English 106 – Fall 2018 Essay 3 – Writing through a Lens – Textual Analysis with Two Texts

English 106 – Fall 2018 Essay 3 – Writing through a Lens – Textual Analysis with Two Texts



Gardiner, Stephen. “A Perfect Moral Storm: Climate Change, Intergenerational Ethics, and the Problem of Corruption.” Vanderheidne, Steve and John Barry. Political Theory and Global  Climate Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008. 25-42


University of Miami. Climate Change: A University ofr Miami Special Report. 12 April 20018.



This essay should be 4 – 6 pages in MLA Format (not including a Works Cited page)

In-Class Writing Days 11/15 and 11/27

Peer Review 11/29 and 12/4

Final Draft Submitted per schedule on Revised Course Calendar for Section 2


Assignment: In your third essay, you will use ” A Perfect Moral Storm. . . ” as a lens through which to examine and analyze Climate Change: A University of Miami Special Report.


In Writing Analytically, Rosenwasser and Stephen define using a reading through a lens as “literally looking at things as the reading does, trying to think in its terms”(213). Thus, to perform a “lens analysis,” you will begin by re-looking at UM’s report the way Gardiner might view it, reading it through his eyes.


This assignment does not ask you to uncritically accept Gardiner’s text. It will be important for you to see the ways in which looking at the Climate Change Report in Gardiner’s terms can help you better understand the report. But, it’s also important to see the ways in which the Climate Change Report might not fit Gardiner’s thesis. You might find yourself thinking, “yes,” this part of the report seems to fit Gardiner’s thesis, but not quite. Or, but this other part does not. That’s not a problem; in fact that’s where you’ll get to do an in-depth analysis about what you think is really going on. In other words: “start with the ‘yes’” and “then focus on the ‘but,’ the claims in the reading (the lens) that seem not to fit, or material in your subject not adequately account for by the lens”  (Rosenwasser and Stephen 214).


Reading though a lens is not a matching exercise. You want to look at one reading through the lens of another not simply to say “here’s a list of similar things they both say!”Rather, you want to develop, complicate, discuss, and maybe even dispute the ideas of each text.

Please follow and like us: