Archive for May, 2007

Show Standards Not Met

Tuesday, May 8th, 2007

You need to build the case of [the character] using [the other character] due to a lack of power earlier than you do. The rest of your arguments depend on that idea. Staying more focused on showing what [the character’s] “standards of manly conduct” are — and how [the other character] falls short of those and finally how [the character] uses those short comings to her advantage — would strengthen this.

Flat And Incomplete

Tuesday, May 8th, 2007

You have the possibility of eloquent writing if you can keep a handle on how many sentences you string together with “and.” That’s where this could be improved: sentence pattern variety. You write well, but the frequent “and”s give this the feel of an early draft. The discussion of tragedy here would be more meaningful with quotations to point your readers to specific evidence of your claims. Without that, this feels a bit flat and incomplete.

Buried Idea

Tuesday, May 8th, 2007

You have an interesting idea buried here. Fully developing that idea, explaining it in clear detail so your readers can follow along, would strengthen this. If you can be clear about that connection, your readers will see your point.

Just An Introduction

Tuesday, May 8th, 2007

Your explanations are clear and you’ve got a strong pattern of telling why you include the quotations and examples that you do. This would be stronger if [the character’s] character traits were tied more directly to the things we see everyday. A greater discussion of how [the character] exhibits all the characteristics of modern peer pressure or how [the character’s] persuasion techniques are just like modern ad campaigns would help. This reads like just an introduction to this idea.

No Evidence

Tuesday, May 8th, 2007

With no evidence from the play, it’s hard for your readers to take this as a serious discussion. You haven’t supported any reason that you relate [a character from the story] to your parents. So this reads like a paper written by someone who hasn’t ever read the [play, novel, short story, article, etc.].