Example from Working Final of Asmus – L.N Essay (Paper 3) – Google Docs:

“Alexander’s definition of victim little narratives is often misused. Although it is common, there are still many cases in which the appropriate external blame model is not used. Even some of the examples in Williams’ paper do not solely apply to victim narratives. According to Williams, victims “often [write] about themselves as being invisible or used metaphors about being unclean or outcast from the world of literacy” (344). This is not necessarily a victim, as an outcast does not always externalize blame, especially if the writer views themself as unclean. In such a scenario, Alexander would disagree with Williams’ claims. Since I agree with Alexander’s definition, I believe Williams was too quick to label narratives under the victim title. However, as I found out in my investigation, Williams was not the only one to misunderstand.”

Above is an example of the integration of ideas, and how they relate to my other evidence as well as my own interpretations and ideas from the literacy narrative analysis. The quote is introduced to prime the reader to look for what is wrong with the examples what Williams provides. The follow up after the quote (what I have been affectionately referring to as completing the “quote sandwich”) explains what the reader should have focused on within the quote, in this case the reader should have focused on the outcast statement. This evidence is then brought back to the definition of Alexander, a definition that I have established as being the baseline measure for victim narratives. I establish that the perspectives oppose each other on the particular topic, explaining that Alexander and Williams would disagree with each other about their definition of literacy narratives. From there, I tie it back into the main idea for my analysis. By using Williams as an example of a misidentification, it further segways into the evidence following the paragraph. 

In the past, I tended to provide introductions into quotes without providing a explanation after the quote to follow up the important idea. A quote sandwich without the bottom piece of bread is not a very good meal, and may confuse the reader. The purpose of the followed explanation is to continue framing the evidence, the semantics of which determines what the reader should take away from the quote.