Post a revised version of one of the paragraphs from your formal draft below. Make sure you identify the claim (i.e. the topic sentence), the reason, and the evidence. See the example below:
[CLAIM] In The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald uses both repetition and symbolism to draw readers’ attention to the theme of time—and in particular, the past, for which his main characters yearn. [EVIDENCE] The novel begins “In my younger and more vulnerable years…” and ends “borne back ceaselessly into the past.” Fitzgerald goes on to use some 450 time-words, including 87 appearances of the actual word ‘time.’ The Buchanan lawn is described as “jumping over sundials”; Gatsby knocks over a clock during his reunion with Daisy; and Klipspringer plays “In the meantime, In between time—.” [REASONS/ANALYSIS] The clock, sundial and frequent use of ‘time’ all reinforce for the reader the importance of the theme of time and the inevitability of time passing. Fitzgerald seems to want to remind the reader that time will always get in the way of Gatsby and his dreams, and his desire to return to the past—there’s no turning back the clock.
Cohen uses many rhetorical patterns to build his theses. One of those patterns is specialized terminologies. For example, “différance” (4) and “monstrum” (4) in the thesis I; “morte’d Arthurs” (4), “fin de siècle” (4), and “la décadence(4)” in thesis II. However, these terms offer many essential information. These terms all come from French. When an author writes an article for people, he or she usually aims at expressing something to readers. However, in “Monster Culture (theses seven)”, Cohen doesn’t offer any explanation about these terms. Let’s think about why does Cohen do like that? As a writer who has sophisticated skills of writing, he should not forget giving explanations to his readers. Therefore, the only possibility is that he knows all the readers are familiar with these terms, or they know their meanings at least. However, why is Cohen so familiar with his intended readers? If I am a writer, I may roughly know what kind of people will become to my readers. However, I cannot guarantee all of them will be what I thought, so I may still put some accessible explanations to avoid accidents, such as people who are out of my intended audiences become to my readers. Nevertheless, in “Monster Culture (Seven Theses), it is obvious that Cohen did not concern about that case. Therefore, this article is published in a specific circle, and he definitely knows all the people who will become to his readers, or he and those audiences have already known each other in real life. In the thesis I, Cohen uses the term “différance(4)” to describe monster’s bones-“These epistemological spaces between the monster’s bone are Derrida’s familiar chasm of différance: a genetic uncertainty principle, the essence of the monster’s vitality, the reason it always rises from the dissection table as its secrets are about to be revealed and vanishes into the night” (4). The term “différance(4)” is a French term which means “different and deferral of meaning.” This term was created by Jacques Derrida, who was French philosopher, and it first time was used in Jacques Derrida’s 1963 paper “Cogito et histoire de la folie.” Why does the author choose to use “différance(4)” instance of other terms? When a person makes a decision, he or she must choose the best way. In other words, “différance(4)” is the best term which can describe author’s purpose in here. Back to the previous sentence and go forward to the next sentence, Cohen is explaining his opinion monsters are created in a certain moment, and it revives with the brand new meanings they receive. Therefore, the author chooses “Derrida’s familiar chasm of différance(4)” to describe “monster’s bones”. He refers the literature professional term for his readers which presents the best description of his opinion. In addition, because Jacques Derrida was well-known for developing a form of semiotic analysis known as deconstruction, his figure has been used in many works which associates with post-structuralism and postmodern philosophy. Here, Cohen gives very significant clues to us. When a person tries to argue some ideas, there usually are three ways to persuade others- “Ethos”, “Logos”, and “Pathos”. They respectively indicate “author’s experience”, “logic, reasoning and facts”, and “appealing emotions and values of the audience”. In these ways, the most convincing way is “Logos”, namely, logic, reasoning, and facts. As well as what Cohen wrote in Thesis I, he chooses the best choice- “différance”. It means Cohen thinks that the term “différance” or the term’s creator-Jacques Derrida can arouse sympathy between his intended audiences. For example, when we are students in high school and taking physics, which physical terms and famous physicians will come to your mind? You must know Newton and Law of Newton. What if I say there is a question which applies the First law of Newton, and I use the term from First Law of Newton to explain. Will it be convincing to you? It is the same case in here. Going back to the previous point, Cohen refers Jacques Derrida’s term because he knows that all of his intended audiences place Jacques Derrida in high status. Additionally, Jacques Derrida is famous in philosophical realm, so they all learn philosophy and are familiar with Jacques Derrida. Furthermore, in Cohen’s mind, they all should know why he uses “Logos”. If this explanation is not very obvious, let’s look at another example. In the Thesis II, there is another term has been mentioned by the author “morte’d Arthurs” (4). This term comes from a reworking tales “Le Morte’d Arthurs”. It was rewritten about legendary King Arthur, Guinevere, Lancelot, Merlin, and the Knights of the Round Table by Sir Thomas Malory. In the sentence of “morte d’ Arthurs (4),” the author refers it as an introduction of the thesis II-“The monster Always Escapes.” After combining the previous and the following contents, I thought that Cohen may want to state that even though monsters were killed or ended so many times in a legendary story, they will reappear in another ear stories. He uses “morte d’ Arthurs (4)” to visualize the fact that the monsters leave numerous legendary stories through reappearing over and over, so that he can deliver the most closest information to his readers. However, when I read this part at the second time, I got a question-“wait, I don’t know what “Le Morte’d Arthurs” is, how does he can deliver his meaning to me？” Those readers who are similar with me will raise same question. We don’t have any literary and fictional backgrounds, so we don’t know what he is talking about. What about Cohen’s intended audiences? Do they understand this meaning of term? Definitely! That’s reason why Cohen didn’t give any interpretation of any term because they all have already know them. Therefore, in order to have a better understanding about this article. I went back to do research again. On the Wikipedia, it states that “Le Morte d’Arthur is one of the best-known works of Arthurian literature in English”. What is “Arthurian literature”? After continued my research, I got it: Arthurian literature is a bibliography of works about King Arthur”. This is a big discovery! If Cohen’s intended audiences just are familiar with philosophy, we may conclude he wrote for some people who from philosophical background. However, what if his audiences also know about literary history and fictional history? It seems like those intended audiences and Cohen all are from a specific circle so that they will own similar knowledge of literature and philosophy. Cohen and intended audiences are familiar with each other, are familiar with philosophy and literary history, and are familiar with writing patterns. Who are they? The answer is colleagues. Only the people who are deal with same works will have similar backgrounds with Cohen. Moreover, his colleagues have learned and studied the same topic with Cohen, and they were holding different viewpoints about the monster culture!
[CLAIM] An important rhetorical pattern of Cohen’s writing is use of wide range of examples. [EVIDENCE] From this essay “Monster Culture (Seven Theses)”, about half of writing was the examples. [REASON] Thus, it is difficult to understand this essay without full understanding of the examples. [EVIDENCE] From movies, literatures, and histories, Cohen brings wide range of examples to explain his argument. [EVIDENCE] Most of examples used in this essay are referencing to far past histories or old literatures, [REASON] which most freshmen student would ever heard before. [WARRANT] Most of the time these difficult historical references are came from medieval european history and only few examples are modern history. [EVIDENCE] Cohen brings a lot of difficult references in his essay, [REASON] yet he never explain what does the example means and how does that examples related to what he try to convince. [REASON] For this reason, we can assume Cohen expects his intended audiences to understand the references and able to find what he wants to say with that example. [CLAIM] Therefore, Cohen’s intended audiences might be scholars of social and cultural history.
[CLAIM] (I believe that) Cohen’s intended audiences might be scholars of social and cultural history. [EVIDENCE] (I think this based on) Evidence of this is Cohen’s use of a wide range of examples. [REASON] From this essay “Monster Culture (Seven Theses)”, about half of writing was the examples. Thus, it is difficult to understand this essay without full understanding of the examples. [EVIDENCE] From movies, literatures, and histories, Cohen brings wide range of examples to explain his argument. [EVIDENCE] Most of examples used in this essay are referencing to far past histories or old literatures, (*Teacher’s note: Specific examples need to be quoted*)[REASON] which most freshmen student would ever heard before. [WARRANT] Most of the time these difficult historical references are came from medieval european history and only few examples are modern history. [EVIDENCE] Cohen brings a lot of difficult references in his essay, [REASON] yet he never explain what does the example means and how does that examples related to what he try to convince. [REASON] For this reason, we can assume Cohen expects his intended audiences to understand the references and able to find what he wants to say with that example.
Note: You need to introduce evidence by quoting specific examples that you can analyze. This will make your claim even sharper and your argument stronger.
[REASON]In thesis 2, the monster always escapes, Cohen states that monster often damage things , it would disappear and left some physical things like footprint in stead. Even if the monster is caught, it would come back in different form or other places. [EVIDENCE]In morte’d Arthurs(Cohen 4), “no matter how many times the ogre of Mountain Saint Micheal was killed by king Arthur, the monster would reappear in another heroic chronicle”(Cohen 4). However, King Arthur is only one example, and the ogre he slays is only one monster. The monster can not always be considered as evil , though it general is.[EVIDENCE] In some horrible movies, the monsters always seems to be killed in the end of the movies but they also reappear in another movie with similar story. [REASON]That is why Cohen states: “the undead returns in slightly different clothing”(Cohen5). What kind of culture make these monsters revive?[CLAIM] We always are willing to see the monsters come back to make sure they will been killed by our favorite heroes. Maybe we are the person who are unwilling let them die. [REASON]Cohen also uses the complicated relationship between social, cultural, and literary-historical to tell us the monster should be examined(Cohen 5).
[CLAIM] Cohen uses cultural references to show comparison between different vampires to show that several categories can lie under a vague label of a monster. [EVIDENCE] In thesis II he focuses on the monster Nosferatu. He states “Or we might analyze Murnau’s self-loathing appropriation of the same demon in Nosferatu…” (6 Thesis II). The monster Nosferatu arose in the 19th century starting out as a word in the Greek and Hungarian world that was a synonym for “vampire”. However, later in the early 20th century the name became more popular due to the first film of Nosferatu where the monster was a vampire with the name Nosferatu. [REASON/ANALYSIS] This name was used to culturally create an image of a vampire but then got further developed to be the name of a vampire in the early 20th century. This pattern allows to better understand who Cohen’s intended audience is because his use of comparison with different vampires gives away the idea that he needs substantial evidence to convince these old historians that monsters such as vampires can be recreated. These old historians would be able to quickly grasp this example of cultural references because they could see that the recreation of monsters isn’t an idea that just began but has already been happening as early as the 20th century.
[claim]In these II, the monster always escapes, either get away and come back, or you will kill one and it replaced by more. They can never be caught, or if they can, they must be back. The monster can become any type or shape; it will come back with different form or outlook. This has mentioned in Cohen’s essay “(i)n each of these vampire stories, the undead returns in slightly different clothing.(5)” [evidence]When a monster is killed, there is always some remnant, some talisman, for it left behind. If there is no physical element left behind, there is at least a small glimpse of the monster or footprints, something that makes people uncertain of its death and ultimate destruction. In this these, Cohen used many different examples to creation it. Such as historical examples, fictional examples, literary examples, popular culture examples and cinematic examples, etc. The fiction examples Cohen used in this paragraph is important. For instance, the monster always stronger than human, it might eat people or killed someone, but no one really saw a monster. Furthermore, the monster can’t be killed and used over and over again, and they come back with the different meaning in each time.
Monsters are in between reality and fantasy because they are part nature and part culture. Monsters are reality because monsters can also be around in our life, like some evil human. Monsters are also abstract because they are created by people’s imagination. Monster is the harbinger of category crisis, it because monster does not fall into neat in any specific classification of animals or people that are known to us or fit into our world. Moreover, monsters are dangerous because their physical, psychological, or social characteristics cross the lines of classification. Monsters can be half human, half animal, not fitting them into either category. It defies binary logic to our horror. A monster is the different and the unknown, just as Cohen states, and this is precisely why we need them. Without monsters, we would have no socially acceptable way of analyzing the foreign and “scary.” Monsters are dangerous because they threaten our lives. Like vampire drink human’s blood, zombies eat human. Anything that goes against our spiritual norms makes us feel scared and anxious. It’s the only basis for monsters. The main point in this these is to convey that monster are not easy to categorize and with trying to do so causes crisis, frustration, and aggravation. To make ourselves comfortable with places, people and things, we tend to categorize things. All of these are classified as typical physical features and some salient features. The horror of monsters is that they are often unnatural, not just one category, but many different categories. One of the most common characters described in this paper is the count of vampires, a monster that is neither dead nor alive. When a person cannot be divided into a basic category, this tends to frighten us, because it is contrary to our common norms. He destroys the laws of nature that we human beings create. In addition to violating our normative community, Monsters also tend to act as a forewarning of our cultural crisis.
[Claim]Cohen uses a lot of patterns to explain, prove and convince his audience of his stance. [Claim]Some of his historical examples that he used includes the Justification of Hebrew colonization and monsterization of the Iris.[Evidence] In his essay he uses example of Hebrew colonization as a example of exaggeration of cultural differences turning into monsters. [Reasons]The original inhabitants of Canaan were “envisioned as menacing giants” to justify the colonization of a different culture. They were not actually giants their features were not anything like giants but to satisfy the term monsterization they were called giants. (8). [Evidence]In the other historical example, he uses is the monsterization of The Irish people. [Evidence]The Iris people are humans just like any other human beings on the earth Cohen says that one of the reasons people are monterizied is because of natural differences.[Evidence] In his example he talks about how the English viewed the Irish to have a “monstrous gender” Just because of their appearance which were different from them. (11).[Reason/Analysus] Given the types of historical examples used; mainly European historical examples his intended audience seems to be for scholars of European history. He also mentions the myth of monster’s existence and disappearance. He brings up Yeti who is an ape-like entity taller than an average human that is said to inhabit Nepalese snow mountain which is still a myth which no one has ever seen or found. He tries to connect the monsters which we create. [Reason]The Iris people being the example and the actual mythical monsters “Yeti and Vampires” which are unfound for hundreds of years but people today still believe its existence.
[Claim]An essential writing pattern in “Monster Culture (Seven Theses)” is historical examples. [Evidence]For example, in thesis IV, Cohen uses “the Jews of crimes (8)” to further support his ideas. Europe is a Christian world, but the Jews are not Christians. They were called pagans and were rejected by Europeans in the Middle Ages. The Jews were accused to bring the plague to Christian children who were bleeding, and they regarded Christian children as the sacrifices of the Passover. This crime could not be forgiven. Cohen uses another example like “Richard III (9)” to support his views. For instance, in thesis IV, Cohen states that Richard was a monster from his birth and declarations. Richard III has been quite controversial in the history of Britain. His time in power is short, but his image as a tyrant is deeply rooted in the hearts of the people. [Analysis]The definition of monsters is not limited to the supernatural mixture. The monster could be a nation or a person, even history itself. [Reason]The true degree of historical examples is quite high. They are more convincing and can resonate with history lovers.
Cohens intended audience is directed towards his peers of equal or higher
Educational level and with authority . for the purpose of publishing his theory of understanding cultures by the monsters they bear. We know that cohens theory was published so we know he was successful in persuading his audience to accept his theory. Because his theory was to be reviewed by experts,Cohen intentionally used terms, phrases,and references not common to a college freshman .which is Cohens thesis is no for everyone.it was for his peers of equal or higher level of education that have authority.
1st sentence claim.
2nd claim continued
Last sentence warrant
At same time he also provides examples that more people are familiar with, like trying to simplify the meaning of his essay, but still intended focus on people with specific areas of studies or knowledge. The way he is presenting or proposing his ideas is always with a double meaning and letting certain readers discover the real meaning. The way he presents his ideas is also very interesting because besides the fact that he is assuming you are familiar with his ideas and terminology; he also utilizes the examples cited before to try to convince the readers almost forcing them to believe with the big number of examples, like not letting you think about but just to accept his ideas but in some cases putting in doubt his own ideas. Like is he is not totally convinced about his claims and he is trying to convince not just the intended audience but also himself. That could be also the reason he is utilizing so many examples.
Cohens intended audience is directed towards his peers of equal or higher
Educational level and with authority (CLAIM). for the purpose of publishing his theory of understanding cultures by the monsters they bear. We know that cohens theory was published so we know he was successful in persuading his audience to accept his theory. Because his theory was to be reviewed by experts,Cohen intentionally used terms, phrases,and references not common to a college freshman .which is Cohens thesis is no for everyone.it was for his peers of equal or higher level of education that have authority.
[CLAIM] The first pattern I want to analysis is about advanced vocabulary. Cohan used a lot of advanced vocabulary in this article. This is difficult but is also important writing and rhetorical patterns in “Monster Culture”. [EVIDENVE]For example, in the first paragraph of the first thesis, there have two words “corpse” and “acephalic”. The word “corpse” means dead body. The word “acephalic” means someone or something is no head. I think normal people will use the dead body more than the corpse. will this sentence be easier to understand, if Cohan choices dead body not corpse? I am sure it is easier to read. The word “acephalic” looks like a wrong word, why Cohan used it? Cohan didn’t mean to let people who is read his article to easily understand it. In this paragraph Cohan use many words are not we will see it every day. [REASONS /ANALYSIS]Because he didn’t want to use the simple word to the description it, he was writing for the people who already have some search for the culture, they have to know some different culture and they know what is the common between different culture. If you are the just normal reader I think you will not understand this article very clearly.
（Claim）In the Monster Culture( Seven Thesis) Cohen uses Culture connection and advanced vocabulary to support his claim that monsters are a creation of our human’s culture and imagination. (Evidence) In the article, Cohen frequently uses foreign languages and difficult vocabulary such as in Thesis IV, when Cohen is analyzing the desire of the monsters, he used the word “La Mere obscure”, to describe the woman who oversteps the boundaries and becomes Scylla or the Weird Sister. He also uses different monsters from different cultures and connected them with similar traits and appearance such as the Yeti and the ST mountain George.(Reason) The purpose of Cohen’s usage of these rhetorical patterns is to have convincing its audience and support the credibility of his content where he uses many historical records and real event to back up his claim.
[Claim]Cohen uses a lot of special terminology and advanced vocabulary to explain his opinions. Base on my analyzed for these terms that Cohen provided, I think the intended audience of Cohen could be people who are in same level as him, [Reason]because he doesn’t really explain those terms and [Acknowledgement]assume his audience already knows them.
[CLAIM] The essay is also filled with a lot of terminology. In Cohen’s first thesis, he uses the “difference” and the “monstrum” in the second paragraph. He uses the terminology of “différance “which is a kind of Latin to describe some characteristics of the monster vividly. [REASON]In the essay, I find that this word is cited by Derrida. [EVIDENCE]From a rhetorical point of view, the word of “différance” is more consistent with the context stated in the article, besides, the word expresses the existence of these epistemological spaces racily and reveal the cause of the gap.