Medea Text Response Essay [English]

[HopefulLawStudent]

I am aware that events of the play should be told is past tense and the dramatist's opinions should be told is present tense. I'm working on fixing my essay on that front though it is proving to be a lot harder than it seems. So please ignore the way I struggle with tense. I'll get there eventually (hopefully). *sigh*

Would love whatever feedback you can offer to help me improve, irrespective of how harsh it is. If it isn't too much to ask, could you please also give me a mark out of 10 for this? Be as harsh as you like.

The lesson of Medea is that civilised men ignore at their peril the world of instinct, emotion and irrational experience. Discuss.

Euripides’ tragedy, Medea, is an exploration of two extremities – passion and reason. Through the narrative, the dramatist aspires to caution his male audience of the danger inherent in choosing to unequivocally adhere to one as a lifestyle while blatantly disregarding another. The playwright indicates the peril that belies subscribing to one extreme cannot be subverted by an understanding of the other, but rather a moderation of both in human matters; he communicates it is only through the “middle way” that the audience may expect to circumvent this peril.

One man’s decision to “shun” the “frightening woman” to whom he had wed was born from his emotional ineptitude, precipitated the tragic events that closed the play. Jason’s Apollonian values galvanised him to secure a morganatic “royal marriage”, with fatal consequence. That Jason is driven by rationality, audiences may infer through his use of clauses to start sentences such as “to begin with” and “moreover” that suggests Jason’s speech and “cruel blow” were the products of much cogitation on the behalf of the Argonaut. Establishing his dearth of emotional capacity, his absence of any semblance of a relationship to his “scorned” family is accentuated by his use of the pronouns “the” and “your [Medea]” to describe the children the pair had shared. Jason is thereby cast by Euripides into the role of the estranged and absent father. His utter lack of any paternal or husbandly instinct enabled him to spurn his domesticities in favour of a union predicated on a selfish desire for convenience and status masqueraded as altruism with fatal corollaries.

The conditioning of characters in the play to discount Dionysian elements of life ultimately precludes them from recognising the dangers before them. Creon’s edict Medea is to be “exile[d]” is inspired by his anxieties to secure his dynastic line through the extrication of a perceived threat. Pithily labelling her a “clever woman”, the “king of Corinth” bluntly and unequivocally conveys his assessment of Medea and thereby his apprehension with regard to her intent. From the concise language the king employs while banishing Medea, audiences may deduce he is ostensibly calcified in his fear and his conviction to remove Medea from his city. His Apollonian views, however, enabled him to disregard his previous concerns and consent to a deferment of Medea’s removal. He rationalises his deferment to himself, declaiming the “clever woman” can… “hardly accomplish” what he fears. The line break positioned in the midst of this affirmation suggests the King harboured some reservations and did not sincerely believe Medea’s prolonged stay in Corinth was not without its perils. Through the way in which Creon aspires to quantify his deferment by means of Apollonian virtue with tragic consequence signposts Euripides’ assessment it was “folly” to completely allow one extremity to override the other.

Conversely, Euripides argues that to completely disregard reason may prove equally perilous as “shun[ning]” passion. Aegeus is driven solely by his emotional yearning for his sterility to cease and be replaced by prosperous fertility. Upon meeting Medea, he recognises “a brain like [hers]” may deliver him the object of his desire – a son. His yearning for progeny to continue on his family name ultimately overrides his rationality. So blinded by want is he that he completely disowns his reason which should have precluded him from readily accepting Medea into Athens. He consents to providing Medea with a “sanctuary” in Corinth; this term connotes safety from another person or persons, implying that, to a certain extent, Aegeus suspected his “old friend” did not mean to quietly conform to Creon’s edict and instead “scheme[d]” to reprise Jason’s “cruel blow” before seeking to escape justice in Athens. Nevertheless, Aegeus never articulates this concern; ostensibly, he complies with Medea’s supplications and wholly consents to proffering her the “sanctuary” she desires. Ergo, audiences may infer his disownment of reason, as enabled by his emotional yearning for prosperity, which ultimately rendered him obliged to accept a “child killer” into Athens – something audiences assume he would not have readily done had he not been induced to make an “oath” to the Gods at Medea’s behest. In allowing his passions to compromise his rationality, Aegeus is thus compelled to do that which he may not have so readily done otherwise. To this end, Euripides outlines the danger, not just in blatantly ignoring “irrational” feeling but also the hazardous nature of a decision to purely disown what is cogitatively “rational”.

Though characters within the play communicate sympathy for Medea’s plight, they are ultimately unable to evade the tragic events that close the play. The anaphoric descriptor of “poor Medea”, reiterated throughout the course of the play by a large proportion of the dramatis personae establishes many of them felt some degree of pathos to the “wretched” Medea. Irrespective of whether they adhered to an Apollonian or Dionysian view of life, characters expressed their compassion for Medea by echoing this assessment of her which acknowledges she was essentially a victim of invidious circumstance. Their understanding, however, was not enough to safeguard them from the peril of the extremities they singularly subscribed to. Though the Nurse entreated the children be wary of their mother and pronounced Medea’s “grief [was] just born”, she was ultimately unable to protect them from the corollaries of their father’s Apollonian-inspired nuptials and the infanticide to which she alluded to through the connotations of “born”. Similarly, while Creon pronounces Medea and her “passionate grief” are wretched, insinuating she is one to be pitied for her circumstance, he is unable to ensure the security of himself, his daughter or his dynastic line. Therein, Euripides conveys merely understanding the contrary extreme is not enough to circumvent the peril in opting to disown it in one’s daily activities.

Through the play’s namesake Euripides endorses a life ruled, not exclusively by passion or reason, but by a combination of the pair. “Shaken with weeping, but cool and self-possessed”, Medea serves, during the narrative, as the physical embodiment of the “middle way, neither great nor mean.” She oscillates between the two extremities, often showcasing a moderation of the two. The “frightening woman” showed a mediated reaction to the infanticide she was to commit. Logically, she recognised that to stay her hand was to “consign them to another hand” – the hand of her enemies – who she indicates would murder them with “a better will” or motivation. Thus, she realises that to not murder her sons would be akin to “consign[ing]” herself to the “laughter of… enemies” who, she conveys, would harbour no reluctance to inflict harm upon her through her children. Medea is, however, not entirely callous and driven by what is rational. Referring to her children as “dear” and “darling” – both terms that allude to her affection and are commonly employed as terms of endearment – Medea communicates the filicide that closes the play is, to a certain extent, an act of love performed with nothing but good intent for the sons she and Jason shared. In essence, Medea embodies a moderated approach to life; she is neither Apollonian nor Dionysian but rather, a mixture of the two. By employing this lethal combination, Medea ostensibly escapes justice, instead seeming to attain the approbation of the Gods through the “chariot drawn by dragons” the audience of devout Hellenic men assumes was provided by these divine entities. Therein, Euripides communicates his endorsement of the “middle way”. The playwright thereby establishes moderation is quintessential to life and needed if mankind is to circumvent the perils of subscribing singularly to an extremity be it passion or otherwise.

In essence, Euripides argues that neither passion nor reason should be foregrounded above all else. He contends that while audiences cannot afford to be “a rock or a wave of the sea” immovable in their passions, conversely, they cannot unfeelingly seek to remain detached from life. The dramatist thereby argues this is the only way in which a tragedy of similar proportion to Medea’s horrific vengeance may be subverted. Therein lies the greatest tragedy of Medea; in the process of embracing moderation, the characters in the play were forced to make great and often irrevocable capitulations.

Thanks in advance!

[literally lauren]

Me again!

The lesson of Medea is that civilised men ignore at their peril the world of instinct, emotion and irrational experience. Discuss.

Euripides’ tragedy, Medea, is an exploration of two extremities – passion and reason. Through the narrative if you're referring to the text, this should be 'throughout the play.' If you're referring to the events in the text, this should be 'throughout the plot', the dramatist aspires to caution his male audience the dangers inherent in choosing to unequivocally adhere to one as a lifestyle while blatantly disregarding another. The playwright indicates the peril that belies lovely word, but doesn't quite fit here. 'Belie' works in the context of 'your wisdom belies your youth,' meaning that your wisdom is deceptively at odds with your youth, if that makes sense. Here you just seem to be going for something like 'is associated with' or 'accompanies' subscribing to one extreme which cannot be subverted by an understanding of the other, but rather a moderation of both in human matters; he communicates that it is only through the “middle way” that the audience may expect to circumvent this peril good intro

One man’s decision to “shun” the “frightening woman” to whom he had wed was born from his emotional ineptitude, precipitated the tragic events that closed the play you are allowed to jump around the plot, but beginning your analysis at the play's end is a bit odd. Try and talk about the causes before you talk about the consequences, just for logic's sake. Jason’s Apollonian values galvanised him to secure a morganatic “royal marriage”, with fatal consequence. That Jason is driven by rationality, audiences may infer through his use of clauses to start sentences such as “to begin with” and “moreover” that suggests Jason’s speech and “cruel blow” were the products of much cogitation on the behalf of the Argonaut I get what you're saying here, but the sentence structure is a bit off. The 'That...' sentence starter works like saying 'The fact that...' so you could say '(The fact) That I am studying Icelandic grammar is a disappointment to my parents' or '(the fact) that Jason is driven by rationality enables audience to infer that he had a carefully considered rationale for his actions.' Compare that to the original sentence you've got here, and hopefully you'll see why things are a bit ungrammatical. Establishing his dearth of emotional capacity, Euripides accentuates (active verbs ending in -s are better than passive verbs ending in -ed, generally) his absence of any semblance of a relationship to his “scorned” family is accentuated by through his use of the pronouns “the” and “your [Medea]” 'these' aren't pronouns since pronouns function as replacements for nouns, so 'him,' 'you,' 'it' = pronouns, but 'the' & 'your' = articles (also known as determinatives or specifiers) because they go before nouns. Performing a simple substitution test can help you identify what kind of word class you're dealing with - you can use the words 'it' or 'them' as a substitute for family, but you can't use 'the' or 'your,' which tells you these latter two don't belong to the same class as the first to describe the children the pair had shared. Jason is thereby cast by Euripides into the role of as the estranged and absent father. His utter lack of any paternal or husbandly instinct enabled him to spurn his domesticities this shouldn't be plural unless you're talking about multiple households? 'Domesticity' is a fairly general term, but you seem to be talking about domestic responsibilities here(?) in favour of a union predicated on a selfish desire for convenience and status masqueraded as altruism with fatal corollaries nice. For a prompt like this, what you've got here would be a sufficient ending, but be careful not to make offhand references to 'fatal corollaries' in prompts that require you to specify what these consequences are exactly..

The conditioning of characters in the play to discount Dionysian elements of life ultimately precludes them from recognising the dangers before them. Creon’s edict Medea is to be “exile[d]” is inspired by careful with your grammar here; this should either be 'his edict is to be "exiled," which is inspired by...' or 'his edict to "exile" her is inspired by...' his anxieties to secure his dynastic line through the extrication of a perceived threat. Pithily labeling her a “clever woman”, the “king of Corinth” bluntly and unequivocally conveys his assessment of Medea and thereby his apprehension with regard to her intent. From the concise language the king employs while banishing Medea, audiences may deduce he is ostensibly calcified in his fear and his conviction to remove Medea from his city. His Apollonian views, however, enabled him to disregard his previous concerns and consent to a deferment of Medea’s removal. He rationalises his deferment to himself, declaiming the “clever woman” can… you don't need an elipsis unless you're omitting details within a quote, as in: the "clever woman [can]... hardly accomplish" but what you've done here by ending the quote and then beginning it again is fine “hardly accomplish” what he fears. The line break positioned in the midst of this affirmation suggests the King harboured some reservations and did not sincerely believe Medea’s prolonged stay in Corinth was not without its perils. Through the way in which Creon aspires to quantify his deferment by means of Apollonian virtue with tragic consequence this makes it sound like Creon aspired to do something that had tragic consequences signposts Euripides’ assessment it was “folly” to completely allow one extremity to override the other. Another sentence structure point: if we simplify this, we get: 'Through the way Creon aspires to quantify things signposts Euripides' assessment.' See how the 'Through doing X' format clashes with the 'X signposts the author's Y' structure you shift to? If this doesn't make sense, let me know, but you seem to have the right internal grammatical rules so I'm assuming this was just a little slip up that an edit could fix. Don't be afraid to simplify things in your head in order to break them down though - I'll often have to do that in uni essays when I've written five lines and then gone, wait, does this even make sense? Your ability to summarise and paraphrase your own writing on the go is quite valuable for editing purposes, so it can be good to get into the habit of doing this either while writing, or after finishing an essay.

Conversely, Euripides argues that to completely disregard reason may prove equally perilous as “shun[ning]” passion. great link from the previous discussion into this new one Aegeus is driven solely by his emotional yearning for his sterility to cease and be replaced by prosperous fertility. Upon meeting Medea, he recognises “a brain like [hers]” may deliver him the object of his desire – a son. His yearning for progeny to continue on his family name ultimately overrides his rationality. So blinded by want is he that he completely disowns his reason which should have precluded him from readily accepting Medea into Athens. He consents to providing Medea with a “sanctuary” in Corinth; this term connotes safety from another person or persons, implying that, to a certain extent, Aegeus suspected his “old friend” did not mean to quietly conform to Creon’s edict and instead “scheme[d]” to reprise Jason’s “cruel blow” before seeking to escape justice in Athens. v. good close analysis. Nevertheless, Aegeus never articulates perhaps 'never explicitly makes this concern known' would be more accurate, since he is technically subtly articulating his concern through his choice of words, as you've just explained this concern; ostensibly, he complies with Medea’s supplications and wholly consents to proffering her the “sanctuary” she desires. Ergo, audiences may infer that it is his disownment of reason, as enabled by his emotional yearning for prosperity, which ultimately rendered him obliged to accept a “child killer” into Athens – something audiences assume he would not have readily done had he not been induced to make an “oath” to the Gods at Medea’s behest. In allowing his passions to compromise his rationality, Aegeus is thus compelled to do that which he may not have so readily done otherwise. To this end, Euripides outlines the danger, not just in blatantly ignoring “irrational” feeling but also the hazardous nature of a decision to purely disown what is cogitatively “rational” this should either be '...outlines the danger not just in blatantly ignoring "irrational" feelings, but also in deciding to disown what is "rational",' or '...outlines not just the danger in blatantly ignoring "irrational" feelings, but also the hazardous nature of deciding to disown what is "rational".'

Though characters within the play communicate sympathy for Medea’s plight, they are ultimately unable to evade the tragic events that close the play. The anaphoric descriptor of “poor Medea”, reiterated throughout the course of the play by a large proportion of the dramatis personae establishes many of them felt some degree of pathos word check, 'pathos' is a dramatic device more than an emotion to be felt by characters to the “wretched” Medea. Irrespective of whether they adhered to an Apollonian or Dionysian view of life, characters expressed their compassion for Medea by echoing this assessment of her which acknowledges she was essentially a victim of invidious circumstance. Their understanding, however, was not enough to safeguard them from the peril of the extremities they singularly subscribed to. Though the Nurse entreated the children be wary of their mother and pronounced Medea’s “grief [was] just born”, she was ultimately unable to protect them from the corollaries of their father’s Apollonian-inspired nuptials and the infanticide to which she alluded to through the connotations of “born” I don't think that quote foreshadows infanticide, exactly. Similarly, while Creon pronounces Medea and her “passionate grief” are to be wretched, insinuating she is one to be pitied for her circumstance, he is unable to ensure the security of himself, his daughter or his dynastic line. Therein, Euripides conveys merely understanding the contrary extreme is not enough to circumvent the peril in opting to disown it in one’s daily activities.

Through the play’s namesake Euripides endorses a life ruled, not exclusively by passion or reason, but by a combination of the pair. “Shaken with weeping, but cool and self-possessed”, Medea serves, during the narrative this is a tad redundant, as the physical embodiment of the “middle way, neither great nor mean.” She oscillates between the two extremities, often showcasing a moderation of the two. The “frightening woman” showed a mediated reaction to the infanticide she was to commit. Logically, she recognised that to stay her hand was to “consign them to another hand” – the hand of her enemies – who she indicates would murder them with “a better will” or motivation. Thus, she realises that to not murder her sons would be akin to “consign[ing]” herself to the “laughter of… enemies” who, she conveys, would harbour no reluctance to inflict harm upon her through her children. Medea is, however, not entirely callous and driven by what is rational. Referring to her children as “dear” and “darling” – both terms that allude to her affection and are commonly employed as terms of endearment – don't overuse the dash. A comma here would be fine Medea communicates the filicide that closes the play is, to a certain extent, an act of love performed with nothing but good intent careful with your interpretation here. You can definitely argue that Medea did this out of love, but the 'nothing but good intent' part might be stretching things for the sons she and Jason shared. In essence, Medea embodies a moderated approach to life; she is neither Apollonian nor Dionysian but rather, a mixture of the two. By employing this lethal combination, Medea ostensibly escapes justice, instead seeming to attain the approbation of the Gods through the “chariot drawn by dragons” the audience of devout Hellenic men assumes was provided by these divine entities. Therein, Euripides communicates his endorsement of the “middle way”. The playwright thereby and establishes moderation is quintessential to life and needed if mankind is to circumvent the perils of subscribing singularly to an extremity be it passion or otherwise.

In essence, Euripides argues that neither passion nor reason should be foregrounded above all else. He contends that while audiences cannot afford to be “a rock or a wave of the sea” immovable in their passions, conversely, they cannot unfeelingly seek to remain detached from life. The dramatist thereby argues this is the only way in which a tragedy of similar proportion to Medea’s horrific vengeance may be subverted. Therein lies the greatest tragedy of Medea; in the process of embracing moderation, the characters in the play were forced to make great and often irrevocable capitulations nice conclusion.

Much improved from your previous piece! Your sentence structure is much clearer with the exception of a few minor issues, and the flow between paragraphs is much better. It seems like you've done well to isolate a core idea to unpack within each paragraph, though at times it seemed like there was a bit of a character-by-character breakdown (ie. 1. Jason, 2. Creon, 3. Aegeus, 4. The Nurse/Creon, 5. Medea) which you should definitely avoid. Also, your first and second paragraphs could've probably just been collapsed into one that dealt with the rejection of emotions etc.

With regards to the prompt, I think you could've done more with the idea of 'civilised men' by thinking about some of the social implications of civility (as opposed to barbarity or outsider-ness which Medea supposedly(?) represents) but other than that, you've supported a pretty viable contention here. Just be careful not to completely agree with prompts - you've introduced a fair few little challenges in this piece which prevents things from becoming too definitive, but keep an eye on your arguments to make sure they don't all come down to proving the prompt right in different ways.

There's a slight repetition of 'perils' here, as well as a few other key words, so it'd be good to list a bunch of synonyms now to help you broaden your vocab ahead of assessment tasks.

Finally, in terms of a mark, this is sitting at about an 8.5/9 with a few minor issues holding it back. Watch out for your expression in places, and try to make sure you've got argumentative or at least idea-based focuses for your paragraphs rather than just running through the major characters. But great work so far - keep it up!

[HopefulLawStudent]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *victory dance*

Feeling so proud my sentence structure is better. I kid you not. I feel like I just climbed Mount Everest.

Didn't even notice the character by character thing... Would I be correct in assuming VCE assessors don't like it? Would it be better to tackle multiple characters in one paragraph? My English teacher has a thing for short paragraphs, recommends 5-6 paragraphs and a 1000+ (preferably a lot longer) word essay. So I'm frequently feeling as though if it's too long he'll murder me.

How would I have taken a more ideas-based approach for this essay?

I considered the "civilised men" thing (spent a good 10 minutes brainstorming on "civilised men" and couldn't find a way to slap it into my essay without it looking like me going off on a tangent) and tried to think of a way to address it but I couldn't figure out a way to address it without feeling like I was going off-topic. What do you mean by "social implications of civility"?

Did I retell the story too much? I know there's a super fine line in between retelling and whatever it is we're supposed to be doing in text response but I'm never sure if I've found a good balance.

Notes to self:
1. Chronology within a paragraph
2. Don't argue the same thing/idea in 1000 words, reiterating the same thing but with synonyms.
3. Idea-based approach?
4. Stupid present and past tense.
5. Synonyms are life.
6. Expression

PS: I was secretly (not so secretly anymore) hoping that you'd be the one to give feedback. I honestly love your feedback. You're seriously the best.

[literally lauren]

Didn't even notice the character by character thing... Would I be correct in assuming VCE assessors don't like it? Would it be better to tackle multiple characters in one paragraph? My English teacher has a thing for short paragraphs, recommends 5-6 paragraphs and a 1000+ (preferably a lot longer) word essay. So I'm frequently feeling as though if it's too long he'll murder me.

How would I have taken a more ideas-based approach for this essay?

Yeah, although there are some assessors who like the clarity of essays that go character-by-character, it tends to lead to more reductive discussions, and it puts a pretty huge burden on your conclusion to zoom out and wrap things up on an argument level if your essay just feels like three separate discussions.

In general, you want to aim to have a whole sentence or sentiment as your focus for each paragraph. Things tend to become a little too simplistic when you only isolate a single word or two.

So for a prompt like this:
The lesson of Medea is that civilised men ignore at their peril the world of instinct, emotion and irrational experience. Discuss.
...you might
The low/mid-range students would either go for a character breakdown, or would have one paragraph on instinct, one on emotion, and one on irrationality. Or perhaps one on what it means to be a civilised, ignorant man, one on the perils of a world of instinct, and one on emotions and irrationality. But if you're dissecting all the different elements in that way, there's no guarantee that it'll lead to a strong overall discussion. Instead, aim for a distinct, idea-based sub-argument each time.

For instance:
- The civilised men in Medea are not only ignorant at their own peril, but also at the expense of others around them.
- Euripides suggests that characters who are unaware of their ignorance and instincts are inherently vulnerable and weak.
- When the characters refuse to acknowledge emotions, they also become less able to perceive them in themselves and others.
- Emotion doesn't necessarily cloud the characters' judgements if they know how to manage those emotions.
- The characters who do ignore the world of less rational thought aren't necessarily more sensible or admirable for it.
- The characters' ignorance of emotional matters and concerns makes them less sympathetic, and thus less aware of the world around them, meaning that their 'rationality' is based on an incomplete understanding... so it's actually not rational at all. What is rational is to take a more balanced approach to considerations of emotions and reason.

^this wouldn't be an actual essay structure since it's a bit all over the place, and the last one has started to build out to an overall contention already, but hopefully you can see why discussing these kind of concepts within a paragraph would be of more use to you than:
1. This is how the concerns of the prompt relate to Medea
2. This is how the concerns of the prompt relate to Jason
3. This is how the concerns of the prompt relate to Glauce and/or Creon and/or Aegeus and/or minor characters.

I considered the "civilised men" thing (spent a good 10 minutes brainstorming on "civilised men" and couldn't find a way to slap it into my essay without it looking like me going off on a tangent) and tried to think of a way to address it but I couldn't figure out a way to address it without feeling like I was going off-topic. What do you mean by "social implications of civility"?

Basically, what does it mean to be 'civilised' in Medea? It's not the most crucial of questions in this case, but it does warrant discussing as the notion of civility (as distinct from things like exile, the unnatural/non-human, the Outsider-ness, etc.) Think about what defines the 'civil' characters, or contrarily, what defines the 'uncivilised' ones. Incorporating something like this should be easier once your paragraph focal points change, though.

Did I retell the story too much? I know there's a super fine line in between retelling and whatever it is we're supposed to be doing in text response but I'm never sure if I've found a good balance.

No, I don't think that was an issue here since any evidence you were bringing up was for the purpose of analysing. Perhaps there are a few sentences in hindsight that could be described as mostly summative, but it wasn't like I was reading your piece thinking 'yeah, I know that, but why is this relevant/important?' so you should be alright on that front. Definitely keep an eye on things though if this has been a common trouble spot in the past.

Hope that helps