Citing evidence in literary analysis | Reading | Khan Academy

Hello readers! The following video contains explicit content. Well, okay, not in the way you're thinking. Uh, it doesn't contain violence, obscenity, or profanity, or even anything that wouldn't appear in a G-rated movie. But it will contain explicit evidence. Yes, we're talking about citing evidence in literary analysis.

When you're talking about a text and making arguments about it, in order to successfully build that argument, you must make inferences and draw conclusions. Those must be built on the back of evidence, both explicit—that is stated in the text—or implicit, based on clues or evidence in the text.

So your responsibility is to tie those conclusions or inferences back to explicit or implicit evidence in the text. It can't just be, "This is a feeling I have." It has to be, "My feeling about this is backed up by this specific evidence."

Say you're trying to make an argument in a book that, like the captain of this pirate ship—and let's just say, I guess he's a bird man. That's what I drew. He's a bird man—uh, is really unkind to the main character in the beginning of the book, but changes by the end of the book and treats everyone, including the main character, with respect and courtesy.

So I'm going to write that my argument is that the captain's behavior changes towards the emcee (the main character). I have to back that assertion up with evidence. So how do we find those details?

First, you have to seek out parts of the book where the captain and the main character interact. Then look closely at the prose and dialogue. What are the details that prove your point? Which are the strongest, most specific details that say, "Oh yes, here is where the captain is being mean; here is where the captain is being respectful?"

If you can't find evidence for your assertion, first try searching in a different part of the book. Or importantly, acknowledge the possibility that you might have a weak argument. Maybe it's time to start over and find a new or different argument to make and find support for.

Once you've assembled your evidence, work it into your analysis. Captain Bixby is dismissive and rude to Aniola when she first joins the crew of the pirate ship Albatross. I might say, and then back it up with an explicit example of Captain Bixby being dismissive and rude, with a page number citation like so.

On page 34 of "To The Burbling Deep," Bixby says to Aniola, "You there! What's her name? These portholes need to be scrubbed yesterday! Get to work!" "Yes, sir," Captain Aniola said. "But my name is—" "Does it look like I care?" the captain snarled.

But by the end of the story, when Aniola has proven her worth, saved the day, and humbled the captain, he treats her and everyone around him with much greater respect and deference.

On page 225, after Bixby tends to Aniola's broken leg, he tells her, "Aniola, that was some mighty fine pirating you did. You showed no fear when you punched that kraken, and more importantly, you showed no fear when you stood up to me. I was wrong, and I have been a jerk, and I am sorry."

Now, both of those examples use explicit evidence where Captain Bixby is being a jerk and then when he is apologizing for being a jerk. There's also implicit evidence too. Bixby tends to Aniola's broken leg, so while he's not saying, "I will take care of you, lil buddy," with his words, he is saying it with his actions.

In that first example, when he demands that Aniola clean the portholes, he's not literally saying, "I'm impatient," but by saying they need to be scrubbed yesterday—as in immediately because you already messed up—he's implying that he's impatient.

Now, there is no such book that I know of about a kraken-punching girl pirate, but if we're lucky, my friend Jordan will write one. Remember to use strong details to get good evidence.

You know, there might be a part of "To The Burbling Deep" where Captain Bixby huffs angrily at Aniola but doesn't say anything, and that's mean—or at least impolite—but it's not as strong as him yelling at her.

So when you find a detail, ask yourself how that detail relates back to your analysis or your argument. Is it repeated? Does that detail or a detail similar to it appear elsewhere in the text? And if you see a lot of similar details, how do those details prove the argument that you're trying to make?

If you have a sense of what the central idea or ideas of the text is, try to connect those details back to that central idea, and then connect that central idea to your own argument.

I don't know what "To The Burbling Deep" is about, because I made it up like 20 minutes ago. But maybe one theme in it is that it's important to recognize the potential within other people. And that can be both true for Aniola, who becomes a hero and punches a giant octopus monster, but it can also be true of Captain Bixby, who occupies a kind of antagonistic role and then changes throughout the story.

So we can build our argument around that idea that character change is possible, not just for the main character but for everybody. So that's where I'll leave you.

Uh, remember to choose the pieces of evidence that give you the strongest support for your idea, and if the evidence doesn't match your idea, you might need to change the idea itself. You can learn anything. Dave it out.