Teacher Says

Paragraph 1 sets up your readers to learn about your junior year. Paragraph 2 should start to tell that story. Without any transition, it makes no sense to start writing about Oed because you haven’t given any reason for your readers to start thinking about that connection.

When you claim that Oed made his decision based on emotion, that’s your first chance to explain to your readers exactly why you think that. Leaving out that explanation, it’s as if you hope that just stating your opinion is enough. Saying that you believe something doesn’t make it true.

Lots of errors throughout make your readers wonder if you know when to use a period and when to use a comma. It also makes your readers question your expertise. If you can’t bother to write correctly, how can we know that you can bother to think correctly?

And where’s the U-Turn, Mirror, Mirror, or What It Is! sentence you were supposed to include? Did you write this at the last minute?

Your switches from reflections on your life to reflections on Oed (as happens in sentences 5&6 in paragraph 1 and as you do on page 3) need to be smoother so your readers have an idea which one you’re talking about.

Paragraph 2 begins your narrative. Since you’re mixing what did happen with what you wished happened, you confuse you readers because they can’t keep the 2 straight. I’m sure there’s a way to pull off what you’re trying, that mix of stories. But maybe you want to describe your usual habits on Christmas Day, contrasting the usual with what was different that year.

The final paragraph is strong, particularly the “Carelesness and the lack of intelligence” sentence. What if this entire piece was focused on proving those ideas in a clear march through your narrative and Oed’s story, pointing to examples of carelessness, lack of intelligence, et. al. in your tales?

Paragraph 1 starts strong, but by sentence 4 it’s as if that’s just the first draft: run-on sentences, no detail, repeating yourself, little mistakes, all those things detract from the story. In order for your readers to care about you or Corrina, descriptions allow readers to picture and experience things. How can readers care if they can’t imagine what happened?

When you bring up Oed, it doesn’t make sense because there’s no reason for you to bring up that old play. There’re no transitions to signal your readers about why you make that comparison.

Good observations about all the clues you ignored make for a fair reflection. Adding detail so your readers can imagine all this happening, and even feel the emotions you felt that day, will make this stronger.

You’ve given no reason for your readers to understand why you’ve brought up Oed. It doesn’t make sense here for you to talk about that play because you’ve given no reason to.

Consider the narrative you’ve told. It’s bried, has little to no detail, and you don’t finish telling your story; you just stop telling it. You readers have no reason to care about your tale because you haven’t given any details that let them relate to or imagine it. Everything is vague and it seems unreal because of that. Your connection to Oed is incredibly brief and doesn’t reflect much consideration of the story or the assignment.

What if your readers isn’t familiar with Oedipus? Your references to the play don’t mean much, then. Without any transitions into your brief discussion of that play, your readers have no signal about why your bring Oed up. It doesn’t make sense to refer to that play because you haven’t given a reason to.

In your narrative, your characters don’t seem real since you’ve given no physical descriptions or even names. Because of that, your readers have no reason to care about your story, no way to picture the story, and no way to imagine the events. Details make stories come to life and allow readers to experience events through words.

A narration of a time you slacked off, or maybe when you realized you’d have to work hard in order to catch up, would make this come to life for your readers. Without that, this all feels like the reflection you’d have after your autobiographical event. If your readers don’t know you, this is all too vague to really have any meaning. Add to that all the mistakes and it looks like you wrote this in the last minute and without paying much attention.

Explain Oedipus’s warning and how he ignored it. I think you did it backwards (explaining his action, then the warning) and it’s not as effective and it doesn’t follow the same pattern you used to explain your ignoring of warnings. This would be stronger and a greater connection if there was symmetry between the 2 stories.

More details about your experience would help sort of set the stage. Since you only tell fragmented bits, your reader doesn’t have much of a feel for you, Richard, or your relationship. Without your reader being able to have that understanding, the rest of your reflections doesn’t matter or make sense. Be clear in describing your experience so that your readers can relate. It’s hard to relate to something vague and seemingly unreal. Details make things real.

Your reader can’t follow your narrative because you leave out so many details. Why was John sleeping over? Where was John sleeping over? Was he your boyfriend? Why were you so excited? How could you possibly have slept through it? If it was an honest mistake to sleep through, how good a friend was he that doesn’t accept your apology? And your factual inaccuracies about Oedipus immediately make your readers think that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Grammatical errors are all over the place here and they get in the way of your story. You need to tell a chronological string of events so that your readers can follow along. You also need to be sure of your facts in order for your readers to trust you.