANATION: <\/span><\/strong>The bag of money in <\/span><\/span>TF <\/span><\/span>is <\/span>a potent symbol of how <\/span><\/span><\/span>once money and materialism is removed from the equation, a community can begin to thrive<\/span>.<\/span> <\/span>The coins in \u201cBR\u201d <\/span>symbolize <\/span><\/span><\/span>the corrupting influence of materialism on communities. Though one text shows how materialism corrupts, and the other shows how the evaporation of materialism unites, they are both making the same fundamental point\u2014materialism creates hierarchy, competition, and cruelty, which are values antithetical to the construction of an ideal community. <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n


                                                      <\/p>\n

                                                      9. <\/span>Conclusion<\/strong> <\/span>paragraph. <\/span><\/strong>The final paragraph of the essay briefly restates the main points of the synthesis<\/span> then addresses its significance.  <\/span><\/p>\n

                                                      10. <\/span>Source balance.<\/strong> <\/span>Given that the essay is exploring a relationship between two texts,<\/span> <\/span>both texts<\/em> get roughly<\/span> <\/span><\/strong>equal attention in the essay. The evidence and interpretation related to the Tolstoy novella takes up about the same amount of space as the other chosen text.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                      11. <\/span>Quotations and citations. <\/strong><\/span>All quotations are accurate representations of the original text, germane to the writer’s interpretation and synthesis, and properly integrated into the writer’s sentences. There are no stand-alone quotations; quotations are appropriately introduced and explained. MLA-style in-text citations are used correctly, and there is an MLA-style Works Cited page<\/span><\/p>\n

                                                      12. <\/span>Language. <\/span><\/strong>The sentences in the essay are clear, grammatically correct, and appropriate to academic discourse.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                                      Write an essay of 1300-1500 words that synthesizes two texts: 1)  “The Death of Ivan Ilyich” by Leo Tolstoy 2) “Three Deaths” by Leo Tolstoy Both texts can be found on the pdf I have encrypted below.  In the essay, establish and demonstrate a significant connection or relationship between the two texts. You might compare the two texts, exploring thematic or philosophical similarities; […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"disciplines":[14],"paper_types":[],"tagged":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/26957"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/questions"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26957"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/26957\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26957"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"disciplines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/disciplines?post=26957"},{"taxonomy":"paper_types","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/paper_types?post=26957"},{"taxonomy":"tagged","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tagged?post=26957"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}