Overall, it is decent. Some parts are an 8/10 others are more like a 5, so overall I'm giving it a 6.5. You need to work on making things clear. You have good vocab and that really helps you but sometimes you just lose me completely. Never ever ever forget the topic either!! Keep coming back to it and back to it throughout the piece, you need to write to the prompt! I feel like this piece lacks a bit on basic essay conventions, revise how to write an into/topic sentences.
David Malouf’s Ransom, a take on Homer’s Iliad, explores the contradictory concept of being both something and nothing. maybe make this relate a little more to the prompt? Faithful ,this is, to the case of Achilles and Priam.kind of a little bit awkward phrasing here? not super clear, and stll haven't addressed the prompt Malouf casts two very different humans, juxtaposed to this is the existence of a common ground between the two characters that, ultimately, extinguishes formidable differences i'd say this is a little too complicated wording and maybe a little flowery? Maybe: 'Malouf casts two very different persons, but their similarities despite this indicate that that one is capable of overcoming their difference . This common ground brings about healing in its fulfilment and realisation of humanity. However, lacking the participation of Somax and the gods, that act as a guide to said common ground, healing couldn't be possible, then too, neither that of affinity and unity of two ‘darkly divided’ individuals. confused here, Somax lacks participating? just really confused by this sentence. i also don't know to what extent you agree with the topic, so make sure you put that in the intro
Malouf primarily establishes two characters that are ‘darkly divided’, this acknowledges that no two people are the same, essentially a cross section of every human being. This creates applicability, to an entire race, of the lessons observed. Malouf’s introduction of Achilles serves to abolish preconceived connotations of Achilles, an initial illustration of ‘the true Achilles’, ‘a fighter, but when he is not fighting he is a farmer’. The following events, of Patroclus’ and Hector’s deaths, allow Malouf to consider three different grieving processes. Priam focusses on spiritual healing, by neglecting his body, fasting for ‘nine nights’. Somax’s stance is rational and concise, ‘the worst happens, and then it’s done. The fleas go on biting. The sun comes up again, ’ found in his lack of abuse towards Beauty, in response to her role in his son’s death. Finally Achilles grief is that which Malouf believes to be most common; rage, in Achilles’ case barbaric rage. Without no one anyone to receive consolidation Achilles finds his anger pent up, ‘his tears fall inwards’, stemming from an absence of mother, father and, recently, brother. These combined, invite the role of catharsis, an intense emotional release. Predominately found in Achilles’ killing of Hector, however not merely Hector but Achilles himself, as Hector portrayed Achilles’ ‘shadow’. As self loathing, resent and guilt are instilled in not only Hector but Achilles towards himself, as Achilles blames himself as much, if not more than Hector. Division extends to physiological elements as well. Priam is the passive, unspoken, unchanging, statue like Trojan king. Achilles is a deadly warrior who leads by example, supposedly unchanged by death. Simply put; a warrior, and a king. Somax is a man, to achieve unity they must focus on common ground both have suffered painful loses and, more importantly, are both men, humans. Mutually human is Malouf’s message thus far. gets a little lost, I feel like you go a bit off topic and then all of a sudden link it back. Make more consistent links throughout the piece.
Mutuality or common ground exists. However, a guide is needed to find such an understanding. Somax; the ‘ordinary man’. Although the ultimate similarity is humanism other affinities exist.these sentences just structurally don't work. re-read them and i'm sure you'll see what i mean Primarily that of figurative death, both Achilles and Priam figuratively die twice throughout Ransom. Priam firstly as Podarces and secondly as king priam, conceived then after as Priam the man really cool idea of Priam dying!. Achilles dies as Patroclus as he’s ‘half himself’ and secondly as Hector both in Achilles’ armour, a ‘shadow of himself’, Achilles is birthed as ‘the true Achilles’, after learning what Priam has learned from Somax. So too do they both accept their death, ‘[to the] earth [they] will return’. Aside from these similarities they are both humans, men at that. to kill their warrior and king self they can become ‘man’ their true selves. To recognise this affinity the gods, specifically Iris, assign Somax to nurture Priam, newly born from the citadel of Troy, the tenderness of a new born instilled into Priam so too that impressionability of children. Malouf makes direct reference to Priam’s humanism in the fish of the river in which are unaware of whose feet are that of a kings or that of a carter. This is the fact that Priam is taught. The journey of this learning, facilitated by the gods, Iris and Hermes, and Somax is crucial to what Malouf feels one should take from the Iliad. love this paragraph but the end loses it. i think get rid of the bit about Somax, and instead talk about Somax birthing Priam as there is heavy religious imagery of the birth of Priam in the river, maybe that's what you're trying to do but make it more explicit.
Malouf also outlines an interesting theory regarding the gods; chance. topic sentence? what does this have to do with the topic? Moreover, Ransom incapsulates, the blasphemous ideal that, man possess an ability to change a course of events. Although some are set in stone, particularly Achilles’ and Priam’s, fated, death. This humanly ability results in the gods participation in correcting Achilles’ state of affairs. Priam blames the gods, but learns that Hector’s death and the desecration of his body isn't the will of the gods, merely an uncontrollable event, this combined with Iris’ vision, initiates his action to rectify the situation. Also known as deus ex machina, god in machine, Malouf uses this technique, however not in its conventional way, the gods are unable to correct the situation and can only provide the protagonist, Priam, the opportunity to rectify the state of affairs.so are you saying refusal of gods allowed for self-healing? make more clear This action leads Priam to the affinity he shares with Achilles. Therefore, Malouf not only presents the idea that the gods aren’t all powerful, that chance does exist and is able to shape the outcome of events. Moreover, Malouf illustrates that the gods aren't aware of human emotions, such as Achilles’ animalistic rage, Priam’s willingness to sacrifice eating for nine days, Ransom is Malouf defying the gods, an interesting lesson in which he believes is an observation one can draw from the Iliad. you need to make this paragraph link better with the prompt
David Malouf’s Ransom shows a real faith in humanity, man’s ability to discover affinity, man’s ability to shape fate, destiny and course of events. These ideals are made applicable to everybody by Malouf’s choice of Achilles and Priam, two ‘darkly divided’ individuals, thus Priam’s quest of compassion and atonement redeems not only himself, but both men. And this is what Malouf believes to be the lesson one should draw from the iliad.
Home
Help
Search
Login
