Compilation of Text Response Feedback

[jeanweasley]

Thanks so much, really insightful. Definitely going to take your advice on.

You're welcome (:

--
Topic: Although Dickens' story is entertaining, even enthralling, it is mainly intended to deliver a moral lesson. Discuss.

Charles Dickens’s novella “A Christmas Carol” is a feel-good narrative which has become the archetypal Christmas taleI'm not sure that you should include this, it feels sort of like an opening to a review and may not be necessary. I'm talking about the descriptive words used to describe the novella, by the way.. In his masterpiece, Dickens’ imagination fires upDon't know what this means and this also sounds too colloquial. a dramatic storylineNote that you're not here to present a review so it's no use using positive adjectives to describe Dickens' work. by which the audience is entertained by the mysterious otherworldliness of Scrooge’s encounter and enthralled from beginning to end by the Gothic elements. Reiterating,it's not a review and this sentence here feels like a run on. There are too many ideas into the one. Essentially this topic is asking you to dissect Dicken's authorial constructs and how they create for an enthralling piece, yet at the same time is intended to deliver a moral lesson (authorial intent). This paragraph here does not directly address the topic and begins sort of in a review type introduction that praises Dickens' work more than it does analysing it.However, despite their effects, these features act as an essential backdrop against which the moral lessons can be played out. Find another way of describing the effects of the moral lessons. This is simply too colloquial.Throughout Throughout is like a baby word we have used up until Year 10, now, in senior years we need to drop them because a) nothing is ever throughout unless it's on every page b) this word does not offer any substance to any essay c)it's a back up word that we use to think about what we're going to write next and therefore does not add anything to our essay as it merely stalls it. “A Christmas Carol”, Charles Dickens collates collates?a critical response in regard to the chasm that divides the worlds of the rich and the poor during Victorian era while delivering a message of the true meaning of caring, giving and receiving of the Christmas season.The authorial constructs here are not discussed and this sentence doesn't really make sense. So Dickens' is pretty much criticising the divide between rich and poor but is ultimately talking about the meaning of Christmas? I'm not sure about the text as I've not read it before, but wouldn't it make more sense if Dickens' uses this particular setting and season to highlight the divide between the rich and poor and to question the classism in the Victorian Era? And while we're at it, doesn't he discuss the true reflection of humanity - not being rich but having a sense of giving and sharing?

 “A Christmas Carol” is divided into staves rather than chapters to reflect its musical qualities. Its - which does this refer to? Note that yes, the book is divided into chapters so your first statement is incorrect, but that Dickens uses the word 'stave' to reflect the title of the novel as well as a development of character from stave one to the last. Unclear topic sentence here.In fact, its structure, main events, and the Gothic elements play the key role in entertaining and enthralling the readers. You haven't talked about structure here. Main events as a structure? I don't know what that means. And if you're talking about Gothic elements, explain what this is and provide an example. Again, the last part of this sentence feels like a review and I think stems from the misunderstanding of the topic. The topic is focussing on the elements used by Dickens in presenting an entertaining story so that should definitely be discussed but the moral lesson, whatever it is also needs to be explored.In each stave, by following Scrooge’s journey, we experience many different things.Commas here add a stop-start effect and the last part is what I call a back up sentence, that is, a sentence used by the writer to stall his/her thinking and therefore does not do anything for the essay. For instance, in stave one, we inclusive language is a no-no. Assessors don't care about opinion. It's the analysis that they're looking for.are horrified by the appearance of Jacob Marley, but at the same time, we are also curious as we know that Scrooge is going to be visited by three spirits. At this stage, we wonder what they are, and we wonder how they are going to transform Scrooge – a mean-spirited, penny-pinching person. Then, in stave two, after being frightened by the Ghost of Christmas Past, we follow him into the past too see a very different Scrooge. We are surprised to learn about his lonely childhood and the fact that he knows what love is by the fact that he has a fiancée. Next, in stave three, we are guided by the Ghost of Christmas Present on a journey where we see many people celebrating Christmas in their own way, regardless of the financial situation. We see Fred’s Christmas party, and the Cratchits’, and the miners of an isolated community. Therefore, we, as readers, also feel the festivities of Christmas as we turn every single page. Lastly, we are taken to the scariest journey into the future. We are afraid for Scrooge as we guess that the dead person is him and feel bitter about how people react to his death. Finally, we are happy to his transformation, we are happy to see how he treats people, and how happy people are when they are treated the way they expect. Thus, by constructing a plot with dramatic events and employing Gothic elements, Dickens is able to attract the readers, and at the same time, entertain and enthral them, with his Christmas tale. Aha. What I think you're trying to say is that the narration includes the reader in the story and therefore has the ability to personally affect them because of they are, so to say, in the same journey as Scrooge, and his development as a character is also evident. You mention 'Gothic elements' here but do not provide an example of one and how it creates an 'entertaining' effect for the reader. There is also a lot of retelling here and whilst some of it reflects back to the idea of Dickens' authorial constructs, most of the sentences are too long and feels like a summary to a book. I also think, by the structure, you could talk more about narration and symbolism, motifs etc. Quotations in the first paragraph are also lacking and a lot of these 'examples' need to be concise.

However, as the intricacies of the plot unfold, it is evident that Dickens employed the novella to comment on the vices plaguing Victorian Britain and rally the public into action. Good topic sentence but could be further elaborated and linked to the topic.As the Industrial Revolution widened the chasm between the rich and the poor, Dickens’ opinion was thatverbs that describe authorial intent need to be used such as : asserts, criticises, negates. For example, here, it could be used that: Dickens asserts that the Victorian upper class were responsible .... or Dickens criticises the division between... highlighting that... because... those with riches and influence had a duty to take care of those who were less fortunate than themselves, particularly since their wealth was often founded on the labours of a poorly paid workforce. Good point here but needs to be tightened/ be more concise.Scrooge is the obvious Adjectives in a text response essay needs to be used only when necessary as it sometimes creates a review-type analysis of the text and may potentially sound biased. It also does not analyse the topic.symbol of the greedy Victorian rich, while the Cratchits represent the working poor.Symbolism used here could be more detailed. How and why did Dickens do this? Dickens uses the relationship between the miser and his clerk to draw attention to the enormous gap between the living conditions of masters and their workers.Good sentence. This is what we need to see. Also through the Cratchits, “A Christmas Carol” exemplifies Dickens's vigorousAgain, tone down your adjectives. opposition to those Victorian social reformers and businessmen who believed, like Scrooge, that charity encouraged idleness and that the poor should be left to die and "decrease the surplus population". This Victorian Malthusianism was often accompanied by an individualism that classified all misfortunes as personal failings rather than public problems. However, as we see, all the family members of the Cratchits have jobs, they struggle to make ends meet, and Tiny Tim is a lovely child who does not have a control over the way he was born. Therefore, they do not deserve the ignorance of the rich. Moreover, Dickens uses Ignorance and Want to attack the Utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham, most notably his belief in the “greatest happiness of the greatest number”, a position that was used to justify the centralization of Poor Relief in workhouses. The wild, monstrous appearance of the two emaciated figures suggests dangerous adjective again.scenario which emerges from people’s “want” of food and shelter. Consequently, the comfortable, complacentadjective needs to be cut. Refer to previous coment reader is terrified into taking action to relieve the plight of the poor. Hence, by employing symbolism, Dickens is able to convey deep messages about social reality. Good. But this topic lacks complexity in that whilst ideas and references to symbolism and authorial intent is present, there is lacking of quotes, explanation is too simple and adjectives plague the paragraph, creating a review-like response to the prompt. The first part of the topic is discussed in the first paragraph but is not linked to Dickens' moral lesson. This second paragraph, too whilst there are references to the construction of the novel need to specifically discuss this and provide examples and explanation to support your contention.

In essence, while it is evident that Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” is an entertaining and enthralling novella, it would be remiss to neglect his core intentions. Through his careful selection of linguistic features and narrative voice, all strongly linked to the setting of the novel, the author condemns both industrialisation and utilitarianism. Moreover, by making the distinction between the rich and the poor apparent, Dickens extols the virtue of society changing its dismissive and repressive attitudes towards the poor, ultimately enlisting the audience’s sympathies for them. This is a wonderful conclusion and discusses the aspects of Dickens' intentions, however discussion of core ideas such as industrialisation and utilitarianism needs to be evident in the body paragraphs.

The two paragraphs, whilst seemingly providing quality does not actually do that. Two paragraphs is the danger zone of all essays. It is saying that you pretty much don't know what you're talking about and have resulted in utilising these body paragraphs to distract the assessor. Two paragraph is also an indication that you don't understand the basic of sentence and paragraph structuring. One page paragraphs an eyesore and makes marking a tedious job so it's best to avoid this. It's best to stick to three solid paragraphs but it's even better if it's four. Aiming for four is probably going to position you in already receiving the bulk of your mark.

Adjectives that describe or provide a positive view of the novel needs to be avoided as it detracts from your analysis and presents a review instead. Topic sentences need to be clear and link back to the topic. Examples need to be clearly discussed and quotes need to be employed. This essay lacks both and I think stems from the incomplete understanding of the novella. Symbols, motifs, characterisation, parallels, irony, etc need to be discussed if evident in the text. Retelling of the novel needs to be avoided as this is not an analysis of the prompt. There are some great phrases here that really create complexity and I guess have come from the ATARnotes study guide.

Just suggestions for improvement in a nutshell

* Read the text again and make solid notes on it
* Be careful in exploring the prompt - pay attention to the adjectives/quotes used as this is important and need to be discussed. For example, 'How' prompts pretty much ask the reader the authorial constructs of the novel such as narration, characterisation etc. However since that may only take one paragraph, you can challenge the question and say that the author does more than that, and that's when you can talk about the main ideas of the text and explain it. For example, if you got the prompt 'How does Charles Dickens' construct a compelling story about kindness and compassion?, you would discuss the authorial constructs such as narration and compassion firstly in your paragraph then you can talk about Dickens criticising the era because of its capitalism/industrialisation etc. and bring in all your knowledge of the period and link this to what he intends.
* Clearer topic sentences that directly answer the prompt or show direction to the exploration of ideas in your paragraph
* Write more  - at least 3 solid paragraphs each, 4 is ideal though
* Employ quotes to back up your evidence
* Discuss significance of evidence, link to prompt and author's intention

Overall, it's a great essay but somewhat lacking in direction, however, this can be easily fixed. Well done (:

[Smiley_]

can someone pls critique this OTW essay , i purposely didnt do a conclusion so be mindfull

It is not only through physical violence in which the mob maintains its power?

Whilst physical violence is clearly the most blatant source of obtaining power on the docks of Hoboken, it is not the only instrument used by the nefarious leader johnny
Friendly to obtain power. Elia Kazan fast paced 1954 drama On the waterfront depicts the various ways  the Union boss Johnny Friendly had sustained power. Kazan exposes
through many stevedores the unwillingness to comply with the crime commission due to the sacred oath of staying 'D n D' which has imbued the insular town of Hoboken.
Kazan also portrays the power of the Mob through the loan sharking business and employment control which the mob maintain . Hence Kazan depicts the numerous ways in which the Mob can accrue power without the use of physical violence.You used Kazan does this and Kazan does this a number of times try to vary it

Initially Kazan depicts the secluded life in which Joey Doyle maintained, this doesn't really flow nicelyKazan presents Joey Doyle as a man seen abominable by his father due to the severing of the sacered sacredoath of staying 'D n D'.  Kazan clearly illustrates the way in which the mob had entrenched the code of staying 'D n D' into stevedores as those who broke the code were not only seen punishable by Friendly's goons but were also punished by the stevedores who then neglected them and didn't want to be associated with them. really long sentence try some punctuation Such is the disassociation by Pop Doyle with his son and Andy towards his best friend. It had 'almost become impossible for an honest man to work the docks'. try and explain this, it looks like an odd sentence eg this demonstrates how it is impossible for an honest....The oath maintained its superior homage even after Terry malloy capital letter !!!pursued testimony at his subpoena. The oath was not only respected by the mob but also by police officers who were to protect Terry after his testimony as  they snickered elements which provocated provoked or try using another word him to feel like a 'canary'. Thus Kazan showed the respect for power that the mob maintained though the moral hatred inflicted upon 'cheese eaters' spaceand 'stool pigeons'. Hence this also placed a mental stigma upon stevedores as they had probably become insecure with the social labeling labellingthe union imposed on them. good

The film also shows that the mob didn't solely depend on physical violence as its sustenance of power as it you tend to repeat your word a bit had also maintained power through its lucrative loan sharking.good ! Kazan shows Friendly's ruthless and viscous nature in which he expects all stevedores to surrender loans given to them by JP.could put in some quotes relating to mac and him putting his wives nephew to work His ability to demand the money loaned to them leads stevedores into insecurity which thus forces them to pay back the money loaned to them . The lust for a 'lousy buck 'displayed by Johnny friendly's corrupt decisions give him power as he allured power from stevedores who he forcibly loaned money to. Thus his ultimate power from loan sharking was experienced when he gave no work to those denied the men work who didn't pay him back as life in Hoboken was only through money entering through the lucrative again docks and the ramifications meant no work you already said this and possibly more through Mr upstairs connections. ok just add that in

Kazan also exemplifies the Mobs power through the employment of stevedores. good sentence tells exactly what you are going to sayThe unruly costumes which the stevedores wear epitomizes the chronic poverty which stevedores experience. yep niceThis is demonstrated through Dugan's Jacket why is there a capital ??in the face of extreme winters in the New York, his jacket is depicted as being 'more full of holes than the Pittsburgh infield'.  This thus what shows the dire situation of stevedores, as well as the mobs ability to supply work gives them even more power as they determine who has enough money to withstand living conditions in Hoboken. Johnny Friendly delegates the role of the employer to Big mac CAPITAL !!!who chooses those fit what I dont know what your saying?to work thus you like your thus , it is not always needed showing desperation is evident among stevedores who see the docks as the only feasible option for work. Kazan highlights Johnny Friendly's sovereign powers as he employs '891 men at 3 bucks a head'. niceThe low pay equates to his power as the use of physical violence is not his only tantalising source of power.

 

Not having a paragraph of physical violence?

anyway


anyone think they could do mine?

[09Ti08]

Thank you so much jeanweasley!  Your comments definitely helped me a lot!

[jeanweasley]

Thank you so much jeanweasley!  Your comments definitely helped me a lot!

You're welcome.

[lolipopper]

ESSAY MARK /10  please. (written under exam conditions)

Mohsin Hamid actively involves the reader in his novel. How does he do this?

Suspense is a fundamental key to the success of many thriller novels along with an almost necessity of a setting to which the audience may relate to. Mohsin Hamid's, The Reluctant Fundamentalist, is a superbly engaging novel that appeals to the sense of curiosity of the audience through the use of empowering scenes and techniques. With a key character that may become the victim of an assassination or rather the assassin himself and the disappearance of his love that may one day return, the reader feels the drawn into the world of the novel with an urge to continue reading. And although the reader does tend to question the integrity of Changez's recital, this seems to further enhance the concept of suspense within the novel, rendering it highly reflective and influential for the audience.

Throughout the plot of the novel, a line of suspense seems to follow the impending murder of either Changez or the silent American. With continual hints upon the physique of the American's "broad chest" and an alarmingly vibrant phone, the audience is given the impression that the American may in fact be on a "mission". This tends to accommodate the scenario of Changez promoting an anti-American agenda and the recent assassination of an American Official by his students, which leads to Changez being warned, America may be looking to "intimidate me or worse". However, the silent American seems to be in an equivalent amount of danger himself, as he is often suspicious of his surroundings, the waiter and the intentions of Changez. "This tea hasn't been poisoned" and "why do you jump as though you were under the shadow of a hawk" tends remind the audience of a relation between predator and prey, and that one must eventually die. Additionally, as Hamid doesn't provide a suffice ending to the story, the audience is left engaged in a guessing games as to who meets the fate of death.

Similarly, the death of the nostalgia struck Erica also tends to lay itself to the audience as a mystery beyond the conclusion of the novel. Fallen in the love of a "guy with long skinny fingers" leaves Erica in a miserable and fragile state of mind that is in fact catalysed by Changez's expression of love. This in turn tends to send her further into an unforgiving turmoil of "anti-depressents" and "numerous trips to the hospital". Eventually Erica is thought to have committed suicide, however the troubled personality of Changez is not ready to accept this and he waits for her return. This event creates a trail of suspense that lasts till the end of the novel, and suggests a familiar fate of her allegory, America, which after the attack of 9/11, throws itself into a deep alienation from the rest of the international community. By the end, the fate of both is unknown and is a source from which Hamid draws the attention of his readership.

Through the lack of the Silent American's speech, Hamid encounters the audience questioning the integrity of Changez's story. Although this format of a dramatic monologue is essential to developing the ideas of Changez and his thoughts, it often comes at a cost of not being able to reveal critical scenes of the plot. As Changez recites the words of the silent American, who is intended to portray the wider audience, "why shall I believe you", Hamid allows the readers to consider and revaluate their thoughts and belief in Changez's story. Thus although this seems to ward off the sense of trust of the audience in the narrator, it is useful in effectively engaging their thoughts.

Despite resulting in a seemingly deceptive story, Mohsin Hamid uses the character of Changez and the reality of suspense in The Reluctant Fundamentalist to creatively enthral and include the readership within its plot. Through incomplete endings about the fate of Changez, the silent American, Erica and even America itself, Hamid keeps the audience in a loop of suspense and continual guessing as to what may be the eventual outcome.     

CHECK MINE AS WELL!

[tcstudent]

Hi guys, Twleve angry men essay here on last years prompt,

Prompt--Twelve angry men is a play about how power can be misused.

Words-1024

i love the feedback here so i'd much rather post here and give it to my teacher that provides no feedback just changes the words lol,

my writing is shocking never scored above  C  on English ffs so here it is.

Twelve angry men is a play about how power can be misused.

by the way, my teacher always says my topic sentences let me down each essay, is it possible to get some feedback on that too please, thank you very much.


‘Twelve Angry Men’, a two act drama, set in the 1950’s, in a new York jury room, depicts the ‘’grave responsibility given’’ to jurors of a time of mccarthist paranoia, where it was portrayed that those involved in communist activities would face the strongest sort of jury hostility, In the film, Many of the characters illustrate their racism and prejudice towards to boy and thus misuse their power for personal reasons, however, rose counteracts such misuses by implementing various objective characters who use their power wisely to create a fair verdict and highlight a ‘reasonable doubt’, hence rose asserts that justice can prevail those who misuse their power, through the use of various characters that influence many to look beyond the facts.
Through prejudiced opinions of characters, many decision made are based on no evidence.
Throughout society in the 1950’s,  it was evident many suspected of communist activates would face a jury where verdicts made reflected bias and prejudice. In twelve angry men juror ten is perceived to have a strong prejudice to ‘’slum ids’’ describing ‘’them’’ as ‘’real trash’’ and ‘’born liars’’. As such these assumptions made by juror ten highlights his apathetic view towards these ‘’different’’ kids, therefore misusing his power as he ‘’does not care what happens to the boy’’ signifying he supports the view of paranoid Mccarthyists. Similarly rose at first, depicts juror three as a self-made man as he highlights ‘’he started from nothing, I employ thirty now’’ and have ‘’no personal feeling about this case’’ and implies his decision are based on ‘’facts’’, yet rose reveals the dramatic irony of juror three as he claims to be ‘’talking facts’’, however in contrast reveals his prejudice describing it’s the ‘’kids’’, ‘’ the way they are nowadays’’, suggesting to the audience that juror three has already  thrown the accused in the garbage and made this a ‘’personal’’ decision.
Furthermore as deliberations over ‘’reasonable doubt’’ intensify juror three decides to play ‘’tic tac toe’’ as this case is ‘’getting to be a goddamn joke’’, further representing his stance on this case and highlighting the miscarriage of a jury system. Hence rose implies the view that many jury members represented the values of the 1950’s in their verdicts that would dismiss the opinion of minorities.

Many of the characters in the lay utilised their power to benefit the interests of themselves
On the ‘’hottest day of the year’’, the jurors are told to ‘’deliberate honestly and thoughtfully’’, despite this, Juror 7 depicted by rose as a ‘’Milwaukee fan’’ insists on escaping his civic duty as a jury member as he has a ‘’ball game’’ to watch, through this illustration of juror seven who ‘’has a ticket burning a hole in his pocket’’ highlights to the audience the level of subjectivity in a jury room towards ‘’a 16 year old boy’’. More over as the vote is ‘’eleven to one’’ juror seven believes the boy is ‘’guilty and just wants to ‘’go home before we get sort throats’’ highlighting his misuse of power as he further tries to escape his responsibility by superficially looking at the case without any evidence to support his ‘’assumptions’’. In comparison, juror ten is found to be playing ‘’tic tac toe’’ as he does not care ‘’what happens’’ to a ‘’slum like that’’ meanwhile juror 12 is found to be ‘’doodling’’ on his sheet as ‘’it keeps him thinking clearly’’. Such events in a jury room should not occur, especially as the ‘’case is the most serious charge tried criminal court’’, further representing the misuse of power in a society where many where self-interested and not concerned about the ‘’health of others’’. Despite such irresponsibility shown by many jurors, rose propels his belief that many jury members seen this power given, as a weapon and thus used it against the accused in order to reach a ‘’quicker verdict’’.

However, when power is given to liberal members a fair verdict can prevail.
At first instance juror eight is depicted, starring at the ‘’New York skyline’’, suggesting his independence as the rest of the jury members ‘’sit down’’ furthermore it also implies his objectivity as he must represent his community with the power given to him. At first vote juror eight is depicted ‘’standing alone against the ridicule of others’’ as the majority voted guilty, yet juror eight ‘’finds it difficult to send a boy off to die without talking about it first’’ instantly highlights his objectivity within the case, where many simply voted guilty ‘’after five minutes’’ and because ‘’nobody proved otherwise’’, further highlighting the misuse of power in regards to finding a ‘’reasonable doubt’’

Additionally juror eight counteracts the argument by stating ‘’nobody has to prove otherwise, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution’’ implying to the audience that many jury members are unaware of the processes within the adversary system of trial and misusing their power with lazy accusations to support their ‘’vote’’. Moreover juror eights persistence in ‘’questioning the facts’’ creates tension within the jury room as jurors begin to change their vote sparking juror three to be described a ‘’public avenger as he ‘’lunges wildly’’ at juror eight, expressing ‘’I’ll kill him, I’ll kill him’’, this strongly shifts the majority of jurors position on the case as they now have a ‘’doubt’’ that it cannot be taken literally. Therefore through the power juror eight utilised, he created ‘’the competitive type’’ juror three to be made an example of, thus influence others to be believe that ‘’sometimes the facts that are starring you in the face are wrong’’
Overall, It is apparent that in the context of the 1950’s many jury members were callous and used their power for their personal satisfaction as they were controlled by their prejudices, however rose juxtaposes these apathetic attitudes with the objectivity of juror eight by illustrating how power should be used to determine a reasonable doubt, finally rose asserts his view that although many utilised their power for their own benefit, justice has the ability to prevail such cruel behaviours when it is operated as intended.

[darvell]

Ok Im just going to warn you that I'm pretty dodge (I'm not exaggerating here lmao) at TR so 100% double check my feedback if you're a bit like "um, what son???"
I just thought I'd give it a crack anyway hahaha.

Open with a contextualising sentence that doesn't mention the book itself. I think it just sounds a bit nicer. Examples of what I mean are things like "At the height of the McCarthyist paranoia in the 1950's prejudice was prevalent throughout America" (stole this off a random essay in my book, maybe not the best, but you get the idea.(And not necessarily relevant to this essay) Have a read through people on here's essays and get a feel for what works!
‘Twelve Angry Men’, is a two act drama, set in the 1950’s, in a new York jury room,Can I get you to read what you've written out loud for me so you can see what I mean? You have(incorrectly placed) commas every few words or so and it makes your. essay. read. like. this. hahaha, we want to aim for a nice sounding flowy essay so try to avoid this in future! depicts the ‘’grave responsibility given’’ I'd avoid quoting in your intro - might be just a personal preference but I don't think it adds any substance to your essayto jurors of a time of Mccarthyist paranoia, where it was portrayed that those involved in communist activitiesthe whole idea behind that being relevant is also that the whole of america is literally paranoid over anything that comes across as different BECAUSE of the whole McCarthy thing (which is why J10 is all like son he's clearly guilty even though its really just because he's just scared of his own shadow) would face the strongest sort of jury hostility.I'd probably avoid mentioning this outside of the contextualising sentence unless its central to your idea. Your focus for the rest of this needs to be about the prompt and your ideas! In the film,do you mean play? Many of the characters illustrate their racism and prejudice towards to boy and thus misuse their power for personal reasons, however, rose counteracts such misuses by implementing various objective characters who use their power wisely to create a fair verdict and highlight a ‘reasonable doubt’same deal with quoting, hence rose asserts that justice can prevail those who misuse their power, through the use of various characters that influence many to look beyond the facts.
 
Through prejudiced opinions of characters, many decision made are based on no evidence.I'm just going to warn you that I am also kind of dodgy as TS, BUT what I will say is even just looking at your paragraphs I have noticed that they're all really short. Suddenly having a really short sentence interrupts the flow of the essay, that will be part of your problem. Other than this, You want to be talking about your idea as it relates to the prompt (You'll notice in yours above there is no reference to the prompt ) Other than that I'm a tad rusty right now hahaha sorry
Throughout society in the 1950’s,  it was evident many suspected of communist activates would face a jury where verdicts made reflected bias and prejudice. same deal as with what I said in the introIn Twelve Angry Men juror tenMake sure you're using capital letters when mentioning the jurors, they are their names! Also, Brenden taught me to write them as "Eighth Juror" rather than "Juror 8/Eight" I think it sounds nicer, just a personal prference is perceived to have a strong prejudice to ‘’slum ids’’ describing ‘’them’’ as ‘’real trash’’ and ‘’born liars’’. As such these assumptions made by juror ten highlights his apathetic view towards these ‘’different’’ kids, therefore misusing his power as he ‘’does not care what happens to the boy’’ signifying he supports the view of paranoid Mccarthyists.I notice here that you're sort of letting the quotes do the work for you. You might want to put this into your own words and quote less of what your point of view is - state your point and then back it up (or the other way around if you prefer) Also you want to be strong about what Rose is trying to get across through such a depiction. Is he saying its bad? Be really specific and deep hahaha Similarly rose at first, initiallydepicts juror three as a self-made man as he highlights ‘’he started from nothing, I employ thirty now’’dodgy as quoting! The actual quote is " I employ thirty-seven people... started with nothing" and have his assertion that he has‘’no personal feeling about this case’’ You want to make sure your quotes are part of your sentence so that the sentence continues on as the quote starts and the reader doesn't have to stop - the flow of an essay is really important!and implies his decisions are based on ‘’facts’’, yet rose reveals the dramatic irony of juror three as he claims to be ‘’talking facts’’, however in contrast reveals his prejudice describing it’s the ‘’kids’’, ‘’ the way they are nowadays’’, suggesting to the audience that juror three has already  thrown the accused in the garbage and made this a ‘’personal’’ decision. I think you would benefit from quoting a little bit less. Pick the quotes that best support your arguments rather than quoting so much. Also, you'd benefit from explaining what you mean a bit more indepth I think. And always always focus on what Rose is trying to say by how he has depicted what you're talking about, it's super important!
Furthermore as deliberations over ‘’reasonable doubt’’ intensify juror three decides to play ‘’tic tac toe’’ as this case is ‘’getting to be a goddamn joke’’, further representing his stance on this case and highlighting the miscarriage of a jury system.how is it highlighting the ability for justice to be abused? Explain yourself a little more. Also, why does Rose point this out? Is he critiquing the justice system? Hence rose implies the view that many jury members represented the values of the 1950’s in their verdicts that would dismiss the opinion of minorities. and consequently highlights the flaws of a justice system ... and then link back to how power is being abused! Make sure you're sticking to the prompt!

Many of the characters in the lay utilised their power to benefit the interests of themselves.Yeah same deal with this, it's very short and choppy. You have linked to power but maybe specifically input there that the power is being abused
On the ‘’hottest day of the year’’,why have you quoted this? be careful that you're not quoting things for the sake of it. If it is important, explain why it is important and why Rose is saying whatever he is saying about  it the jurors are told to ‘’deliberate honestly and thoughtfully’’full stop heredespite this, Juror 7 is depicted by rose as a ‘’Milwaukee fan’’who insists on escaping his civic duty as a jury member as he has a ‘’ball game’’ to watch, through this illustration of juror seven who ‘’has a ticket burning a hole in his pocket’’ highlights to the audience the level of subjectivitybut you havent mentioned that he is abusing his power! be careful with the prompt! in a jury room towards ‘’a 16 year old boy’’. This is a really really long sentence maybe cut it down/split itMore over as the vote is ‘’eleven to one’’ juror seven believes the boy is ‘’guilty and just wants to ‘’go home before we get sort throats’’ highlighting his misuse of power as he further tries to escape his responsibility by superficially looking at the case without any evidence to support his ‘’assumptions’’.Why does Rose include this, what is he trying to say? In comparison,contrast juror ten is found to be playing ‘’tic tac toe’’Pretty sure it's actually Juror 12 and juror 3 might wanna check that textual knowledge hahah as he does not care ‘’what happens’’ to a ‘’slum like that’’ meanwhile juror 12 is found to be ‘’doodling’’ on his sheet as ‘’it keeps him thinking clearly’’. Such events in a jury room should not occur, especially as the ‘’case is the most serious charge tried criminal court’’, dont quote just for the sake of it, it detracts from your legit quoting when you do so further representing the misuse of power in a society where many where self-interested and not concerned about the ‘’health of others’’.what does Rose say about this? How exactly is it a misuse of power also? Don't let the quotes do the work for you. Be as clear as you can. Yeah I reckon definitely try quoting less and explaining more, your arguments will come off more clearlyDespite such irresponsibility shown by many jurors, rose propels his belief that many jury members seen this power given, as a weapon and thus used it against the accused Or even that he's highlighting the flaws of apathy in such a justice system?in order to reach a ‘’quicker verdict’’.You can put in views/values throughout the paragraph, it doesn't just have to be at the end of the para

However, when power is given to liberal members a fair verdict can prevail.same deal
At first instance juror eight is depicted, starring at the ‘’New York skyline’’, suggesting his independence as the rest of the jury members ‘’sit down’’ furthermore furthermore makes it sound like you're moving on to a new topic - far too quickly. Choose a different word here it also implies his objectivity as he must represent his communityand maybe also mention that he is not misusing his power (this is your however paragraph, ya?) with the power given to him. At first voteDuring the first vote, juror eight is depicted ‘’standing alone against the ridicule of others’’ as the majority voted guilty, yet juror eight ‘’finds it difficult to send a boy off to die without talking about it first’’ instantly highlights his objectivity within the case, where many simply voted guilty ‘’after five minutes’’ and because ‘’nobody proved otherwise’’, further highlighting the misuse of power in regards to finding a ‘’reasonable doubt’’
It's kind of unclear here what your paragraph is actually about. Be careful that you're not straying off. If it's about J8 and how he HASN'T abused his power, stick to that (at least while you're getting the hang of TR essays
Additionally juror eight counteracts the argumentwhat are you talking about, be specific! by stating ‘’nobody has to prove otherwise, the burden of proof lies in the prosecution’’ implying to the audience that many jury members are unaware of the processesthis sounds really Lang Analysis-ish to me, Im not sure if that's just me. Be careful that you're not crossing over your styles within the adversary system of trial and misusing their power with lazy accusations to support their ‘’vote’’. unnecessary quoting!Why has Rose included this?Moreover juror eights persistence in ‘’questioning the facts’’ creates tension within the jury room as jurors begin to change their vote sparking juror three to be described a ‘’public avenger as he ‘’lunges wildly’’ at juror eight, expressing ‘’I’ll kill him, I’ll kill him’’, this strongly shifts the majority of jurors position on the case as they now have a ‘’doubt’’ that it cannot be taken literally. Therefore through the power juror eight utilised, he created ‘’the competitive type’’ juror three to be made an example of, thus influence others to be believe that ‘’sometimes the facts that are starring you in the face are wrong’’I think you need to link this back to the prompt a bit more. Be clearer about what you're talking about and make sure you're always referring back to the idea of your para and the prompt. If you dont you end up straying and whoever reads your essay will get lost!

Overall, It is apparent that in the context of the 1950’s its important that you mention that Rose has depicted them this way. You talk of the jury members as if they are people who control their own actions many jury members were callous and used their power for their personal satisfaction as they were controlled by their prejudices, however rose juxtaposes these apathetic attitudes with the objectivity of juror eight by illustrating how power should be used to determine a reasonable doubt,This sentence is way too long, break it up! finally rose asserts his view that although many utilised their power for their own benefit, justice has the ability to prevail such cruel behaviours when it is operated as intended.

Sorry for my sort of dodgy feedback, bit rusty hahaha
Good luck with it

[ahat]

I'm not sure how many people have read or are studying Wilfred Owen, but some feedback on this would be appreciated

It is those who glorify war, and not the soldiers who fight them, that Owen’s poetry denounces.[/size]

It is hard to say who is the greatest enemy in the poetry of Wilfred Owen, for his bitterness is directed at more than one target. Yet, Owen’s “subject [of] war and the pity of war” reveal his irrefutable animosity towards war’s destruction and those who instigated and propagated it. His hatred was concentrated on those who so readily told “the Old Lie” with “such high zest”; words that were the catalyst for the irreversible “doomed fate” of the youth of the day. Owen’s emotional fervour and rich poetic idiom made it clear that his cause was not the glory of bellicose England; rather, he aimed to combat the rhetoric of his day, to shock the deluded military officials and civilians out of their state of ignorance, so they too could comprehend the attrition of war. Parallel to these themes, Owen vividly describes the validity of the feelings of love and grief that existed sempiternally between the unbreakable bonds of the fighting men. The unequivocal lament of the “doomed youth” was eternalised in Owen’s verse and highlighted that he did not aim to denounce the soldiers who fought the war, but rather those who could so easily, “smiling, write his lie [of age].”

The elegiac quality of Owen’s poetry reveals his pity for the men of war, “those who die[d] as cattle.” Rather than feelings of animosity towards the enemy, camaraderie existed in every tier, on every side of the battle, between the soldiers. The fateful meeting between two soldiers in Hell, told in Strange Meeting, tells this profound ideology. The exchange of words between the soldiers, “I was the enemy you killed, my friend,” engendered a smile rather than animus. The paradox of an enemy being considered a friend exemplified the confusion of the soldier’s situations and conversely, their deep felt empathy. The unbroken iambic pentameter and consistent rhythm of the Strange Meeting resembles a normal conversation, illustrating Owen’s desire to portray the assiduity of fellow feeling under war’s derision.

The real enemies of the young men were not the Germans who were “scarcely thought of,” but in fact the army officials of their own country who were only too willing to help them “throw away their knees.” The manipulative recruitment techniques and misleading propaganda of the army officials exploited the desire of “children ardent for some desperate glory.” Owen bitterly recounts how these naïve young men, aspiring to also adorn the “jewelled hilts,” “plaid socks” and “smart salutes,” of the army officials were left as little more than “queer disease” after the war. The mourning of “undone years” echoes through Owen’s verse, the penitence of lost youth evident in the dissonance of caused by the pararhyme of Owen’s poetry. The regret is heartfelt in the stark contrast between the diction in the stanzas of Owen’s Dulce et decorum est. Stanza four employs evocative language, “obscene”, “froth-corrupted”, “writhing” and “bitter”; all words indicative of a destructive forces. The subsequent juxtaposition of “innocence” and “sin” metaphorically personifies the deceitful “friend” as the one who sinned, the “devil”. It was these men who told the “old Lie” but never the truth of war. This anger is furthered as these were the men who “smiling, wrote his lie,” happy to let the youth’s “veins run dry.” The promise of looking “a god in kilts” was never met, but a life “bent double as beggars and hags,” was the fate that awaited the soldiers.   

Owen himself mocks the audience, citizens of society who are criticized for overlooking returned soldiers, forcing them to “take whatever pity them may dole.” Sincerity of feeling only existed on the battlefield. Owen felt scorn for the idea of memorial services, held in churches at home, with “prayers” and “bells” and “signing choirboys” holding candles, somehow made the deaths acceptable. He felt that it was all hypocrisy, and that the only sincere memorial light was when the eyes of the soldier in the field lit up with the “holy glimmer of goodbyes,”, the quick farewell when they saw a comrade fall in battle. These were men for whom “life became absurd but death became absurder.” They could no longer place faith in those who had led them to the war, generals and imperials who were not subject to the “smothering dreams” the soldier’s suffered. Owen’s denunciation of these men is seen in the soldier’s increasing reliance on nature for comfort. The long, soft vowels and quiet consonants of Futility suggest only a caring concern for death, a refusal to panic, confidence placed in the purity of nature and the curing properties of the sun. These are the emotions presented in Owen’s visceral narrative of the tragic story of the soldiers, that reveal not only his love for them but to contrast these sincere emotions with his hostility towards a government who used the soldiers simply as tools for egocentric and demented desires.

Owen’s use of scrambled rhyming pattern and stanza length echoes the uncertainty and incompleteness of the lives of soldiers. Such a bitter tone and attitude toward the British Army and supporters of the war reiterates the ‘true’ aspects of war that Owen wished to convey.

woahhh, not sure why the end is all crossed out

[tcstudent]

Okay, so took in the feedback and decided to change everything, however there may be small parts that are the same as the previous essay. i hope this one is better.

this one is around 1.300 words

btw took out all that b/s about how the audience and shiz lols, man  i hope these topic sentences are better. everytime i think their killer sentences the corrector makes em sound like a 2 year old made them up hahah.


Twelve angry men is a play about how power can be misused.
In the heights of McCarthy paranoia in the 1950’s, America received an influx of migration, sparking a new prevalent breed of racism and prejudice within society, In the play ‘Twelve Angry Men’, a two act drama set in a jury room of a new York court of law depicts how power can be misused to falsely accuse a 16 year old boy as many characters struggle to present arguments that add to deliberations, however rose also highlights the importance of seeing facts from more than one perspective through the use of Juror Eight as he is able to utilise his given power objectively resulting in a fair verdict, hence rose asserts that power is a responsibility and should be utilised as intended, yet many decide to use the power to limit the development of a society.
A significant responsibility is given to jury members, yet many exploit their power to assist them escape their civic duty. Throughout society in the 1950’s, it was evident many suspected of communist activates would face a jury where verdicts made reflected bias and prejudice. In Twelve Angry Men Juror Ten is perceived to have a strong prejudice to ‘’slum kids’’ describing ‘’them’’ as ‘’real trash’’ and ‘’born liars’’ thus showing Juror Ten is a man who disregards others and is only interested in protecting himself. As such these assumptions made by Juror Ten highlights his apathetic view towards these ‘’different’’ kids, therefore misusing his power as he ‘’does not care what happens to the boy’’ instantly exposing Juror Ten as a prejudice and also signifying he supports the view of paranoid McCarthyists. Similarly, rose initially depicts Juror Three as a self-made man as he highlights ‘’he started from nothing’’ and has ‘’no personal feeling about this case’’ suggesting Juror Three is a fair jury member and bases his decisions on ‘’facts’’, yet rose reveals the dramatic irony of Juror Three as he claims to be ‘’talking facts’’, however in contrast reveals his prejudice describing it’s the ‘’kids’’, thus implying Juror Three aims to punish the accused for the falling out with his  son. Furthermore as deliberations over ‘’reasonable doubt’’ intensify Juror Three decides to play ‘’tic tac toe’’ as this case is ‘’getting to be a goddamn joke’’, highlighting the misuse of power given to jury members as they decide to interest themselves in games while a 16 year old boy ‘’may die’’. Hence Rose shows the possible events that can occur in jury system of the 1950’s where many were opinions were disregarded for supporting communism. And as a consequence rose shows the flaws of a justice system trying to achieve a fair verdict.

The power given to jury members allowed them to reveal their prejudices and racism, therefore showing the misuses of a jury system in the 1950’s. Rose begins the play on the ‘’hottest day of the year’’ to signifying the severity of the case as it infact is the ‘’most serious case tried in our criminal courts’’ therefore Rose highlights the importance of the case and that the jury should effectively utilise their power, yet as jurors are told to ‘’deliberate honestly and thoughtfully’’. Juror Seven depicted by rose as a ‘’Milwaukee fan’’ who insists on escaping his civic duty as a jury member, misuses his power as he has a ‘’ball game’’ to watch. And thus votes guilty as the majority and implies ‘’you couldn’t change my mind if you talked for a hundred years’’ through this illustration of Juror Seven who ‘’has a ticket burning a hole in his pocket’’ highlights the level of subjectivity in a jury room towards ‘’a 16 year old boy’’. More over as the vote is ‘’eleven to one’’ juror Seven believes the boy is ’guilty and just wants to ‘’go home before we get sort throats’’ highlighting his misuse of power as he further tries to escape his responsibility by superficially looking at the case without any evidence to support his ‘’assumptions’’ therefore Rose shows the flaws on a jury system when many characters in the play ineffectively utilise their power to try and hasten the case so they can be escape their duty. In comparison, Juror Twelve is found to be ‘’doodling’’ on his sheet ‘’as it keep him thinking clearly’’ suggests he is interested in conducting other activities and not utilising his power effectively to assist in the process of finding a reasonable doubt. Therefore Rose shows the flaws of a jury system as such events in a jury room should not occur, especially as the ‘’case is the most serious charge tried criminal court’’, further representing the misuse of power in a society where many where individuals were afraid of change and therefore voted with the majority as they did not have the ability to stand up to more dominant figures. Therefore through such irresponsibility shown by many jurors, Rose propels his belief that many jury members seen this power given, as a weapon and thus used it against the accused in order to reach a ‘’quicker verdict’’.

However, power is seen as a strength and therefore if utilised effectively has the ability to prevail others who see it as an excuse to reveal their prejudices. At first instance juror eight is depicted, starring at the ‘’New York skyline’’, suggesting his independence as the rest of the jury members ‘’sit down’’ while also indicating that the discussion within the jury room will have a greater impact on America as a whole, therefore showing that Juror Eight is a character of fairness and objectivity. At first vote juror eight is depicted ‘’standing alone against the ridicule of others’’ as the majority voted guilty this further shows how Juror Eight ‘’finds it difficult to send a boy off to die without talking about it first’’ instantly highlights his objectivity within the case, while many simply voted guilty ‘’after five minutes’’ because ‘’nobody proved otherwise’’, further highlighting the flaws and misuses of power in regards to finding a ‘’reasonable doubt’’
However this perception is challenged by Juror Eight who is a defender of democracy, by stating ‘’nobody has to prove otherwise, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution’’. Rose identifies this as a key feature of a jury system as it allows one to remain innocent until proven guilty. Moreover Juror Eight’s persistence in ‘’questioning the facts’’ creates tension within the jury room as jurors begin to change their vote sparking Juror Three to be described a ‘’public avenger as he ‘’lunges wildly’’ at Juror Eight, expressing ‘’I’ll kill him, I’ll kill him’’, this strongly shifts the majority of Jurors position on the case as they now have a ‘’doubt’’ that it cannot be taken literally. Therefore through the power Juror Eight utilised, he created ‘’the competitive type’’ juror three to be made an example of, thus influence others to be believe that ‘’sometimes the facts that are starring you in the face are wrong’’, Hence Rose shows how power should be used through Juror Eight who in the end convinces the majority of Jurors to believe that ‘’sometimes the facts staring you in the face are wrong’’.

In essence, Rose explores the jury system within the American judicial system as a whole. Through many character backgrounds who reveal their prejudices and racism, Rose shows the potentiality for injustice to prevail as many were incapable of fulfilling their civic duty in an appropriate manner, yet Rose is more focused on the Justice system having the ability to prevail when members of the jury use their power effectively and as intended resulting in a fair verdict.

[duquesne9995]

Hi guys, this is for David Malouf's "Ransom". It was not done to time but it's probably the length I'll be aiming for in the exam so I would like a mark to see where it would get me 
Comments and criticism greatly appreciated! Thanks heaps! 


“We’re children of nature, my lord. Of earth, as well as of the gods.” Is Somax’s view of humanity important in ‘Ransom’? Explain your view.

Whilst the novel “Ransom” is set in the midst of the ten-year long Trojan War, the author, David Malouf, demonstrates that it is still essential to maintain a sense of one’s place in the world and a connection with others. Malouf’s addition of the character Somax to the legend of Troy presents an everyday man’s ordinary wisdom, contrasting with the royal conventions of noble King Priam and the fierce warrior and hero Achilles. Somax’s delight in simple pleasures such as nourishment of the body and banal small talk serve to remind King Priam of his existence in nature. Achilles echoes Somax’s sentiment as he seeks comfort in a harmonious connection with nature. Ultimately, Achilles overcomes his grief by recognising his shared mortality and shared father-son relationship with Priam, as they are both human, unlike the gods. Priam’s appreciation of this, however, is catalysed by Somax’s storytelling and hence Somax’s simple philosophy is certainly instrumental in allowing the ransom of Hector’s body to be achieved.

Through Somax’s strong sense of place in the natural world, Malouf reveals the humane side of heroes in an epic legend. During the journey, Somax coaxes Priam to take food and drink as nourishment by reminding Priam that “[they’re] children of nature”. While Priam is inclined to abstain from food and drink for “fear” of “compromising the purity of his mission”, he nevertheless accepts Somax’s offer and appreciates the nourishing “effect on the spirit”. In the sharing of a simple meal between an “ordinary carter” and “great Priam”, Malouf suggests that the natural bodily need for nourishment is part of what makes us human, regardless of status. Somax’s delight in small talk and stories further cements his connection to nature in a “prattling world”. As “children of nature”, Somax shows that humans are equally prattling as he relates his personal anecdotes for the “interest” and “curiosity” of Priam. Malouf evokes the power of Somax’s values in his vivid imagery of the “continuous rustling and buzzing and humming” which Priam is exposed to. Priam, in paying “the price of the new”, discovers with childlike amazement that “if you stopped to listen, everything prattled”, reflective of his developing understanding of Somax’s view of himself as part of nature. Without realising it, Somax’s view of himself as part of the world around him indoctrinates Priam into the “new and unimaginable” which Malouf suggests is part of our universal humanity.

Similarly, Achilles reflects the need to be in harmony with oneself, others and the earth, in line with Somax’s earthly delights and rejection of violence. Malouf’s objection to war as a means to resolve problems is conveyed in Achilles’ yearning to be in harmony with the earth as a farmer. He contends that “war should be practised swiftly, decisively” as being caught in the idleness of war is “death to the warrior spirit”. Instead, Achilles pines for the “farmer’s life”, described as “sitting about in the shade doling out the small change of gossip” and “listening while flies buzz”. This strongly echoes Somax’s “prattling” stories and the “continuous rustling” on the banks of the Scamander River. By separating the different points of view of Somax and Achilles into different sections of the novel while still expressing similar sentiments, Malouf asserts that a desire for such simple activities transcends the chasms between humans forged by war and status. In fact, Malouf depicts violence as futile and reveals how it may hamper attainment of a sense of self through Somax’s wisdom. Somax articulates his rage upon discovering his dead son as he “felt like punching [Beauty]”. Despite this, Somax knows the answer to his own question; “what would have been the good of that? That wouldn’t have brought him back”. Almost as an implicit rebuke of Achilles’ desecration of Hector’s body while raging over the loss of his “soulmate”, Malouf’s characterisation of Somax emphasises the intrinsic human requirement to be at peace rather than at war.

Furthermore, Somax’s acceptance of the gods’ control over men’s lives, in line with the Ancient Greek beliefs, allows him to accept and deal with grief which is a concept central to the conflict within and between Achilles and Priam. Somax sees humans as “children” “of earth, as well as of the gods”. IN recognition of the domination the gods may have over mankind, he attributes the “many things we don’t know” to the gods’ actions. While he questions “mightn’t the gods regret it too and think that they acted too hasty?”, he is accepting of the role they have in determining men’s lives. This allows him to deal with the sudden, inexplicable and tragic loss of his sons with the philosophy “we go on, for all our losses”. Malouf highlights the significance of these wise words by subverting the social hierarchy in Somax’s teaching to “King Priam”. Malouf depicts Priam as a “toddler” and “a child with seventy years on his back” in the presence of Somax’s life experience. It is Somax’s storytelling which triggers Priam’s consideration of whether he really knows “what it is to lose a son”. Priam ponders his ignorance of the “human occasions” missed in his sons’ lives which alleviates the pain of having to bury a son “twenty times over”. Through Somax’s education of Priam, Malouf epitomises the importance of engagement with both the “pain and pleasure” of life as well as the need to recognise that loss is an intrinsic part of being human.

Somax’s understanding of shared mortality is ultimately realised in the act of the ransom with the liberation of Achilles from his rage and grief. Somax’s capacity to stoically and courageously soldier on with life is exactly what Achilles lacks in the opening of the novel. Malouf places emphasis on the extent to which Achilles is caught in a cycle of unfulfilling vengeance by the symbolism of the knot. Having tied Hector’s body “knot after knot” to his chariot, Achilles is unable to “break free” of his “maddened grief”. While Priam is similarly attempting “to cut this knot we are all tied in”, he has gained insight from Somax’s storytelling into the mortality and fatherhood which he and Achilles share in as part of the human race. Hence, Priam orchestrates the emancipation of Achilles, enabling him to find the “living man at the centre of…himself”. Additionally, Priam’s “new-found” connection with humanity allows him to connect with Achilles with compassion. Priam falls to his knees “out of instant fellow-feeling” just as previously Somax’s “heart softened” with “fellow-feeling” “since he too was a father” and understood Priam’s grieving state of mind. Through this domino effect of Priam doing to Achilles what Somax had done to him, Malouf reveals how raw human emotions and connections are imperative to helping one another overcome the vagaries of life.

In his retelling of the “Iliad”, Malouf’s introduction of the character Somax allows the human side of the legendary heroes Priam and Achilles to be explored. Somax enables Priam to reconnect with his humanity, reminding the great King of his place in the natural order of things as well as his shared mortality and the necessity to deal with loss. In turn, Priam evokes Somax’s teachings in his appeal to Achilles, catalysing Achilles’ reattachment with his own sense of identity. In evoking the raw human emotions and connections required for a successful ransom, Malouf attests to the necessity of moments of peace and humanity in a world of never-ending war and conflict.

[darvell]

In the heights of McCarthyist paranoia in the 1950’s, America received an influx of migration, sparking a new prevalent breed of racism and prejudice within society. In the play ‘Twelve Angry Men’, a two act drama set in a jury room of a new York court of law You sound like you're trying to fit too much in. This doesn't need to be included - it's not necessarily relevant to your essaydepicts how power can be misused to falsely accuse a 16 year old boy the defendantas many characters struggle to present arguments that add to deliberations. however Rosecapital letter - name also highlights the importance of seeing facts from more than one perspective through the use of Juror Eight as he is able to utilise his given power objectively resulting in a fair verdict. Hence rose asserts that power is a responsibility and should be utilised as intended, yet many decide to use the power to limit the development of a society.You need to make sure you sentences aren't super long - too many commas! I think you'll be able to improve this post - reading what I PM'd to you

A significant responsibility is given to jury members, yet many exploit their power to assist them escape their civic duty. this topic sentence is really similar to the one in the second paragraph - make sure that you clearly identify what you're about to talk about in the paragraph AND how it relates to the prompt.Throughout society in the 1950’s, it was evident many suspected of communist activates would face a jury where verdicts made reflected bias and prejudice. I would avoid historical references outside of the first sentence of the essay unless they are central to the prompt/idea In Twelve Angry Men, Juror Ten is perceived to have a strong prejudice to ‘’slum kids’’ describing ‘’them’’ as ‘’real trash’’ and ‘’born liars’’sort of the same problem as with the last essay - I think you quote too often in one sentence and then try to explain 3,4, or even 5 quotes in the next sentence. Instead, pick one quote (that might even be a bit longer) that is the most POWERFUL and supports what you're trying to say, and show how it backs up your arguments and then move on to the next point/quote - at least while you're getting the hang of it.] thus showing Juror Ten is a man who disregards others and is only interested in protecting himself.what is Rose saying about being selfish and disregarding others? How does this also relate to the prompt? As such these assumptions made by Juror Ten highlights his apathetic view towards these ‘’different’’ kids, therefore misusing his power as he ‘’does not care what happens to the boy’’ instantly exposing Juror Ten as a prejudiced and also signifying he supports the view of paranoid McCarthyists.again I'd avoid historical references outside of the beginning Similarly, rose initially depicts Juror Three as a self-made manor even as the epitome of capitalism? as he highlights ‘’he started from nothing’’ and has ‘’no personal feeling about this case’’ suggesting Juror Three is a fair jury member and bases his decisions on ‘’facts’’, yet rose reveals the dramatic irony of Juror Three as he claims to be ‘’talking facts’’, however in contrast reveals his prejudice describing it’s the ‘’kids’’, thus implying Juror Three aims to punish the accused for the falling out with his  son.I reckon you could find better evidence to support this idea Furthermore as deliberations over ‘’reasonable doubt’’unnecessary quoting intensify Juror Three decides to play ‘’tic tac toe’’ as this case is ‘’getting to be a goddamn joke’’, highlighting the misuse of power given to jury members as they decide to interest themselves in games while a 16 year old boy the defendant‘’may die’’. Hence Rose shows the possible events that can occur in jury system of the 1950’s where many were opinions were disregarded for supporting communismlink back to the prompt??. And as a consequence rose shows the flaws of a justice system trying to achieve a fair verdict.make sure you're not straying from the prompt as well as including your idea!

The power given to jury members alloweds - always write in present tense NEVER past! them to reveal their prejudices and racism, therefore showing the misuses of a jury system in the 1950’s.Remember it's the misuse of POWER not the misuse of a jury system - I think that might be part of where you're going wrong. Rose begins the play on the ‘’hottest day of the year’’ to signifying the severity of the case as it infact is the ‘’most serious case tried in our criminal courts’’ therefore Rose highlights the importance of the case and that the jury should effectively utilise their power, yet as jurors are told to ‘’deliberate honestly and thoughtfully’’. I think what you're trying to say here is getting a bit muddled. You are talking about what jurors SHOULD do ect ect but there is no mention  or reference to how power is being misusedJuror Seven depicted by rose as a ‘’Milwaukee fan’’ who insists on escaping his civic duty as a jury member, misuses his power as he has a ‘’ball game’’ to watch. And J7 thus votes guilty as the majority and implies ‘’you couldn’t change my mind if you talked for a hundred years’’ through this illustration of Juror Seven who ‘’has a ticket burning a hole in his pocket’’ highlights the level of subjectivity in a jury room towards ‘’a 16 year old boy’’.Again I'd say too much quoting. Make sure you properly explain exactly what you mean before you move on to quoting again - otherwise it begins to look like you're just quoting for the sake of it More over as the vote is ‘’eleven to one’’ juror Seven believes the boy is ’guilty and just wants to ‘’go home before we get sort throats’’ highlighting his misuse of power as he further tries to escape his responsibility by superficially looking at the case without any evidence to support his ‘’assumptions’’ therefore Rose shows the flaws on a jury system when many characters in the play ineffectively utilise their power to try and hasten the case so they can be escape their duty. In comparison, Juror Twelve is found to be ‘’doodling’’ on his sheet ‘’as it keep him thinking clearly’’ suggests he is interested in conducting other activities and not utilising his power effectively to assist in the process of finding a reasonable doubt.link back to the prompt - how does this relate to him abusing his power? Therefore Rose shows the flaws of a jury system as such events in a jury room should not occur, especially as the ‘’case is the most serious charge tried criminal court’’, further representing the misuse of power in a society where many where individuals were afraid of change and therefore voted with the majority as they did not have the ability to stand up to more dominant figures.Remember its about POWER not the jury system hahha Therefore through such irresponsibility shown by many jurors, Rose propels his belief that many jury members seen this power given, as a weapon and thus used it against the accused in order to reach a ‘’quicker verdict’’.unnecessary quoting again - if it's not proving your point in something or backing you up, don't include it.

However, power is seen as a strength and therefore if utilised effectively has the ability to prevail others who see itor even abuse it? as an excuse to reveal their prejudices. At first instance Initially, juror eight- make sure you write capital letters in the jurors names! is depicted, starring at the ‘’New York skyline’’, suggesting his independence as the rest of the jury members ‘’sit down’’ while also indicating that the discussion within the jury room will have a greater impact on America as a whole, therefore showing that Juror Eight is a character of fairness and objectivity. At first vote juror eight is depicted ‘’standing alone against the ridicule of others’’ as the majority voted guilty this further shows how Juror Eight ‘’finds it difficult to send a boy off to die without talking about it first’’ instantly highlights his objectivity within the case, while many simply voted guilty ‘’after five minutes’’ because ‘’nobody proved otherwise’’, further highlighting the flaws and misuses of power in regards to finding a ‘’reasonable doubt’’ or even that it isnt always misused and if used correctly it can aid the justice system?
However this perceptionwhat are you talking about exactly, be specific is challenged by Juror Eight who is a defender of democracy, by stating ‘’nobody has to prove otherwise, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution’’. Rose identifies this as a key feature of a jury system as it allows one to remain innocent until proven guilty.Seems as though you're straying and talking about the flaws in the justice system rather than an abuse of power - they can be linked but make sure you're referring back to the prompt! Moreover Juror Eight’s persistence in ‘’questioning the facts’’ creates tension within the jury room as jurors begin to change their vote sparking Juror Three to be described a ‘’public avenger as he ‘’lunges wildly’’ at Juror Eight, expressing ‘’I’ll kill him, I’ll kill him’’, this strongly shifts the majority of Jurors position on the case as they now have a ‘’doubt’’ that it cannot be taken literally.prompt?? Therefore through the power Juror Eight utilised, he created ‘’the competitive type’’ juror three to be made an example of, thus influence others to be believe that ‘’sometimes the facts that are starring you in the face are wrong’’, Hence Rose shows how power should be used through Juror Eight who in the end convinces the majority of Jurors to believe that ‘’sometimes the facts staring you in the face are wrong’’.You need to definitely link back to the prompt DURING the para rather than just at the end, I think you got lost in the flaws of the justice system in there. Also dont forget to add in what Rose is trying to say through what you've quoted - it's important!

In essence, Rose explores the jury system within the American judicial system as a whole.Again focus on jury system rather than the prompt Through many character backgrounds who reveal their prejudices and racism, Rose shows the potentiality for injustice to prevail as many were incapable of fulfilling their civic duty in an appropriate manner, yet Rose is more focused on the Justice system having the ability to prevail when members of the jury use their power effectively and as intended resulting in a fair verdict.

I definitely think you want to re-read the play and pick out some strong evidence that you can use. If you pick beast evidence it will back up what you're trying to get across. Also as I have mentioned be careful about straying from the prompt!
Goodluck with it:)

[Limista]

I'm not sure how many people have read or are studying Wilfred Owen, but some feedback on this would be appreciated

It is those who glorify war, and not the soldiers who fight them, that Owen’s poetry denounces.[/size]

It is hard to say who is the greatest enemy in the poetry of Wilfred Owen, for his bitterness is directed at more than one target.Here you've directly answered the question in a sentence. Good. Yet, Owen’s “subject [of] war and the pity of war” reveals his irrefutable'irrefutable' is controversial. Because it has a strong meaning, I wouldn't really put it in the intro. Save it for the body paragraphs. animosity towards war’s destruction and those who instigated and propagatedchoose either 'instigated' or 'propagated'. Clearly you have a broad vocab, but you're trying too hard to emphasise this. it. His hatred was concentrated on those who so readily told “the Old Lie” with “such high zest”; words that were the catalyst for the irreversible “doomed fate” of the youth of the dayThe first part before the semi-colon was great. I though after the semi-colon, you would go on to justify exactly what you meant, after drawing on these implications within the text. The examiner may not read this anthology as thoroughly as you or me. He wouldn't know what you meant here all that clearly, but he could harbour a guess I suppose.. Owen’s emotional fervour and rich poetic idioms, made it clear that his cause purposewas not the glory of bellicose Englandwhilst 'bellicose' is a great adjective, I don't think you should be using it to describe a proper noun. It seems out of place here.; rather, he aimed to combatis combat really the word you are looking for? It seems too intense. Maybe something more euphemistic, like 'rebuke' the rhetoric of his day, to shock the deluded military officials and civilians out of their state of ignorance, so they too could comprehend the attrition of warnicely put. I might use "the attrition of war" in my essays too.  . Parallel to these themes, Owen vividly describes the validity of the feelings of love and grief that existed sempiternally between the unbreakable bonds of the fighting menActually, I can argue this. Take a look at the "Dead-beat" poem. Also, I feel like you've overdone this sentence. You've tried too hard to communicate something pretty simple, and it shows through the vocab. Basically, it's a bit verbose. Too much has been put into the one sentence, making for exhaustive reading.. The unequivocal lament of the “doomed youth” was eternalised in Owen’s verse and highlightedso the words I've underlined in this sentence. They are some seriously strong, intense words. When used near each other, it makes for exhaustive reading (in my opinion). I kind of got put off. Eruditeness is not always the key to success. If you didn't have these words in, it'd make for more approachable reading. The examiner spends more time discerning your ideas, rather than being barred by the vocab. At the same time, an extensive vocab works wonders; you have more to pick and choose from, so that you can sub. in a word that fits EXACTLY within the context. A big word shouldn't be used for the sake of it. that he did not aim to denounce the soldiers who fought the war, but rather those who could so easily, “smiling, write his lie [of age].”I crossed out 'smiling' to avoid a grammar error. It should have been 'smilingly' - the adverb.

The elegiac qualityaspect of Owen’s poetry reveals his pity for the men of atwar: “those who die[d] as cattle.”what does this tone have to do with the topic? Rather than feelings ofInstead of exuding feelings of animosity towards the enemy, camaraderie existed in every tier, on every side of the battle, between the soldiershow is this related to the mournful tone of the poem?. The fateful meeting between two soldiers in Hell, told in Strange Meeting, tells this profound ideologylol. Firstly, I don't think it's an ideology. Certainly it's your revelation, but it's not an ideology. Secondly, by using the adjective 'profound', you're actually complementing your revelation, so you're complementing yourself. This provides the examiner with quite an impression of the student  . The exchange of words between the soldiers, “I was the enemy you killed, my friend,” engendered a smile rather than animusand as a result...? Link it back to your opinion: that there is a strong bond between the soldiers.. The paradox of an enemy being considered a friend exemplifiedexemplifies (use present tense for TR essays) the confusion of the soldier’s situations and conversely, their deep felt empathyhuh? "Conversely" means like 'on the other hand' or something. But how is "their deep felt empathy" on the opposite end of the spectrum of their confusion? Also "deep felt" is hyperbole. It's too much. Just 'empathy' would have been fine.. The unbroken iambic pentameter and consistent rhythm of the Strange Meeting resembles a normal conversation, illustrating Owen’s desire to portray the assiduity of fellow feeling what are you trying to say here exactly? under war’s derisionI think only a person can be derisive. War is a construct. Constructs cannot be derisive.. You have not answered the topic in this paragraph. You have not linked these points to the topic. The points are there; they demonstrate textual knowledge. But the extent to which you know your text seems superficial, because of all these big words that do not make things clear.

The real enemies of the young men were not the Germans who were “scarcely thought of,” but in fact the army officials of their own country who were only too willing to help them “throw away their knees.” excellent. LINKS TO TOPIC!  The manipulative recruitment techniques and misleading propaganda of the army officials exploited the desire of “children ardent for some desperate glory.” Owen bitterly recounts how these naïve young men, aspiring to also adorn the “jewelled hilts,” “plaid socks” and “smart salutes,” of the army officials were left as little more than “queer disease” after the warexplicitly state that the exposed naivety of the soldiers is what denounces them . The mourning of “undone years” echoes through Owen’s verse, the penitence of lost youth evident in the dissonance of caused by the pararhyme of Owen’s poetrypretty wordy. Basically, pararhyme evokes feelings of discord. Readers are left feeling disconcerted. The regret is heartfelt in the stark contrast between the diction in the stanzas of Owen’s Dulce et decorum estshouldn't the names of the poems be in question marks? I'm not sure about this by the way.. Stanza four employs evocative language, “obscene”, “froth-corrupted”, “writhing” and “bitter”; all words indicative of a destructive forces. The subsequent juxtaposition of “innocence” and “sin” metaphorically personifies the deceitful “friend” as the one who sinned, the “devil”. It was these men who told the “old Lie” but never the truth of warand these implicit poetic conventions were used on Owen's behalf to debase the men --> phrase this differently if you will, but the point I'm trying to make here is: link to the topic.. This anger is furthered as these were the men who “smiling, wrote his lie,”why are you repeating the quotes from your introduction?? happy to let the youth’s “veins run dry.” The promise of looking “a god in kilts” was never met, but a life “bent double as beggars and hags,” was the fate that awaited the soldiers.Why is the "anger furthered" through these things you've pointed out here? Also, how does any of this link to the topic?   

Owen himself mocks the audience, citizens of society who are criticized for overlooking returned soldiersveterans, forcing them to “take whatever pity them may dole.” Sincerity of feeling only existed on the battlefieldthis ties to the point in your first para. But all the same, don't make an extreme statement like this and leave it hanging without any justification.. Owen felt scorn for thewas scornful of the idea of memorial services, held in churches at home, with “prayers” and “bells” and “signing choirboys” holding candles, whichsomehow made the deaths acceptable. He felt that it was all hypocrisy, and that the only sincere memorial light was when the eyes of the soldier in the field lit up with the “holy glimmer of goodbyes,”, the quick farewell when they saw a comrade fall in battle. These were men for whom “life became absurd but death became absurder.” They could no longer place faith in those who had led them to the war, generals and imperials who were not subject to the “smothering dreams” the soldier’s suffered. Owen’s denunciation of these men is seen in the soldier’s increasing reliance on nature for comfort. The long, soft vowels and quiet consonants of Futility suggest only a caring concern for death, a refusal to panic, wherebyconfidence isplaced in the purity of nature and the curing properties of the sun. These are the emotions presented in Owen’s visceral narrative of the tragic story of the soldiers, that reveal not only his love for them but to contrast these sincere emotions with his hostility towards a government, that simplyused the soldiers as tools for egocentric and demented desires. you are accusing the government here. Doesn't this point then belong in your second para?

Owen’s use of scrambledan alternating rhyming pattern and stanza length echoes the uncertainty and incompleteness of the lives of soldiers. Such a bitter tone and attitude toward the British Armythis contradicts with your first para, and your intro, where you praise the soldiers for their camaraderie. Or have I misunderstood? and supporters of the war reiterates the ‘true’ aspects of war that Owen wished to convey. conclusion could have been a bit longer.

woahhh, not sure why the end is all crossed out

Sometimes you use quotes excessively. Naturally, you embed them in smoothly and easily, but too many quotes means that you are not spending time on ruminating over your ideas in the essay, if you know what I mean.

 

[jeanweasley]

Note: I'm not an expert but I'll give this a shot.

“We’re children of nature, my lord. Of earth, as well as of the gods.” Is Somax’s view of humanity important in ‘Ransom’? Explain your view.

Whilst the novel “Ransom” is set in the midst of the ten-year long Trojan War, the author, Don't spell out things that we already know. Assessors have read the book and know who the author is.David Malouf, demonstrates that it is stillWhat is the use of 'still' here? I don't think it serves any purpose. The usage of whilst denotes that there is a comparison but there is none here. essential to maintain a sense of one’s place in the world and a connection with others. This is good.Malouf’s addition of the character Again, don't spell everything out. Somax to the legend of TroyAgain, this is assumed. presents an everyday man’s ordinary wisdom, contrasting with the royal conventions of noble King Priam Addressing him as Priam is fine.and the fierce warrior and hero Achilles. Somax’s delight in simple pleasures such as nourishment of the body and banal small talk serve to remind King Priam of his existence in nature. Achilles echoes Somax’s sentiment as he seeks comfort in a harmonious connection with nature. Ultimately, Achilles overcomes his grief by recognising his shared mortality and shared father-son relationship with Priam, as they are both human, So what if they're both human? I don't know what the latter part of this sentence entails. unlike the gods. Priam’s appreciation of this, however, is catalysed by Somax’s storytelling and hence Somax’s simple philosophy is certainly instrumental in allowing the ransom of Hector’s body to be achieved.From your first paragraph, I feel like there's a certain will to impress here. Your vocabulary is impeccable but they need not be in every single line. Adjectives that describe the characters whilst demonstrating some knowledge become a little bit like a review and a biased analysis of them. I think your ideas here are definitely great but they need to be simply told.

Through Somax’s strong sense of place in the natural world, Malouf reveals the humane side of heroesBut aren't heroes normally human though? I think you could definitely push this a bit more and explain further. in an epic legend. During the journey, Somax coaxes Priam to take food and drink as nourishment by reminding Priam that “[they’re] children of nature”. Explain the significance of this quote and why this is important.While Priam is inclined to abstain from food and drink for “fear” of “compromising the purity of his mission”, he nevertheless accepts Somax’s offer and appreciates the nourishing “effect on the spirit”. Excessive quoting here without explanation. Why does Priam feel the way he does and why is your use of quotes important in showing what you want to show?In the sharing of a simple meal between an “ordinary carter” and “great Priam”,What does the quote mean? Don't they present a contrast and if so, why does Malouf use this? It's okay to have a little bit of language analysis in a text response. You can analyse Malouf's usage of words, especially since there are some topics that focus on his construction of the novel and how he achieves this. Malouf suggests that the natural bodily need for nourishmentSounds really awkward. Again, it feels like you're trying to impress with your vocabulary. is part of what makes us human, regardless of status.Explain status a bit more. I feel like you haven't really established this before in the early part of your paragraph. Somax’s delight in small talk and stories further cements his connection to nature in a “prattling world”What's the significance of this quote?. As “children of nature”, Somax shows that humans are equally prattling which means what? Why is this important?as he relates his personal anecdotes for the “interest” and “curiosity” of Priam. Malouf evokes the power of Somax’s values What are Somax's values?in his vivid imagery of the “continuous rustling and buzzing and humming”Great use of quote here but what does this mean and what is Malouf trying to say? It's not really clear. which Priam is exposed to. Priam, in paying “the price of the new”, discovers with childlike amazement that “if you stopped to listen, everything prattled”, reflective of his developing understanding of Somax’s view of himself as part of nature. Without realising it, Somax’s view of himself as part of the world around him indoctrinates Priam into the “new and unimaginable” which Malouf suggests is part of our universal humanity.I'm not going to annotate every single quote here but I have to reiterate that your vocabulary needs to be simplified and quotes here need to be toned down and explained. Whilst you do talk about Malouf's intent, you sacrifice the explanation for the quality of your quotes. Don't just quote for the sake of quoting - anybody can do that. Explain why Malouf has written what he has and why has your selected quote support your contention? I'm going to underline your use of excessive 'big word' vocab as I feel like you need to tone down your writing, as sometimes it feels like you're overwriting. Writing is balance of 'easy' and 'big words' and short and long sentences.

Similarly, Achilles reflects the need to be in harmony with oneself, others and the earth, in line with Somax’s earthly delights and rejection of violence.I'm not sure Somax rejects violence. He is a drunkard and his actions reflect so. I think it's more like he chooses not to punch beauty or engage in violent actions because he knows that it's going to bring back his son and it's no use. Malouf’s objection to war as a means to resolve problems is conveyed in Achilles’ yearning to be in harmony with the earth Repetition of earth.as a farmer. He contends that “war should be practised swiftly, decisively” as being caught in the idleness of war is “death to the warrior spirit”. Instead, Achilles pines for the “farmer’s life”, described as “sitting about in the shade doling out the small change of gossip” and “listening while flies buzz”. Explanation about the writing can be useful here too. What do these two quotes suggest?This strongly echoes Somax’s “prattling” stories and the “continuous rustling” on the banks of the Scamander River.Why is the river important? By separating the different points of view of Somax and Achilles into different sections of the novel while still expressing similar sentimentssentiments of what? Be clear., Malouf asserts that a desire for such simple activities transcends the chasms between humans forged by war and status. In fact, Malouf depicts violence as futile and reveals how it may hamper attainment of a sense of self through Somax’s wisdom. Somax articulates his rage upon discovering his dead son as he “felt like punching [Beauty]”. Despite this, Somax knows the answer to his own question; “what would have been the good of that? That wouldn’t have brought him back”.Quoting here is kind of messy. I had to read it twice to get it what it meant. Almost as an implicit rebuke of Achilles’ desecration of Hector’s body while raging over the loss of his “soulmate”, Malouf’s characterisation of Somax emphasises the intrinsic human requirement to be at peace rather than at war.This sentence here I think could be shorter and the idea could probably be joined with the previous sentence.

Furthermore, Somax’s acceptance of the gods’Capital. control over men’s lives, in line with the Ancient Greek beliefs, allows him to accept and deal with grief which is a concept central to the conflict within and between Achilles and Priam. Somax sees humans as “children” “of earth, as well as of the gods”.Awkward quoting here. The quotation marks look weird. IN recognition of the domination the gods may have over mankind, he attributes the “many things we don’t know” to the gods’ actions. While he questions “mightn’t the gods regret it too and think that they acted too hasty?”, he is accepting of the role they have in determining men’s lives. This allows him to deal with the sudden, inexplicable and tragic loss of his sons with the philosophy “we go on, for all our losses”. Which means what?Malouf highlights the significance of these wise words by subverting the social hierarchy in Somax’s teaching to “King Priam”.Analysis here falls short. The quote needs to be explained as it's one of the most significant quotes of the novel. I'm not convinced that this is all Malouf wants to do. Malouf depicts Priam as a “toddler” and “a child with seventy years on his back” in the presence of Somax’s life experience. Which means what? How does the characterisation support your stance?It is Somax’s storytelling Quote is important here; you might also want to describe the factors of storytelling and why they are only important, not just showing Priam that he isn't really human.You can link storytelling with human connection here.which triggers Priam’s consideration of whether he really knows “what it is to lose a son”. Priam ponders his ignorance of the “human occasions” missed in his sons’ lives which alleviates the pain of having to bury a son “twenty times over”. Don't really know what you're trying to say here. Through Somax’s education sounds awkwardof Priam, Malouf epitomises the importance of engagement with both the “pain and pleasure” of life as well as the need to recognise that loss is an intrinsic part of being human.

Somax’s understanding of shared mortality is ultimately realised in the act of the ransom with the liberation of Achilles from his rage and grief. Kind of a mouthful here.Somax’s capacity to stoically and courageously soldier onkind of colloquial. with life is exactly what Achilles lacks in the opening of the novel.Unless the section is really important, don't mention it. Of course, you would expect in a text that there would be some kind of character development. Malouf places emphasis on the extent to which Achilles is caught in a cycle of unfulfilling vengeance by the symbolism of the knot. Having tied Hector’s body “knot after knot” to his chariot, Achilles is unable to “break free” of his “maddened grief”. Good use of symbolism here While Priam is similarly attempting “to cut this knot we are all tied in”, he has gained insight from Somax’s storytelling into the mortality and fatherhood which he and Achilles share in as part of the human race. Sounds awkward. Makes me think that there are alien races. Hence, Priam orchestrates the emancipation of Achilles, enabling him to find the “living man at the centre of…himself”. How, though? Additionally, Priam’s “new-found” connection with humanity allows him to connect with Achilles with compassion. What does this quote mean? Priam falls to his knees “out of instant fellow-feeling” just as previously Somax’s “heart softened” with “fellow-feeling” “since he too was a father” and understood Priam’s grieving state of mind. Too many quotes in the one sentence and with minimal explanation. Why are your selected quotes important? What do they entail? Through this domino effect of Priam doing to Achilles what Somax had done to him, Malouf reveals how raw human emotions and connections are imperative toin helping one another overcome the vagaries of life.

In his retelling of the “Iliad”, Malouf’s introduction of the character Somax allows the human side of the legendary heroes Priam and Achilles to be explored. Awkward ending here. Anything is, in a sense, able to be explored. Why is humanity so important? Why didn't Malouf focus on traditional heroism? Somax enables Priam to reconnect with his humanity, reminding the great King of his place in the natural order of things, only because this sentence sounds like a race. as well as his shared mortality and the necessity to deal with loss. In turn, Priam evokes Somax’s teachings in his appeal to Achilles, catalysing Achilles’ reattachment awkward word use with his own sense of identity. In evoking the raw human emotions and connections required for a successful ransom, Malouf attests to the necessity of moments of peace and humanity in a world of never-ending war and conflict. Nice ending sentence here

Overall, there is good use of textual knowledge and evidence, however, on most occasions, there seems to be excessive quoting - that is, quoting for the sake of quoting. Explanations seem to be quite minimal, without full exploration of what has happened. Vocabulary is somewhat too complex and hinders the understanding of the analysis as a whole. I suggest simplifying some of the words and phrases there and aim for a substantial explanation. Inclusion of storytelling could be further explored as well as the use of language employed by Malouf. On the whole, this is a very good essay, although at times it suffer from the weight of complex words and excessive quoting, masking the potential for in depth analysis.

[ahat]

@Sugarminted

Thanks so much for the feedback. It agrees with my opinion on that essay too, I didn't think it was particularly good. I tried to use big words to veil my lack of proper textual knowledge
Would you mind (if you have any practice Wilfred pieces), sharing them? It would really help.

Btw, what's the effect of using pararhyme and half-rhyme on the audience, in your opinion?
If you look at 'Has your soul slipped', the whole thing is pararhyme. What's the effect?
And have you grouped your poems by theme?
(sorry for the barrage of questions)

Btw, in my second paragraph, I was trying to say that Owen isn't denouncing the soldier because he pities them, but this obviously has to be reworked?

[Limista]

Well whatever Wilfred Owen practice pieces I do have, they are either somewhere under my bed/ with my teacher etc etc. Point being that they are all handwritten and I honestly don't know why, but I always end up losing them (kind of like socks in the washing machine  ). I'll try and write one that's top quality soon though.

I think pararhyme and half-rhyme have pretty much the same effect on the reader. They have that jarring kind of feeling, because we think, "Why isn't it full rhyme??" As readers, we want to be treated to something that rhymes completely, so that we feel a sense of completeness. But his poetry deliberately avoids this - Owen does not want us to be satisfied.

As for the 'theme' question: not exactly.

It's your choice whether you want to rework your second para. I guess I just got confused because the topic sentence had 'army officials' written, as opposed to 'soldiers'.