Writing a formal Synthesis Essay

What is a synthesis essay?  An essay that discusses a question about two pieces of literature in a formal and organized way  A synthesis essay develops an argument about the literature being studied  It may compare and/or contrast the two pieces of literature

How are they written? Using formal language Using present tense Using evidence (quotations) from the literature

How are they organized? Synthesis essays follow a predictable pattern: They are generally four paragraphs long They have a thesis statement (or topic sentence) that includes the titles of the work and the author's names They develop ideas using evidence from the story and discussing that evidence explaining how it develops the thesis

 Paragraph 1: Introduction  title, author, thesis statement, hook, brief overview of discussion (should include two major points of discussion for which you provide evidence in the body paragraphs), transition to body paragraph  Paragraph 2: Body paragraph  Discussion of major point with evidence  Transition sentence to next body paragraph  Paragraph 3: Body paragraph  Discussion of major point with evidence  Transition sentence to next body paragraph  Paragraph 4: Conclusion  Restates thesis, authors, titles, summarizes major points of discussion

Can you show me? Sure. Let’s say you need to write a synthesis essay on the theme unit we just completed: The Nature of Happiness. You might come up with a thesis statement that looks something like this: For the Dalai Llama in The Art of Happiness, happiness is something that one must cultivate from within whereas for Dan Gilbert in The Surprising Science of Happiness, happiness is a state of being that occurs when we react to events that happen in our lives.

So then what?  You may want to include a hook at the beginning of your essay.  A hook is something that grabs the reader’s attention about your topic.  It might be a famous quote or a general statement about your topic.

Can you show me?  Sure.  It might look something like this: It seems that, more than ever, modern society is on a frantic quest for happiness. We sell happiness in the forms of pills, destination resorts, clothing, and any number of material things. For the Dalai Llama in The Art of Happiness, happiness is something that one must cultivate from within whereas for Dan Gilbert in The Surprising Science of Happiness, happiness is a state of being that occurs when we react to events that happen in our lives.

So then what? You will add the major points of discussion that you will explore in your essay

Can you show me?  Sure.  It might look something like this: It seems that, more than ever, modern society is on a frantic quest for happiness. We sell happiness in the forms of pills, destination resorts, clothing, and any number of material things. For the Dalai Llama in The Art of Happiness, happiness is something that one must cultivate from within whereas for Dan Gilbert in The Surprising Science of Happiness, happiness is a state of being that is interpreted by our brain when we react to life events. These two authors appear to contrast in their exploration of how we attain happiness. One focuses on the internal creation of happiness from a spiritual perspective, while the other pays close attention to outside influences and the science behind how we interpret those factors. However, both understand that it is our internal interpretation of our environment that plays a role in how we experience happiness.

So then what?  Well, you try to make some POINTS to develop that argument.  Your first body paragraph will explore your first major discussion  Your second body paragraph will explore your second major discussion

Can you show me?  Sure. Your first body paragraph may talk about the similar ways that the Dalai Llama and Dan Gilbert explore happiness. While Dan Gilbert and the Dalai Llama appear to be on wildly opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to exploring the topic of happiness, they both understand that it is an internal process that creates—or does not create—happiness. Dan Gilbert’s TED talk is based on scientific research about how happiness is created, and about the creation of happiness he says that “synthetic happiness is what we make when we don’t get what we wanted” (Gilbert). He suggests that there is a natural occurrence that happens in our brains which allows us to overcome dissatisfaction and this enables us to turn a less than ideal situation into one that makes us happy. In fact, he suggests that if we focus on the fact that we did not get what we wanted (which would be a source of “natural happiness”), we are mistaken in our thinking. “Synthetic happiness”—the one that we create out of any situation—is just as valuable as “natural happiness.” Similarly, the Dalai Llama purports that our happiness comes from within, but he suggests that we must train the mind and spirit in order to eliminate suffering. He says that “by bringing about a certain inner discipline, we can undergo a transformation of our attitude, our entire outlook and approach to living” (Dalai Lama). Both thinkers talk about the internal nature of happiness; however, their methods for understanding happiness contrast.

So then what?  You will then start body paragraph 2  This paragraph will discuss your second major discussion point.

Can you show me?  Sure. Dan Gilbert asks his audience to view several scientific experiments to help them understand how he has come to his conclusions about happiness. In light of these experiments, he concludes that “We should have preferences that lead us into one future over another. But when those preferences drive us too hard and too fast because we have overrated the difference between these futures, we are at risk” (Gilbert). Similarly, the Dalai Llama believes that we should make choices that lead to our happiness. When we “set about gradually eliminating those factors which lead to suffering and cultivating those which lead to happiness. That is the way” (Dalai Llama), we can achieve true happiness. Both authors suggest that we can make choices towards happiness; however, these choices may be counterintuitive to the way that North American culture has set out to accomplish it. Material possessions and “Natural happiness” may be counterproductive paths to happiness.

So then what?  Time to conclude….  Summarize your key points.  Title, authors, and restate your argument.

Can you show me?  Sure Both the Dalai Llama and Dan Gilbert agree that our paths to happiness may be counter to what we have thought in mainstream society. Getting material possessions and getting what we want in life may not be the only sources of happiness. While the Dalai Llama suggests that it is through internal discipline and spiritual searching that we attain this lofty achievement, Dan Gilbert suggests that we can synthesize happiness when our choices are limited. That said, there are many paths to happiness, and perhaps both authors give their audiences possibilities that they can explore.

Okay. How about the whole thing? Sure…. John SmithNOTE THE USE OF DOUBLE SPACING English 12 Block CNOTE THE PAGE LAYOUT Tuesday, March 12 th, 2013 The Paths to Happiness It seems that, more than ever, modern society is on a frantic quest for happiness. We sell happiness in the forms of pills, destination resorts, clothing, and any number of material things. For the Dalai Llama in The Art of Happiness, happiness is something that one must cultivate from within whereas for Dan Gilbert in The Surprising Science of Happiness, happiness is a state of being that is interpreted by our brain when we react to life events. What Gilbert is more interested in is our mistaken perception on the quality of our happiness and how we think that we attain it. These two authors appear to contrast in their exploration of how we attain happiness. One focuses on the internal creation of happiness from a spiritual perspective, while the other pays close attention to outside influences and the science behind how we interpret those factors. However, both understand that it is our internal interpretation of our environment that plays a role in how we experience happiness. While Dan Gilbert and the Dalai Llama appear to be on wildly opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to exploring the topic of happiness, they both understand that it is an internal process that creates—or does not create—happiness. Dan Gilbert’s TED talk is based on scientific research about how happiness is created, and about the creation of happiness he says that “synthetic happiness is what we make when we don’t get what we wanted” (Gilbert). He suggests that there is a natural occurrence that happens in our brains which allows us to overcome dissatisfaction and this enables us to turn a less than ideal situation into one that makes us happy. In fact, he suggests that if we focus on the fact that we did not get what we wanted (which would be a source of “natural happiness”), we are mistaken in our thinking. “Synthetic happiness”—the one that we create out of any situation—is just as valuable as “natural happiness.” Similarly, the Dalai Llama purports that our happiness comes from within, but he suggests that we must train the mind and spirit in order to eliminate suffering. He says that “by bringing about a certain inner discipline, we can undergo a transformation of our attitude, our entire outlook and approach to living” (Dalai Lama). Both thinkers talk about the internal nature of happiness; however, their methods for understanding happiness contrast. Dan Gilbert asks his audience to view several scientific experiments to help them understand how he has come to his conclusions about happiness. In light of these experiments, he concludes that “We should have preferences that lead us into one future over another. But when those preferences drive us too hard and too fast because we have overrated the difference between these futures, we are at risk” (Gilbert). Similarly, the Dalai Llama believes that we should make choices that lead to our happiness. When we “set about gradually eliminating those factors which lead to suffering and cultivating those which lead to happiness. That is the way” (Dalai Llama), we can achieve true happiness. Both authors suggest that we can make choices towards happiness; however, these choices may be counterintuitive to the way that North American culture has set out to accomplish it. Material possessions and “Natural happiness” may be counterproductive paths to happiness. Both the Dalai Llama and Dan Gilbert agree that our paths to happiness may be counter to what we have thought in mainstream society. Getting material possessions and getting what we want in life may not be the only sources of happiness. While the Dalai Llama suggests that it is through internal discipline and spiritual searching that we attain this lofty achievement, Dan Gilbert suggests that we can synthesize happiness when our choices are limited. That said, there are many paths to happiness, and perhaps both authors give their audiences possibilities that they can explore.

Is that all?  Not quite  Although not needed in test situations, I would like you to practice completing a Works Cited

Oh boy! Can you show us?  Sure. Here is the Works Cited for this synthesis essay Works Cited "Dan Gilbert: The Surprising Science of Happiness." TED: Ideas worth Spreading. N.p.,n.d. Web. 12 Mar "Excerpt from The Art of Happiness by His Holiness The Dalai Lama, Howard C. Cutler, M.D.” BookBrowse.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar