Hannah Kent’s novel, Burial Rites, develops and reimagines the story of Iceland’s last executed prisoner, Agnes Magnusdottir, through primary records from the nineteenth century and Kent’s own perspective through Agnes’ first person narrative ’through Kent’s perspective through Agnes’ perspective’ sounds a bit clumsy. Although Agnes’ recollection of her life events depicts negative character values as being one and the same as a sinister state of human nature, not quite clear what you mean here Burial Rites suggests that the faults of a few should not be generalized as the faults of the many. neatly expressed, a clear and contention that doesn't just repeat the prompt 
The constant chronicles recalled by Agnes highlights the depth of inhumanity in mankind. However, Kent ensures a division is made nice reference to author’s intentions between the dark-side of humankind and the less ideal traits held by a few characters that repeats what you just said in different words). Despite the negativity and brutality that permeates the journey of the protagonist, characters within Burial Rites demonstrate great civility in response to herself and her accounts. You could be a tad more specific about which characters you’re talking about and what features they show. So there’s nothing particularly wrong in your intro or anything, just on first reading it ‘feels’ a bit like you haven’t fleshed the prompt out thoroughly – there's lots of generalised-sounding words like 'a few characters' and 'the less ideal traits'. I’ll see what I think when I read the rest, but remember, the examiner is just going to read the intro and get a massive first impression without having checked what the rest of your essay is like!
Agnes’ recital of her life and its difficulties displays a depth of inhumanity in mankind. The protagonist is portrayed as having a harsh upbringing, “lugged along in the arms of a common mother”, until it came that they were separated and she was abandoned. Due to the decisions her maternal parent made, Agnes is born with a reputation, unable to outlive the “mistake” she was in “this valley”, this condemnation of behaviours that she was not responsible for skewing her perceptions of others actions, twisting her storytelling to highlight the negative aspects. run-on sentence here; split it up, so you have a new sentence with ‘This condemnation of behaviours that she was not responsible for skews her perceptions of others’ actions…’ The condemned believes that she will be viewed as “the whore, the madwoman, the female dripping blood into the grass,” Kent displaying the judgement and thus the harshness of mankind, viewing the woman as just the result of rumours and wives tales. Also a victim of abuse and a victim of class, Agnes was forced stick to present tense at all times to make decisions of whether “to let a farmer up her skirts” or to “find herself homeless in the snow,” the cruelty of the situation due to the lack of respect for a woman and her body placing the reader to view Kent’s ceaseless narrative of Agnes’ life as a bleak anecdote for compassionless human nature. Sentence structure again. In your sentences, you’re going: “>piece of evidence<, verb-ing the reader to…” That’s a great structure except that it doesn’t work with such long sentences. Instead, it could look like this: Also a victim of abuse and a victim of class, Agnes was forced to make decisions of whether “to let a farmer up her skirts” or to “find herself homeless in the snow”. The cruelty of the situation due to the lack of respect for a woman and her body places the reader to view Kent’s ceaseless narrative of Agnes’ life as a bleak anecdote for compassionless human nature. See if you find the problem in other sentences and fix it up; if you’re not quite sure, get back to me! Burial Rites depiction of the protagonist’s life portrays the darker aspects of humanity. Try linking this last sentence with the sentence before so it flows smoothly.
by the way, I like the way you’re linking to both Kent and the audience throughout; keep it up!
Throughout Burial Rites a distinction is made between poor character traits and a darkness in human nature. you could express this much more clearly; what are you trying to say? That even when there are faults, there’s also good too? Deeply superstitious characters in the novel are often those who share unorthodox views for the nineteenth century again can’t immediately see the relevance of that to what you’re arguing; you’ll have to step your logic out for me, I’m a bit slow (and the examiners are too)! 
, Natan believing that “the flaw in the character…makes a person”. Whilst described as cruel, Natan is also displayed as intelligent and “creatures should be loved for their wisdom if not for their kindness,” Kent implying that lack of one trait can be made up for with abundance of another, suggesting that a person cannot be void of good and that each individual can have faults in different areas of their character. At the trial of the murderess, the inquisitors searched “for guilt like berries on a bush.” this just jumps straight into the next piece of evidence without a linking word or other smooth transition; picture it like you’re driving a car, trying to make the stops and starts and turns as smooth as possible without jerking the passengers. You’re a chauffeur driving some VIPs, and boy, those examiners will get annoyed if you start jerking them between pieces of evidence without warning! The author compares the questioning parties with “plucking…like birds” at Agnes’ testimony, this simile encouraging the reader to see them as animals who are merely behaving in a way that is instinctual and for their species survival, separating their actions from malicious intent. nice insight, good metalanguage and analysis! Although it is through Agnes that we see most events unfold what is the relevance of that?, the novel indicates that the nastier behaviour of some individuals is not reflective and the human species.
Despite the negativity, better characteristics of humankind are displayed in some groups in response to Agnes’ chronicles. like the intro, if you were a bit more specific, this would sound deeper and more directed: Yet despite the negativity, Kent reveals that humans still have the capacity for compassion and innocence. (this mentions specific traits and avoided saying things-that-sound-vague-and-generalised like ‘better characteristics’ and ‘in some groups’) Although the tales of the protagonist are centred on the difficulties of Agnes’ life, Steina recalls a time where her she and Lauga “sucked eggs” by the road gifted by Agnes when passing. Despite not being privy to the darkness that shrouded the condemned’s years, Steina pleads that “she was our age once” as an appeal to gain sympathy for her. Kent’s association of this and the suggestion of a petition for a pardon This suggests that people are not innately judgmental and harsh; many are innocent and naïve and are willing to offer help to those that they perceive need it. Other characters develop compassion once hearing Agnes’ merciless recollection, Margret addressing the murderess as “[her] girl” in some of her last moments, positioning the reader to believe that even the harshest critics of someone can have views changed through communication and storytelling, Agnes’ honesty softening Margret’s resolve to be angry over having her held in her home. you could go a bit deeper into this; what does her calling her ‘her girl’ (motherliness etc.) suggest about human nature? Delve more! Agnes’ Magnusdottir’s life and death is not a span of only cruelty, some members of the community addressing her with kindness and heart once meeting the infamous woman.
You could generally try to be a bit briefer/sharper/more concise in this paragraph, and then instead dig deeper into analysis, and add in an example or two more.
e.g. a more concise version of the Margret part could be: Similarly, Margret’s bitterness towards Agnes is softened through her storytelling and honesty, with Margret finally calling her ‘[her] girl’, which reveals… And then you can dig into what Kent shows about human nature through that.
Also, structure-wise, your essay ends up saying 'yes she shows mainly the bad stuff, but also the good stuff too'... and that's okay, but you could strengthen it by asking questions like:
- does Kent show primarily the good or the bad? which one does she present as more dominant/more important?
- is it more a happy or sad book?
- does she say that every action or person has two sides, a good and a bad side?
- etc.
You ultimately want to have a contention, a specific thing that you're arguing, rather than saying 'yeah it's a little bit each way'.
In Hannah Kent’s work of historical fiction, Burial Rites, recollections of events are demonstrated to be skewed by what the narrator believes, and the characteristics of human nature are shown to be innately personal and individual. Agnes believes most of mankind to be harsh and brutal and this is reflected in the ceaseless account of events that she gives. However, callousness of individuals is developed to be a separate entity to the traits of mankind. have you said this before? I don’t quite get what you mean, and you can’t really introduce new stuff in the conclusion Furthermore, discussion of difficulties with other characters engenders compassion, creating a positive consequence to the chronicles of the condemned. Burial Rites appears to endorse the notion that one cannot speak for the many and that generalisations should not be made of a person or a group dependent on the words used to describe them. I really like that you’re trying to go for Kent’s views and values; beautiful, and you’re not getting stuck in the trap of repeating your topic sentences. But it’s heading a bit off topic and long-winded, even though it’s great.
Overall:
- solid essay structure; no stress there!
- overall decent expression, but you could often clarify what you mean
- a very common run-on structure in all paragraphs, where you use an 'ing' verb to connect two already long and stand-alone sentences; try to split them up and chop off that 'ing' on the linking verb (my comments in para 1 should explain)
- could have a stronger contention - you did better about having a distinct contention in your conclusion, but you need to have one thing you're arguing (i.e. does Kent present more the good or bad side of human nature? does she say that everyone has some of each? etc., rather than just saying 'she shows a bit of each' which is a bit wishy-washy)
- later on especially, it got a bit 'waffly' where you were just describing what happened rather than analysing what that shows about how Kent presents human nature
- could probably use a bit more evidence/a few more examples (rather than just two per paragraph), including rarer characters (Agnes' priest, Blondal, Roslin etc.)
Lots to improve on (isn't there always!) but honestly you've got the idea down pat; keep working and you'll smash
Home
Help
Search
Login
