You are free to take any approach you like, but keep in mind that you want to choose an argument that
you can apply to several of his writings. Keep in mind, too, that you want to persuade your reader of
something that needs demonstrating. It won’t be enough, for example, to say “Marc Mappen writes
interesting essays about New Jersey” and then go on to summarize several of his essays.
Here are a few suggestions. But they are only suggestions.
One of Mappen’s essay collections (Jerseyana) is sub-titled “The Underside of New Jersey
History.” What do you think is meant by “underside,” and how might that concept be used to
guide us through some of his essays?
Mappen’s essays show us an historian at work. Is there a characteristic “move” or strategy that he
employs in treating a topic or organizing an essay? Can you describe and illustrate a particular
strategy that he uses quite frequently?
Unlike the historians who write for captive audiences (either students or other historians), Mappen
wrote most of his essays for a newspaper (The New York Times). How does this audience likely
to differ from the captive kind, and how does his writing take this difference into account? In other
words, what does he do to keep us engaged and entertained?
Sample Solution