This assignment asks you to compare two critical articlesthose of Maureen Gokey and Carol Dole (see attached on Blackboard) on the subject of The Castle of Otranto. The two writers adopt quite different attitudes to the text and develop quite different arguments. However, Gokey and Dole dont disagree in the sense that one says A and the other says not-A. (That seldom happens in discussions about literature.) Rather, Gokey and Dole define and contextualize the novel differently from the start. 

You are asked to do three things in this assignment: 1. Identify (using quotation and summary) the thesis and argument of each writer. 2. Comment on how accurately the two arguments represent The Castle of Otranto as you understand the book. (In other words, do you notice any blind-spots? Are the arguments self-consistent and complete? Give examples, using the text of The Castle of Otranto as support for your criticisms.) 3. Argue for the superiority of one of the articles over the other. That is, give reasons why you think one of the two provides more insight into the novel. This wont necessarily be easy: there are strengths and weaknesses in both articles. 

Once again, dont worry about getting the right answer. What I will look for in your essay is the strength of your own argument: Do you represent your sources fairly and accurately? Can you support your claims with evidence? Is your reasoning easy to follow?