novel, or play, and, considering Barthes’ observation, write an essay in which you analyze a
central question the work raises and the extent to which it offers answers. Explain how the
author’s treatment of this question affects your understanding of the work as a whole. Avoid
mere plot summary.
Response 1:
Right off the bat, the first sentence is a little awkward and unnecessary. Other than that, the introductory paragraph does a pretty good job of answering the prompt. The first body paragraph does a good job of drawing on textual evidence and then connecting it back to the prompt. However, the second body paragraph kind of strays away from the point that the author is trying to make. It's also slightly distracting that the author spelled "lesson" as "lessen" more than once. The conclusion does a nice job of wrapping up the essay and even brings in some new information. Overall, this seems to be a pretty well informed essay and the author does not depend on plot summary too much. This essay deserves the 8 it received. It’s not the best essay ever written, but it’s nowhere near the worst. Good in almost every sense, but not quite great.Response 2:
After a glance at this essay, it seems as if the writer struggled a little or did not plan sufficiently because there is a lot of crossing out (although the readers are just supposed to ignore that). The intro is pretty lacking and even repeats two forms of the same word in a single sentence (explores and exploring). However, the author did a pretty good job of identifying the central question of the work. The first body paragraph seems pretty unnecessary and merely points to a few plot points. The syntax throughout the essay is a little confusing and often draws away from the point the author is trying to make. There are also a few distracting grammatical errors as well. The author does not even attempt to discuss the question the prompt is asking until the final paragraph in which the author begins to redeem him or herself, but then ruins this by using first person language. Although the author seems to have some understanding of the work, this essay is severely lacking in its analysis.
Response 3:
It seems like this student was running out of time once he or she got to this prompt because the essay is only two longish paragraphs. However, it seems like the author has a relatively good understanding of the prompt and how to answer it. The introduction seems to provide a basis for a quality essay, but the author was not able to follow through. The second paragraph is awkwardly worded and difficult to follow. Since the essay is so short, the author was not able to analyze the extent to which the work offers answers. Overall, this is pretty poor. The author clearly needed more time to write it. This essay is completely deserving of a 3. It has a considerable lack of analysis and just content in general, as it is really short. With more time, it could probably be great, but as it is now, it is not.
You seem to have a good understanding of how these essays need to be structured, and what to look for in them. I agree with pretty much every point you made. I really like how with the third response you didn't just throw out that it was short and didn't have enough support. You explained the good and the bad, the potential and the downfall. If I were that student, I would be pretty appreciative of the way you tried to help. I don't think there is much else to add with this type of post. Well done.
ReplyDeleteHi Alex,
ReplyDeleteAgain great job, not much I can add to this, you talked about the good and the bad of each essay and gave them some good tips on what to improve upon. The only thing I think you forgot to do is give the second essay a score like you did with the other 2.