Oklahoma State University Pat Franks book Alas Babylon Analysis Essay

Help me study for my History class. I’m stuck and don’t understand.

For the book paper assignment for this class, you will be asked to write a 3-5 page paper over Pat Frank’s book Alas Babylon. This assignment is not a book report, but rather a blend of a book review and a comparative paper. Alas Babylon was one of the key novels of the Cold War. Written in 1959, it is an excellent window into the fears of Cold War America, as it describes in vivid detail what surviving a nuclear war might look like. Although nuclear war never resulted from the Cold War, the fear was incredibly real and numerous works of film, television, plays, and novels permeated the era. My hope is by reading this book, you might better understand the fear and paranoia prevalent in American society.

Your papers need to be in Times New Roman 12pt font, double spaced, with 1 inch margins. At the top of the first page, you need only your name, date, and the title of the work – your header should not take up more than ¼ of the page. The paper will need to be well written, with a thesis, argumentative points, and a conclusion. Please cite specific lectures and page numbers when dealing with the book, using the Turabian format, guidelines of which are available in the Reading Yesterday, Writing Tomorrow book. Please attach the rubric to your submitted paper.

Although there are numerous ways to accomplish the paper, each one should address the following ideas. In addressing each point, you should include some detail as to how the author achieves these objectives – not simply answering “yes, the author’s work is accurate and approachable.” Be descriptive, and include relevant cited examples from the work.

First – What was the author’s intent in writing the work?

Second – How does the author make the story believable, and how does he relate the characters to the reader?

Third – How well does the author support their thesis and claims in the work? Do they prove their arguments? Is the work convincing in the case it tries to make?

Fourth – How approachable is the work? Is the work meant for historians or could anyone interested in the subject matter understand the work? What is the author’s bias, if any?

While the paper need not be a direct answering of all of these questions, the bulk of the paper does need to examine the themes and ideas presented within the work, and analyze how they are presented and how they fit in with what is discussed in lecture. Use the questions as a guideline, but feel free to discuss points that you find contentious in the book, or whatever interests you in the book. The assignment is pretty open-ended, and is geared more towards an analysis of the reading, the information presented, and what a reader is likely to glean from the work.

Be as descriptive as possible, and answer all parts of the question fully. There is not necessarily a “right” or “wrong” way to do the assignment, but your grade will reflect how well you read the book and how you interpret the information presented. The better you read the book, the better your grade will be.

In addressing the themes and ideas presented in the work, feel free to either answer the reading questions, or discuss those aspects of the work that you enjoyed or disliked the most. In either case, be as specific as possible and include citations discussing the page number of the book that contains the information you are critiquing.

The main part:

For specific questions to help guide your reading of the book:

What is the atmosphere like in Florida in the 1950s and 1960s?

Can you tell that a “Cold War” is going on? How so?

What are the functions of SAC [Strategic Air Command] and NORAD?

What is the fate of Edgar Quisenberry? Explain his actions.

What are the varying reactions to the nuclear attack on the United States?

How do the people of Fort Repose cope with the nuclear war?

Who “wins” the war?

Overall, what theme does the novel present about the Cold War?

In reading the novel, how does it address the idea that a nuclear war can be “won”?