Jonathan Swift pub 1729 A Modest Proposal for

Jonathan Swift [pub. 1729] "A Modest Proposal: for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to their Parents, or the Country, and for Making them Beneficial to the Public"

• Satire—is the humorous or critical treatment of a subject in order to expose that subject’s follies [lack of good sense] or stupidities • The intention of such satire is to educate or reform by exposing the subject to ridicule • Swift’s essay, “A Modest Proposal, ” is often viewed as the quintessential piece of satire • The Situation: Across the country of Ireland poor children, predominantly Protestants, are living in squalor [filth and misery] because their families are too poor to keep them fed and clothed • Nothing is being done to help bring them out of the extreme poverty they are faced with • Past “rational” solutions have not been effective, so he proposes a radical solution to the social problem • So Swift proposes that Irish infants be sold as food at age one, when they are plump and healthy, to give the Irish a new source of income and the English a new food product to bolster their economy and eliminate a social problem • In theory, if the proposal was implemented, it could help to solve the problem

Critically Reading “A Modest Proposal” • Don’t get frustrated—it is a very complicated text that needs to be read more than once • With your partner, brainstorms 2 -3 questions that you have about Swift’s essay • Define key words • Who is his audience? Whom is he writing to and whom is he attacking? – Written to the impoverished people of Ireland who serve as tenants to rich, absentee English landlords – He is attacking the greedy English landlords • Page One: Introduction to issue; establishes expertise/persona; current policy/law is not effective; “modest” plan revealed • Page Two: Support of claim: additional social benefits; use of “stats”; partial counter-argument; pokes fun at whom? why? • Page Three: Weight of child/how many meals/etc. ; pokes fun again; nothing is wasted; refutes friend’s suggestion • Page Four: counter-arguments & refutations; lists his supporting reasons for proposal • Page Five: continues his supporting reasons/social benefits; alternative solutions and their ineffectiveness • Page Six: disclaimer [a denial or disassociation] and its purpose

Journal #14: Essay #3, Prewriting Activity 1. How would you describe the citizens of California? Include everything from race to ethnicity to values to religious beliefs to political ideologies, etc. ; list different “types” of Californians 2. Brainstorm a list of 10 -12 social issues that plague Californians. Think about the issues that Californians have exigency for [exigency—a case or situation that demands prompt action or remedy] 3. Brainstorm a list of 10 -12 “pet peeves” that infect California society [a “pet peeve” is a particular and often continual annoyance; source of irritation] 4. From your lists, identify TWO issues/ “pet peeves” that you would want to write about/explore **One of these identified issues can be the same as the topic for Essay #2

Journal #16: Building a Thesis for Essay #3 Step One: Answer the following questions: • A] What is the problem/issue? • B] Who is the target audience? • C] What is the shocking proposal to solve the problem? • D] In a general sense, how will this proposal improve society? Student Example: In order to rid our society of these greedy water wasters [social issue], Southern Californians [target audience] must support my modest proposal to indefinitely shut off their water source and charge them a hefty fine [“modest plan” for solving the problem], to teach these degenerates the importance of water conservation [how plan will improve society]. Step Two: Combine your A-D into a working thesis statement [IN ANY ORDER] Step Three: Now, exchange papers with your partner and provide both positive [2 -3 comments] and constructive [2 -3 comments] feedback on your partner’s working thesis Be sure your feedback addresses the following questions: • How shocking is the proposal? Will it serve as a deterrent? • How is the plan “beneficial” for California society? Other benefits? • How does the chosen Californian reflect the topic/proposal? • How is the proposal logistically sound? • How can the author establish a stronger voice? Name call? Suggest some foul language. • **Judge the writing, NOT the writer** Step Four: Based on the feedback received, revise your thesis

Research for Essay #3 • For Essay #3: “A Modest Proposal, ” you are REQUIRED to locate, gather, and skillfully implement 3 -4 outside sources from the Chaffey College Database • These sources will serve in one [or more] of the following ways: – provides background information on your topic, – supports your thesis [evidence to prove a supporting reason], – argues against your thesis [evidence that reflects the C/A], or – refutes the C/A [evidence that proves the refutation] • For Wednesday’s class, you need to locate, print, and actively read THREE sources from the CCD

Peer Review of Outline: “A Modest Proposal” • Actively read over your peer’s outline, making notes, observations, asking questions in the margins—provide a balance of positive & constructive feedback • Not the peer’s job to “correct” or “catch” every mistake; his or her job is to provide feedback, to provide direction for the writer, working towards the rough draft • Judge the writing, NOT the writer I] Introduction Section: a] How is the title scholarly? Can you suggest a better image/idea to engage the TA? b] How can the author further embellish/prove the severity of the issue? Hook to engage the audience? Establish a voice/persona? Show expertise in regards to the social issue? c] Does the author effectively discuss past solutions and their ineffectiveness? d] Where can the author include an outside source? If there is an outside source included, is the source framed, RELEVANT, and cited correctly? e] How effectively does thesis state the following: social issue + target audience + shocking proposal to solve the problem + how it will improve California] II] Body Paragraph Section: a] Does the author clearly outline the implementation steps/logistics of the plan? What is missing? What “holes” do you see in the proposal? Too complicated? Not clear who is in charge? Cost? b] Does the author include clear social benefits [3 -4] to support the plan? Can you suggest other social benefits for California? c] Does the author present a reasonable counter-argument to his/her plan and offer a clear refutation of it? If so, is it effective? If not, can you offer a suggestion for a reasonable counterargument to thesis? Secondary source for either the C/A and/or the refutation? d] What are the alternative solutions and why are they ineffective? If they did not include this part, please add suggestions **Remember, this paragraph should be the “real” solutions to the social issue III] Conclusion Section: a] Does the author include an original/creative disclaimer? Provide suggestions for revision.

Peer Review of Rough Draft Step One: Preparing your Draft – Double underline your thesis statement – Label each “section” of your proposal margin [Introduction, Implementation, Supporting Reasons/Social Benefits, Counter-argument, Refutation, Alternative Solutions, Conclusion] Step Two: Have a brief conversation with your peer about your essay. What is working in rough draft and where are you struggling? [5 minutes] – Switch drafts with your partner Step Three—With your pen down, read your peer’s draft; enjoy the experience of reading someone else’s Modest Proposal [8 minutes] Step Four—Active Reading of Peer’s Draft [30 minutes] – Make sure you include a balance of positive and constructive feedback to your peer; your goal is 4 -5 comments/question per paragraph Step Five—Complete the Peer Review Rubric [10 minutes] – Take your time and assess each content area as listed on the grid and then provide specific and useful feedback for your peer regarding your rating Step Six—Peer Conversation [10 minutes] – beginning with the strengths of your peer’s essay, share your perspectives and insights; each peer should have the chance to speak for about 5 minutes

Disclaimer: • http: //phobialist. com