Stasiland Intro and first paragraph

[Evan C]

I'd really appreciate some constructive criticism of a bit of this intro and para I've done.
Prompt was: “You cannot destroy your past, nor what it does to you.  It is never really over.”  To what extent is Stasiland a tale of individual triumph?

Here's the start of my response:

Funder enters "Stasiland" with her own intents and purposes of uncovering stories of the bravery and courage that went into defying the regime's attempt at creating a subservient state. As such, she constantly searches for signs of victory in the stories she hears and seeks to foreground these notions. However, this becomes increasingly difficult for Funder as she becomes disheartened and enervated by these overwhelmingly depressing tales of suffering, and discerns that the sense of triumph these individuals should feel is overshadowed by regrets. This exploration further reveals that  these former east Germans along with their country are still scarred by the trauma inflicted by the Stasi and their collective misery is reflected in the landscape; leaving Funder to surmise that although the courage with which ordinary individuals defied the Stasi and their attempts to enforce subjugation is admirable, the sense of achievement they deserve is ultimately belied by trauma that ensued and it is only when their past finally "lets them go" that they become true survivors and triumphant over one of histories most insidious and "nasty" regimes. 
 
Funder experiences great difficulty in highlighting instances of triumph among her subjects. As per aim of eliciting tales of triumph from her subjects, Funder focusses on instances of her subjects standing up for their morals and lauds these symbolic acts. She celebrates Miriam's defiant stance  and courage in "doing something about" the Stasi's unfair treatment of the innocent and is ultimately sympathetic of Miriam's tenacity in seeking "justice" for Charlie's untimely death, when the new germany would rather "cover everything up" than resolve matters that are "not yet over" for the individuals affected. She typecasts Miriam as a "maiden safe In her tower," for whom "the world cannot be set to rights" until this lack of justice is redressed. in this sense, Funder extols Miriam's perseverance to find truth and therefore justice, as from Funder's point of view, Miriam isn't waiting, ensconced in her "tower," but actively pursuing the matter of Charlie's death and therefore seeking her own salvation in a society trying to evade the past out of "embarrass[ment]" and convenience. Although Funder seeks to portray this resolve as an internal victory, her portrayal is betrayed by the overwhelmingly depressing overtones of the tales she hears. While Funder admires Miriam's fortitude, she is forced to acknowledge the consequences of this obsession. Eclipsing the triumph Miriam should feel for standing up for her principles is the inability to move on with her life. For Miriam the "past stopped" with Charlie's death and her noble pursuit has consumed her, placed her in a "terrible game" that keeps her waiting without any reassurance. Ultimately, though she is "brave and strong" and Funder "likes" this about her, the persistence Miriam demonstrates is heartbraking, "wind[ing]" Funder with its "awfulness." Hence, the difficulty Funder faces in bringing to the foreground the sense of triumph rebels should feel is due to cost of such grit and how it masks these individuals' internal victories.
 
Thanks!!

[literally lauren]

“You cannot destroy your past, nor what it does to you.  It is never really over.”  To what extent is Stasiland a tale of individual triumph?

Funder enters "Stasiland" with her own intents and purposes of uncovering stories of the bravery and courage that went into defying the regime's attempt at creating a subservient state. As such, she constantly searches for signs of victory in the stories she hears and seeks to foreground these notions awesome opener . However, this becomes increasingly difficult for Funder as she becomes disheartened and enervated by these overwhelmingly depressing tales of suffering, and discerns that the sense of triumph these individuals should feel is overshadowed by regrets. This exploration further reveals that these former east Germans along with their country are still scarred by the trauma inflicted by the Stasi and their collective misery is reflected in the landscape; <-- no semicolon here; just a comma is fine leaving Funder to surmise that although the courage with which ordinary individuals defied the Stasi and their attempts to enforce subjugation is admirable, the sense of achievement they deserve is ultimately belied by trauma that ensued and it is only when their past finally "lets them go" that they become true survivors and triumphant over one of histories history's most insidious and "nasty" regimes love this concluding sentence as well; really great intro that's unpacking the notion of 'triumph' very effectively . 
 
Funder experiences great difficulty in highlighting instances of triumph among her subjects. As per aim of eliciting tales of triumph from her subjects, Funder focusses on instances of her subjects standing up for their morals and lauds these symbolic acts. For instance, she celebrates Miriam's defiant stance and courage in "doing something about" the Stasi's unfair treatment of the innocent and is ultimately sympathetic of towards Miriam's tenacity in seeking "justice" for Charlie's untimely death, when the new germany would rather "cover everything up" than resolve matters that are "not yet over" for the individuals affected. rather long sentence here; might be best to break this up into two. She typecasts Miriam as a "maiden safe In her tower," *** for whom "the world cannot be set to rights" until this lack of injustice is redressed. in this sense, Funder extols Miriam's perseverance to find truth and therefore justice, as from Funder's point of view, Miriam isn't waiting, ensconced in her "tower," ***doesn't this contradict what you've said before? Is Miriam typecast as a passive/waiting maiden, or not? but actively pursuing the matter of Charlie's death and therefore seeking her own salvation in a society trying to evade the past out of "embarrass[ment]" and convenience. Although Funder seeks to portray this resolve as an internal victory, her portrayal is betrayed see end comments by the overwhelmingly depressing overtones of the tales she hears. While Funder admires Miriam's fortitude, she is forced to acknowledge the consequences of this obsession. Eclipsing the triumph Miriam should feel for standing up for her principles is the inability to move on with her life gooooood! I was just about to comment on how you were focusing your attentions solely on the 'triumph' aspect of the prompt and not on the 'effects of the past' bit, but you've effectively linked both here so well done. For Miriam the "past stopped" with Charlie's death; and her noble pursuit has consumed her and placed her in a "terrible game" that keeps her waiting without any reassurance. Ultimately, though she is "brave and strong" and Funder "likes" this about her; the persistence Miriam demonstrates is heartbreaking, "wind[ing]" Funder with its "awfulness." Hence, the difficulty Funder faces in bringing to the foreground the sense of triumph rebels should feel is due to cost of such grit bit colloquial and how it masks these individuals' internal victories great para conclusion!!.

This is an excellent intro+paragraph; aside from some really little things, I'm struggling to find much to criticise which means you must be doing something right. The clarity of your contention is really awesome, and I like the way your paragraph progresses. Try to avoid having your essay fall into the trap of 'one para on Miriam, one on Julia, one on Koch,' or w/e if you can avoid it; comparing characters would be the only thing I'd say that's missing at the moment, but that's not a formal requirement so if you're able to analyse characters in isolation this effectively, you should be fine. Just to be on the safe side though, try and draw some parallels between different individuals where possible.

Also, one really minor point with the word 'betray' apropos of this sentence:
Although Funder seeks to portray this resolve as an internal victory, her portrayal is betrayed by the overwhelmingly depressing overtones of the tales she hears.

There are two main meanings of this verb:
1. to let someone down or to break their trust (e.g. my ex-boyfriend betrayed me which is why I'm eating so much ice cream rn)
2. to hint at an idea subtly or unintentionally (e.g. my red face betrays my embarrassment at having been caught eating three tubs of ice cream at once)

The way you're using it here is a bit confusing, because it sounds like you're saying Funder's portrayal of something is (compromised? challenged? complicated?) by those negative aspects - but neither definition of 'betray' really fits in that context. Does that make sense? Given that you use the word correctly elsewhere in this piece, you should be fine, but if you're confused, let me know and I'll try and break it down further.

Other than that, really awesome start with a pretty difficult prompt - keep it up!