Thanks for the advice HLS and Seth! Will check out these resources
I suppose I'm just worried about over-complicating the essay. The only way I would challenge this prompt is by talking about the way Medea is capable of exhibiting logic and reason, as well as excessive passion. But at the same time, I don't think that she achieves moderation- which is getting towards my MC (that the principle of sophrosyne ought to be followed to prevent self-destruction). How can I make these arguments without contradicting myself?
Or could I just say that:
Yes: 'Medea' is about the extremes of human emotions
But: The play is also a warning to find a balance between two extremes
Would that satisfy a qualifier? I'm not entirely sure.
Personally, I think that would be perfectly fine. You just need to provide enough evidence to support your arguments. Medea, believe it or not, does exhibit reasoning as she, in her moral anguish, justifies the premature demise of her children (you can take this the other way around as well! Remember: you are never wrong in English). I don't really think you would be contradicting yourself if you don't remain quite black and white throughout your piece (I can be wrong here, if so, please do specify why you think you might be contradicting yourself).
How can i stop myself from reppetition in text response essays?
Sample is attached below
I skimmed over your piece (do note that I have never read the text before), and found that you are repeating Isobel's childhood and the theme of isolation a lot. What I would suggest is breaking your prompt into key ideas, and then explore them by analysing your text multiple times. Even if your prompt focuses on one key theme, you can still create several different ideas from it (try to think differently from everyone, and view the text from a different perspective).
Also, using higher standard vocabulary may eliminate such repetition.
Hi all,
For this prompt:
'In Medea, there are no heroes, only victims.' Do. you agree.
My contention is:
Despite the absence of a clearly defined hero, Euripides 'Medea' presents characters who exhibit heroic qualities but are ultimately victims to their own fatal flaws.
Could someone please give me some advice.
From following after your contention, I believe you can go on talking about how no one in the end was really were satisfied (especially Jason and Medea), as everyone did pay the price (more Jason than Medea) for their misdeeds (Medea didn't really get punished, but she did lose a lot in the end). You should also prove why there aren't any heroes in 'Medea', rather than just exploring how each of the characters were victim to their own political ambition/ passion (etc...), as you should be addressing every part of the prompt (summary of prompt: first part: why there aren't any heroes in 'Medea', second part: why are there victims). I also think you can also explore how Medea's innocent children were victim to such a horrible filicide, as it would show that you understand the text quite thoroughly. To further this, you can also talk about Euripides insertion of the theme of patriarchal abandonment, as Jason abandons his children to fulfil his ambition (do make sure you relate this back to the prompt, otherwise you can easily go on a tangent and lose marks for this), and then relate all this to how both Jason and Medea can be classified as villains rather than heroes.
Do you really need to read your texts more than once in unit 1/2 english
Well, if you want to get different ideas from the rest of your cohort, I would suggest reading and then analysing your text to find helpful quotes, metalanguage etc...