Jean-Michel Basquiat, Great Jones Street, New York, 1987--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.
- Camus Archive Model Paper 2
- Model Selections from the Camus Papers Archive 2
- Camus Archive Model Paper 1
- Model Selections from the Camus Papers Archive
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.
PERIOD 6 POST HERE PERIOD 6 POST HERE PERIOD 6 POST HERE
32 comments:
I believe Christina H. from Period 6 received an A and Derek D from Period 5 received a B. I believe Christina deserves an A because of they way she uses great examples when needed and she really explains in depth about the poem and how it relates to the picture. In addition, she has many good ideas about the picture such as noticing how the picture didn’t have the color red and the significance of it being left out. She clearly answers all components of the question with the way she backs up her thesis of being unpleasant to the eye and sparking disagreement. In addition, she provides a lot of evidence from the book and grabbing the essential parts of the poem to backup her ideas. For example, when she says, “He describes the peasants as “destitute” (14-15) and the possessions they carry as “pitiful” (16). She only uses one word for evidence but it is more than enough to explain what she is trying to say. Derek D from Period 5 received a B because he has a strong thesis however he doesn’t quite back up his thesis with a lot of evidence compared to Christina’s. However, when he does use evidence it supports his thesis very well such as when he says, “Williams portrays the men as “beggars”(5) and “pitiful”(16) to show that the beggars blind faith, literally and figuratively, has given them nothing in life but hardships and grief.
In my opinion, Christina H. in period 6 has the A paper. Her thesis is clear and articulate. She answers all parts of the question with her thesis accurately, effectively and insightfully. However, her conclusion is more about analysis of the poem’s deeper meaning rather than the actual explication of the poem. The reason I still consider this an A paper is because I consider successful essays to be based on the actual body paragraphs instead of the introduction and conclusion of the essays. Christina’s essay wonderfully intertwines all necessary evidence and analysis for explicating the poem. Therefore, I couldn’t care less about the conclusion since the actual explicating of the poem is done in the body paragraphs and not in the conclusion. Christina carefully chose relevant evidence from the text to present her ideas. She also integrates the evidence nicely. Her evidence is relevant because each line and word of the poem she cites is backed up by her analysis. Everything makes sense to me because she analyzes all evidence and answers all components of the question. As for her conventions, they are solid.
Derek D from Period 5 received a B. He received a B because he has a strong thesis however he doesn’t quite back up his thesis with a lot of evidence compared to Christina’s. He answered most parts of the question and his thesis, conventions, and analysis were quite clear and accurate.
I think Christina per. 6 had the A paper, I believe she had a good introduction to her paper along with a well put together thesis. In her first paragraph she made some good points about the atmosphere Williams created with his poem which helped supported the mood the author tried to create, supported with good evidence. Her second paragraph flowed well and also talked about the symbolic relation to the color red. Her evidence fits well with her essay and help keeps the paper together, even up to the conclusion.
I think Derek D. per.5 had the B paper, I believe he had a good intro because it clearly tied the unity of William’s nine poems. He provided some good analysis and evidence to support his ideas. Like Christina his paper flows well together even up to the conclusion and gives the reader a good idea of the authors purpose of the poem.
Kathie S.
B .She states her thesis throughout the first paragraph, but does not express it in one concrete sentence. She does however immediately back up the idea of religious morals with the crucifix mentioned in poem three and continues by giving an example of each of the poems that relate to the over all theme. However, she spends too much time in her intro explaining all of his poems in the introduction and not enough on her poem. The last sentence in the intro seems forced and like she suddenly remembered that she was witting about one poem only. Throughout her body paragraphs she did a nice job picking out examples (crucifix) from the poem and the painting (white church) to support her theory of what Williams and Brueghel are trying to express. However, at the end, she restates her theory butt doesn’t bring back any of her examples to support it one more time. She makes good use of her evidence, and intergrades it correctly. In some of her sentences she expresses an example or explication but doesn’t state why (i.e.: in the second paragraph she mentions irony but doesn’t elaborate on it).
Christina H
A. She clearly states her thesis at the end of her introductory paragraph “Williams uses imagery and diction to reveal the flaws of human nature and the importance of faith”. In the topic paragraph she mentions that “The Parable of the Blind” is the eighth and the last poem, but leaves it at that. I wished she had elaborated that a little more, maybe suggestion reasons for it being so. I was a little confused when she talked about “The peasants are “leading each other diagonally downward” (5-6). In religion, upward direction represents heaven while the opposite direction represents hell”. I was expecting more why they are walking diagonally downwards and how this is relevant to this Catholic idea. Her conclusion does a nice job summing everything up. She mentions both faith and human flaw in it, which goes back to her conclusion.
Ping L
B. I really liked how ping addresses the fact that it is the last poem and gives reason for it. Her thesis statement it clearly stated at the end of the intro, which gives us a good transition. The second paragraph does not give much of an explication, more of an analysis. I liked how in the third paragraph there was a clear example of what the “bog” might symbolize. Although she explicated on some parts, it was mostly analyzing. Also, in the conclusion, she opens up a new idea, this notion of a cycle, which was not mentioned anywhere else. Her conclusion does not really relate to the thesis, but her interpretations are very interesting
In my opinion, Christina wrote the best paper and is worthy of the grade A. It started off with a good introduction which basically gave more detail in order to understand the thesis statement. The body paragraphs were one of the strongest parts of the paper, it had much textual evidence. If you look at her solid thesis statement and the evidence from the text, it is all relevant. Basically she does a good job of interpreting what the poem mean and how the poet creates the meaning which is through “imagery and diction to reveal the flaws of human nature and the importance of faith”. Christina’s conclusion to the paper creates a sense of ease, and didn’t leave me confused. She tied up the lose ends, not only that but she created a fluid paper which was easy to read and understand.
The paper that I choose with a grade worth of a B is Ping’s, she starts off with an intro that interprets her thesis statement which is “He believes that the human nature is faulty and that human’s faith in God is diminishing. He establishes such believes in “The Parable of the Blind” through imagery, diction, and symbol.” Both Christina and Ping’s paper have similar thesis statement Ping’s paper is good but it lacks the fluidity through the context.
I think that the A goes to Christina H from period 6 and the B goes to Derek D from period 5. I think Christina deserves an A because she has a very good thesis. She also uses many solid examples. She connects and analyzes all her information very well. She goes into great depth with her examples and explains them very well. She also has a very nice conclusion to her paper. She shows a great understanding of the ideas she is writing about. Derek deserves the B because he also has a strong paper. He also seems to understand the subject of his paper very well. The introduction intoduction puts the poem into context with tho thers but does not stray from the topic and go into depth about the other poems. His paper contains solid and relevant examples, but I feel like he gets off the topic of explicating a little bit. He uses depth in his paper also, but not as much for explicating. I think he strays from the topic a little bit, but overall his paper is very well written.
Kevin Tran P5
Kevin's thesis statement is "William Carlos William uses blindness to portray the failures that society will create through the blind dependence on one another." I think that this is a wonderful thesis statement. He further backs up his thesis statement with evidence from the text. He explains and analyzes his evidence. He tells the reader that Williams creates his meaning through symbols and irony. His conclusion supports his thesis. (A)
Christina H P6
Christina's thesis statement at the end of her introduction tells us about Williams' purpose. Her thesis is "In 'The Parable of the Blind,' Williams uses imagery and diction to reveal the flaws of human nature and the importance of faith." She further explains this in her body paragraphs through evidence from the text. However, there are some places in her explication where it is left off "hanging in the air." For example, in the introduction, she wrote, "His careful choices of detail in each poem focus on the main ideas of each of the paintings. He hints that the viewers should focus on these details as well." She did not finish this thought, but instead, just continue on with her topic. I think that she needs to explain more in parts of her explication and not just leave it hanging. She made a mistake in her explication by saying that the poem is the "eighth" poem in Williams' collection, but it was actually the ninth. I love how she explain the meaning of the basin. Her integrating of evidence is great. Overall, she did great. (B)
I think that Ping L. from period 6 deserves the B because her essay begins with the facts and she immediately makes connections with things that the other writers failed to notice. In her essay, Ping mentions the placing of the painting and tells why she thinks it is significant. She tells us that Williams wants to wrap up a theme that was present in all of the other paintings by Brueghel and the “Parable of the Blind” ultimately shows mankind’s blindness. None of the other writers noticed this. After the connection Ping establishes her thesis and goes in depth with an explication of each line in the poem. But, I feel that towards the end her essay began to stray towards clichés and talk of the end of the world which was not relevant to what she spoke of in thesis.
I believe that Derek from Period 5 deserves the A because his introduction is filled with “superb” vocabulary and it is well written. After his introduction, Derek notices that red is prominent in all of Brueghel’s paintings but it is absent from his last painting. Derek’s reason for the absence of red is that the beggars are lacking compassion in an abstract way. Derek then begins his explication of the poem. Line by line, it is explicated and accompanied by an in-depth analysis. But, Derek’s conclusion was not able to reconnect for me any of the loose ends found in the essay. It seemed to focus solely on mankind’s end of the world and our blindness to see it.
I believe that Christina’s paper is the “A”. She chooses great evidence to support and her analysis is thoughtful. Above all, I think her thesis is accurate and she has a grasp of what an explication is. She shows that Williams uses “diction” and “imagery” to show “flaws of human nature”. When she writes,” He describes the peasants as “destitute” (14-15) and the possessions they carry as “pitiful”’ she shows the imagery that Williams expresses to prove her thesis. When Christina writes, “The poet’s diction evokes feelings of pity and depression. The peasants “stick in hand” (23-24)” she shows how Williams uses diction. She shows “how” the author proves her interpretation. I think this is what most of the essays lacked. She shows the authors purpose. She has great use of vocabulary. Her conclusion is analytical and relevant.
I believe that Kevin Tran’s paper is the “B”. His thesis is very deep and analytical. I think his idea that blindness influences judgment was interesting. Also he shows how the author does this. Kevin says, “imagery connects to the lack of range in perspective and connects to the lack of thought. He makes a connection from the author’s use of imagery to his idea, which is explication, something which I thought only Christina’s paper, Kevin’s, and Derek’s had, but I though that Kevin’s had more depth. His textual evidence matches his thesis. When Kevin writes, “According to the speaker, the beggars lead “each other diagonally downward” (6) “into a bog” (9). William uses this to exemplify society’s tendencies to follow a wrong idea or leader, and ultimately, this blindness in following a wrong path leads to the downfall to society.” I thought that this was so right on the topic and a perfect example of explication.
I believe that Christina H. from period 6 is an A paper and Derek D from period 5 received the B. Derek’s paper had a clear and accurately written thesis but the evidence that he provided was very weak and did not support his introductory paragraph very well. I believe that his explication may have gone off topic, he needed to focus on the authors purpose not what he believes is the purpose. Christina H. received the A because she had a strong thesis and body paragraphs. She expanded on the evidence and attempted to focus on the author’s purpose. I believe if she had made her conclusion clearer and been able to wrap up all her thoughts correctly she would have been able to make her paper a stronger one.
I believed Derek received an A. Not only did he do a superb job explicating the poem, but he provided evidence and went into depth. The ideas and the thesis that he stated were very solid and back up as well. Derek was able to use many quotes and explain on each one of them, not leaving the reader confused. Also, Derek’s paper was set up very neatly. He didn’t jump around the poem to explain it, but instead, e explicated the paper from the first line to the bottom. This was why I believed Derek’s paper beat all the other ones.
I graded Katie's paper a solid B. Because she provided good evidence and also because what she said about the painting was very relevant to the poem. Though she did do a good job explicating the poem, her sentences were very choppy. If her paper was more fluid, I would have given her a higher grade. Also, Katie was the first to post and there would have been no way for her to copy any other person. After reading all these explications, a lot of them seem redundant as if people copied each others work.
Christina I believed earned a high B. Though Christina explicated the poem well, I believed it was hard for the reader to find the thesis of the explication in the first paragraph. Only after reading the paper several times after was I able to find the thesis. Her 1st paragraph also described more about the painting rather than explicating it. Though she did provide great examples and went into depth, it would have been hard for the reader to understand the paper if they did not understand the thesis. Nonetheless, Christina did a good job.
I believe Edmund’s paper deserves a B. I believe this for many reasons, first his introductory paragraph was really grabbing. It was short but informative. For example he uses brief quotations to introduce the poem in regards to the painting. His body paragraphs include in depth explanations of each point he is trying to bring up. It is easy to read because his sentences flow very well. He uses words that describe what he is conveying well too, meaning he has great word choice. Although his second paragraph may be kind of a stretch, he supports his idea very well. Edmund integrates his evidence in a way that it easily flows. In other words his ideas are not left out in the open without evidence. Although Edmund’s paper is well in depth and explanatory I think he is missing some things before he can receive an A. I think that he should use more evidence to support. He has evidence but he uses one line and writes a lot on that one line. He should use more passages to help support his thesis. He is lacking also the diction and the actual choices the author makes in his writing. For example I would love if he talked about the line breaks and the words that the author chose. Also what these choices convey. That is why I gave him a B, he has an outstanding thesis and supports it well but lacks some key factors that are needed when writing an explication.
I think that Christina’s paper deserves an A. This paper was very well put together and also it integrates great evidence. She uses her passages in a good sense; they are well introduced and she explains them in a way that the reader will understand its depth. For example her first body paragraph consists of many quotations from the poem and she adds them into her paper well. She adds many quotations and also supports them. She gives the reader enough evidence to help prove her thesis. She continues bringing up her thesis and concludes her paper really strong by summing up all her ideas.
As a grade in explicating this poem, I will give Natalia from Period 5, a B. In her explication, Natalia states that this poem is a “parable” which she clearly knows the meaning of and that the poem does demonstrate a parable of some sort. She also knows that something is either missing or not known throughout the poem and painting, that is where the “blind” or blindness in the title and poem takes part. Natalia’s thesis refers to truth and light; referring to how it represents God. She has the idea of how the beggars may be sinners and by holding onto a ‘stick’ she states that they may be to “follow each other into sinning.” The bog and the stick in the painting represent the symbols in the poem. By following each other into sinning with a stick, they “stumble finally into a bog” (9). Through her explication, she clearly knows that this involves religious meanings or lessons, and that God is what the beggars are looking up to for help.
When looking at Edmund’s explication, for a grade I would give him an A. Edmund has very good vocabulary and is able to use it in the right sentences. He explains that beggars are lower class people who are easily influenced by others especially the rich. Rich people influence lower class people because of the experiences that make them become rich, every beggar would want to become rich and even if they worked hard beggars can’t be choosers while the rich is able to decide many things. Edmund states that since beggars are so easily influenced, they usually “lead them astray” them selves. Overall, he explains the poem to an extent that exists today. Beggars are still easily influenced and it’s the rich who uses their money in order to take advantage. In the end, Edmund did a great job explaining the blindness throughout the poem and the parable, explaining that believing in just faith is something that shouldn’t be depended on.
Overall I thought both of these poems were great, they explained what the poem and the painting meant through their point of views. Natalia should take away lines when citing the poem so it would look like this when cited (#-#). I believe that Edmund could have done better explaining the parable in this poem. Though his explanation in the blindness was great.
I believe that Kevin Tran P5’s paper deserves a B. Kevin does a good job at supporting his thesis with relevant evidence. However, I find that he lacks analysis of the evidence he provides. Kevin thoroughly analyzes his evidence in his third paragraph. His second paragraph contains interesting theories, but I believe more analysis could be integrated. Overall, Kevin does a great job at explicating the poem. If he had provided more evidence and analysis in his second paragraph, he would have received a higher grade.
Christina HP6’s explication deserves an A. Christina supports her thesis with sufficient evidence in each paragraph. She analyzes her evidence completely. Her analysis is well presented, which allows me to understand the poem in her perspective. Christina does an excellent job at explaining the effect of Williams’ diction and tone in supporting her thesis. Overall, I believe Christina was truly able to explicate the poem because she analyzes both evidence and William’s word choice.
I believe that Kevin’s paper should receive a B. He connected how blindness affects reason and society’s sense of direction. The integration of evidence is smooth throughout the paper. He clearly states what the symbols in both the poem and painting represented about guidance. Kevin’s perspective on the word “downward” is interesting. I also think that he should talk a bit more about dependence and how it leads society into chaos. Kevin also talks about religion towards the end of the explication, and I didn’t see much that connected with it. Overall, he did a good job analyzing the symbols of the poem and connecting them with society.
After reading Emily R’s explication, I concluded that she received an A. She has a strong thesis and evidence to back it up well. Her paragraphs have good flow between them and bluntly state her ideas. She also provides a brief and direct analysis that conveys her thoughts well. Her evidence is appropriately integrated as well. I think that her explanations on diction nicely backed up her thesis. One thing I could say is that there is a shift in her paper, where it transitions from faith to colors. I believe that that part is unnecessary, but other than that the rest of it was good. Emily’s paper is well focused and gets her point out. Both papers need more elaboration of the evidence they provided.
I think Christina’s paper received an A. Because it starts off with a nice thesis, stating William’s purpose is “to reveal the flaws of human nature and the importance of faith”, and his use of “imagery and diction”. Christina then switched into the topics of the poem, where she gives strong evidence from the text and reasonable explications. I especially like the point she made: it is ironic that the peasants do not have faith in God when the church is just behind them. Because I couldn’t tell it is ironic until Christina points this out. Over all, I believe Christina has a smooth and strong essay, which should deserve an A.
I think Ping’s paper should receive a B. Since she has demonstrates an effective thesis statement: “William believes that the human nature is faulty and that human’s faith in God is diminishing.” And she points out the literacy devices William used: “imagery, diction, and symbol.” Also Ping makes great observations on her symbols and creative connection with the world. I think her connection with the technology is innovative persuasive, reminding us not to “blind” ourselves from falling into the callous technology world.
I believe kevin Tran period from period 5 as well as Christina period 6 Have an A paper. It is from their paper only that i was able too concentrate because of the flowing of their evidence. Everything Connects as they support their thesis with great evidence.they both attack different subject but only them where able to with with the formation of their sentences and makes it flow smoothly.
I believe Nathalia paper from period 5 deserves a B. She started really well. Sentence structure is nicely put but from Kevin and Christina paper you can see the lack of a strong understanding of symbol.
Both Kevin and Derek’s paper did a wonderful job of stating a thesis and sticking to it throughout their pieces which is why I think they are the two to receive an A and B.
Kevin’s explication of The Parable of The Blind uses examples from the text and examples from the other works in Pictures from Bruegel to portray William Carlos Williams’ idea that he uses blindness in the poems to show the dependence society has on one another, as if they are blind. Kevin doesn’t steer away from this statement and uses strong evidence and analysis to prove it, whereas in some of the other explications, they dive deeper into the symbols of everything and forget their thesis by the end. I feel that his paper is an A.
Derek’s explication stood out to me because of the simple fact that it not only explicated The Parable of The Blind but it framed it with the other works more than the other explications. The thesis states the reference of modernistic ideals in William Carlos Williams’ poems which is what “stating the author’s purpose” really is. He writes the whole explication through that thesis and supports it thoroughly. He even incorporates his title into the explication as well. Though not every paragraph was entirely strong on its point, Derek does a good job of not straying too far; therefore I think he received a B.
It was Kevin and Derek’s conclusions that made me think they were the A and B in the group. I felt that proving their thesis and restating it at the end put a final touch to it and made me feel as I, as a reader, could understand exactly what they were trying to convey, though a reader might not necessarily agree. The papers were the easiest to follow likewise the most enlightening.
I think I will grade Ping L 6’ paper as an A because she seems to really understand the purpose of the author and I think that she explicates it very well. She uses words as symbol and symbolize, and this makes me think of the author using symbols to explain his point of view. And Derek per 5 received a B. He explicates the point the author wants make through the words he uses even thought he still needs to improve some things he did a good job explicating how the author makes his point.
I think that Christina H’s paper received an A. Her thesis is clearly stated in the introduction and she focuses on the language to explicate the poem, “William uses imagery and diction to reveal the flaws of human nature and the importance of faith.” The opening sentence is able to grasp the reader’s attention. The evidence that Christina uses is relevant and she successfully relates them back to the thesis. For example, she uses the “without red” as an imagery to relate back to the importance of faith.
In my opinion, Kevin T’s essay deserves a B. His thesis, “blindness inflicts both the freedom of thought and blindness also mentally hinders man’s judgment to reason for himself in order to succeed.” is successful and he maintains throughout the essay. The evidence and content is uses from the poem are good choices to support his thesis. Although Kevin’s idea is there, he needs to focus more on language. He relies somewhat on the painting more than the text.
Christina’s paper is an A paper. She has a great thesis that fully explains what she thinks. She then continues her thesis with evidence connecting to the other poems and the significance of them all. She does a really good job at explaining the author’s purpose for example when she explains why he wrote “without red”. She explains why it is significant to the author and the overall painting. She has great evidence to support all of her statements. Her conclusion is excellent because it finalizes her point and concludes the poem.
Kevin Tran paper is a B paper. He has a good thesis that is backed up by substantial evidence. He does a good job at trying to reach the authors reasons and supporting it with evidence from the text. Although his paper did seem a little repetitive at times he sticks to the topic of his thesis. He has a good usage of literary terms to convey the authors meaning in the poem. He also picks up the idea of irony and is very good at supporting this theory.
B: Kevin’s essay deserves a B, because he does an excellent job at providing and integrating evidence analyzing how the author portrays the blindness in society. However, he does not mention the author’s techniques in his thesis. The thesis sets up the rest of the essay, so without mentioning the key points of his essay, he loses points. Kevin does mention the author’s techniques later on in his essay and he provides and in-depth analysis to prove his point.
A: Christina’s explication deserves an A, because her thesis is clear. She maps out the important points of her essay, focusing on the author’s techniques—choice of details, diction, and imagery. Her evidence supports her point and establishes a connection between the author’s technique and the author’s purpose. The paper flows smoothly for the most part, and the evidence is well-integrated.
Christina’s paper, “Lost Faith,” is an excellent paper worthy of an A. In her thesis, she clearly stated Williams’s purpose and analyzed both his technique and the meaning of his words. Her evidence is integrated well and, although the points she made may be somewhat theorized, the way she backs it up with evidence makes up for any claims made. Rather than explicating the poem as if progressing in a normal chronological order she organizes her paragraphs by each individual point. What may seem unappealing to some readers is the order of passage citing. However, it does not hinder the quality of the paper overall.
Derek’s paper, “The Futility of Life and the Fall of Religion,” is a paper deserving of a B. His range of vocabulary is wide and his diction through the paper is always appropriate. His paper is an example of a more traditional method of explication in which each of the stanzas is explicated in order. However, further elaboration would have strengthened Derek’s paper. There are no glaring flaws in pronoun and antecedent agreement which is nice considering how often he uses pronouns. Overall, the conclusion is well-written even if it has easily fixed errors. The use of “we” involves Derek in his paper which is not needed in explication writing and the last sentence is unnecessary.
Christina H would get the A from me. I felt that she had a clear thesis to begin with about how “William uses imagery and diction to reveal the flaws of human nature and the importance of faith”. Also she had an interesting way of starting out her explication. She immediately engages her explication using the first line of the poem to demonstrate a controversy regarding religion to lead into her thesis. Although she said the wrong poem number, it doesn’t really matter to me. She did a great job using textual evidence and analysis to prove her point because everything she said went back to support her thesis. I liked how she said “humans, in general, are followers of each other rather than followers of their own hearts” and she elaborated so well on that following paragraph to support how humans instinctively rely on others rather than faith.
Kevin Tran would get a B. He had a very interesting thought how “blindness inflicts the freedom of thought and mentally hinders man’s judgment to reason.” It was interesting, but I was a little confused the first time I read his introduction. I felt like his thesis was a little unclear. However, I think he did a great job integrating evidence to follow his idea of the blind like his 3rd paragraph, where he explains the symbol of red.
I think that Christina's paper was the A paper. Her thesis focuses on Williams' diction, and she effectively relates the purposes of all the poems together. Her evidence is smoothly integrated into her writing style, and her paragraphs all have a focus that they follow through from the topic sentence all the way to the end. She connected the diction to the theme of faith, and the most effective paragraph for me is the conclusion because it ties the whole paper together. My favorite detail was the part about the color red and how she related it to her thesis.
Kevin's essay seems like a B essay because his thesis was really interesting and unique. His paragraphs are focused, and his evidence is integrated well. A few spots in the body paragraphs could have used a little more analysis of the evidence, but overall, he had a good grasp of the poem. With more attention to how the author achieved the message, the paper could definitely be an A. My favorite part was the part where he described the beggars and the relationship to poverty, because he connected the poem to the painting without detracting from the poem itself.
Christina H. essay should be an A because she has a good thesis statement. Not only that but she also have a lot of evidence to prove her points. She explain what’s the author of the painting is trying to get us to see. Williams uses imagery and diction to reveal the flaws of human nature and the important of faith. In Christina’s essay she gave a lot of evidence for it and she was very detailed about it to support the author. She did a good job with the essay. It was very details and easy to understand about what she was talking about. It also connects to her thesis as well.
Derek essay should be a B because he had a very good thesis as but he didn’t really have that much evidence to support his thesis. Not only that but there wasn’t that much explications about it. He did answer all the question thought.
I believe that Christina’s paper is an A worthy paper. Not only does it have a great thesis, it explains what she thinks and it is clear and concise. She continues her thesis with evidence thats connects to the other poems she also explains the significance of all of the poems. I think she did a great job at trying to explain the author’s purpose when she uses the line "without red". She says why it is significant. She has great evidence to support all of her statements. Her conclusion is ends the explication well because it finalizes her thoughts as well as finished the poem.
The other paper I look at was Kevin 's paper. I think that it is a B paper because has a solid thesis that is supported by strong evidence. He does a good job at attempting the authors purpose by truing to supporting it with text.
Even though his paper is a little repetitive, he stays on the general topic of his thesis. He has good diction, and also gets irony and successfully explains his thesis .
While reading Christina’s paper I think that her paper deserves an A. Her thesis connects the poem to the painting, and the way she connects it I thought was good. I think that when she said that “they are all equally blind, so they should learn to be more independent and rely less on others” I thought that was very true about the poems and that it can help humans later on in life that we have to rely on ourselves and not others. Another thing that caught my attention was where she was referring to the color red, red is a color that’s very eye catching and is a color that symbolizes plenty of things. Red may symbolize love and anger and things like that and people being blind may not feel or be able to encounter. Something else that’s made this paper receive an A was when Christina said, “ Williams stresses the importance of believing in oneself” this thought was great because when someone is blind they have a narrow perspective on life so in order to go on in life they have to believe in themselves with I think is very true.
Natalia did a very a really good job on her paper and I think she should get a B. I like how she connected the light to God because usually when you think about being in the light, it naturally feels as if of being in the presence of God or things of that sort. Also she talks about how they are blind towards God, I thought that this point was true because of the fact that they are blind or incapable of grasping the idea of God or the higher power. As she made this point of being blind towards God she does a fantastic job analyzing the evidence she puts forward. Towards the end of the paper she seems to somewhat get a little off topic, in the sense that’s in the end it became a little confusing. But for me overall I thought it was a very well written paper.
Post a Comment