ENG1501 Assignment 3 (THE NOVEL) 2026 - Due 17 July 2026

Foundations in English Literary Studies - ENG1501 Assignment 3 2026 - Due 17 July 2026; 100 % TRUSTED workings, Expert Solved, Explanations and Solutions. For assistance call or W.h.a.t.s.a.p.p us on ...(.+.2.5.4.7.7.9.5.4.0.1.3.2)........... ASSIGNMENT 03: The Novel Small Things by Nthikeng Mohlele Due date: 17 July 2026 In the novel, Small Things, the narrator forms relationships with various characters that he encounters. Some make a lasting impact in his life, while others have little to no effect on him. Using the two extracts below as starting points, write an essay of approximately 600 words, in which you discuss how the narrator’s relationship with Bra Todd is similar to or different from his relationship with Gabriel Sanchez. Extract 1 Like a stray dog. In search of not food, but meaning. I hung out with Bra Todd, a respected newsman, with a taste for American swing. ‘Everyone is a politician,’ he growled, with his infectious laughter. We listened to records, while I polished his shoes, helped with the dishes, and learnt sophisticated ways to woo a lady. I was terrified to let my feelings be known, so although Bra Todd looked out for me, I refrained from burdening him with my Desiree misfortunes. He was her uncle and, as such, had full command of her attention. How I envied him! I, at fifteen, between bouts of pleading with Desiree (silent, helpless despair), spent many late nights with Bra Todd in newsrooms, as a willing apprentice. (Mohlele 2013: 11-12) Extract 2 Gabriel Sanchez’s tale (for that is my friend’s name) begins in Cuba. Third in the line of thirteen siblings, he is the only journalist in an otherwise musical family. Many maestros, he says, countless musicians, from streetcorner nobodies to musical saints of the Buena Vista Social Club, learnt their skills at his father’s feet. That was when Gabriel wrote articles, cutting opinion pieces for the Cuban Times, illuminating the Kennedy-Kruschev stalemate, often working through the night. A migraine prematurely ended one of his midnight liaisons with his typewriter. (Mohlele 2013: 53-54) Ensure that your essay includes the following: • An introductory paragraph that introduces the topic and explains how the rest of your essay will be structured. • A body of 3-5 paragraphs, in which you develop your argument. • A concluding paragraph, in which you summarise your argument. 1 Before you start writing your essay, you should: 1. 2. 3. 4. Revise the sections on ‘Characterisation’ (p. 45) and ‘Theme’ (p. 55) in Unit 3 of your Study Guide (Tutorial Letter 501). Then, carefully study Unit 4 of Tutorial Letter 501. Then, closely consider the given extracts from Small Things. When performing your close reading of the extract, please do, as instructed, pay careful attention to diction (that is, how words are used and how they convey meaning). Remember that literary devices such as metaphor, imagery, hyperbole, and so on are all part of diction and are the building blocks of any novel. When doing a careful reading of a novel, or any literary work, examining diction (word choice) is where you start. Carefully plan your essay, following the steps in the section on ‘How to Write about a Novel’ in Unit 4 of your Study Guide. 50 marks The following rubric will be used to assess your essay: MARK/50 CRITERIA Content 45 -- 50 (90% -- 100%) EXCEPTIONAL Imaginative, authoritative, with original insight producing a subtle and nuanced piece of work. Sharply focused on response to the question; Clear line of argument. Shows exceptional awareness of the complexities and wider ramifications of the issues raised. Perceptive and sophisticated throughout. Demonstrates an exemplary ability to analyze issues and texts. Structure and Organisation Fully coherent structure, fluently developed, logically organized. Language and Expression Cogent, eloquent, succinct, compelling. Fluent, sophisticated and mature writing. Sophisticated syntax, correct grammar. Expression that is apt and incisive. 2 3 MARK/50 CRITERIA 38 – 44 (76% – 88%) EXCELLENT Content Perceptive, excellent understanding and in-depth interpretation of topic. All aspects of topic fully explored. Sharply focused on response to the question. Clear line of argument. Range of striking arguments extensively supported from text. Structure and Organisation Well-developed structure, coherent, logically organized. Language and Expression Cogent and succinct. Fluent, sophisticated and mature writing. Sophisticated syntax and correct grammar. 35 – 37 (70% - 74%) VERY GOOD Content Very good understanding and interpretation of topic. Detailed response. Most aspects of the topic adequately explored. Shows very good awareness of the complexities and wider ramifications of the issues raised. Range of sound arguments given, well supported from text. Structure and Organisation Well-developed structure, coherent, logically organized. Language and Expression Articulate, lucid, ideas clearly stated. Fluent and fairly sophisticated, concise writing. 30 – 34 (60% - 68%) GOOD/ ABOVE AVERAGE Content Solid understanding and interpretation of topic. Fairly detailed response. Many aspects of the topic adequately explored. Mainly relevant to the question but with some unevenness. Shows some awareness of the complexities and wider ramifications of the issues raised. Fair range of sound arguments given, generally well supported from text. Critically sound, constituting a serious attempt to engage with the question in an analytical way and showing clear evidence of a perceptive response to the material, though without fully drawing out some potentially relevant nuances and implications; some original insight. Structure and Organisation Coherent, logical structure, consistently and effectively developed. Language and Expression Mostly correct grammar. Generally clear and precise but some inconsistencies. Mostly fluent. 4 MARK/50 CRITERIA 27 – 29 (54% - 58%) AVERAGE Content Evidence of engagement with the question, though perhaps not addressing its terms successfully or fully; sometimes tending overly toward description and/or narration. Structure and Organisation Mostly coherent and a fair amount of logical development. Some areas of weakness in terms of ambiguity and/or repetition. Language and Expression Language errors minor, tone and style mostly appropriate. Writing reasonably fluent but with some awkwardness. 25 – 26 (50% - 52%) ADEQUATE Content Some relevance but lack of focus. Adequate but superficial. Attempts to answer the question but descriptive rather than analytical. Structure and Organisation Discernible argument but not consistently coherent or logically organized. Language and Expression Some grammatical and spelling errors, tone and style sometimes inconsistent. 20 – 24 (40% – 48%) INADEQUATE Content Vague; not enough substance or relevance, insufficient support for ideas. Arguments not convincing and barely any justification from text. Structure and Organisation Ideas confused or disconnected, not enough logical sequencing or development, little signposting. Language and Expression Unclear and imprecise Weak syntax, numerous grammatical and spelling errors Meaning sometimes obscured by poor expression. 16 – 19 (32% - 38%) VERY WEAK Content Argument difficult to follow or largely irrelevant. Provides no justification from the text. Very poor grasp of text and topic. Response repetitive and frequently off the point. Structure and Organisation Largely incoherent and/or lacking in logical development. Language and Expression Weak syntax, many grammatical and spelling errors. Meaning often obscured by poor expression. 5 For information about correct quoting and referencing, consult Unit 1 of the Study Guide (Tutorial Letter 501). Warning! Using ideas and facts from other people, books or web pages without saying where they come from is the same as stealing those ideas and facts. This is plagiarism and it is a serious offence. Also note that using AI tools as ghostwriters is cheating. If you are found guilty of any form of unethical conduct, you will fail this assignment. © UNISA 2026 MARK/50 CRITERIA 0 – 15 (0% - 30%) EXCEPTIONALLY WEAK Content Wholly irrelevant. Seriously inadequate, with major omissions and/or serious inaccuracies. No apparent understanding of topic. OR Plagiarised OR AI GENERATED Structure and Organisation Wholly incoherent and/or compromised by lack of content No evidence of planned structure or logic Language and Expression Severe weaknesses in syntax and grammar. Meaning consistently obscured by poor expression.