The analyses of Phillip Lopate’s essay, “Brooklyn the Unknowable,” are notably different in approach and in language, but share some ideas.
Both analyses introduce the author and the title of the essay right off the bat. However, the writer of the first analysis goes right into the idea of the essay that sets the tone for the rest of the paper, while the writer of the second analysis brings a relatable tone to the topic before introducing the main thesis. The first analysis is focused on more of the actual content of the paper, “to convince readers that while Brooklynites might first appear to be less sophisticated or interesting than Manhattanites, they are in fact greatly to be admired,” while the second focuses on the style of writing that Lopate uses; “He shows us his point primarily through description.” The second analysis has a more simple writing style. They write “Manhattan is sophisticated- Brooklyn is not,” and uses phrases such as “I know this because[…]” Also, the writer of the first analysis wraps up their thoughts and synthesizes their analysis in the last sentence, but the second analysis stops more abruptly and the last sentence does not review the main idea of essay analysis.
One thing both analyses one and two do similarly is using quotes and references from the essay greatly. The quotes used are explained well in the first analysis, but are used differently in the second analysis. The second writer uses quotes in their own sentences and moreover summarizes the landscape of both Brooklyn and Manhattan, while the first writer introduces a quote and explains it. One thing both analyses have in common is the topic stays the same and true to the original thesis all the way through their analysis.
Both analysis have different ways of describing what they want to analyze in “Brooklyn the Unknowable,” and although they share some of the same qualities, they have different ways of approaching their ideas.