Text Response Essay please correct

[Adequace]

I got 47/50 for this essay but I think my teacher marked fairly easy and left no feedback apart from ticks. If someone could please mark this that would be great. Also, is there a reason why the T.R compilation thread is locked?

I think my vocab and some of my ideas were pretty weak in this essay and was quite surprised by the mark.
Prompt: Vladek demonstrates that resourcefulness is more conductive to survival than luck. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Art Spiegelman’s “Maus” utilises the unorthodox medium of a graphic novel to explore Vladek’s survival of the Holocaust. The novel suggests Vladek’s immense resourcefulness is owed to his survival of the Holocaust but it his ultimately his greater luck that allows him to survive. This is exhibited through Pavel when he says “[it] was random!” suggesting that the best people did not survive the Holocaust nor did the worst die. It was solely dependent on their luck and fate.

Throughout the novel, Spiegelman portrays Vladek as a “present-minded and resourceful” individual whilst trying to battle the challenges presented by the Holocaust. This is demonstrated through Vladek exploiting every situation that could potentially benefit him, when he first meets Anja and sees her taking pills Vladek’s initial thought is “what did I need [Anja] for” suggesting that Vladek wants a partner who he could benefit from and utilise to achieve his ambitions of wealth. Vladek’s heroic determination of resourcefulness is exhibited again while talking to a depressed Anja stating “[Anja] [has] to struggle for life” conveying the determination needed to overcome the obstacles life will possess and then when you are able to overcome these obstacles that is when you are truly a survivor. Vladek’s unfathomable resourcefulness gives him the much needed will power to persist through the hardships encountered through the Holocaust.

However, Vladek is placed by Spiegelman in a plethora of near-death situations which is due to his absurd luck which ‘cheats’ him from death. Vladek’s luck is demonstrated before being sent to Auschwitz, because he is able to hide away from the Gestapo for longer periods of time juxtaposed against many other Jews. Vladek’s uncontrollable luck is exhibited during his time during the Holocaust, this is noticeable when “[Vladek] got too skinny” and has to go to the “Blocksphere”, he realises that he might not be physically able to pass because of his weakened and starved body. Because of this he hides in the camp toilets hoping he is not spotted, miraculously the Gestapo fail to realise and do not try to find Vladek. Leading up to the release of the remaining Jews in Auschwitz, Vladek suffers from the effects of typhus. Although he is able to survive, many other Jews do not including one of his brothers who dies from typhus. Vladek’s survival of these circumstances are owed to his luck, in which he could not control.

For Spiegelman, he demonstrates Vladek’s characteristics that allows him to survive the camps contrasted against his present life in “Rego Park”. Spiegelman portrays Vladek as a stringy and cheap individual, although his personality or characteristics have not changed, they have been indefinitely altered due to the horrors and trauma invoked by the Holocaust. Vladek’s much loved money and fortune is slowly diminishing shown when he suffers from “physical pain” to lose “even a nickel”, suggesting Vladek is scared at the possibility of becoming broke, or perhaps losing what he ultimately worked for during his life in Europe. Furthermore, Spiegelman suggests that Vladek “didn’t survive” possibly suggesting although he physically survived the Holocaust but his sole died in Auschwitz. Vladek’s survival of the Holocaust is clear, but it has shaped the person who he is after the war.

Although Vladek could not control his fate or luck, he was determined to make sure of his survival. However his extreme resourcefulness ultimately was not accountable for his survival instead his luck that “saved [Vladek’s] life” did. Spiegelman’s characterisation of Vladek after the war suggests a greater profound depiction of Vladek before and after the war.

[heids]

OK, feedback, hoping it's helpful and not too harsh/overwhelming!  Let me know if you have any questions about it, I never guarantee that I make sense

I got 47/50 for this essay but I think my teacher marked fairly easy and left no feedback apart from ticks. If someone could please mark this that would be great. Also, is there a reason why the T.R compilation thread is locked?

I think my vocab and some of my ideas were pretty weak in this essay and was quite surprised by the mark.

For year 10, a thoroughly decent essay that imo deserves that mark; you go excellently between evidence and analysis with verbs (actually much better than many year 12s), don't story-tell too much, have some great points, quote nicely, and your vocab is great (I'd rather say a trifle over-used in places, not weak!).  Well done!  The intro/conclusion is maybe the weakest, but overall this is an excellent essay and I totally agree with your teacher

The compilation threads are locked because they were basically Ned Nerb's threads, and when he could no longer mark 300 essays per year, he locked them to make it open and general for everyone.

Vladek demonstrates that resourcefulness is more conductive to survival than luck. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Art Spiegelman’s “Maus” utilises the unorthodox medium of a graphic novel to explore Vladek’s survival of the Holocaust. Could try a more 'profound' first sentence.  To give you an idea, though this isn't relevant to the prompt: Built from his father’s vividly dictated memories, Art Spiegelman’s graphic novel Maus reveals the true inhumanity behind the catastrophic Holocaust. The novel suggests Vladek’s immense resourcefulness is owed to his survival of the Holocaust the other way round, right? he isn't resourceful because he survived, but he survived because he's resourceful but it his ultimately his greater luck that allows him to survive. This is exhibited see later for active/passive comments through Pavel when he says “[it] was random!” suggesting that the best people did not survive the Holocaust nor did the worst die. It was solely dependent on their luck and fate this appears to contradict your contention a bit, as your contention acknowledges the role that resourcefulness plays.

Your contention could be more like this: Although Spiegelman acknowledges the role of Vladek's resourcefulness and will to live in his survival, ultimately he reveals that survival 'was RANDOM!' and significantly dependent on luck.  Or acknowledge that both are needed for survival; based on luck alone, no one could survive, but no matter how resilient, this did not guarantee survival.

I also think you need to be a bit more explicit about your three arguments.  I'd personally start with explicitly signposting, and then gradually learning more subtlety as you write more essays, rather than avoiding it altogether in year 10.  For instance, your third paragraph isn't mentioned in the intro at all.

Throughout the novel, Spiegelman portrays Vladek as a “present-minded and resourceful” individual whilst trying to battle the challenges presented by the Holocaust. This is demonstrated through Vladek exploiting every situation that could potentially benefit him, semi-colon not comma when he first meets Anja and sees her taking pills Vladek’s initial thought is “what did I need [Anja] for” suggesting that Vladek wants a partner who he could benefit from and utilise to achieve his ambitions of wealth. Good (though personally I dislike this interpretation, I don't think that's what he was saying at all... but that's no fault with your essay!) Vladek’s heroic determination of resourcefulness is exhibited see passive/active below again while talking to a depressed Anja stating “[Anja] [has] to struggle for life” ; through this Spiegelman conveys the determination needed to overcome life's obstacles and truly become a survivor (if you're drawing out lessons, say that the author is showing those lessons, don't just state them) conveying the determination needed to overcome the obstacles life will possess and then when you are able to overcome these obstacles that is when you are truly a survivor. Vladek’s unfathomable I'm anti-unnecessary-adjectives, others may disagree, but they don't help your analysis resourcefulness can you find a synonym? gives him the much needed will power to persist through the hardships encountered through the Holocaust. Good!  Now mention the times that he saves up money and food and paper and other 'useless stuff', which he then trades later, while others have guzzled their food so they can't survive later, or thrown out stuff he can use later.  This is actually really significant in his survival, which is why you can't argue it's just up to luck.

However, Vladek is placed by Spiegelman do you know the difference between active and passive voice? Passive shifts focus to the 'object', i.e. Vladek.  Spiegelman is the subject, who is 'doing' something (placing Vladek); it sounds nicer and punchier if you make his action 'active', Spiegelman places Vladek.[/b] in a plethora of near-death situations which is due to his absurd luck which ‘cheats’ him from death. Vladek’s luck is demonstrated here's another case of passive; a tip: avoid 'ed' words, like 'is demonstrated' or 'is exhibited'.  Instead you could say, Before being sent to Auschwitz, Vladek is able to hide from the Gestapo longer than most Jews, demonstrating his luck. before being sent to Auschwitz, because he is able to hide away from the Gestapo for longer periods of time juxtaposed against than many other Jews. Vladek’s uncontrollable luck is exhibited again: When Vladek '[gets] too skinny' and realises he might be physically unable to pass, he hides in the camp toilets... which exhibits his uncontrollable luck.  See how you're often putting your point at the start of a piece of evidence?  I think it reads more nicely to generally put your 'significance' or what you draw from the evidence after describing the evidence.  I think of verbs (e.g. demonstrate, exhibit, showcase, reveal, highlight, convey etc.) as 'bridges' between the evidence and analysis, and I like to go evidence -> verb -> analysis rather than analysis -> verb -> evidence (however mixing it up a bit is always good as it sounds less formulaic). during his time during the Holocaust, semicolon this is noticeable when “[Vladek] got too skinny” and has to go to the “Blocksphere”, he realises that he might not be physically able to pass because of his weakened and starved body. Because of this he hides in the camp toilets hoping he is not spotted, semicolon miraculously the Gestapo fail to realise and do not try to find Vladek. Arguably this is his resourcefulness, actually; if he hadn't taken the initiative to go to the toilets, they would have caught him.  You could actually use this to show how resourcefulness and luck work together; luck on its own couldn't work, but then neither could resourcefulness. use linking word to transition between different examples/evidence Leading up to the release of the remaining Jews in Auschwitz, Vladek suffers from the effects of typhus. Although he is able to survive, many other Jews do not including one of his brothers who dies from typhus. Vladek’s survival of these circumstances are owed to his luck, in which he could not control.

For Spiegelman, he demonstrates Vladek’s characteristics that allows him to survive the camps contrasted against his present life in “Rego Park”. Spiegelman portrays Vladek as a stringy and cheap individual, semicolon although his personality or characteristics have not changed, they have been indefinitely altered due to the horrors and trauma invoked by the Holocaust. Vladek’s much loved money and fortune is slowly diminishing shown when he suffers from “physical pain” to lose “even a nickel”, suggesting Vladek is scared at the possibility of becoming broke, or perhaps losing what he ultimately worked for during his life in Europe. Furthermore, Spiegelman suggests that Vladek “didn’t survive” possibly suggesting although he physically survived the Holocaust but his sole died in Auschwitz. Vladek’s survival of the Holocaust is clear, but it has shaped the person who he is after the war. I can see something awesome coming out of this, your topic sentence is brilliant - something like, Vladek realises the impact resourcefulness had on his survival during the war, so he's still clinging to it thinking it'll help him to survive post-war life; but it's actually what's destroying his life, and Anja's.
But yeah, I love the point that he hasn't actually survived!

Although Vladek could not control his fate or luck, he was determined to make sure of his survival. However his extreme resourcefulness ultimately was not accountable for his survival instead his luck that “saved [Vladek’s] life” did. stick to present tense Spiegelman’s characterisation of Vladek after the war suggests a greater profound depiction of Vladek before and after the war. last sentence doesn't say much; I hated conclusions, I could never figure out what to say.  Something like: Yet while Spiegelman highlights the predominant role of luck, nonetheless he celebrates the potential of strength and a will to live in surviving even the harshest of situations. (finish on a message or something)

[Adequace]

Thanks for the essay correction, I really appreciate it!

For the intro, how would I mention my third paragraph if I was to use the "X, however it is Y" signposting method?

I guess I should also learn how to use a semi colon as well 

[heids]

Thanks for the essay correction, I really appreciate it!

For the intro, how would I mention my third paragraph if I was to use the "X, however it is Y" signposting method?

I guess I should also learn how to use a semi colon as well 

I'd prefer to finish off the intro with the 'X, however Y' (or 'Although X, ultimately Y') - in other words, your contention in one powerful sentence; before that, I'd briefly outline/signpost all your arguments, which together contribute to your contention which you sum up in the last sentence.
Have you read this post? Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]

Try http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon on semi-colons.

Basically, semicolons are for gluing two separate sentences together - sentences that could stand alone, but because the ideas are linked or the sentences are too short, you want to glue them together to improve flow.  You can't glue two separate sentences together with a comma, unless you have a conjunction (gluing word).

Some examples, the first three correct and the last incorrect:
You can't glue two sentences together with a comma.  You need a semicolon.
You can't glue two sentences together with a comma; you need a semicolon.
You can't glue two sentences together with a comma, as you need a semicolon.
You can't glue two sentences together with a comma, you need a semicolon.  [INCORRECT, though often used in informal writing]

See these examples in your writing

This is demonstrated through Vladek exploiting every situation that could potentially benefit him, when he first meets Anja and sees her taking pills Vladek’s initial thought is...
Vladek’s uncontrollable luck is exhibited during his time during the Holocaust, this is noticeable when “[Vladek] got too skinny” and has to go to the “Blocksphere”, he realises that he might not be physically able to pass because of his weakened and starved body.
Because of this he hides in the camp toilets hoping he is not spotted, miraculously the Gestapo fail to realise and do not try to find Vladek.
Spiegelman portrays Vladek as a stringy and cheap individual, although his personality or characteristics have not changed, they have been indefinitely altered due to the horrors and trauma invoked by the Holocaust.

Why do I always think of you as Aquadace??

[cosine]

Prompt: Vladek demonstrates that resourcefulness is more conductive to survival than luck. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Art Spiegelman’s “Maus” utilises the unorthodox medium of a graphic novel to explore Vladek’s survival of the Holocaust. The novel suggests that Vladek’s immense resourcefulness is owed to his survival of the Holocaust (I think this is the other way around, his survival is partially owed to his resourcefulness and compactness), but it his ultimately his greater luck that allows him to survive (This does not make sense, I know what you are trying to say but the sentencing is not correct). This is exhibited through Pavel when he says “[it] was random!” suggesting that the best people did not survive the Holocaust nor did the worst die. It was solely dependent on their luck and fate.

Art Spiegelman's 'Maus' utilises the unorthodox medium of a graphic novel to explore Vladek's survival of the Holocaust. The novel suggests that Vladek's survival of the Holocaust is owed to his resourcefulness, as it constantly reiterates his atypical behaviours throughout the text, emphasising the radiation of his frugality. However, Spiegelman makes evident that 'it was not the weak who died, nor the best. It was random', implying that Vladek's survival can be partially attributed to his luck during the Holocaust.

Inspired by bangali_lok to give it a go, I tried to write a better version of your introduction. I totally agree with your arguments and ideas, but you can definitely improve the sentencing of them and structure. You can also add more effectiveness to your ideas by actually structuring it better, and by further elaborating on the examples that you provide, for example, in the intro i re-wrote, after his resourcefulness, i further expanded on the idea by including that it radiates  everyone around him, which will allow you to talk about more ideas throughout the essay, I guess.. Anyways, I tried, if you think my intro is worse then you are probably right.

[Adequace]

I'd prefer to finish off the intro with the 'X, however Y' (or 'Although X, ultimately Y') - in other words, your contention in one powerful sentence; before that, I'd briefly outline/signpost all your arguments, which together contribute to your contention which you sum up in the last sentence.
Have you read this post? Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]

Try http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon on semi-colons.

Basically, semicolons are for gluing two separate sentences together - sentences that could stand alone, but because the ideas are linked or the sentences are too short, you want to glue them together to improve flow.  You can't glue two separate sentences together with a comma, unless you have a conjunction (gluing word).

Some examples, the first three correct and the last incorrect:
You can't glue two sentences together with a comma.  You need a semicolon.
You can't glue two sentences together with a comma; you need a semicolon.
You can't glue two sentences together with a comma, as you need a semicolon.
You can't glue two sentences together with a comma, you need a semicolon.  [INCORRECT, though often used in informal writing]

See these examples in your writing

This is demonstrated through Vladek exploiting every situation that could potentially benefit him, when he first meets Anja and sees her taking pills Vladek’s initial thought is...
Vladek’s uncontrollable luck is exhibited during his time during the Holocaust, this is noticeable when “[Vladek] got too skinny” and has to go to the “Blocksphere”, he realises that he might not be physically able to pass because of his weakened and starved body.
Because of this he hides in the camp toilets hoping he is not spotted, miraculously the Gestapo fail to realise and do not try to find Vladek.
Spiegelman portrays Vladek as a stringy and cheap individual, although his personality or characteristics have not changed, they have been indefinitely altered due to the horrors and trauma invoked by the Holocaust.

Why do I always think of you as Aquadace??

Thanks for this. For my structure of my body paragraphs I've tried writing them as evidence-verb-analysis but they don't sound correct because I assume my expression is wrong. Do you mind showing me how to do it correctly by using my first body paragraph?

[heids]

Thanks for this. For my structure of my body paragraphs I've tried writing them as evidence-verb-analysis but they don't sound correct because I assume my expression is wrong. Do you mind showing me how to do it correctly by using my first body paragraph?

Sorry sorry, must've been unclear.  All I meant was something like this:
X = evidence/situation/quote etc.
Y = analysis, drawing significance from the evidence so it proves your paragraph's point

Rather than doing 'Y is shown by X', instead 'X shows Y'.

However, neither way is right or wrong, I was just feeling that you were doing 'Y is demonstrated/exhibited by X' a bit too often, and using some 'punchier' active writing (X shows Y) sometimes you could improve. (it's quite a picky point - most people don't even use these verbs often enough for me to complain so you're waaaayyyy ahead!)  Here are some different sentence formats you could use, as variation breaks up the tendency towards 'checklists':

Y is demonstrated by X
--- Vladek's luck is demonstrated by his ability to hide from the Gestapo longer than most Jews.
X demonstrates Y
---Vladek's ability to hide from the Gestapo longer than most Jews demonstrates his luck.
X, demonstrating Y
---Vladek is able to hide from the Gestapo longer than most Jews, demonstrating his luck.
Demonstrating Y, X
---Demonstrating his luck, Spiegelman highlights that Vladek is able to hide from the Gestapo longer than most Jews.

Do you kind of see what I mean?  I wasn't talking about a whole paragraph structure, more at a 1-2 sentence level.  Let me know if you don't get this!

[Adequace]

Sorry sorry, must've been unclear.  All I meant was something like this:
X = evidence/situation/quote etc.
Y = analysis, drawing significance from the evidence so it proves your paragraph's point

Rather than doing 'Y is shown by X', instead 'X shows Y'.

However, neither way is right or wrong, I was just feeling that you were doing 'Y is demonstrated/exhibited by X' a bit too often, and using some 'punchier' active writing (X shows Y) sometimes you could improve. (it's quite a picky point - most people don't even use these verbs often enough for me to complain so you're waaaayyyy ahead!)  Here are some different sentence formats you could use, as variation breaks up the tendency towards 'checklists':

Y is demonstrated by X
--- Vladek's luck is demonstrated by his ability to hide from the Gestapo longer than most Jews.
X demonstrates Y
---Vladek's ability to hide from the Gestapo longer than most Jews demonstrates his luck.
X, demonstrating Y
---Vladek is able to hide from the Gestapo longer than most Jews, demonstrating his luck.
Demonstrating Y, X
---Demonstrating his luck, Spiegelman highlights that Vladek is able to hide from the Gestapo longer than most Jews.

Do you kind of see what I mean?  I wasn't talking about a whole paragraph structure, more at a 1-2 sentence level.  Let me know if you don't get this!

Yeah, makes sense now. Thanks again, I really appreciate it