• the “Essay Engineering” Manual for Troubleshooting Essay-Writing: in English Literature and History – book release date, summer/fall 2024

• The Crash Course in Essay Engineering: how to fix your English literature essay – preview book excerpt, summer/fall 2024

Essay-composition methods for English literature – with appendices on major fields in humanities and social sciences.

Have you ever found yourself stuck while writing an essay? Have you ever written a first draft, and then after you’re done, you find that you’re just not happy with what you’ve produced? – but you don’t understand why exactly, and you don’t know what you should do to improve your work. And you’ve already read about the “five-paragraph essay” or the “point-quotation-explanation” (PQE) method, but find they just don’t help you figure out what to do?

The “Essay Engineering” Manual for Troubleshooting Essay-Writing is a brief but comprehensive guide that concisely explains the principles of essay structuring and organization, as well as providing real-life examples of these elements – both for composing a high-quality first draft and revising an existing, unsuccessful first draft. The different chapters work through first demonstrations of the basic methods for efficiently drafting paragraphs and thesis; and secondly, examples of major conceptual errors often encountered in a first draft, and indicating the required remedies and solutions. And, while superficially similar to the “five paragraph format”, the Essay Engineering methodology conceives of the essay in an entirely different mode and manner.

The first Essay Engineering textbook titles are essay composition manuals for English literature. The main reason for this choice of academic discipline is that existing essay composition methods leave much to be desired, in what is one of the two standard humanities curricula in both secondary school and college. The Essay Engineering textbook will also include appendices for major Humanities (history, philosophy) & Social Science (political science, economics) fields; with description of essay structure variations in these academic fields, and specific examples detailing primary thesis and paragraph structure. See below for further discussion of English literature as the preferred disciplinary point of departure, and consideration of History and other major fields in humanities and social sciences.

The Crash Course in Essay Engineering: how to fix your English literature essay – book excerpt, out spring 2024.

In spring 2024, look for the book excerpt (here, on the Essay Engineering web site) that gives a “crash course” in the Essay Engineering approach to essay writing, with paragraph structure guidance from the Troubleshooting Manual. The Crash Course in Essay Engineering will describe the basic mechanics of the paragraph for an English literature analytical essay in two parts; first, instructions for composing a paragraph from start to finish, and secondly, troubleshooting of the most common mistakes that are found in the unsatisfactory first draft. (The paragraph and its constituent elements are described in some detail below.)

To receive notification by email of availability of the Crash Course book excerpt (spring 2024) and the Troubleshooting Manual (summer/fall 2024), sign up for the free Essay Engineering mailing list here: https://essayengineering.substack.com.

Sign up for email notification of availability of the book excerpt & the complete manual:

The “Essay Engineering” Manual for Troubleshooting Essay-Writing – a concise handbook for the complete essay is published by Glaux Press.

Per the Essay Engineering methodology, the essay’s foundational element is the complete paragraph as defined as follows: the paragraph thesis (aka “topic sentence”) and its explication in both theoretical formulation and empirical-reality function, as well as the use of quotations to present decisive empirical evidence. The major defects typical of the flawed complete paragraph are listed and described (lack of a paragraph thesis or unclear idea; plot restatement without analysis; failure to link theoretical to empirical; empirical evidence fails to support paragraph thesis) and demonstrated with multiple examples to help the student identify the flaws of her or his own unsuccessful first draft.

The additional structuring of the essay consists of two major parts: i) the coordination of multiple paragraphs, in terms of the selection of passages that work together to provide insightful analysis, ii) the nature of the primary thesis as the synthesis of multiple paragraph theses (or "sub-theses”), i.e. the explication and linking of multiple conceptual notions. (Note, the word theses is the plural of the word thesis.) It is important to bear in mind that the primary thesis is essentially linked to the set of paragraph theses.

Besides the essential structure of several body paragraphs (each centered on a paragraph thesis) and primary thesis, there are two other “add-on” parts of the essay. The content of the introductory paragraph (of which the primary thesis is usually the first or last sentence) is defined as providing thematic context to the primary thesis and/or historical background to the general topic. The content of the conclusion paragraph is defined as either a lateral shift to a related, but distinct thesis; or a further, linear development of the essay’s primary thesis (which itself is a synthesis of the individual paragraph theses).

***

This essay structure and organization might seem conclusive and complete. But it is not. Essay Engineering takes a pragmatic approach to essay composition, but there are certain complications which are inherent to analysis and which cannot be avoided or simplified away.

The paragraph thesis is the primary content of each paragraph and is explicated with the description of its function in a specific passage of the literary work. But where does the paragraph thesis come from? The paragraph thesis is in fact a very specific kind of thesis: it consists of a Formal Quality, or conceptual notion. But where does this conceptual notion come from? Each Formal Quality is the result of very specific inductive reasoning methods that are applied to the empirical reality found in a specific passage and episode of a literary work: the “extrapolation of meaning” and the “jump to a higher signifying plane”. Technically speaking, the conceptual notion is the result of an inference from the empirical reality of the literary work, but the term inference (as commonly used to define inductive reasoning) connotes a narrow scope and minor significance; while the “extrapolation of meaning” and the “jump to a higher signifying plane” indicate the broad scope and major significance of the content generated with Essay Engineering methods for inductive reasoning.

These two terms concerning inductive reasoning (“extrapolation of meaning” and “the jump to a higher signifying plane”) are the practical methods of achieving a shift from particular circumstance to general principle. This essential concept of inductive reasoning was first delineated by Aristotle, in the Posterior Analytics (II, 19.), as the concept of ἐπαγωγή (induction); and subsequently translated by Cicero as the Latin inductio. It bears noting that Aristotle not only defines induction as the method linking sense-perception (of the particular circumstances of empirical reality) to universals (i.e. conceptual knowledge). Moreover (and to the contemporary sensibility, most surprisingly), Aristotle asserts that intuition (νοῦς) is both more accurate than and precedent to knowledge (ἐπιστήμη). That is, Aristotle asserts that knowledge is derived from intuition.

δῆλον δὴ ὅτι ἡμῖν τὰ πρῶτα ἐπαγωγῆι γνωρίζειν ἀναγκαῖον· καὶ γὰρ ἡ αἴσθησις οὕτω τὸ καθόλου ἐμποιεῖ. Ἐπεὶ δὲ τῶν περὶ τὴν διάνοιαν ἕξεων αἷς ἀληθεύομεν αἱ μὲν ἀεὶ ἀληθεῖς εἰσιν, αἱ δὲ ἐπιδέχονται τὸ ψεῦδος, οἷον δόξα καὶ λογισμός, ἀληθῆ δ᾽ ἀεὶ ἐπιστήμη καὶ νοῦς, καὶ οὐδὲν ἐπιστήμης ἀκριβέστερον ἄλλο γένος ἢ νοῦς, … εἰ οὖν μηδὲν ἄλλο παρ᾽ ἐπιστήμην γένος ἔχομεν ἀληθές, νοῦς ἂν εἴη ἐπιστήμης ἀρχή. (II, 19. 100b)

Thus it is clear that we must get to know the primary premises by induction; for the method by which even sense-perception implants the universal is inductive. Now of the thinking states by which we grasp truth, some are unfailingly true, others admit of error – opinion, for instance, and calculation, whereas scientific knowing and intuition are always true: further, no other kind of thought except intuition is more accurate than scientific knowledge, … If, therefore, it [intuition] is the only other kind of true thinking except scientific knowing, intuition will be the originative source of scientific knowledge. (II, 19. 100b)

(The term “intuition” is a well-established translation of νοῦς, as in the above translation by G. R. G. Mure. It bears noting that some classicists dispute this translation, though this crux is beyond the scope of the present discussion, and it suffices to acknowledge the matter.)

(By curious coincidence, it is in the Prior Analytics that Aristotle states the essential distinction between love and the erotic. {See below for reference.} This coincidence is noteworthy, given that the concept of ἐπαγωγή, as delineated in the Posterior Analytics, is definitive for the human sciences; as, similarly, love and the erotic are the definitive forces of human existence, if one discounts malevolent and maleficent forces {see below, as well}. One imagines that love and the erotic are, indeed, prior to the human sciences and induction.)

The fundamental purpose of the essay and the essence of analysis is the creation of a conceptual framework for understanding empirical reality. This conceptual framework is the “higher signifying plane” of the empirical reality described in the literary work, i.e. the general principle that corresponds to particular circumstance. However, before developing the set of conceptual notions and the overarching conceptual framework – the passage analysis of a specific episode must provide a synthesis of the empirical evidence and indication of the structuring principle of that passage and episode. And before this passage analysis, the meaning of single individual sentences must be grasped through independent meaning reconstruction. That is, in order to develop the conceptual framework and its “higher signifying plane” (“second-order thinking”), the analysis must first lay the foundation of a comprehensive and accurate understanding of the relevant evidence from empirical reality (“first-order thinking”).

The major Essay Engineering skills of meaning reconstruction (sentence-level) and meaning synthesis (paragraph-, passage-, chapter-level) are the methods of this “first-order thinking”. These methods are, in fact, both necessary and foundational for the above-mentioned structuring and organization elements, and especially paragraph thesis and complete paragraph. Stated another way: before you organize the analysis of the essay elements, you need a grasp of the basic reality described in the literary work; because the conceptual framework (your essay) is a theoretically-oriented account of a description of reality (the literary work). Stated even more simply, though somewhat enigmatically, the essential function of the essay is to describe in conceptual terms (and with reference to empirical evidence) a pre-existing description of reality (i.e. the literary work).

English literature as primary focus – with appendices on major fields in humanities and social sciences; and pragmatic application to geopolitics and financial markets analysis

The first Essay Engineering textbook titles are manuals for essay composition in the field of English literature. There are two primary reasons for this choice of academic discipline. First, existing essay composition methods in this field leave rather much to be desired, in what is one of the two standard humanities curricula in both secondary school and college. (By comparison, essay composition in History coursework tends to be, relatively speaking, less challenging and more straightforward; this is largely a function of English literature studying primary works where the conceptual framework is very much hidden away, by dint of the essential nature and form of the literary work; while History coursework is, to a great extent, concerned with secondary sources where the conceptual framework is explicitly stated.) Secondly, literary works of the first rank are the most semantically rigorous descriptions of reality and entail the most theoretically complex conceptual frameworks. (This generalization must stand, however much it runs entirely contrary to the conventional, tendentious understanding of literary works; this conventional understanding being a function, foremost, of existing, inadequate methodologies.)

To explain this second reason in greater detail – literary works are the most demanding works of the human sciences, in terms of the subtlety of single sentences and passages, in terms of the sheer breadth and depth of conceptual frameworks which are of the utmost intricacy. Moreover, the nature of the literary form is an allusive quality; while most evident in lyric poetry, the quality of allusive meaning is ubiquitous in works of the first rank, whether in epic, tragedy, or narrative prose. Because these literary works par excellence present the greatest challenge in semantic complexity, and therefore in student comprehension, they are the best training ground for the human sciences and liberal arts.

(Philosophical works are very challenging, too; but they are best characterized as more purely abstract and only tangentially concerned with empirical evidence and descriptions of reality in its particularity. For these reasons, the study of philosophical works, while excellent training for the purely conceptual realm, is somewhat limited in its broad relevance to the human sciences, which are concerned primarily with conceptual frameworks as inductively extrapolated from empirical reality in its particularity. It should be noted that Aristotle characterizes poetry as universal, while history is considered of the particular; the distinction of the conceptual and the universal merits explanation, but is beyond the scope of this present matter.)

At the same time, the nature of the Essay Engineering essay-composition textbook allows students to apply the essential lessons of essay structuring to all major Humanities (history, philosophy) & Social Science (political science, economics) fields. The Essay Engineering textbook will include appendices that demonstrate the conceptual frameworks germane to these primary academic fields, in specific examples detailing primary thesis and paragraph structure.

As well, future technical manuals will present purely pragmatic applications of history and economics, in the vocational fields of financial markets and geopolitics analysis.

The “Essay Engineering” Manual for Troubleshooting Essay-Writing is published by Glaux Press.

Sample Literary Analysis – T. Swift & P. Larkin; The Great Gatsby

For a demonstration of the Essay Engineering methodology and the two major parts of the analysis, see the Praxis pages on the menu above. Or click here for The Great Gatsby analysis, and here for the T. Swift, P. Larkin analysis.

***

Aristotle  – the distinction between love and the erotic; on the topic of malevolent and maleficent forces.

Aristotle sets forth the essential distinction between love and the erotic in the Prior Analytics:

“If then every lover under the influence of his love would prefer his beloved to be disposed to gratify him (Α) without doing so (Γ) [–] rather than gratify him (Δ) without being inclined to do so (Β), clearly Α [– that the beloved should be so inclined –] is preferable to the act of gratification. To be loved, then, is preferable to intercourse, according to the nature of erotic desire. Erotic desire, then, is more a desire for love than for intercourse. If it is most of all for that, that is also its end. Either intercourse, then, is not an end at all or it is for the sake of being loved.” (Prior Analytics 68a39. II. xxii. Loeb pg 513)

εἰ δὴ ἕλοιτο πᾶς ὁ ἐρῶν κατὰ τὸν ἔρωτα [τὸ Α] τὸ οὕτως ἔχειν ὥστε χαρίζεσθαι, καὶ τὸ μὴ χαρίζεσθαι τὸ ἐφ᾽ οὗ Γ, [–] ἢ τὸ χαρίζεσθαι τὸ ἐφ᾽ οὗ Δ, καὶ τὸ μὴ τοιοῦτον εἶναι οἷον χαρίζεσθαι τὸ ἐφ᾽ οὗ (Β), δῆλον ὅτι τὸ Α τὸ τοιοῦτον εἶναι αἱρετώτερόν ἐστιν ἢ τὸ χαρίζεσθαι. τὸ ἄρα φιλεῖσθαι τῆς συνουσίας αἱρετώτερον κατὰ τὸν ἔρωτα. μᾶλλον ἄρα ὁ ἔρως ἐστὶ τῆς φιλίας ἢ τοῦ συνεῖναι. εἰ δὲ μάλιστα τούτου, καὶ τέλος τοῦτο. τὸ ἄρα συνεῖναι ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅλως ἢ τοῦ φιλεῖσθαι ἕνεκεν· καὶ γὰρ αἱ ἄλλαι ἐπιθυμίαι καὶ τέχναι οὕτως. (Ἀναλυτικὰ πρότερα. Prior Analytics 68a39. II. xxii. Loeb pg 513)

Aristotle, as well, provides a definitive statement on the nature of malevolent and maleficent forces of human existence. (As noted above, “love and the erotic are the definitive forces of human existence, if one discounts malevolent and maleficent forces”.)

“At all events, all wicked men indeed are ignorant of what one must do and what one must not do, and it is because of this that injustice and, in general, evil come into being.” (Nicomachean Ethics 1110b)

ἀγνοεῖ μὲν οὖν πᾶς ὁ μοχθηρὸς ἃ δεῖ πράττειν καὶ ὧν ἀφεκτέον, καὶ διὰ τὴν τοιαύτην ἁμαρτίαν ἄδικοι καὶ ὅλως κακοὶ γίνονται (Nicomachean Ethics 1110b).

***

Additional Student Resource  –  The Glaux Press Style Guide for Comma Usage

The Glaux Press Style Guide for Comma Usage – the thorniest punctuation in all the English Language. (aka “The Glaux Guide”) is forthcoming, and will be available in electronic form on the Glaux Press web site. For more information see: www.glauxpress.com/styleguide

The Glaux Guide treats primarily commas; the appendix briefly reviews the basic rules for other types of punctuation, including apostrophe, hyphen, etc. There are, of course, existing style guides (MLA, Chicago Manual of Style, etc). But Glaux Press staff have found the use of commas to be especially fraught and have found existing online resources to be fragmentary, narrow, and unsystematic in their exploration of the topic.