False Identities in "There There" by Tommy Orange

Reflect on the questions that Tommy Orange's novel presents to readers, of the sort we discussed in class on Tuesday; draw from the discussion in Tuesday's workshop to compose a preliminary draft, focused upon an insightful - arguable - claim, supported by analysis and explanation of a range of evidence from the text.
At a minimum, your draft should contain
a. A clear statement of a complex, narrowly-focused argument about some element or theme in the novel, or a practice of the writing.
b. A range of evidence supporting the argument, in the form of specific passages or paraphrases taken from different sections of the text - at least two-three specific quotes, and at least two-three paraphrased passages.
c. Some discussion and analysis of the way the evidence supports the central claim, as well as some discussion of how the different quotes and paraphrased passages relate to each other to develop the idea (rather than simply affirming the same point over and over).
d. A preliminary conclusion, outlining the implications or consequences of your argument.
Please note: The argument you pose should be of the sort that would lend itself to a vigorous discussion in a short essay -- so, not a summary of the text, not definition claims, and not assertions of significant facts or elements that are inarguably present in the novel.
Here's an example of a bad argument:
Tommy Orange's novel There There weaves a number of different points of view from different characters together in a web in order to represent the concerns of a broad range of character, to re-compose a sense of Native American community.
Why is this a bad argument for an essay?
It's a bad argument because it's obviously true. No reasonable reader would argue that the author is *not* doing this, so the claim is simply an obvious statement of fact rather than a true argument. And such a statement of fact serves no purpose for your reader - there's nothing to be gained by asserting this view because it's obvious and inarguable. No reader would need to be convinced that this claim is true. Worse - it's simplistic, because it's encouraging a simple view of the text when there are more complex suggestions that could be noted about the relationships established between characters.
1. identify and explore the open-ended practices whose goals and purposes are not already obvious, and then to
2. offer an insightful, reasonable interpretation about these significant ideas/practices/themes that are present in the novel that wouldn't be automatically accepted by a reader, but would require some work to convince them.
3. And importantly, your argument should present something of value to that reader; specifically, something that would draw upon your close reading of the text in such a way as to highlight some meaning that was not already obvious, to help YOUR reader better understand what the novel does or why the novel is composed as it is.
It should also be an argument that you would be able to support in a relatively short essay by citing direct evidence from the text, and then analyzing that evidence in a way that suggests some meaning in a manner that could persuade a reasonable person who has also read the novel, but who doesn't already share your view or recognize the insight you pose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially helpful advice on moving from observation to argument - Example:
Topic: Coleridge's "Rime of the Ancient Mariner."
Observation: There's a lot of religious imagery in the poem.
Open-ended Question: Why is there so much religious imagery in the poem?
A poor argument:
In his poem, "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," Samuel Taylor Coleridge uses Christian imagery in order to encourage readers to practice Christian charity.
This argument addresses the observation about something that is notable but unexplained in the poem - which is a good thing
...but the argument is too broad and unfocused - addressing "Christian imagery" in general, and without identifying any specifics about the way the poet "uses Christian imagery"
...and the argument is simply asserting something that would be obvious to any reader (bordering on a claim that is simply factual).
This statement squanders the opportunity to highlight something insightful about the important element in the poem it specifies, something that would offer value to someone who read the poem and who was paying attention, but who didn't think about the poem very deeply].
Example of a more promising argument:
Samuel Taylor Coleridge combines pagan and Christian imagery together in his presentation of spiritual beings in "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," using the narrative poem to encourage readers to adopt an expansive new conception of morality that draws upon Romantic literary conventions to challenge the humanistic world order that denies animal rights.
This argument addresses the same observation - Coleridge's use of religious imagery in the poem - but with more focus.
Here, the general subject is narrowed down to the specific presentation of oddly combined religious imagery
And the practice is further narrowed down to examine that odd combination in the presentation of spiritual beings that seem Christian-ish, but also pagan. This observation is clearly one that invites questions and could generate differences of opinion - what does the author do, and why does the author do it?
The argument posed engages with elements that are open to interpretation, which makes it a suitable topic for a persuasive essay.
It offers responses to anticipated questions that a careful reader might have about the text.
Why does Coleridge combine Christian and pagan elements? He does that to challenge the traditional Christian humanistic view that elevates humanity to holding dominion over the other animals, to make room for an awareness of the moral dimension revealed by our treatment of animals.
How does Coleridge go about doing that? By using Romantic literary conventions...somehow. This is a component of the argument that could be developed further in the body section.
Is this an obvious fact in the poem that I'm pointing out? No - the argument offers an interpretation of facts, and it would require the presentation of proof and analysis and discussion in order to persuade a reader and make it a satisfying or convincing interpretation.
Is this the only reasonable conclusion a careful reader could make about why Coleridge presents these hybrid spiritual beings? No. The argument is open to honest debate and a reasonable person could interpret Coleridge's treatment of religious elements in other ways.
Could I reasonably support this argument with evidence from the text in order to build a logical, progressive, nuanced case that might convince that careful reader who doesn't yet agree with my view? Yes.]