You were one of the first presentations that seemed to flow so well; you knew exactly what you wanted to say and when and I hardly ever saw you merely reading off of a piece of paper. This is why I chose to look over your blog some more, and found myself responding on you AP Prompt #1 post. Just as your introduction was engaging within your presentation, that carries on within this essay as well. It is clean, cut, and fairly straight-forward, identifying the plot as psychological and that the events that occur are influenced and made more exciting and dramatic by the certain literary aspects they possess. Your essay flows with ease, moving along in an organized fashion, as it picks apart the multitude of struggles a specific character within the novel faces and how, for one, rhetorical questions that propose conflict naturally, propose an internal conflict within him. I do agree with this, as rhetorical questions are meant to bring about a multitude thoughts or discreetly suggest things. With the use of rhetorical questions by an individual results in a battle between ideas within oneself, or internal conflicts. Overall you go very in depth with your discussion of this idea of internal conflict that I think you also conclude quite well.
On your second AP Open question prompt, what first jumped out to me was the in depth, elevated analysis from the beginning. Your thesis laid out a clear path and train of thought for the rest of your essay. The only thing I would improve upon is making it more clear and easy to understand, and maybe adhere to the specificity of the prompt itself. Your topic sentences could be a little more specific also, and maybe use phrases or words from your thesis to make it connect better. In your first body paragraph, the quote integration and use of the quotes was well balanced with the commentary, and they both worked to support your thesis. The second paragraph, however, had a much larger proportion dedicated to the commentary and not the textual evidence, which seemed to be squished in at the end. The commentary was very good, however, and clearly supported your argument. The thing I liked the most about the essay was the elevated diction that you used to make a very professional argument, and I saw that in your presentation too.
In your essay, I think you did a very good job of explaining how Dostoevsky focuses on the internal thoughts of Raskolnikov and why. The literary devices and the justifications of their purposes are well-reasoned throughout the essay. I also think you used apt textual evidence to back up your opinion. Overall, as an essay meant to describe the meaning of the work as a whole, I think this essay stands out as one that focuses well on the literary devices and how they create meaning—which is something we’ve worked on throughout the course of the class, so that was well done! However, the prompt chosen for this essay asks for description of the “sense of excitement, suspense, and climax” that Dostoevsky chooses to implement in his writing of internal events instead of external ones. I personally in your essay did not see this as much as maybe would have been desired. While you really explain well the actual internal focus, I don’t think you explained the emotion behind the internalization of the writing. What makes the writing suspenseful? In my opinion, a focus on diction or syntax structure could have better developed the essay, as these aspects of writing are more related to the emotional buildup of a novel. The content of the novel is built into the word choice and sentence structure, which I think could have better described the emotion in the piece.
In your second AP Open question prompt, your sense of organization, flow, and material are all well balanced. Your opening is very quick to the point explaining the main of your essay and very clear to the reader. The literary devices you associated with Dostoevsky’s description of Rashkolnikov’s mind process and your justification tie neatly back with your original claim. The textual evidence present was well used, no redundancy or indirectness, but add individual support to the complexity you’re essay means to address in your novel. The use of evidence and explanation is well executed in the beginning paragraph but as your essay continues there is more commentary then facts. While these claims were good, they’re nothing to the reader but claims until there is visible evidence stating otherwise. Along with the lack of support, I felt your essay was lacking in adherence to the original prompt specifically. Your choice of syntax and diction throughout the piece were excellent though, in my opinion. There was an elevated use of words and intriguing descriptions and commentary present, overall leaving a professional and educated tone and meaning. Overall your argument delved into the obvious complexity and reasoning Dostoevsky’s use of internal conflict that was very well written.
You were one of the first presentations that seemed to flow so well; you knew exactly what you wanted to say and when and I hardly ever saw you merely reading off of a piece of paper. This is why I chose to look over your blog some more, and found myself responding on you AP Prompt #1 post. Just as your introduction was engaging within your presentation, that carries on within this essay as well. It is clean, cut, and fairly straight-forward, identifying the plot as psychological and that the events that occur are influenced and made more exciting and dramatic by the certain literary aspects they possess.
ReplyDeleteYour essay flows with ease, moving along in an organized fashion, as it picks apart the multitude of struggles a specific character within the novel faces and how, for one, rhetorical questions that propose conflict naturally, propose an internal conflict within him. I do agree with this, as rhetorical questions are meant to bring about a multitude thoughts or discreetly suggest things. With the use of rhetorical questions by an individual results in a battle between ideas within oneself, or internal conflicts. Overall you go very in depth with your discussion of this idea of internal conflict that I think you also conclude quite well.
On your second AP Open question prompt, what first jumped out to me was the in depth, elevated analysis from the beginning. Your thesis laid out a clear path and train of thought for the rest of your essay. The only thing I would improve upon is making it more clear and easy to understand, and maybe adhere to the specificity of the prompt itself. Your topic sentences could be a little more specific also, and maybe use phrases or words from your thesis to make it connect better.
ReplyDeleteIn your first body paragraph, the quote integration and use of the quotes was well balanced with the commentary, and they both worked to support your thesis. The second paragraph, however, had a much larger proportion dedicated to the commentary and not the textual evidence, which seemed to be squished in at the end. The commentary was very good, however, and clearly supported your argument. The thing I liked the most about the essay was the elevated diction that you used to make a very professional argument, and I saw that in your presentation too.
In your essay, I think you did a very good job of explaining how Dostoevsky focuses on the internal thoughts of Raskolnikov and why. The literary devices and the justifications of their purposes are well-reasoned throughout the essay. I also think you used apt textual evidence to back up your opinion. Overall, as an essay meant to describe the meaning of the work as a whole, I think this essay stands out as one that focuses well on the literary devices and how they create meaning—which is something we’ve worked on throughout the course of the class, so that was well done!
ReplyDeleteHowever, the prompt chosen for this essay asks for description of the “sense of excitement, suspense, and climax” that Dostoevsky chooses to implement in his writing of internal events instead of external ones. I personally in your essay did not see this as much as maybe would have been desired. While you really explain well the actual internal focus, I don’t think you explained the emotion behind the internalization of the writing. What makes the writing suspenseful? In my opinion, a focus on diction or syntax structure could have better developed the essay, as these aspects of writing are more related to the emotional buildup of a novel. The content of the novel is built into the word choice and sentence structure, which I think could have better described the emotion in the piece.
In your second AP Open question prompt, your sense of organization, flow, and material are all well balanced. Your opening is very quick to the point explaining the main of your essay and very clear to the reader. The literary devices you associated with Dostoevsky’s description of Rashkolnikov’s mind process and your justification tie neatly back with your original claim. The textual evidence present was well used, no redundancy or indirectness, but add individual support to the complexity you’re essay means to address in your novel.
ReplyDeleteThe use of evidence and explanation is well executed in the beginning paragraph but as your essay continues there is more commentary then facts. While these claims were good, they’re nothing to the reader but claims until there is visible evidence stating otherwise. Along with the lack of support, I felt your essay was lacking in adherence to the original prompt specifically. Your choice of syntax and diction throughout the piece were excellent though, in my opinion. There was an elevated use of words and intriguing descriptions and commentary present, overall leaving a professional and educated tone and meaning. Overall your argument delved into the obvious complexity and reasoning Dostoevsky’s use of internal conflict that was very well written.