Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Scoring The Parable of the Blind Period 5

Hans Hofmann, photograph by Arnold Newman, 1960--a painter that I really like.

Hello everybody--I am giving you class time for this--so if you have not done so already, please check out some of the model papers from the Camus Archive before the weekend ends. Also, it might be nice to add a comment where you feel you can add to the discussion. Though this is ungraded, I feel as if it is extremely important to establish some intellectual camaraderie among yourselves.
For today's class (and you should finish by Friday at 3:00p.m. by posting in the comment stream below) I would like you to read the batch of papers that I received for
IX The Parable of the Blind.

You should read over the scoring guide for Open Response prompts and consult it for every paper. You should also review the handout on Explicating a Poem before you start. Even though I helped write these documents and use them all the time, I still do this before grading papers.

In the comment stream below, I would like to know which of the papers you would give an A or a B with your specific comments on why--(I am looking for more than the language on the rubric here--be specific in your comments on how you think these papers successfully explicate the poem.) Finally, please feel free to add your comments on anything in the paper--(ideas you have, places that could have been expanded, ways to phrase language more specifically or better, or even just fixing typographical errors.) None of these papers received a 100.

Thank you to those who are lucky enough to have your papers in this group. We all appreciate this.



Shaun N 5 said...

Edmund’s explication of William Carlos William’s “The Parable of the Blind” is very well written and easy to follow. His thesis is immediately understood and he develops the essay in a tangible manner. It is easy to follow because the body paragraphs never stray too far from the point at hand: the thesis. This paper is definitely an A-paper.
Katie’s explication is also packed with some interesting ideas and is most certainly a splendid presentation of an explication. The only problem I seem to have with this essay is that it may be over-explicative. While all the information that appears in her explication is relevant, it is hard to travel from one paragraph to another without feeling bored. So, in this example it is easy to see how too much can be bad. If some of this essay were taken out, and only a small number of the major points were allowed to shine, this essay could be that much better. In this way, the explication could be expanded even to just those few major points, which would make it easier to follow. This is a B-paper.

Rodney B5 said...

The paper that I believe received an A is Derek D’s paper. While I was reading his paper, I noticed he stated evidence well and followed the evidence by elaborating on the thought in a deep manner. He brought up many topics that are very interesting. He also continues to compare the poem to the painting which gives the reader more insight into his thoughts. At the end of his paper he does a good job of giving a final answer on his thoughts by wrapping up his ideas into one final paragraph. Overall I got a good feel of all of the points that he stated.

The paper that I believe received a B is Ping L’s paper. She does a good job at picking out pieces of the poem and placing them well into her sentences to go into the thoughts of the narrator. I also believe she does a good job of transitioning to and from each of her ideas. She makes some minor mistakes in grammar but her ideas are still clear and thorough. Overall I believe she does a good job of presenting the poem and the painting.

Ricki L5 said...

In Edmund’s explication, Edmund responds to the text and painting insightfully and clearly creates an accurate thesis statement. He uses textual evidence accurately corresponding to his ideas and thesis. In Edmund’s thesis statement, he expresses that “the main idea that following the ignorant can only lead a person astray. The speaker sees the blind ‘‘leading/each other” (5-6) downwards, though the faces are “raised/as toward the light” (19-20), they follow the others “hand triumphant to disaster,” (24) illustrating that having blind faith in others leads to discord.” All of his ideas in his thesis are backed up by textual evidence. Throughout his explication, he further backs up his thesis with evidence. “The blind are walking hand-in-hand in full belief that faith will save them from falling to their “disaster.” It is the shoulders that the blinds hold on to and they follow their front partners unknowing what is in front of them yet they have faith.” Edmund’s ideas create an insightful paper. I enjoy reading his paper and becoming aware of insightful ideas. Other then a few grammatical errors, Edmund’s paper is golden and desereve an A.

Ricki L5 said...

In Derek’s explication, Derek conveys his opinions well and connects to the text. However, his thesis statement could use improvement. In the last sentence before the conclusion, he states that “Williams makes this plain that there is no point in existence.” His thesis statement lacks any idea that introduces the futility of existence. In fact, only the title gives a hint. The explication is generally on the downfall of Christianity, a God, and the rise of modernistic views. Derek also lacks the connecting idea of Bruegel’s other works. On the contrary, Derek supports his ideas well using textual evidence from the poem. “Williams begins his poem with the line, ‘This horrible but superb painting’ (1). He makes this remark because the images in the painting are terrible to behold. In the painting there are a group of blind men stumbling into a swamp. The superb aspect Williams is referring to are the number of points that a person could use within the painting to expand on and prove a point.” Derek’s views are insightful, and bring up many ideas one may not have thought about before. Other than the thesis and a few errors, Derek’s explication responds appropriately to the assignment.

Mario R. 5 said...

Mario R.

The paper that caught my eye was that of Derek D. of period 5. After reading it a few times I believe that it is an, A paper. The reason that I believe that Derek paper is wroth of an A is because in his paper Derek express good points goes in to great depth and is clever in what he is saying. Throughout the paper Derek use of evidence is specific to what he is trying to say. Also Derek opens up the explication with a great a thesis that was to the point and they were few conventions throughout the book.
The person that I believe received a B was that the paper of Ping L. of period 6. the reason that I believe that ping L deserves a B is because she pick out great parts of the poem and try to get the reader to see what W. Carlos Williams is saying about the painting she sticks close to the poem and does not great off track they are some conventional errors and the quality of her response could be word a little better. Overall I believe that it was good.

Casie said...

Christina H Period 6/B paper.

Unclear thesis, the paper starts off by using evidence and analyzing the text. After the evidence is sited she continues on the original subject without becoming off topic. The choice of words that make the transition from one topic to the next is a little unsure because of the usage of the word “so”. Her points were strongly made.

Natalia A Period 5/A paper.

Strong and clear thesis that follows all the way through this paper and the points she is making. Great job understanding depth. She connects each stanza to her thesis. The conclusion does explain what the idea of the poem proposes and why it is important.

Angela S5 said...

Overall of “The Parable of the Blind” papers were well written and interesting, but at times, some were difficult to understand. I would give an A to Kevin Tang’s paper and a B to Christina, and Emily. The main difference between the A paper and the B papers was the fact that the A paper’s thesis was clearly stated and than smoothly flowed throughout the paper. The B papers stated a thesis but at times it was unclear and did not flow throughout.
Kevin’s paper begins by stating that in the poem “The Parable of the Blind”, “blindness inflicts both the freedom of thought and blindness also mentally hinders man’s judgment to reason for himself in order to succeed’. This is the first sentence of the paper and from the start of the paper the reader is able to understand the main idea or rather the purpose of the author. Kevin than states how Williams uses “blindness” to reveal “the failures that society will create through the blind dependence on one another”. Kevin has evidence to support his thesis and it is easy to understand. One minor flaw is that Kevin did not connect all nine paintings or poems in the introduction paragraph.
Kevin does an excellent job at examining and integrating the text. I love the paragraph where he describes the “red” in the painting. He goes into detail and writes that lack of “red”, in the painting represents the blindness of the peasants and their need for light. Cristina also tried to describe the “red” in the painting, but her writing was less clear and the evidence isn’t as strong as Kevin’s. . She writes, “Viewers look for the color red to guide their eyes like the blind peasants whose “faces are raised toward the light” (19-20) look to God for guidance. They look up at God even though they cannot see him.
Humans, in general, are followers of each other rather than followers of their own hearts.” Although I understand what she is trying to say I feel that her evidence is something that is assumed or her own opinion rather than a fact, or evidence found directly based on the writing. Now back to Kevin. He continues to integrate text nicely throughout and also points out the imagery and irony in the poem and painting. Finally in his conclusion he wraps up his whole paper nicely. He includes his thesis and it makes sense.
Now returning to Christina’s paper. I felt that overall she had the highest B. Her thesis statement is clearly stated in her intro. paragraph, but is sometimes lost in the paper. It seemed, as stated above, that certain ideas about the poem were her opinion rather than based on evidence. Other than that the other evidence was nicely integrated and supported with text. Overall I enjoyed her paper and that it was well written and she put her personal style into it.
Emily’s paper also receives a B, but lower than Christina’s. Emily has clear thesis statement, but she doesn’t state how Williams reveals that “religion is misleading”. She integrates the text nicely and I understand everything she is saying. Also everything she writes connects back to her thesis statement. She also later discusses Williams’ use of contradiction. This is a great part of the paper, but to improve it, she could have added it to her thesis statement, as a reason for how Williams reveals that “religion is misleading”. Overall her paper was clear and I enjoyed it.

Caitlin H 5 said...

Kevin's paper was a very intruiging one. I thought his thesis was clear, and all throughout his paper he intigrates evidence to support the fact that, as he states, "both the freedom of thought and blindness also mentally hinders man’s judgment to reason for himself in order to succeed". He also goes into depth on his every idea. Another thing I must mention is his vocabulary; it is vast and flows together beautifully. I think he probably recieved an A.

Another truly satisfactory paper was Edmund's. I think that he is very clear in what he is trying to say, and says it well. His thesis is stated well, and his explication is full of interesting ideas. He gets right to the point and presents us, the reader, with the evidence. I believe Edmund recieved a B paper, if not higher.

Diana P5 said...

dianap 5

sarah c 6

The thesis is strong however the sentence following are repetitive. I understand wanting to speak about what the picture was however mixing in more text from the poem of why the thesis was chosen may have made the paragraph better. When the poem actually begins to get incorporated into the essay may have also been cleaner by not saying “in the first part of the poem” and mentioning “says.” Otherwise the essay is well written and connects the poem to the paintings well. Just watch out for word choice and linking incorporating the text to an essay.

Emily R 6

The thesis is strong. The incorporation of the poem into the essay is smooth. This essay also follows the guidelines of formatting. The analyzing of the poem is also great. The points made of why this thesis is chosen are well explained.

Doris T5 said...

All the papers mentioned had great potential and could have each deserved an A or B. I believe Kevin Tran’s paper is an A. His thesis statement is precise and right to the point. The statement allows the reader to acquire knowledge of how Williams’s poem is an explication of Brueghel’s painting, “ The Parable of the Blind”. He presents a strong introduction to covey his conclusion of Williams’s poem. In Kevin’s next couple of paragraphs he presents evidence that is well analyzed and easy to understand because of his choice of words. He writes “The speaker of the poem starts out by commenting “This horrible but superb painting” (1) to complement the features hidden in the painting that another spectator would not”. His evidence and analysis is easy to understand and interpret. The evidence is also very well integrated into the rest of the explication. Overall Kevin does an excellent point of stating his thesis and providing evidence and analysis that is clear, understanding, and relates back to thesis. I liked his idea and enjoyed his essay.
I would give Christina’s paper a B. She does a good job of stating her thesis and integrating her evidence in her essay, although sometimes it seems as if she doesn’t make the paragraph flow. At times she wrote of things that didn’t match her thesis. Other than that, I personally enjoyed her paper and would her a B. She delved into the text and wrote how some things were symbolized. I liked her thesis because it was an interesting way of explicating the poem. She writes “The topic of religion stirs controversy, so the painting’s parable sparks disagreement”. She interprets the text from carefully analyzing the painting. Her thesis and evidence match what the painting portrays.

Wendy C.5 said...

Most of the papers for “Parable of the Blind” poem were well written and intriguing, and some that are a little confusing. Kevin’s paper, “Blind to fail”, was interesting. His thesis is clear and understandable. He had evidence to back up his fact, as he stated that, “both the freedom of thought and blindness also mentally hinders man’s judgment to reason for himself in order to succeed”. His evidences flow smoothly within the paragraphs and contribute to his explanation of his thesis in a good way. I think he deserve an A.
Another essay for the Parable of the Blind, “Light of Sin” written by Katie, is an excellent paper, but there are a bit of tiny problems in the paper. In her paper, she has evidence and some statements relevant to support her ideas, but it does not flow smoothly. She gives too much general definitions of the objects she is explicating. In her introductory, she extend a little too much on the details of the other poems. I think she deserve at least a B for her paper because she have ideas to support her ideas and hit on some of the major points in the poem.

Kenneth M5 said...

Christina H have a very strong B paper. Most of her points have evidence. The evidence sometimes is not integrated perfectly all the time. Some of the points are also stretching the truth i.e. how “viewers look for the color red to guide their eyes,” which is very arguable point. It isn’t backed up fully. The other points, which were more important to the direction of the paper had better evidence i.e. “Bog is also a verb, which shows that the peasants are bogged down by disgrace and sins.” Overall a strong, but not perfect paper.

Kev Tran has an A paper. His evidence was right on target and flowed well with his style of speech. I had to read it a couple of times, not because of his writing flaws, but my need to understand the dense sentences he uses. All of his points are well thought out and is applied to the thesis. The evidense is great. I also liked what he was saying, although that didn’t affect the grade, just a plus for my reading experience.

Ping L has a B paper that could be an A with more evidence and less stretching. She didn’t’ explain how the bog was technology enough for me to believe it, although I could see it going there if she applied more evidence. Most of the other points were better supported . The evidence was integrated well and made contextual sense to the rest of the sentence.

Emily L 6 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Emily L 6 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Edmund H5 said...

Kevin Tran analyzes the textual evidence nicely; he stayed on track of what he is trying to point out. “A parable is a short story that has a moral. Knowing this, the speaker goes on to describe the parable as “without a red” (3). Red is a very lively vibrant color linking to fire, a very miniscule scale of the sun. The sun sheds light, and also allows man to see.” His paragraphs focuses oh different quotes from the poem and within those paragraphs he would break down the words into smaller pieces and explain the pieces’s purpose on how the author creates an idea to convey to the reader. I believe this paper is a “B” however: the conclusion was ambiguous since he says that “Some failures in life and in society are due to the reliance people have on one another” and he doesn’t conclude on how the author’s use of language is used to communicate his ideas of what the poem means.

The “A” paper in this collection of essays would have to be Derek. Even though there are some points that I disagree with he concludes on how the author of the poem carries their thoughts through to the reader; “In truth Williams’ works spark feelings of futility.” He also states why ““The Parable of the Blind” was written to help spark idea about the futility of the human lifestyle and the fall of religion. It was meant to give people another avenue of thought. In short he succeeded.””

Kristin D. 5 said...

Christina H Pd 6 “Lost Faith”

I think that Christina’s paper scored an A because she does a great job at connecting her poem with William Carlos William’s other poems. I don’t think the way Christina started off the explication by saying “William Carlos Williams admires…” was a correct choice of words because she is jumping into the authors mind. In the second paragraph she makes a mistake in wording her thoughts. There is a misplaced sentence in her paragraph when she says, “the peasants “stick hand in hand.” She does explain why she chose that quote and she analyzed it in sentences after but I feel that the wording was incorrect and unclear. Aside from little things Christina’s essay was very well done because she picks out little things of the poem and analyzes it for further understanding. She goes into depth with what the poem leads the reader to see about the painting and she also goes into depth of why parts of the poem are written the way it is written. She clearly has background knowledge and did research when backing up her ideas and she has a conclusion that sums it all her ideas.

Ping L Pd 6 “A Basin to Wash Away Sin”

I think that Ping’s paper scored a B because Ping did explicate the poem fully and she did back up most of her thoughts with evidence. Ping made a similar mistake as Christina in the first sentence by jumping into the authors mind when she says “Williams thinks that…” Williams did write the poem but the poem doesn’t necessary reflect what he thinks. Some parts of Ping’s essay would be more effective if she went into more detail and clarified more. For example how she got the idea that “bog” symbolizes technology. She does go into detail how technology goes into reference to history and her analysis of why she thinks that is clear because of evident but the beginning part if it was clearer would be more effective to the reader. In Ping’s second to last paragraph her statement on how the painting is read from left to right I think is a bit of a stretch. It kind of lacks evidence on how that is so. If Ping included more clarification of why she thinks that it would be better. She does however elaborate on that thought to analyze certain line of the poem. said...

Katie's Period 6 = -B

Katie's paper overall is filled with a lot of information, maybe too much. Her paper is fine, but I think it would've been a better paper if she didn't cram so many quotes into the second paragraph. The paper would be better if she went more in depth on each quote stated in paragraph two. Not to be rude, but it bothered me how there were a couple of the other poems mentioned in the thesis paragraph. Thought the quotes lack a little depth to them, I like the short and straight to the point way of writing. It gave me the feeling that she was trying to explicate to the best of her abilities on the whole poem.

Chris O5 said...

Emily R is the person that I believe received an A
Good use of text to prove her thesis
Good sentence structure and appropriate vocabulary
Well complete thoughts
Paper is well organized to prove the point that she was trying to make
Used great details to support her ideas
The writer’s errors don’t interfere with the communication

Edmund H is the person that I believe received a B
Writer uses relevant details to support his argument
Writer uses logical organization that presents his argument
Writer errors do not interfere with communication
Really good thesis statement
Thoughts all prove his thesis

Janelle C. 5 said...

I chose Katie’s (Period 6) paper as my B. The thesis behind her paper was that Brueghel painted “The Parable of the Blind” to show that to be blind to sin and just let it happen, leads to your down fall; “William expresses that perhaps the human way towards sin is blinding oneself from the parable faith of God above,” also she said that if you look to God only to help from dying and in a time need, no other time, than that is don’t really showing him respect or believing him. I thought she did a great job supporting and developing her thesis, pulling in a lot of symbols to connect to it, that I honestly would never have thought of. One of the symbols was the basin, how it was ironic that the blind men, who represent sin in this painting were holding the basin because the basin holds water, which represents life and in the church it is used to bless people, which obviously the people in the painting did not do. Her organization was good; she hit a major point within all her paragraphs and supported those points very well, as I said. She gave great detail to her points, in fact that was probably my favorite part of her paper, how she analyzed and gave detail in her own words, rather than relying completely and solely on the text, I mean don’t get me wrong, she did a great job pulling evidence from the text, but she also brought in and tied in her own thoughts very well. “Brueghel paints this piece to show that when one lets themselves fall to sin it affects everyone around them and when that one person fails to look to God for forgiveness it leads to a downfall, the bog,” this is a great example of tying the text into her own words, a few sentences before this she pulled a few lines from the poem, and then used this to tie that quote into her paper, and she explained her view on the lines. Her language could have been better I suppose, but I mean everyone’s could. I just really loved the idea behind her paper, how she view the painting and the poem, how she explained that view, and how well she supported and developed it, which is why I gave this paper the B.
I gave Eddie’s (Period 5) paper the A. The thesis behind Eddie’s paper was that if you trust one person solely and undoubtedly believe something, despite it having no logic to support it, it will lead you to your downfall; “He is showing where blind faith will lead a person towards, which is represented as a bog. This bog is the bottom of the low, it is the representation of trouble; with the insecurity of the future one might place all confidence in another which is just irresponsible as they will end up falling down in to that bog.” This paper to me was like a breath of fresh air, a lot of people were relating the poem to sin, and of course they were great papers; written really well, support terrifically, but it was just really nice to read a different view on the poem. “The speaker points out that he is telling a “parable of the blind/without a red”(2-3). The color red is used to refer to warnings, since red is a color of danger, it requires an assessment of this danger; that danger is following others without questioning and examination.” I thought that was absolutely brilliant, I never would have picked up on that. It is something so obvious when someone points it out to you, but I never would have found myself. “The beggars are uneducated people who are too poor to afford the luxury of being schooled which created illiterates and made the lower class people puppets to the church. Education is freedom from ignorance but if people depend on each other’s belief unquestionably they are leading each other astray.” This is another point of Eddie’s that I thought was amazing. I was taking notes on Eddie’s paper so I would know what to discuss in my response to it, and I wanted to quote the whole thing basically. He had an incredibly unique view on the poem, it was extremely well supported, it seemed to me that if we threw any line from this poem at Eddie, he would have a way to connect it to his thesis, and most importantly it was interesting, it was entertaining. He hooked me into it and made me want to read it. I know we’re too old to worrying about “a hook sentence” but we should always be thinking about whether or not someone is actually going to want to read what we write. Because you could have the most brilliant and well researched, well supported, best technically written paper, but if it’s boring and no one wants to read it, it worthless. The most important aspect of writing is the reader, and this reader was very happy with Eddie’s paper. Also, organization was really great, the flow of the paper was good, and the language choices were great as well. All the little small, technical things were in place and that was great, but what really sold me on this paper was his thesis behind it and how well he supported and explained that thesis.

Ronald d5 said...

Christina’s paper is an A.

Christina’s paper is very specific and strong towards the thesis. She states clearly the thesis that being that Williams uses imagery and diction to reveal the flaws of human nature. All the evidence is integrated into the paragraphs nicely and she has an explanation behind every point made. Christina explicates right in the first sentence which is not preferred by most people but I see it as Christina using some personal style in it which is always a plus in my book. She did a nice job of connecting the explication right back into thesis. I like the fact of how she connected the bog with sin and that I would of have never thought of such a brilliant symbol. Overall, she has a very nice explication.

Kevin Tr.’s paper is a B.

Kevin has a great thesis to start the paper yet he leaves many pieces of evidence unconnected to the thesis. He states the evidence and explains what makes the textual evidence significant but not how it is significant to the thesis. He leaves it to the reader to make the connection themselves. Also uses his own theory as an explanation to his point which could make it hard for a reader who disagrees with that point to understand. Besides this small flaw, this paper makes for a great explication All his thoughts made sense and his explication was consistent with the thesis. The paper really flows when I read it and makes it for a great paper.

William C5 said...

Eddie’s explication deserves a B. He words his introduction paragraph very well, especially the use of the word discord. His integration of evidence into his explication is fluid. The way he analyzes the evidence he uses supports his thesis strongly. One fault in his paper is his conclusion. Although it is very well done, it is perhaps a little cliché though.

Kevin Tran’s explication deserves an A. His usage of vocabulary adds a certain fluidity to his paper, and makes it sound more crisp and clear. His integration of evidence is very well done. His introduction includes a plethora of information that relates to his thesis and adds an overall understanding to his paper.

Natalia A5 said...

I would give Christina H 6 an A. She had interesting opinions about the absence of the color red in the painting especially when she says, “Viewers look for the color red to guide their eyes like the blind peasants whose “faces are raised toward the light” (19-20) look to God for guidance.” She connects both the absence of the color red with the reason for the beggars’ faces being raised very well. Also, she gave good examples when she wanted to make a point to back up her thesis.

I would give Kev.Tran 5 a B. The reason is that I thought he explained each phrase on the poem really well, and the way he explained why Williams called the group on the painting ‘beggars’ was really interesting also. There were some things I didn’t really understand at first but when reading it further, even without completely understanding his thoughts I still got an idea of what he was talking about.

Derek D5 said...

I believe that the paper written by Christina is an excellent example of an A paper. She used excellent pieces of evidence, which link directly to her thesis. She expands on this evidence in a thoughtful manner. Her insights help the reader understand the excerpts she chose as evidence and overall diction was appropriate to the written piece.

The paper which most deserved a B was Ping L’s paper. Ping did not have a clear cut thesis statement, but her ideas are presented in an organized manner. She sites excellent information from the poem and transitions from one thought to the other in a very smooth way. Apart from some minor grammatical errors, Ping has a solid B paper.

ashley S5 said...

In essay Sarah c 6 she presents her thesis with evidence and well thought out her theory of Camus writing. She states her comment on Camus writing and expresses why she thinks he writes the way he does. She represents Camus’s morals and concepts of life through textual evidence. She provides relevant evidence to her response when she states “The next few lines go on to say that there is no red in the composition. This is because darker tones or colors display a gloomy, hopeless setting. Red is bright, vibrant and full of life and would contradict the setting and mood of the painting. The poet writes these lines to show that the subject is sad and undesirable for one to think about”. She expresses her explanation of her ideas by connecting the poem and textual themes reflecting off another. Even though she does well on giving description of Camus morals, she should explain the passages that she uses in a better format. She should also work on connecting her ideas with her evidence by explaining why she used those passages to back up her ideas. I would give this essay an A based on a well thought out thesis but needs to explain why she used her chosen textual evidence for support.

In Kev.Tran 5, he did a well thought out essay. He seemed to have a guideline that worked for him in writing his ideas in detail format. He provides textual evidence to analyze his concept on portraying ideas of his connection between the poem and the painting. He explains why Brueghel did his painting to Williams’s poems. He uses the description of the painting and connects to the text. He connects his conclusion with his thesis statement in a well mannered evidence of analysis. I would give this essay B due to his well thought out guideline.

Danielle S. 5 said...

In the essay, The Myth of Sisyphus, written by Albert Camus, Camus tell us the story of Sisyphus, a tragic hero, condemned to rolling a rock up a mountain as a punishment for defying the gods. While being condemned to this tragic punishment he makes the best out of the bad situation by finding hope through accepting his fate and showing thankfulness to the gods that his punishment wasn’t worse, which is shown in this passage “I see that man going back down with a heavy but measured step toward the torment of which he will never know the end. That hour like a breathing-space which returns as surely as his suffering, that is the hour of consciousness. At each of those moments when he leaves the heights and gradually sinks toward the lairs of the gods, he is superior to his fate. He is stronger than his rock” (2). Here the narrator is showing the reader a visual picture of what Sisyphus is going through mentally and physically when the rock falls out of his grasp and plummet to the bottom he is given time to breath and think clearly and freely as he pleases but when pushing the rock to the surface he is forced to think of his sin and what defying the gods can do to one.

Mark D5 said...

Christina's paper ould have been a very solid B. Her thesis was analyzed and explains very well why the painting is "horrible but Superb". What was great about her paper is the fact that she actually explicates. She picks out certain lines and analyzed not only what the author is saying but why.

I believe that Kevin deserves the A out of the batch. He strongly executes his thesis statement which was how Williams "Inflicts both the freedom of thought and blindeness also mentally hinders a man's judgement to reason for himself in order to succeed." The way he explixcates is clear. He somewhat stays from the subject but there always ends up to be a reason for it. His straying adds to how he is analyzing the poem.

Kevin Ta 5 said...

Christina’s explication deserves an A. Her well written paper, in which she has full control of conventions such as grammar and spelling, begins with an interesting introductory paragraph that concludes with a succinct thesis. Her thesis explores how Williams’s style and writing unravel human flaws and the necessity of religion. She then thoroughly explicates the poem by giving evidence relevant to the thesis. Christina mentions how the words Williams chooses illustrate the point he is trying to make. The quotes from the poem are integrated smoothly, with no compromise in the flow of sentence structure. Following each piece of evidence is thoughtful analysis. Christina explains how quotes relate to the thesis; for instance, how a basin is used to wash away the sins of the men who have not put enough faith in God. Her conclusion ties up the explication by stating that faith is important to have.

Ping’s explication deserves a B. Although she has slight problems with conventions, her thesis is clear and explains Williams’s purpose in writing the poem. Her evidence is integrated efficiently and the analysis is relevant to the thesis, such as how the beggars in the painting are living lowly lives, revealing their faults as humans. However, it is not explicitly stated that the speaker or Williams believes that humans are faulty; it is something that can not be proved, but rather suggested. The rest of Ping’s evidence is accurately selected in regards to the thesis, but some of the evidence is not analyzed thoroughly enough and could be expanded upon. She briefly ends the explication summing up all of Williams’s poems and how people are depicted within them.

Stephanie P. 5 said...

Sarah, I believe did a good explication and that she would probably recieve an A with it. After reading it i thought her thesis was well put together and the she backed it up.

I thought Edmund paper would recieve somewhere in the B's because it seemed that sounded like a be paper. But he did do a good job trying to support his paper but i thought sarah just did a better job of it.