Please write a 3 to 4 page, thesis-driven paper that answers the following question: how do definitions of, or
standards for, masculinity change (or not change) from Oroonoko to Moll Flanders to Pamela?
These are three different stories Oroonoko and Moll Flanders and Pamela
More detail: This is a big question! One way to think through it, and begin brainstorming towards a thesis, is to
remember that all three of these texts are narrated by women, and all three of these female narrators state that
there are standards for how women want or expect men to behave (or perhaps only certain men… or perhaps
only men who are romantic interests…). But these standards might change over time. Or might change and
then change back. Further, these three texts also give information about how men expect other men to behave
(which might also change based on skin color, class, nationality, etc.). And, perhaps most importantly, all three
texts provide plots that illustrate how men do behave, and whether they are rewarded (or not) for following (or
violating) purported standards for masculinity (advanced by women or others). As such, I recommend
examining all three texts for a) the verbalized standards (spoken by the narrators or other characters) for how
virtuous men (heroes? Gentlemen?) are to behave, and b) whether those verbalized standards change over
the course of the three texts. Then, I would explore c) how men actually behave in these texts (and whether
they are rewarded for this behavior), and d) whether those behaviors change over time. Out of that information,
you are to generate a one sentence thesis that makes an argument about what happens to the Romantic hero
(or standards of masculinity) during this period, according to these three texts.
As such, just like Paper# 1, this paper must be driven by a thesis, a one sentence statement that advances an
argument about masculinity across our three texts that is given at the outset of the paper (by the end of the
introduction). This thesis must be proved in the paper itself by evidence from the texts: Oroonoko, Moll
Flanders, and Pamela. This evidence will typically take the form of short quotations from each text, quotations
that are presented in balanced body paragraphs. Note: you are encouraged to use my lectures as a jumping off
point, but the larger argument and most of the evidence should be material generated by you alone.
Ultimately, then, this paper is analytical: you are proving your thesis by analyzing and interpreting evidence
drawn from close readings from texts that you consider, close readings that go beyond the plot of each
text. Remember! This is not a chance to use outside sources to help you prove an argument—you are to prove
your argument via close readings of the two texts at hand. It might help to re-watch the Module 3 Concluding
Lecture on How to Construct or Prove a Thesis before you begin working, and do make sure you watch the
Module 6 Concluding Lecture, “Tips for Paper 2.” You will also receive Paper #1 back in the week before Paper

2 is due, so that you can use that feedback to prepare as well.

Format for Paper: Papers should follow MLA style guidelines: double-spaced, in Times New Roman 12 pt. font,
with 1” margins on all sides. Papers should include a title, page numbers, and a works cited page, but no cover
page. Please visit the Purdue OWL website for further information on MLA format: link here. (Links to an
external site.)
Evaluation: I will use the questions below to evaluate your paper. This is the same criteria for evaluation as
Paper #1.
• Thesis: does the paper possess an overall argument that is clearly defined by a specific, one sentence
thesis? Does the thesis make sense as written, avoiding wordiness and awkward phrasing? Does the thesis
make an argument about Oroonoko, Moll Flanders, and Pamela rather than summarizing or re-describing
those texts?
• Analysis: does the paper provide a careful and thorough explication of the language in particular sections of
each text so as to prove its argument, rather than summarizing the plots of those texts? Does the author take
time to analyze evidence (quotations from the text, or summaries of particularly important plot points), drawing
out meaning, connotations, and relation to the overall argument of the paper, or does he/she/they just dump
the quote into the paper without explaining to the reader how that quotation proves his or her argument about
the text? Is the evidence and its analysis believable (well supported, well explained), while also being
unexpected (more than a casual reader would notice)?
• Organization: is this paper well-organized, following the map provided by the thesis of the paper? That is,
does each body paragraph prove a portion of that thesis? Does each body paragraph contain a topic sentence
that relates back to the thesis? Does each body paragraph in the paper focus in detail on the importance of a
few specific pieces of evidence, and avoid repeating information found in other body paragraphs?
• Conclusion: does the conclusion think through the implications of the thesis, and avoid merely restating the
claims of the paper as a whole? Does the conclusion wrap up the paper, rather than leaving the reader
hanging?