ATAR Notes: Forum

VCE Stuff => VCE English Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE English Work Submission and Marking => Topic started by: LPadlan on October 25, 2017, 10:40:48 am

Title: Please mark my text response and analysis of argument
Post by: LPadlan on October 25, 2017, 10:40:48 am
If anyone has the time to provide constructive criticism it will be greatly appreciated!

“Jason, like Medea, is an admirable yet selfish individual”
-Jason is a great warrior who only truly cares for a royal status
-Jason’s acts of selfishness is due to reason and logic whilst Medea’s is due to her rage
-Both Jason and Medea portray the ideal strengths for their genders

Euripides’ epic tragedy “Medea” portrays admirable characters who due to their selfishness lose their moral instincts. In the play, it is due to Medea’s children’s father, Jason, whose selfish desire for royalty leads Medea to plot her sick selfish need for revenge. While Jason attempts to justify his selfishness by sympathizing with his children, he like Medea is both an admirable and selfish figure.
From the beginning of the play is it clearly stated that Jason is a brave accomplished warrior who is willing to do whatever it takes to become a royal. It is due to Pelius’ deception that leads Jason to take a step further which involves marrying Glauce “princess of Corinth” and the betrayal of Medea. This shows that Jason although is an admirable brave warrior, is greedy and selfish as he shows no sympathy or remorse for Medea who “seeks to please her husband in all she does”. These actions of Jason are what then cause Medea to show her selfishness due to her emotions. Through this, Euripides shows how Jason’s selfishness gives rise to the onset of Medea’s selfishness.

Medea and Jason not only reveal their plans, but give reasoning behind them. Euripides portrays Jason’s selfish acts as a product of reason and logic as Jason’s actions are due to his desire for his family to “live comfortably and not go without anything” whilst Medea’s selfishness is purely based on her anger due to Jason’s “deals in contraband love” resulting in Medea to have a “heart more murderous”. It is clearly portrayed in the play that Jason’s acts are due to his fatherly instincts to desire the need for a prosperous life for his children. It is Jason that takes it upon himself to accomplish this task by betraying Medea who was formerly a princess herself but ultimately exiled from Iolcus and marry Glauce, daughter of the king of Corinth, Creon. Thus providing a life where his sons are related to royal blood giving them privileges that will assist them to succeed. It is then shown that Medea’s acts of selfishness is due to her resentment for Jason, she is so blinded by anger that she plots to commit prolicide, as Medea states that it is only just that she will “take their life” since it is Medea who “gave them life”. This is all in order to accomplish her selfish desire to inflict pain on Jason, as it is Jason that “brought disgrace” to her by divorce. Through this Euripides conveys the different reasons for Jason and Medea’s selfishness.

Throughout the play, Medea and Jason are depicted to show the ideal desired strengths of genders. Medea shows women’s ability of independence and creativity as she does not seek approval from men and how she is “clever and controls her tongue”. Through Jason, men are portrayed to be brave and protective of their children, as Jason was not fearful of the danger’s to overcome In order to accomplish his task. It is due to these reasons that both characters are seen as admirable. Euripides portrays women, other than Medea to have no independence, always in large groups always needing to refute others ideas whilst in a group. Whilst men are portrayed to be non-confrontational and weak, shown through Creon who cannot stick to his instincts that Medea may cause “irreparable harm to [his] daughter” and thus letting her stay for an additional day ultimately leading to his demise. It is due to these portrayals that Euripides shows the uniqueness of Medea and Jason, they are admired to their rare strengths that are desired by others.

Ultimately, both Medea and Jason are admirable characters that are selfish for differing reasons. Jason’s selfish desires are derived from reason and logic whilst Medea’s selfish desires are derived from her resentment towards Jason. Throughout this play, Euripides shows the difference in reasoning for men and women.

The debate about millennials being lazy has been a hot topic since the exponential rise and development of technology such as smart phones. The term millennial is a term used to describe those who were born in the early 90’s and 2000’s. This opinion piece written in response to “The Me Me ME Generation” by Time Magazine is written by seventeen year old, high school student Shirrin Peppin, who contends in her piece “Millennials: Are We Really Just Lazy Kids?” that Millennials have plenty to offer and the laziness described by adults is a result of monotonous tasks. This piece primarily uses an indignant tone.

Peppin begins with a rhetoric: “are we really different from those born before the age of smart phones?” Implying the answer, no. This is used to highlight the memory bias and gullibility to have the tendency to blindly accept “what’s represented by the media”. Peppin contends that millennials are no different from those born in previous generations. This portrayal of previous generations being the same as “the most narcissistic, lazy, incompetent generation of all time” is intended to challenge the memory bias of previous generations by forcing the audience to think about and answer the question. Furthermore, Peppin’s repetition of phrases such as “morning band rehearsals” emphasises the idea that millennials have many responsibilities that causes a lot of stress, attempting to justify their preference to “binge-watching Game of Thrones”. This positions the reader to be considerate due to the fact they may have been in similar positions in their youth.

In addition, Peppin contends that games teach lessons that are applicable to real life. Through the use of an anecdotal story strengthened by exaggeration, she highlights how games teach lessons on “physics” and helps develop an “inquisitive mind”. This provokes a sense of agreement on readers who are uneducated on the topic of video games. Thus positioning a large population to side with the author. This piece is accompanied by an image depicting video games as “today’s means of refining motor skills and mastering new technologies” through the use of imagery, the author is looking to further exploit adults who are not informed about video games, through the combination of these techniques, the audience is positioned to support the author due to being uneducated about the topic.

Peppin acknowledges the differences in today’s economy and the past’s economy by the use of a cliché such as “back in my parent’s day”, providing a humorous outlook in how job prospects are much harder to obtain in today’s time due to the economy, in contrast to the past where you can “have a nice conversation with the owner, ask him for a job and get hired”. Through the use of this over simplistic generalisation, the author conveys the idea that it is due to the exponentially more difficult process and “unrealistic expectations” that millennials have such a high “unemployment rate”. In addition, Peppin uses appeal to justice, strengthened by repetition of phrases such as “intelligence”, “quick thinking” “creativity” and “bravado” to emphasise how millennials “shouldn’t be made to apologise for wanting the most out of life”. Peppin furthermore uses connotations such as “mainstream” to give rise to the idea that mainstream news only shows negativity and grossly misrepresents millennials.

The author’s indignation appeals to justice are designed to persuade previous generations that millennials are not lazy and there is a reason why unemployment rates for millennials are so high. Ultimately, by portraying millennials are intelligent and hardworking, the author seeks to bring about a change in the memory biases of previous generations.
Title: Re: Please mark my text response and analysis of argument
Post by: zofromuxo on October 25, 2017, 12:02:37 pm
Disclaimer
It has been a year since I last read Medea since I'm a little rusty on the depth needed and the evidence as well. So my feedback is very general, you'll most likely need either other users doing Medea and/or the Moderators to mark them to give you more detailed advice & feedback.
I have attached my feedback, the red is the corrections I have made.
Title: Re: Please mark my text response and analysis of argument
Post by: LPadlan on October 26, 2017, 02:57:00 pm
Big thanks to zofrumuxo for the advice. I have reread medea and have attempted to add more metalanguage relevant to Medea and quotes. If anyone can give me any constructive criticism it will be greatly appreciated. This piece consists of 553 words(not including the plan or prompt) which is half the recommended word count.

“Medea gets away with murder in the play-but is Euripides on her side? Is this how you see the play?”
-Aegeus a male character sympathises for Medea in his disbelief that Jason would “do something that shameful” even offering Medea accommodation in Athens
-Medea is the protagonist of the play, throughout the play there are continuous attempts to garner sympathy for Medea.
-Euripides describes Medea’s previous atrocities such as killing Pelias “by the hands of his own daughters” but still continues to sympathise with Medea by implementing dialogue that portrays Medea as someone who loves her children.

Euripides’ epic tragedy “Medea” depicts the protagonist Medea as a woman who is willing to sacrifice her relationships with others in order to satisfy her husband Jason. After Jason breaks his oath, Medea plots to commit prolicide. Despite this, Euripides continues to garner sympathy for Medea by implementing a male figure and a back story in an attempt to justify her actions. Throughout the play Euripides focuses on justifying Medea’s actions.

From the very beginning of the play, it is clearly stated that Medea’s current state of mind is a by-product of Jason’s “criminal behaviour”. Throughout the dialogue, characters such as the nurse praise Medea, stating that she “seeks to please her husband in all she does” whilst Jason is portrayed to be “proving a traitor”. By implementing this dialogue, Euripides demonstrates his attempt to garner sympathy from the audience. This is done by portraying Jason, the antagonist of the play in such a way that garners despise from the audience. The implementation of this prologue is an attempt to justify Medea’s future actions throughout the play. In this way, Euripides conveys how Medea’s future actions are due to Jason’s doing.

Furthermore, Aegeus King of Athens if shown to sympathise with Medea, as he is in disbelief that Jason would “do something that shameful” thus resulting in Aegeus offering Medea residence in Athens. Through the implementation of an important high ranking male figure, Euripides continues to garner support for Medea, as even someone who is of the same gender as Jason gives sympathy to Medea. This is also an attempt by Euripides to disprove the ideology that “no man cares for his neighbour more than himself” which is a statement generalising men to be selfish individuals. By doing this Euripides disapproves of any of Jason’s future attempts to justify his actions as throughout the play Jason repeatedly states that his actions are due to his desire for him and his sons to become part of royalty, which shows his selfishness as he shows no remorse or consideration for Medea’s wellbeing or concerns. By doing this Euripides exudes his idea that a man caring more about himself is not a valid reason for betrayal, but it is due to that man’s morals. This depicts Jason to be a man who is lacking a sense of morality.

Even after Medea self-confesses her atrocities such as tricking Pelias’s daughters to kill him in revenge for Jason, Euripides still sympathises with Medea. Medea is portrayed to be a “woman born to sorrow” by showing that even though Medea “seeks to please her husband in all she does” ultimately she is disgraced as “divorce brings disgrace upon a woman”. Through the use of these dialogues Euripides contends that Medea was a loyal life who wanted nothing but the best for her husband, but Jason is ungrateful, selfish and traitorous. Furthermore, through the loyalty of Medea to Jason, Euripides highlights Medea’s kind heart and should not be blamed for her future actions.

Ultimately, Euripides sympathises with Medea throughout the play by portraying her character as someone who is loyal and will sacrifice herself to assist in achieving Jason’s dreams. Furthermore, the character of Jason was portrayed to be a traitor who has no morals. Through this play, Euripides attempts to validate Medea’s emotions which consequently lead to atrocious acts.
Title: Re: Please mark my text response and analysis of argument
Post by: plsbegentle on October 26, 2017, 03:40:37 pm
As i haven't read Medea, i'll just briefly add my opinion. Just from reading your paragraphs, you need more textual evidence to support what your saying, especially in your body paragraphs, they are so short with only a few quotes and a bit of analysis.  Also, it feels like your paragraphs are following a formula, i.e you give a quote, give the implications behind it and repeat that process again.

My biggest problem, is your introduction, where is your contention? You went to the conventional method of listing the title and the author and went straight to signposting your arguments and didn't bother with a contention?! By the end of the introduction, I should be able to clearly identify your contention, if assessors read that, it doesn't give a good impression. Also, your conclusion,a conclusion is suppose to wrap up the core or central message of the text with reference to the ideas raised by the prompt,from the way you've written it, it sounds like you are still presenting arguments which should be in your body paragraphs. But this should be the least of your worries now. Your first priority is to fix your introduction and more textual evidence and analysis.

 
Title: Re: Please mark my text response and analysis of argument
Post by: zofromuxo on October 26, 2017, 05:10:17 pm
I can do another through breakdown of your piece LPadlain, if you want.
Title: Re: Please mark my text response and analysis of argument
Post by: LPadlan on October 26, 2017, 07:50:53 pm
Quote from: zofromuxo on October 26, 2017, 05:10:17 pm
I can do another through breakdown of your piece LPadlain, if you want.
Yes please
Title: Re: Please mark my text response and analysis of argument
Post by: LPadlan on October 26, 2017, 08:40:15 pm
Quote from: plsbegentle on October 26, 2017, 03:40:37 pm
As i haven't read Medea, i'll just briefly add my opinion. Just from reading your paragraphs, you need more textual evidence to support what your saying, especially in your body paragraphs, they are so short with only a few quotes and a bit of analysis.  Also, it feels like your paragraphs are following a formula, i.e you give a quote, give the implications behind it and repeat that process again.

My biggest problem, is your introduction, where is your contention? You went to the conventional method of listing the title and the author and went straight to signposting your arguments and didn't bother with a contention?! By the end of the introduction, I should be able to clearly identify your contention, if assessors read that, it doesn't give a good impression. Also, your conclusion,a conclusion is suppose to wrap up the core or central message of the text with reference to the ideas raised by the prompt,from the way you've written it, it sounds like you are still presenting arguments which should be in your body paragraphs. But this should be the least of your worries now. Your first priority is to fix your introduction and more textual evidence and analysis.

 

Hey, thanks for the advice and you're right about my body paragraphs following a formula(TEEL) is it possible you could give me advice on how to structure my body paragraphs? I will attempt to improve my introduction and conclusion in my upcoming practice essays. Thanks for the advice
Title: Re: Please mark my text response and analysis of argument
Post by: zofromuxo on October 27, 2017, 04:26:41 pm
Here is my breakdown, I hope the feedback helps you.
Title: Re: Please mark my text response and analysis of argument
Post by: LPadlan on October 28, 2017, 08:34:26 pm
Thanks again to zofromuxo for the feedback and resources provided. I have attempted to implement a wider vocabulary and more explanations on the evidence. I will continue to utilize the resources on Medea.If you're able to provide feedback again, i will be extremely appreciative! Nevertheless, if anyone can give me constructive criticism it will be greatly appreciated. 748 words- an improvement, but still not enough.
Edit: I only just saw the message you sent me about the introduction. I'll implement it in future essays

“Medea never really cares for anyone. She uses all those she comes into contact with as pawns in her deadly game”. Do you agree?
Medea was truly infatuated with Jason. She assisted Jason in achieving his goals in return for marriage
Medea loves her children. It is only due to her blind passion to achieve vengeance upon Jason that betrays and overcomes her motherly instincts resulting in prolicide.
Jason never really cares for anyone. He only cares for people who can benefit his cause at that time.



Euripides epic tragedy “Medea” depicts a once helpful princess of a nation turned into a vile, grief stricken outsider as a result of her blind passion and all-consuming love for Jason. It was after learning of Jason’s infidelity that Medea starts to concoct a way to garner revenge upon Jason. While in the play, she can be described as shrewd, she is inherently righteous whose moral and motherly instincts are inversed due to her blind passion for vengeance upon Jason. Medea does truly care for people but, revenge is of greater importance to her.

    From the beginning it can be concluded that Medea cared deeply for Jason. Medea’s outcries of lamentation show she truly felt sabotaged by his betrayal. For example, her cries of spite towards her children and husband “I want you to die along with your father” shows the result of her once all-consuming love for Jason, as being betrayed gave rise to an all-consuming hate towards Jason. When she laments this, it is not because of her hatred towards the children, but a result of her maternal instinct overcome by resentment. Subsequently, being described as a wife who sought to “please her husband in all she does” announces her character prior to being sabotaged. Medea went through great lengths and extremities in order to assist Jason and the Argonauts in their quest for the “golden fleece”. Committing the act of taking her “brother’s life” was a measure to ensure Jason’s escape. Medea’s claim that when a woman is wronged in love “nothing has a hurt more murderous” conveys the thought that her murderous intents is a consequence of being betrayed when in love. Further suggesting that her feelings were real. Through this, the playwright seems to suggest that her actions were in order to contribute to Jason’s prosperity or a result of being betrayed by someone who she loved thus showing she truly cared.

In addition to having a deep love for Jason, the protagonist cherished her children intensely. Medea’s plan to kill her offspring in order to gain complete revenge upon her husband was almost thwarted due to her motherly instincts but, ultimately overrun by the thought of being a “laughing stock” for her enemies and to “suffer mockery” is not something “[Medea] will tolerate”.  The protagonist’s love for her offspring was nearly strong enough for the abandonment of plans to complete revenge upon the man who is the sole reason that she is in her current predicament. Furthermore, Medea is hesitant “this stubborn heart of mine” and proclaims that killing the children will cause “twice as much suffering”. When she claims this, it is implied that the loss of her offspring is double to the sorrow caused by Jason’s treachery. Suggesting that, the pain of losing her children is of greater importance compared to the pain endured to giving your undivided attention to someone to ultimately be betrayed. Through this, Euripides conveys how Medea’s love for her children shows that she truly cares for them.

Jason is the character who does not really care for anyone. Jason’s character portrays a manipulator due to his continuous desire to pursue the throne. Glauce is a catalyst for him to become king of Corinth and additionally provide a life where they can “live comfortably and not go without anything”. It was also stated that pursuing marriage with Glauce was due to his desire to become king, not due to love “if I told you would you have agreed?” With these statements, Jason explores the idea that it is due to reason and logic that his actions are performed. The terms reason and logic and emotion are contrasting of each other thus suggesting Jason’s lack of affection. Subsequently, Medea’s significance lasted only for his pursuit to become king of Colchis. Upon exile, Medea is no longer a character of significance ultimately betraying her for “a princess’ bed”. It is through these events that the author attempts to position the audience to express contempt towards the antagonist as he clearly shows a lack of empathy.

Ultimately, Medea throughout the play has a multitude where empathy is shown towards her children. Due to her emotional nature, it is unreasonable to claim that she never truly cared for anyone. The antagonist Jason is the character that lacks empathy for others, a man of primarily reason and logic is also a man who lacks emotion. Through this narrative, Euripides reveals the strong emotions and connection a woman has with her children and husband.
Title: Re: Please mark my text response and analysis of argument
Post by: LPadlan on October 29, 2017, 05:29:26 pm
Can someone please give me constructive criticism on my Language analysis? Thanks

Following the ever-growing concerns on the increased deterioration rates of biodiversity, Professor Chris Lee performs his speech entitled “Taking stock” at the International Biodiversity Conference 2010, held in Nagoya, Japan with a tone of mild distress. Lee declares his concerns about the continuous deterioration of biodiversity. The piece further brings attention to the lack of humanitarian effort performed by national leaders in an attempt to encourage leaders of biodiversity to believe in their knowledge and take immediate action. This piece was also accompanied by a photorealistic image depicting two hands caressing the Earth which invites the audience to join and take care of the Earth.

   Lee begins his speech by asserting the horrors to come as a consequence of the current negligence. Through the use of powerful imagery, the author initially utilises a pleasing tone to depict Earth as “lush” with “clear rivers” lowering the content limitations of the audience. It is due to the sudden shift to a menacing tone where the audience imagines a “scorched Earth” where lifeforms are “groping for life”. By doing this, Lee positions those who are slow getting into action to be more likely to initiate a change in behaviour. Simultaneously, Lee contends the impending “uninhabitable Earth” by referring to the audience as his “colleagues”. By doing this, Lee appeals to the listener’s group loyalty which in turn stimulates a subconscious trigger to adhere with the overall contention. Furthermore, this positions the audience to feel a magnified attachment towards the idea portrayed by Lee.

  In addition to highlighting the impending dangers of negligence, Lee contends that it is due to “reckless actions” of humans that is to be held accountable for the loss of “35% of mangroves, 40% of forests and 50% of wetlands”. Through the implementation of statistics in ascending order, Lee attempts to invite the audience to take initiative by appealing to their humanitarian instincts. The leaders are thus positioned to feel a fierce desire for the need to scheme a drastic reduction in the ever-growing statistics as a result of their recklessness. Despite this, Lee continues to exploit statistics and facts to further nourish his previous argument. Lee promotes the “804” species extinct and how “38%” of wildlife are threatened as a result of maltreatment of the environment. Lee’s continuous usage of facts and statistics promotes feelings from the audience by empathising with the horror of exponential numbers of animals approaching extinction. Through this, Lee intends to position his colleagues to feel a sense of disgrace, as they are the most knowledgeable about the crisis. Moreover, Lee strengthens his argument by mocking “deniers” who refuse to accept the common literature but instead claim this mass-scale extinction is due to “natural change”. The word denier with its connotations of imbecile and ignorance seems to suggest part of the author’s attempts to exclude these individuals. By portraying deniers as a separate and foolish entity, Lee attempts to position the audience to feel comical about the denial of facts by deniers thus further strengthening his position.

   The final slide is accompanied by a photorealistic image of a hand gently caressing the Earth. It is by the usage of this picture of a hand facing to the side that the speaker is attempting to convey the idea that people are encouraged to join the circle. This encourages the audience to feel obliged to unite together and take great care of this world as the image contains a baby-like figure of Earth, asserting the idea that the audience is responsible f or the prospering of the Earth. The most “educated generation” conveys the idea that there is “no excuse for inaction”. Furthermore, Lee implements the usage of repetition and inclusive language, for example “what have you and your country actually done”? By doing this, Lee is attempting to consolidate the idea that they are all part of this crisis thus positioning the audience to take responsibility for their own doings.

Concluding his speech, Lee implements that it is “time for serious action” to motivate and entice the audience in order to leave a lasting effect. It is by ending his speech like this aims to ingrain a sense of unity and desire to finally take action
Title: Re: Please mark my text response and analysis of argument
Post by: zofromuxo on October 29, 2017, 07:49:59 pm
Quote from: LPadlan on October 28, 2017, 08:34:26 pm
Thanks again to zofromuxo for the feedback and resources provided. I have attempted to implement a wider vocabulary and more explanations on the evidence. I will continue to utilize the resources on Medea.If you're able to provide feedback again, i will be extremely appreciative! Nevertheless, if anyone can give me constructive criticism it will be greatly appreciated. 748 words- an improvement, but still not enough.
Edit: I only just saw the message you sent me about the introduction. I'll implement it in future essays

“Medea never really cares for anyone. She uses all those she comes into contact with as pawns in her deadly game”. Do you agree?
Medea was truly infatuated with Jason. She assisted Jason in achieving his goals in return for marriage
Medea loves her children. It is only due to her blind passion to achieve vengeance upon Jason that betrays and overcomes her motherly instincts resulting in prolicide.
Jason never really cares for anyone. He only cares for people who can benefit his cause at that time.



Euripides epic tragedy “Medea” depicts a once helpful princess of a nation turned into a vile, grief stricken outsider as a result of her blind passion and all-consuming love for Jason. It was after learning of Jason’s infidelity that Medea starts to concoct a way to garner revenge upon Jason. While in the play, she can be described as shrewd, she is inherently righteous whose moral and motherly instincts are inversed due to her blind passion for vengeance upon Jason. Medea does truly care for people but, revenge is of greater importance to her.

    From the beginning it can be concluded that Medea cared deeply for Jason. Medea’s outcries of lamentation show she truly felt sabotaged by his betrayal. For example, her cries of spite towards her children and husband “I want you to die along with your father” shows the result of her once all-consuming love for Jason, as being betrayed gave rise to an all-consuming hate towards Jason. When she laments this, it is not because of her hatred towards the children, but a result of her maternal instinct overcome by resentment. Subsequently, being described as a wife who sought to “please her husband in all she does” announces her character prior to being sabotaged. Medea went through great lengths and extremities in order to assist Jason and the Argonauts in their quest for the “golden fleece”. Committing the act of taking her “brother’s life” was a measure to ensure Jason’s escape. Medea’s claim that when a woman is wronged in love “nothing has a hurt more murderous” conveys the thought that her murderous intents is a consequence of being betrayed when in love. Further suggesting that her feelings were real. Through this, the playwright seems to suggest that her actions were in order to contribute to Jason’s prosperity or a result of being betrayed by someone who she loved thus showing she truly cared.

In addition to having a deep love for Jason, the protagonist cherished her children intensely. Medea’s plan to kill her offspring in order to gain complete revenge upon her husband was almost thwarted due to her motherly instincts but, ultimately overrun by the thought of being a “laughing stock” for her enemies and to “suffer mockery” is not something “[Medea] will tolerate”.  The protagonist’s love for her offspring was nearly strong enough for the abandonment of plans to complete revenge upon the man who is the sole reason that she is in her current predicament. Furthermore, Medea is hesitant “this stubborn heart of mine” and proclaims that killing the children will cause “twice as much suffering”. When she claims this, it is implied that the loss of her offspring is double to the sorrow caused by Jason’s treachery. Suggesting that, the pain of losing her children is of greater importance compared to the pain endured to giving your undivided attention to someone to ultimately be betrayed. Through this, Euripides conveys how Medea’s love for her children shows that she truly cares for them.

Jason is the character who does not really care for anyone. Jason’s character portrays a manipulator due to his continuous desire to pursue the throne. Glauce is a catalyst for him to become king of Corinth and additionally provide a life where they can “live comfortably and not go without anything”. It was also stated that pursuing marriage with Glauce was due to his desire to become king, not due to love “if I told you would you have agreed?” With these statements, Jason explores the idea that it is due to reason and logic that his actions are performed. The terms reason and logic and emotion are contrasting of each other thus suggesting Jason’s lack of affection. Subsequently, Medea’s significance lasted only for his pursuit to become king of Colchis. Upon exile, Medea is no longer a character of significance ultimately betraying her for “a princess’ bed”. It is through these events that the author attempts to position the audience to express contempt towards the antagonist as he clearly shows a lack of empathy.

Ultimately, Medea throughout the play has a multitude where empathy is shown towards her children. Due to her emotional nature, it is unreasonable to claim that she never truly cared for anyone. The antagonist Jason is the character that lacks empathy for others, a man of primarily reason and logic is also a man who lacks emotion. Through this narrative, Euripides reveals the strong emotions and connection a woman has with her children and husband.

From the first essay you submitted to this, I can see some clear improvements from it. So good job on that LPadlan.