In his Q&A about the novel Little Bee, Chris Cleave analyzes the comparative morality of the characters Sarah and Andrew and discusses reader response to the characters as well. The novel juxtaposes the two characters to ask us to consider whether one is made more virtuous by dedicating one’s career to helping others from a distance or by acting in the moment to help someone in front of you.
Create a presentation (Powerpoint, Prezi, or similar) that addresses the following:
Compare and contrast Andrew and Sarah’s approach to their careers (over time) as forums for helping others (with textual support)
Which do you ultimately consider the more virtuous of the two characters and why?
Would Aristotle agree with you? Why or why not? (see below for more detail on this portion)
What do you envision as your future career? In what ways could you utilize your career to contribute to a more just and humane world?
When considering Aristotle’s views, you may wish to refer any of the following:
Reason as man’s primary function (Nicomachean Ethics, Book I)
The relationship between virtue and rationality (Book I)
The importance of action in accordance with virtuous thought (Book II)
Virtues as a mean between deficiency and excess (Book II)
Actions performed under constraint or duress (Book III)
Use direct quotations from both Cleave and Aristotle in order to support your key points. Focus your presentation on analysis, rather than summarizing events already described in the book.
Provide a link or upload your presentation to this assignment page.
Rubric
Cleave Character & Career Analysis Project
Cleave Character & Career Analysis Project
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCharacter Analysis
15 to >12.0 pts
Full Marks
Behavior of both characters is thoroughly analyzed with reference to multiple actions performed and/or attitudes held by each in the novel; relevant direct quotations from the novel are included.
12 to >0.0 pts
Partial Marks
May be missing some key aspects of characters’ behavior and/or attitudes, and/or relevant direct quotations are not provided.
0 pts
No Marks
Characters’ behavior/attitudes are not thoroughly discussed, and/or not textual support is given.
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResponse
10 to >8.0 pts
Full Marks
Reaches conclusion about the most moral/virtuous character; argument is well-supported.
8 to >0.0 pts
Partial Marks
Reaches conclusion; argument is mostly well-supported.
0 pts
No Marks
No conclusion is reached and/or conclusion is not supported.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSpelling, Mechanics, Organization, and Design
5 to >3.0 pts
Full Marks
Very few errors, well organized info, clear design.
3 to >0.0 pts
Partial Marks
Few errors, well organized info, mostly clear design.
0 pts
No Marks
Errors and/or design impede readability and understanding.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis through Aristotle
10 to >8.0 pts
Full Marks
One or more aspects of Aristotle’s views are applied to the characters; relevant direct quotations from Nicomachean Ethics are provided; understanding of key concepts from Nicomachean Ethics is clear.
8 to >0.0 pts
Partial Marks
One or more aspects of Aristotle’s views are applied to the characters; direct quotations from Nico. Ethics are provided; some understanding of key concepts is apparent.
0 pts
No Marks
Direct quotations are missing, and/or writing does not demonstrate understanding of key concepts from Nico. Ethics.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFuture Career Explanation
10 to >8.0 pts
Full Marks
Future career plans explained thoroughly, as well as how career contributes to a more just and humane world.
8 to >0.0 pts
Partial Marks
Future career plans explained somewhat, with some mention of how career contributes to a more just and humane world.
0 pts
No Marks
Career plans are not included.
10