Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill.original_ [161]
In subverting viewers’ expectations both by decentering the monarchs and concealing what is on the easel, the painter again emphasizes his power, in this case, over the viewers (among whom might be the king and queen if their images on the back wall are mirror reflections of them standing, like us, in front of the painting). He is not bound by their expectations and in fact appears to use those expectations to manipulate the viewers: he can make them wish to see something he has the power to withhold.
The presence of the large dwarf in the right-hand foreground is positioned in a way that links him with the painter. The dwarf arguably furthers the painting’s message and does so, like much else in the painting, in the form of a loaded joke: the small (“dwarfed” by the power of others) are brought forward and made big.
Knowing When to Stop: How Much Revising Is Enough?
We emphasize before leaving this example that the version of the thesis we have just proposed is not necessarily the “right” answer. Looked at in a different context, the painting might have been explained primarily as a demonstration of the painter’s mastery of the tools of his trade—light, for example, and perspective. But our proposed revision of the thesis for the Las Meninas paper meets two important criteria for evaluating thesis statements:
It unifies the observations the writer has made.
It is capable of accounting for a wide range of evidence.
The writer has followed through on her original desire to infer Velázquez’s intentions in the painting. As we argued in Chapter 6 (Making Interpretations Plausible), whether or not Velázquez consciously intended to make his painting a tongue-incheek self-advertisement, there is clearly enough evidence to claim plausibly that the painting can be understood in this way.
How do you know when you’ve done enough reformulating of your thesis and arrived at the best possible idea about your evidence? Getting the thesis to account for (respond to) all rather than just some of your evidence does not mean you need to discuss every detail of the subject. Writers must take care not to ignore important evidence, especially if it would alter their “case,” but no analysis can address everything—nor should it. Your job as a writer is to select those features of your subject that seem most significant and to argue for their significance. An analysis says to readers, in effect, “These are the details that best reveal the nature and meaning of my subject, or at least the part of the subject that I am trying to address.”
EVOLVING A THESIS IN A LATER-STAGE DRAFT: THE EXAMPLE OF EDUCATING RITA
In this example, we will apply the Six Steps in order to make a thesis evolve within the draft, rather than to select among various as yet unformed competitors for the role of thesis (as was the case with Las Meninas). The process of thesis evolution we will trace here would remain visible in the writer’s final draft as a means of sharing her thought processes with her readers. By contrast, the writer of Las Meninas would probably not include in her final draft the competition among her three potential thesis statements—only the evolution of the “winning” one.
In the film Educating Rita, a working-class English hairdresser (Rita) wants to change her life by taking courses from a professor (Frank) at the local university, even though this move threatens her relationship with her husband (Denny), who burns her books and pressures her to quit school and get pregnant. Frank, she discovers, has his own problems: he’s a divorced alcoholic who is bored with his life, bored with his privileged and complacent students, and bent on self-destruction. The film follows the growth of Frank’s and Rita’s friendship and the changes it brings about in their lives. By the end of the film, each has left a limiting way of life behind and has set off in a seemingly more promising direction. Rita leaves her constricting