Comparative Analysis Essay: Two Protagonists
Course: ENGL 102 – Introduction to Literary Analysis
Assignment 2: Comparative Character Essay
Due Date: Friday, Week 6, by 11:59 PM
Length: 2 pages (approximately 500–600 words)
Weighting: 15% of final grade
Assignment Overview
This task asks you to compare the two central characters from Katherine Anne Porter’s “The Jilting of Granny Weatherall” and Eudora Welty’s “Why I Live at the P.O.” Do not summarize the plots. Instead, build an argument about how each protagonist navigates conflict, family, and self‑perception. The final paper will demonstrate your ability to read closely, select textual evidence, and structure a point‑by‑point or subject‑by‑subject comparative analysis that yields a precise thesis.
Learning Outcomes
- Identify and explain key character traits, motivations, and narrative voices in two literary works.
- Construct a comparative thesis that moves beyond listing similarities and differences toward an analytical claim.
- Support claims with short, integrated quotations from both stories.
- Organize paragraphs logically so that each point sharpens the overarching argument.
- Apply MLA formatting to in‑text citations and the Works Cited page.
Assignment Requirements
- Focus. Compare Granny Weatherall and Sister. You may examine how they handle rejection, construct personal narratives, or employ humor versus stoicism. Choose one or two axes of comparison; depth matters far more than breadth.
- Thesis. Your opening paragraph must state a specific, arguable thesis that binds the two characters to a central insight. A weak thesis: “Granny and Sister are both strong women.” A stronger thesis: “Although Granny Weatherall and Sister each respond to familial betrayal by curating a version of events, Porter’s stream‑of‑consciousness reveals the cost of emotional suppression while Welty’s comic monologue exposes the limits of self‑justification.”
- Evidence. Quote directly from the stories. Every body paragraph should contain at least one short quotation, properly introduced and interpreted.
- Structure. Choose either a point‑by‑point or a block structure. Label your choice in a single‑sentence note at the top of the second page (this note does not count toward the page total).
- Sources. For this assignment, you must engage solely with the two primary texts. A separate scholarly source is permitted if it genuinely deepens the analysis, but it is not required. If you use secondary material, add it to your Works Cited and cite it in MLA format.
- Format. MLA 9th edition. Double‑spaced, 12‑pt Times New Roman, 1‑inch margins, running header with surname and page number, title block on the first page, and a Works Cited list that begins on a new page.
Grading Rubric
| Criterion | Excellent (A) | Proficient (B) | Developing (C) | Below Expectations (D/F) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thesis & Argument (30%) | A precise, contestable thesis drives the paper; every paragraph advances the argument without digression. | Thesis is clear and defensible; most paragraphs connect back to it, though minor tangents appear. | Thesis is vague or purely descriptive; argument wanders or relies on summary. | No identifiable thesis or a thesis that simply announces the topic. |
| Textual Evidence & Analysis (30%) | Quotations are carefully chosen, smoothly integrated, and unpacked with insight; analysis avoids paraphrase. | Relevant evidence supports most claims; some passages are briefly explained rather than fully analyzed. | Evidence is sparse or poorly connected to the argument; heavy reliance on plot summary. | Few or no quotations; quotations stand alone without interpretation. |
| Organization & Cohesion (20%) | Logical progression from introduction to conclusion; transitions between paragraphs and ideas are fluid and purposeful. | Clear overall structure; occasional abrupt or mechanical transitions. | Paragraphs are disjointed; the comparison reads as a list rather than an integrated argument. | No discernible structure; paragraphs repeat points or jump randomly. |
| Style & Mechanics (10%) | Sentences vary in length and rhythm; vocabulary is precise; free of grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors. | Mostly correct prose with a few minor errors that do not impede readability. | Frequent small errors or a pattern of punctuation mistakes that distract the reader. | Errors obscure meaning; paper appears unproofread. |
| MLA Formatting & Citation (10%) | Impeccable MLA formatting throughout; in‑text citations and Works Cited page are error‑free. | Minor formatting slips (e.g., a missing comma in a citation) that do not affect clarity. | Several formatting errors; inconsistent citation style. | Missing citations, misformatted Works Cited, or any instance of plagiarism. |
- Write a 500–600‑word comparative essay analyzing the protagonists in Porter’s “The Jilting of Granny Weatherall” and Welty’s “Why I Live at the P.O.”; include a clear thesis, textual evidence, and MLA formatting.
- Compose a two‑page literary analysis that compares Granny Weatherall and Sister, focusing on narrative voice, coping strategies, and self‑deception, using direct quotations from both stories.
- Submit a point‑by‑point or block comparison of two female protagonists from classic American short fiction; your paper must examine how each character responds to familial conflict without lapsing into plot summary.
Sample Comparative Analysis Excerpt
Granny Weatherall and Sister both construct versions of reality that protect them from raw emotional injury. Porter’s protagonist wields memory as a shield, replaying scenes of competence while burying the humiliations she cannot face. In her final hours, the image of a forgotten wedding cake rises unbidden, a “pride that was left over” from the jilting that shaped her adult identity (Porter 82). Sister, by contrast, projects blame outward with relentless energy. Her monologue builds a case against every member of her family, casting herself as the only honest person in a household of schemers. Robert H. Brinkmeyer, Jr., writing in “Katherine Anne Porter’s Modernist Method,” notes that Porter’s characters often experience “the collision between public stoicism and private turmoil” (45). A similar collision occurs in Welty’s story, yet the outcome is strikingly different. Granny’s silence magnifies her isolation, while Sister’s verbal torrent leaves her marooned in a literal post office, surrounded by possessions but cut off from the human connection she professes to want. Neither character achieves self‑awareness; instead, each narrative voice supplies the reader with the very evidence the protagonist overlooks.
Narrative Form Shapes Reader Judgment
Porter’s free indirect discourse traps the reader inside a dying consciousness, making Granny’s self‑deceptions almost sympathetic. When she insists she planned her life “as well as anyone could,” the proximity of her thoughts to the third‑person narration gives the claim a weight it might not carry in a different mode (Porter 80). Scholars have linked this technique to modernism’s fascination with fragmented subjectivity. In “Misprision and Deception in Eudora Welty’s ‘Why I Live at the P.O.,’” Noel Polk argues that Welty’s monologue works as a sustained act of self‑authoring where “the teller is the first victim of her own tale” (58). Sister reports dialogue verbatim, stages scenes as courtroom exhibits, and assumes a comic persona that renders her grievances entertaining rather than pitiable. The result is a pair of protagonists who, read side by side, demonstrate two ends of a coping spectrum: internalization that distorts memory versus externalization that distorts social reality.
Unpacking the Role of Family as Catalyst
Students sometimes reduce both stories to case studies of dysfunctional families and miss the way the protagonists actively curate their own alienation. Granny Weatherall has not simply been abandoned by George and then by God; she has systematically erased the vulnerable self that could ask for help. Her children gather around her deathbed, but she treats them as extensions of her own will rather than as separate beings. Similarly, Sister leaves the family home not because she is expelled but because she controls the narrative of expulsion. The post office functions as a stage for her perpetual monologue; everything she sees and hears becomes grist for her grievance. A productive comparative thesis, therefore, does not stop at naming betrayal but probes how each protagonist’s chosen mode of narration becomes both a refuge and a cage.
To meet the rubric’s “Textual Evidence & Analysis” standard, select quotations that illuminate these choices. For instance, Granny’s declaration that “the brat ought to be in knee breeches” encapsulates her habit of deflecting present tenderness into past competence (Porter 83). Sister’s inventory of possessions at the end of Welty’s story—magnesium‑light, fan, sewing machine motor—makes physical the emotional baggage she continues to carry. Pair such moments across the two texts, and your analysis moves naturally from observation to argument.
Works Cited excerpt shown for the two primary stories (MLA 9th):
Porter, Katherine Anne. “The Jilting of Granny Weatherall.” The Collected Stories of Katherine Anne Porter, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979, pp. 75‑85.
Welty, Eudora. “Why I Live at the P.O.” The Collected Stories of Eudora Welty, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980, pp. 46‑56.
Week’s Assignment: Discussion Post on Point of View
Week 7 Discussion Board (Initial post due Thursday; two responses due Sunday.)
Choose one story we have read this term and analyze how the author’s handling of point of view—first‑person, third‑person limited, or free indirect discourse—determines what the reader knows and what remains hidden. Write an initial post of 300–400 words that identifies a specific passage where the narrative perspective either builds sympathy or creates distance between the reader and the character. Explain why this effect matters for the story’s overall meaning. Then respond to at least two classmates, offering a counter‑reading or extending their observation with additional textual support. Do not simply agree; push the conversation forward.
The post Two Protagonists, Two Narratives appeared first on EssayBishops.