I noticed an evolution in my writing style, I initially relied on background information to draw my analysis but now I rely more on rhetorical devices and especially the syntax of the sentence.

In the beginning, I relied on historical background to analyze the characters and the purpose of the canto. During our first class, the discussion was primarily about all the novels and short stories related to the Inferno. Most of the students are upper class men that have already taken other literary courses and are well-versed with the context of the novel. Originally, I felt left out from the discussion because compared to everyone else, I didn’t have much prior knowledge about the topic. In my early posts, I made a special effort to focus on how Dante’s time period influenced his writings. In my second canto, I analyze Dante’s encounter with Ciacco as a strife between the Guelfs and the Ghibellines. In my second post I write, “Ciacco foreshadows that after 3 years or “three suns,” the Black Guelphs will regain control of Florence while the White Guelphs, including Dante who was an active prior (White Guelph leader) will fall.” I analyze Ciacco’s sentence by breaking the sentence into fragments and connecting it to the historical significance behind those words. For example, I knew that the “3 suns” actually refers to how the Ghibellines come into power again after 3 years. I use the background information to draw the conclusion that Ciacco is foreshadowing Dante’s exile. I strongly believe that the background information provides clarity to Dante’s arrangement of the canto and hints at his personal life. Thus, in my first few cantos, I used extensive background information to get a feel for the structure of the cantos.

In my 3rd post, I’m able to use both background imagery and rhetorical analysis to enhance my argument. I address that Dante defines heresy as the belief that soul is mortal and dies with the body. I use background knowledge to explain why Farinata is a heretic. For example, I write “Farinata’s heresy is defined in terms of his political association with Frederick II.” I further elaborate that Frederick II was excommunicated twice and deemed a heretic, hence Farinata is a heretic by association. I use sentence syntax to show a character development in Farinata from a to a florentine Citizen. My topic sentence is “Farinata’s verbal exchange mirrors his earthly status as a Ghibelline factional leader to his eventual transcendence of all partisans to a Florentine citizen that prioritizes his city’s welfare above all else.” The sentence is actually more closer to my roots, I love setting up parallels between people, sentence structure with character development, settings, etc. I use Farinata’s speech to show his character development. For example, I write “ He uses 3 subjects to compose his identity: “Me,” “My ancestors,” and “My party”.” His initial manner of speaking shows that he’s still fixated on Florence’s politics because he defines his identity exclusively in terms of his ancestral lineage and Florence’s politics. However, I contrast it with the end of his conversation where he says  “If they had learned that art badly’ he said, ‘that torments me more than this bed.” (lines 75-77, Canto 10, pg 31). I elaborate on Farinata’s reflection about the war as a more objective citizen as opposed to a partisan because he is able to admit that his people might be wrong. This post is more advanced than my prior post which solely relies on background knowledge to come up with any analysis. However, this post is more wordy and it attempts to discuss too many topics like heresy, types of heresy, Farinata, Cavalcanti, etc. all in one post. I set up another parallel in my 5th post between the nature of the sinners and the deceptive nature of the Evil Claws. This focuses more on the parallel itself and uses minimal background information to make a point.

My 4th post reflects my creative interpretation of the surroundings while using minimal background information. I enjoyed writing this post more than any other because it was purely my own interpretation and the language syntax was littered with beautiful contrasting pronouns that I could use to establish dualism between different definitions of femininity. While I read other interpretations of canto 19, I didn’t really like them to be honest. I felt that a lot of them dismissed the play on pronouns or simply attributed masculinity to the god itself. For this particular post, I liked my idea and set it up as “Dante defines the dualism between purity and corrupted purity exclusively in the terms of a woman.” I used pronouns to prove this; I write “ For example, Dante addresses the sinners as “that should be brides of goodness” (Canto 19, lines 2). The clergy is married to the church hence, they’re “brides”. However the church isn’t the husband, it’s the “Lovely lady” (Canto 19, line 55).” Based on the absence of the male pronoun, I claim that the text is insinuating that “ The sacredness of the church is a feminine aspect however the loyalty of the clergy is also a feminine aspect.” I particularly like using syntax analysis however, it’s hard in this type of literature because it’s a translated version. Some words are lost or phrased differently which is why I was initially hesitant to form any concrete interpretations from them.

I’m noticing that I’ve become more comfortable with the literature. I use the background information to understand the text but I don’t use it in the posts as much as I use to unless I need it to support my argument. In the beginning, I was uncomfortable with the background and Dante’s style of writing which is why my earlier posts focus so much on it. However, over time, I became comfortable enough to develop my own interpretations (even though they might be different from others) and use rhetorical analysis as my primary source of evidence as opposed to background information. However, I notice that I’m back into my comfort zone and I’m focusing on parallelism, dualism, etc. again. While those are my favorite, I would like to explore other areas of focus like recurring themes, character developments (in main characters), setting analysis, etc.