English Paper Help

[celtois]

Wasn't sure if I should post this here or in Media, but I've got an english paper due tomorrow and I was wondering if any of the good members of this forum would be kind enough to read over it and give me suggestions on how to improve it.

It's critical response to the film Dead Poets Society


Happiness, as shown in Dead Poets Society is achieved through the pursuit of dreams. What this means is that when the ability of a character to pursue their dreams is compromised so too is their happiness. In the film, the viewer is able to witness how in the pursuit of happiness the protagonists compromise their happiness. Essentially the harder the protagonists struggle to achieve happiness the harder they fall (fail). This idea is demonstrated to the reader through the lives of Neil Perry, and his pursuit of his dreams of acting, Charlie Dalton’s pursuit of freedom and independence and, Mr. Keating, and his pursuit of encouraging free thinkers.

Neil has always dreamed of being an actor. It would make him happier than anything, a dream that he knows runs counter to his dad’s big plans for him. Despite this he chooses to pursue his dream, until the pursuit of it compromises his chances of ever fulfilling his dream and being happy. This is demonstrated to the viewer through the different confrontations with Neil’s father, Mr. Perry and Neil’s suicide.

In the first confrontation Neil is told to quit the play he signed up for after his father finds out, second-hand, that he is in a play with a family friend’s niece. His choice to try to purse his dream of acting and be happy that way, only results in his father slamming the door of opportunity in his face and preventing his dreams from coming true.

The second confrontation occurs after Neil convinces his father to allow him to keep up the play. After the closing night, his father practically drags Neil out of the theatre and demands Neil give up acting and comply with his wishes, in his exact words, “What is it? If it is more of this acting rubbish you can just forget that.” This once again demonstrates how Neil persevering, and trying to pursue acting resulted only in his father closing that possibility off to him forever, and preventing him from pursuing happiness through acting.

Finally, when Neil commits suicide, he concludes that since he will never have the chance to act under his father’s watchful eye he might as well just end his life rather than live in misery. This pursuit of happiness, or more particularly avoidance of unhappiness and the compromised dreams it represents, results in a very final conclusion. Neil can never accomplish the things he dreams of, and the chance of just waiting until he is old enough to avoid his father’s authority before accomplishing his dreams is, now closed to him, being that he is dead. Thus through his three attempts at trying to pursue his dreams, he closes the door further and further until he can never accomplish his dreams and can never, ever be happy.

Similar to Neil we have Charile who also compromised his happiness while pursing it. Freedom is happiness, acting out and living life to the fullest, that is Charlie, or shall I say Nuwanda’s principle in life, a principle that he can no longer maintain after his actions result in him destroying his future, so he can never live life to the fullest. He manages to accomplish this through a number of stunts that eventually result in his expulsion from Welton Academy, and prevents him from being able to continue to go on and establish a good career, and have fun in college. These stunts were, the phone call from god, where he suggests that there should be girls at Welton, which nearly results in his expulsion when Principle Nolan finds out, and finally hitting Cameron which does get him expelled. Both of these were done in the cause of trying to live each moment to its fullest to suck the marrow out of life, and both resulted in him choking on the bone. The net result is he has at harder life ahead of him, one where he will have to crack down to get by with the black mark of being expelled on his record.. A life where he will not be able to just enjoy life, pull pranks, and act out; a life where his happiness is compromised. Ironically it is these actions and those of Neil that result in Mr. Keatings dreams being destroyed.
Free thinkers at seventeen, impossible; this is exactly the idea that Mr. Keating stands against, and the linchpin of his happiness, for his dream is to inspire a generation of young men through teaching to grow up and change the world, and live every moment to its fullest. A dream that he compromises by encouraging rebellion amongst his pupils (our protagonists) against the system in which they live, a deed that eventually results in him losing his job, due to the death of Neil and his link to the Dead Poets Society.

It is the Dead Poets Society that ends up taking the blame for Neil’s death, and Mr. Keating is seen has having encouraged the boys to take that cause up. Which directly results in him being fired. All of the events leading to Neil’s death can be directly related to the teaching and guidance of Mr. Keating, the formation of the Dead Poet’s Society, (that Mr. Keating used to be a part of). The suggestion that Neil and the rest of the boys live life to its fullest; carpe diem, is what inspires Neil to do the play in the first place, because he has always wanted to act his whole life so he takes this chance. This is followed by Keating suggesting that Neil tell his father how he feels about acting. When this ends poorly, and Mr. Perry decides that Neil will never act, Neil realizes that since he can’t live life to its fullest like Keating suggested to him, that he might not want to live it at all. In each of these examples, Mr. Keating encourages Neil to think independently and strive for a fulfilling life, his teachings result in conflict between Neil and his father and eventually, Neil giving up on life. Neils suicide results in Mr. Keating's dismissal so he can never teach again. By inspiring Neil to think independently and live life to its fullest, (like Mr. Keating always dreamed of being able to do), he causes Neil's struggles with his father and eventual suicide, something Keating ends up getting fired for. Since he was dismissed he will never get to inspire any more students. His success at pursing happiness by inspiring Neil only resulted in downfall; he reached high and found only the sun which burned his wings so he should fall.

In the movie, Dead Poets Society, McAllister says: “Show me the heart unfettered by foolish dreams and I’ll show you a happy man.” This line sums up the final result for the protagonists of the movie, where in striving to achieve their dreams and find happiness, Keating, Charlie and Neil all compromise their happiness. Neil and Charlie lose their futures and Keating loses his job. None of them shall again achieve to the heights they strive for in the movie. They truly prove the quote by McAllister to be the truth hidden within the film, the sad truth was that carpe diem leads to failure and, that those who pursue happiness will always compromise it.


Thank you for your time I appreciate it. :smallbiggrin:
(I think I worked most of the grammar errors out of it so content is just the big worry at the moment.)

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

It still has a decent amount of grammatical errors, actually. I'd advise checking over it again, and maybe looking into a few resources on grammar or style. If you're teacher's not too picky, its meaning is clear enough, but it's not technically accurate, in a lot of ways.

With regard to content, the best way to determine if one has made an effective argument is to consider the arguments one could use to argue against it (for example, is it the pursuit of one's dreams which destroys them, or is it the outside world's resistance of those pursuits?) and then to, in turn, come up with a way to defend the argument against those, if it doesn't already hold up.

[celtois]

Yeah my grammar has always been rather poor. Meaning that even when I think I've got everything most people can find lots more errors.

Thanks for the tip on a what to look for in terms of improving the argument within it. I'll consider it =)

[Lady Moreta]

Oooh! Essay! And Dead Poet's Society! :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin: Wow, I am such a nerd...

Sorry... I enjoy essay writing and DPS is one of my favourite movies (and I studied it in English as well :smalltongue:). I've read over your essay and it's pretty good, I have a few ideas of things you could do to improve it, but I'm at work right now and about to go to lunch. I'll have a go at explaining what I mean when I get back :smallsmile:

[celtois]

Thank you I'll read what you have to say.

I'm not a huge fan of essay writing but DPS is a good film, and I kinda like what I was able to do with this essay.

:smallsmile:

As I said I really appreciate it. English has never been a strong point for me.

[Vaynor]

Wasn't sure if I should post this here or in Media, but I've got an english paper due tomorrow and I was wondering if any of the good members of this forum would be kind enough to read over it and give me suggestions on how to improve it.

It's critical response to the film Dead Poets Society

I'll give it a shot, but keep in mind that a lot of my comments may be along the lines of "What Would Vaynor Do."

Corrections are in red, comments are in [brackets], and omissions are struck through.



Happiness, as shown in Dead Poets Society, [movie titles should be italicized] is achieved through the pursuit of dreams. What this means is that [overly wordy and completely unnecessary] When the ability of a character to pursue their dreams is compromised, so too is their happiness. In the film, the viewer is able to witnesses how, in the pursuit of happiness, the protagonists compromise their happiness. Essentially, the harder the protagonists struggle to achieve happiness the harder they fall (fail) [This seems like a trite attempt at a "the bigger they are, the harder they fall" cliche, and should probably be avoided. Also, you should probably choose one word or the other (fall/fail).]. This idea is demonstrated to the reader [wasn't it a film?] through the lives of Neil Perry, and his pursuit of his dreams of acting, Charlie Dalton and his pursuit of freedom and independence, and, Mr. Keating, and his pursuit of encouraging advocacy of free thinking.

Neil has always dreamed of being an actor, a dream that he knows runs counter to his dad’s big plans for him; it would make him happier than anything. [the dream part is more relevant in the first sentence, and the "it" is vague, so I've combined the two sentences with a semicolon] Despite their dichotomous ideals, he chooses to pursue his dream, until the pursuit of it compromises his chances of ever fulfilling his dream and being happy. This is demonstrated to the viewer through the different confrontations with Neil’s father, Mr. Perry, and Neil’s suicide. [I'm a fan of the Oxford comma, take it or leave it :smalltongue:]

[I'm not convinced that the next three paragraphs should be separate from the previous one. They're much too short and entirely too relevant in the previous paragraph.]

In the first confrontation, Neil is told to quit the play he signed up for [this seems like unnecessary/obvious information to me] after his father finds out, second-hand, that he is in a play with a family friend’s niece. His choice to try to purse his dream of acting and be happy that way, only results in his father slamming the door of opportunity in his face and preventing his dreams from coming true.

The second confrontation occurs after Neil convinces his father to allow him to keep up continue participating in the play. After the closing night, his father practically drags Neil out of the theatre and demands that Neil give up acting and comply with his wishes, in his exact words: “What is it? If it is more of this acting rubbish you can just forget that.” This once again demonstrates how Neil persevering, and trying to pursue acting, resulted only in his father closing that possibility off to him forever, and preventing him from pursuing happiness through acting.

Finally, when Neil commits suicide, he concludes that since he will never have the chance to act under his father’s watchful eye he might as well just end his life rather than live in misery. [this sentence is a bit awkward and could probably use a revision] This pursuit of happiness, or more particularly, avoidance of unhappiness and the compromised dreams it represents, results in a very final conclusion [is there any other kind of conclusion?]. Neil can never accomplish the things he his dreams of, and the chance of just waiting until he is old enough to avoid his father’s authority before accomplishing his dreams is, now closed to him, being that he is dead. Thus Through his three attempts at trying to pursue his dreams, he Neil closes the door further and further until he can never accomplish his dreams and can never, ever be happy. [door metaphor is overused]

Similar to Neil, we have Charile, who also compromised his happiness while pursing it. Freedom is happiness, acting out and living life to the fullest, that is Charlie's, (or shall I say Nuwanda’s) [avoid using the first person] principle in life is acting out and living life to the fullest, a principle that he can no longer maintain after his actions result in him destroying his future, so that he can never live life to the fullest [you already said he couldn't maintain "his principle in life, and as this last bit [i]is his principle in life, it's redundant]. He manages to accomplish this through a number of stunts that eventually result in his expulsion from Welton Academy, and which prevents him from being able to continue to go on and establish a good career, and have fun in college. These stunts were, the phone call from god, where he suggests that there should be girls at Welton, which nearly results in his expulsion when Principle Nolan finds out, and finally hitting Cameron which does get him expelled. The first nearly results in his expulsion when Principle Nolan finds out, and the latter gets him expelled. Both of these were done in the cause of by trying to live each moment to its fullest, to suck the marrow out of life, and both resulted in him choking on the bone. The net result is he has at a harder life ahead of him in the future, one where; he will have to crack down work hard to get by succeed with the black mark of being expelled expulsion on his record.. A life where He will not be able to just simply enjoy life, pull pranks, and act out; a life where his happiness is has been compromised. [You switch between past and present tense a lot. I didn't get every instance of it, but it's something you should watch out for.] Ironically it is both these actions and those of Neil that result in Mr. Keating's dreams being destroyed.
Free thinkers at seventeen, impossible; this is exactly the idea that Mr. Keating stands against, and the linchpin of his happiness, The idea that Mr. Keating stands against is that it is not impossible for seventeen year-olds to be freethinkers. for His dream, and the linchpin of his happiness, is to inspire a generation of young men through teaching to grow up and change the world, and live every moment to its fullest. A dream that He compromises this dream by encouraging rebellion amongst his pupils (our protagonists) against the system in which they live, a deed that eventually results in him losing his job, due to the death of Neil and his link to the Dead Poets Society.

It is The Dead Poets Society that ends up taking the blame for Neil’s death, and Mr. Keating is seen has having encouraged the boys to take that cause up, which directly results in him being fired termination. All of the events leading to Neil’s death can be directly related to the teaching and guidance of Mr. Keating, and the formation of the Dead Poet’s Society, (that Mr. Keating used to be a part of). The suggestion that Neil and the rest of the boys live life to its fullest; (carpe diem), is what inspires Neil to do the play in the first place, because. He has always wanted to act his whole entire life so he takes this chance. This is followed by Keating suggesting that Neil tell his father how he feels about acting. When this ends poorly, and Mr. Perry decides that Neil will never act, Neil realizes that since he can’t live life to its fullest like Keating suggested to him, and that he might not want to live it at all. In each of these examples, Mr. Keating encourages Neil to think independently and strive for a fulfilling life. His teachings result in conflict between Neil and his father, and, eventually, Neil giving up on life. Neil's suicide results in Mr. Keating's dismissal, so he can never leaving him unable to teach again. By inspiring Neil to think independently and live life to its fullest, (like Mr. Keating always dreamed of being able to do), he causes Neil's struggles with his father and eventual suicide, something Keating ends up getting fired for. Since he was dismissed, he will never get be able to inspire any more students. His success at pursing happiness by inspiring Neil only resulted in downfall; he reached high and found only the sun which burned his wings so he should fall.

In the movie, Dead Poets Society, McAllister says: “Show me the heart unfettered by foolish dreams and I’ll show you a happy man.” This line sums up the final result for the protagonists of the movie, where, in striving to achieve their dreams and find happiness, Keating, Charlie, and Neil all compromise their happiness. Neil and Charlie lose their futures and Keating loses his job. None of them shall again achieve to the heights they strive for in the movie again. They truly prove the quote by McAllister's quote to be the truth hidden within the film: the sad truth was that carpe diem leads to failure and, that those who pursue happiness will always compromise it.


Thank you for your time I appreciate it. :smallbiggrin:
(I think I worked most of the grammar errors out of it so content is just the big worry at the moment.)

In the cases where the comma has a horizontal line above it, that's a suggested removal of the comma.

[celtois]

Wow, thanks for that Vaynor.

Yeah I'm a fan of cliche and extended metaphors, it drives people batty but I like it.

I also have a tendency to place unneeded words in my sentences which make them awkward.

From the look of things I'd say I should pretty much re-write the middle paragraph. :smalleek:

But the rest after adapting most of your tweaks is looking much neater.

(The prime reason for splitting the second paragraph into four mini paragraphs is that I felt as a whole, the page long paragraph was simply too long, when there were distinct points I was covering in the paragraph that I could split it into.)

[Lord Seth]

Try reading your paper out loud. That helps you catch errors way easier than if you just read through it normally.

[Lady Moreta]

Okay, I'm done :smallsmile:

I've been a bit odd becuase I'm at work right now... what I did was save your essay to my work drive and then go over it (with a bit of a fine-tooth comb I might add). I've saved my changes and have uploaded the document here ("http://img.pederick.id.au/gallery/v/rebecca/Happiness.doc.html). I did a lot of highlighting/font colouring and it's easier/faster for me to do it this way - you should be able to download the file without any problems.

Just so you know: dark green highlighting are places where I've changed something - usually adjusted a couple of words to make a sentence flow better or fixed grammatical errors.
Blue highlighting is correcting of spelling mistakes.
Red text are my own comments in places where I feel you need to rethink/rewrite parts.

Overall - I enjoyed it. It's a different perspective from my own of that movie and I liked reading it. Biggest problem, apart from convoluted sentences, is the fact that I think in a couple of places you're a bit too critical. You seem to be reading (viewing?) things into the movie that I don't think are actually there. Of course, this is entirely my opinion, but remember that for a critical essay like this the key is justification. You can say almost anything you like as long as you can justify it. I've suggested what I think is an appropriate compromise in a couple of places. You are of course, free to ignore what I've said. If you do though, I suggest that you shore up your arugments and find a better justification for what you've said.

Oh and others - feel free to read my changes, I don't mind... this just takes less time for me than highlighting/changing text in the reply window.

and on that note, I have to get back to work!

[celtois]

And thank you as well Lady Moreta. I've read through your edits and will incorporate them into my essay.

And now I aught to get to sleep. After all being up to hand in the essay tomorrow would be a good start :smallwink:

A big thank to everyone for your help. It helped me figure out some of the more common and recurring flaws in my work. :smallsmile:

[Lady Moreta]

And now I aught to get to sleep. After all being up to hand in the essay tomorrow would be a good start :smallwink:

Heehee, yes sleep helps.

good luck with it! :smallsmile:

[celtois]

and for your viewing pleasure I'll post it with edits, and adaptation. Yes I know some of the suggested removals are still in there.

As well as a lot of the clichés and cheesy metaphors. I happen to like them though, additionally there is still a bit of redundancy in some of my explanation.

And yes, I still have most of my blanket statements in there. (Unfortunately I've run out of time to be able to restructure the evidence were I feel my analysis of it would be effective without them. :smallfrown:

However I hope those of you who have helped my on the essay aren't too displeased with my final result. )



Happiness, as depicted in Dead Poets Society, is achieved through the pursuit of dreams. This suggests that when the ability of a character to pursue their dreams is compromised, so is their happiness. In the film, the viewer witnesses how the pursuit of happiness, causes the protagonists to compromise their happiness. Essentially the harder the protagonists struggle to achieve happiness the less their chances of achieving it. This idea is demonstrated to the viewer through the lives of Neil Perry and his dreams of acting; Charlie Dalton’s and his pursuit of freedom and independence; and Mr. Keating and his advocacy of free thinking.

Neil has always dreamed of being an actor, a dream he knows runs counter to his dad’s big plans for him; it would make him happier than anything. Despite their conflicting ideals he chooses to pursue his dream, until the pursuit of it compromises his chances of ever fulfilling his dream and being happy. This is demonstrated to the viewer through the different confrontations with Neil’s father, Mr. Perry, and Neil’s suicide.
In the first confrontation Neil is told to quit the play after his father finds out second-hand that he is in a play with a family friend’s niece. His choice to try to purse his dream of acting and be happy that way, only results in his father slamming the door of opportunity in his face and preventing his dreams from coming true.

The second confrontation occurs after Neil convinces his father to allow him to finish the play. After the closing night, his father practically drags Neil out of the theatre and demands that Neil give up acting and comply with his wishes, in his exact words: “What is it? If it is more of this acting rubbish you can just forget that.” This again demonstrates how Neil's perseverance, trying to pursue his dream, results only in his father removing that possibility forever, preventing him from pursuing happiness through acting.
Finally, after Neil concludes that he will never have the chance to act under his father’s watchful eye, he chooses to end his life rather than live in misery. This pursuit of happiness, or more particularly, avoidance of unhappiness and the compromised dreams it represents, results in disaster for Neil. He can never accomplish the things he dreams of and the chance of just waiting until he is old enough to avoid his father’s authority before accomplishing his dreams is, now closed to him, being that he is dead. Through his three attempts at trying to pursue his dreams, he closes the door further and further until he can never accomplish his dreams and can never, ever find happiness.

Similarly Charile Dalton also compromised his happiness while pursing it. Charlie's, (Nuwanda’s) belief is that, freedom is happiness, acting out and living life to the fullest, a belief that he can no longer maintain after his actions result in him destroying his future. He manages to accomplish this through a number of stunts that eventually result in his expulsion from Welton Academy, which prevents him from being able establish a good career, and have fun in college. These stunts were, the phone call from god where he suggests that there should be girls at Welton, and hitting Cameron. The first nearly results in his expulsion when Principle Nolan finds out and the second gets him expelled. Both were done in the cause of trying to live each moment to its fullest to “suck the marrow out of life”, and both resulted in him “choking on the bone”. The net result is a harder life in the future; he will have to crack down to get by with the black mark of expulsion on his record. He will not be able to just enjoy life, pull pranks, and act out, his happiness is compromised. Ironically it is both these actions and those of Neil that result in Mr. Keating's dreams being destroyed.

McAllister suggests: “Free thinkers at seventeen, impossible;”. This idea is exactly what Mr. Keating stands against, he believes is that it is not impossible for seventeen year-olds to be freethinkers. His dream, and the linchpin of his happiness, is to inspire a generation of young men through teaching to grow up and change the world, and live every moment to its fullest. He compromises this dream by encouraging rebellion amongst his pupils (our protagonists) against the system in which they live, a deed that eventually results in him losing his job due to the death of Neil and his link to the Dead Poets Society.

The Dead Poets Society ends up taking the blame for Neil’s death, and Mr. Keating is seen as having encouraged the boys to take that cause up, which directly results in termination. All of the events leading to Neil’s death can be directly related to the teaching and guidance of Mr. Keating and the formation of the Dead Poet’s Society (which Mr. Keating used to be a part of). The suggestion that Neil and the rest of the boys live life to its fullest (carpe diem) is what inspires Neil to do the play in the first place. He has always wanted to act his entire life so he takes this chance. This is followed by Keating suggesting that Neil tell his father how he feels about acting. When this ends poorly, and Mr. Perry decides that Neil will never act, Neil realizes that since he can’t live life to its fullest like Keating suggested to him, he might not want to live it at all. In each of these examples, Mr. Keating encourages Neil to think independently and strive for a fulfilling life; however his teachings result in conflict between Neil, and, his father and eventually, Neil gives up on life. Neil's suicide results in Mr. Keating's dismissal, leaving him unable to teach again. By inspiring Neil to think independently and live life to its fullest, (like Mr. Keating always dreamed of being able to do), he causes Neil's struggles with his father and eventual suicide, something Keating ends up getting fired for. Since he was dismissed, he will never be able to inspire any more students. His success at pursing happiness by inspiring Neil only resulted in downfall; he reached high and found only the sun which burned his wings so he should fall.

In the film, Dead Poets Society, McAllister says: “Show me the heart unfettered by foolish dreams and I’ll show you a happy man”. This line sums up the final result for the protagonists of the movie, where, in striving to achieve their dreams and find happiness, Keating, Charlie, and Neil all compromise their happiness. Neil and Charlie lose their futures and Keating loses his job. None of them shall reach to the heights they strive for in the movie again. They prove McAllister's quote to be the truth hidden within the film: the sad truth that carpe diem leads to failure and, that those who pursue happiness will always compromise it.


Thank you for the luck and the help. If this thread is still in the first couple pages when I get marks back I'll be sure to let you know how I did.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Are some people not fans of the Oxford comma?

An important part of writing is to develop your own voice; if you like cheesy metaphors, damn the torpedoes, cheesy metaphors all the way.

[Vaynor]

Are some people not fans of the Oxford comma?

An important part of writing is to develop your own voice; if you like cheesy metaphors, damn the torpedoes, cheesy metaphors all the way.

Those who follow the AP Stylebook (mostly journalists) tend to not use the Oxford comma.

Also, cheesy metaphors are fine, they're just trite. In general, you're better off using your own voice to describe something than rely on cliche.

[Lioness]

a
As well as a lot of the clichés and cheesy metaphors. I happen to like them though, additionally there is still a bit of redundancy in some of my explanation.

Cliches and metaphors have little to no place in formal essay writing...if you use them, make sure that they are fully needed. Almost anything will sound better, more original, and more well thought out than a cliche.

[Raistlin1040]

...You took THAT from Dead Poets Society?

[celtois]

He he he!

Sure, its not my personal opinion. But I decided it would be fun to argue it.
Similar to how I argued Hitler was a liberal in my social paper.

Both claims can be supported but neither would be agreed with by the vast majority of people.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Cliches and metaphors have little to no place in formal essay writing...if you use them, make sure that they are fully needed. Almost anything will sound better, more original, and more well thought out than a cliche.

Someone had better tell Immanuel Kant he'll never get anywhere in life writing the way he does. :smalltongue:

[Raistlin1040]

He he he!

Sure, its not my personal opinion. But I decided it would be fun to argue it.
Similar to how I argued Hitler was a liberal in my social paper.
Both claims can be supported but neither would be agreed with by the vast majority of people.This actually just seems immature and insulting. Turning that sort of thing into a school paper joke just seems wrong.

[celtois]

Dear Rastilin:

While a large set of his practices were illiberal he held some views that were distinctly liberal.

We were given a set of three quotes one by Hitler about the power of the individual. So I discussed how Hitler advocated the power of an individual which is the core of Liberalism.

It is not immature in the least, I like to challenge commonly held view points, and expand others views of the world by making them see another view defended.

While you may find it offensive/insulting, that is hardly the point of the paper.

While I may not agree with what I discuss I assure you that nothing I argue in my papers is a joke topic.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

You can argue pretty much anything is pretty much anything if you define your terms right. Yay verbal ambiguities.

[Raistlin1040]

We're drifting into politics, so I'm going to cut that off here. However, there is a difference between "challenging commonly held viewpoints" and being contrary for shock value. If you don't actually believe what you're arguing, it's probably the latter.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I don't know that that's true, playing "devil's advocate" has a more nuanced and storied place in the canon than that.

[Temotei]

I thought the "Oxford Comma" became correct a bit ago. According to OWL (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/02/) (number 5), it is correct.

[Lioness]

I thought the "Oxford Comma" became correct a bit ago. According to OWL (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/02/) (number 5), it is correct.

I think it varies depending on where you live...I use it. I love it. But I know a lot of people who don't.

[celtois]

Got a 60% on the paper.
:smallfrown:

Ah well.

[LaZodiac]

Don't worry, atleast in my expierance, critical responses like yours are marked lower then other assignments because, everyone being biased, your teacher marks your stuff based on how THEY would write about the subject in question. It's kinda stupid as all heck, but teachers do it. *pats on the back* if it's any consolation, I liked it.

[celtois]

I'm glad someone liked it.

Yeah I suppose so. Her conclusion was that the paper was just slightly above average quality.

To me it seems like since 50 is a barely passing it shouldn't be the standard you put an average paper at. :smallfrown:

It means it someone writes a paper of below average quality they fail. Seems to me like it should be more if you write a bad paper you fail. :smallmad:

Ah well I'm going to talk to her about it. But its not likely to change much.

[LaZodiac]

I totally said something here but the server derped a bit so it's lost and I forget it.

I do remember the end though. Good luck with your next asignment, but honestly, you don't need it =P

[celtois]

I hope not. I just submitted my next assignment today. :smallwink: It was a creative piece, personal response to text. On Ulysses.

But thank you!

Honestly I might have to talk to her about the marking schema because it's silly.

This piece to be precise,

My Friend, Death:
It was a stormy night; chaos and confusion rained as hail pelted down, lightning blasted apart the monolithic structures of government and the banks of the river swelled and broke, the people came spilling out like an angry tide. It was the last night of my life, I was the catalyst, the heart of the storm,
cliché I know, so let us rewind a little, and I'll tell you what brought me here today.

My name is Jamie Macintire, and I'm an activist and a daredevil. Not that any of that really matters; as a kid I always liked to do all the things other kids wouldn't dare. I'd jump off the high diving board; and scale the schools walls. I was the other kids hero. Of course one day things went wrong. I was climbing up the side of the school, and all my friends were egging me on. I'd gotten up a good twenty feet or so when I started to feel as if there was like a spirit or something hanging around me. I thought I saw an insubstantial black mass out of the corner of my eye, and a pair of soul chilling eyes!
The next thing I knew I was falling, it was surreal, a dream. I thought I was going to wake up before I hit the ground, and it would all just be one of those falling dreams you hear so much about. I couldn't have been more wrong. My body hit the ground with a sickening crack... Right before I blacked out I thought I saw those eyes again piercing into my soul, and heard a playful laugh. That was the first time I saw death. Now obviously I'm alive to write this all down, so I survived, rushed to the emergency room, in a state that could barely be called alive, but I got better. I always got better.

The incident didn't really slow me down any; I mean, I look before I leap now, as the saying goes, but I still leap, whatever I might see awaiting me. The next nine years of school passed without further run ins with death, and yet I could feel his spectre haunting me, a vague threat that my life was
temporary and I should make the most of it. See all that I can see you know. My teacher made us study a poem in english where the guy was like, “all experience is an arch werethro'/ Gleams that untravell'd world whose margin fades/ For ever and for ever when I move.” Back then I was like,
whatever, but now I realize that is some pretty deep stuff; you've just got to keep moving from experience to experience to stop from wasting your life away.

This I guess brings me to the second encounter with death. It was in pursing a fulfilling life that I met him again, in Africa, he found me at home, in Tunisia. Here he lurked all around a man I was to love; Andreas. Death lingers on his flesh like sickly perfume. For the man who I had met, and who captured my heart, was afflicted by the virus; HIV/AIDS. But love him I did, and so once again death found its way to me, a virus which would take hold. I had but a few short years to live; yet a few short years is long enough. While, my vagrant nature has been tamed by the virus; and I am not possessed of
the strength which in old days I thought could move earth and heaven, I still strive to live life to its fullest and pull from it every drop of enjoyment.

Yesterday he died. My Andreas... the virus claimed him, and my time, will come when it comes however I feel it coming nearer each day. Already I see the spectre of death all around me, in the faces of the people who walk past, filled with anger, and hate; the speeding car and its unspoken threat.. I
feel death lingering too in my flesh. Waiting for a time to take over, and consume, yet I will not go gentle into that good night. Life is precious and I intend fully to die upon my feet, living it. I will die a hero, a man who conquered the virus and sparked a revolution (at home, in Tunisia), tis not to late to seek a newer world, and strive for change. But death, death closes all; but afore the end, some work of noble note, may yet be done.

December, 17th, 2010. I change the world. I torch myself in protest to the injustice in my home, Tunisia must be free. As my flesh is consumed by the flames, I am eternally burned into the collective memory of the world, a martyr. I am the spark that set off the revolution. My eyes drift shut as I fall
into that good night, and I see the eyes of death one last time, no longer fearsome or terrifying but the eyes of an old friend. I had accepted my fate. There was no fear. I had changed the world.


Hmm; maybe I should start a thread in the art forum for posting my pieces of writing. They have the unfortunate tenancy to drift towards politics and controversial topics though.

Just a little factoid, That piece was about the person in Tunisia who lit himself on fire and set of the riots there.

Not that I really expect anyone to read it. Just felt like posting it. :smallsmile:

[LaZodiac]

Wow, I really enjoyed that. Ah...about as much as one can enjoy someone detailing what causes them to go insane and burn themselves to death, anyway.

Either way, enjoyed reading it. You are right that this miiight be more suited to the art side, but yha, I'd have no idea myself XP

[celtois]

I'm glad you enjoyed it. He he, it was actually meant to be a pretty optimistic piece. He conquered his fear, and lived on through trying circumstances to give his life for the betterment of mankind.

But I can see how the interpretation of what made him go insane and burn himself is a reasonable assessment as well. :smallamused:

What the hey, I'll go start up a thread for all the random crap I write over in the art section. I like to flatter myself that most if it is at least interesting to read. :smallsmile:

[Lady Moreta]

Don't worry, atleast in my expierance, critical responses like yours are marked lower then other assignments because, everyone being biased, your teacher marks your stuff based on how THEY would write about the subject in question. It's kinda stupid as all heck, but teachers do it. *pats on the back* if it's any consolation, I liked it.

They shouldn't but yeah, a lot of teachers do.


I'm glad someone liked it.

Yeah I suppose so. Her conclusion was that the paper was just slightly above average quality.

To me it seems like since 50 is a barely passing it shouldn't be the standard you put an average paper at. :smallfrown:

It means it someone writes a paper of below average quality they fail. Seems to me like it should be more if you write a bad paper you fail. :smallmad:

Ah well I'm going to talk to her about it. But its not likely to change much.

Guessing of course, but it sounds to me like 'below average quality' and 'bad paper' are probably synonymous in this case. It's tricky because writing and opinions are so subjective, but in general the point of a critical essay is to convince someone of your point of view. A 'below average' essay would be one that doesn't convince, therefore would also be a 'bad' essay (and this itself could be subjective - is it bad because it's full of spelling mistakes or is it bad because the writing isn't very good?).

In your case specifically - I enjoyed it, I thought you brought a new and different viewpoint to the movie. I didn't agree with it, but from what you've said, you don't really agree with it either. And perhaps that could be part of the 'problem' (in '' because 60%'s not bad :smallsmile:). Your paper just wasn't that convincing to me, which could have been because you yourself weren't totally convinced of your viewpoint. It's possible to play devil's advocate, but it's not that easy to write and stop your own viewpoints from getting in the way.

I also think your use of cliches probably didn't help. I know you enjoy them and that's fine. But Lioness was right when she said that they have no place in critical writing, unless you're using them as an example or to prove a point.

Honestly though, it's been a while since I had to actually write a critical essay (uni was 10 years ago) and I'm a bit rusty. Far and away the best idea is the one you've already said. Talk to your teacher, find out what were the good bits and what were the not-so-good bits. Find out what you can improve on for next time and you'll be sweet :smallsmile:

[celtois]

Yeah I suppose. I guess I just figure if an average essay is one that meeds the requirements adequately, (Which is what the rubric says) It should be judged as a bit better then barely squeaking by.

But yeah I suppose it wasn't exactly the most persuasive piece. Which might have something to do with it's down fall.

But yeah I'll talk with my teacher and see what I can do better.

(60% to me is a bad mark, course my lowest course mark is an 85%. >.> )

And yeah I suppose your right about the cliches not really helping. As you can probably tell from my creative piece its sorta built into my style of writing.

EDIT: I decided to open a new thread in arts n crafts so I wouldn't keep posting work and stuff in the FB subforum. :smallsmile:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10527209

[Vaynor]

And perhaps that could be part of the 'problem' (in '' because 60%'s not bad :smallsmile:).

Grading must be a lot different where you are, since where I am (and I assume it's the same with celtois given the information provided), 60% is nearly a failing grade, or is a failing grade depending (60% is a D-, which is a below average (C) mark). I don't think your paper deserved a 60%, a paper described as "slightly above average" should be, at the very least, a C (70-79%).

[celtois]

It's similar, though I suspect I have a different view of grades.

A 60% is near a fail. In my mind under 70 is a fail.

I'll put it this way. Number grade wise.

The paper was graded on a number of aspects out of 5
I got 3- to 4 on ever single one of them.
Which is like a C to B in my mind but supposedly not.

3 is considered average, and all 3's nets you a 50, dead on. Which is barely squeaking by. Since when does a paper that meets all expectations adequately just barely a pass? :smallfrown:

[Lady Moreta]

This piece to be precise,

My Friend, Death:
It was a stormy night; chaos and confusion rained as hail pelted down, lightning blasted apart the monolithic structures of government and the banks of the river swelled and broke, the people came spilling out like an angry tide. It was the last night of my life, I was the catalyst, the heart of the storm,
cliché I know, so let us rewind a little, and I'll tell you what brought me here today.

My name is Jamie Macintire, and I'm an activist and a daredevil. Not that any of that really matters; as a kid I always liked to do all the things other kids wouldn't dare. I'd jump off the high diving board; and scale the schools walls. I was the other kids hero. Of course one day things went wrong. I was climbing up the side of the school, and all my friends were egging me on. I'd gotten up a good twenty feet or so when I started to feel as if there was like a spirit or something hanging around me. I thought I saw an insubstantial black mass out of the corner of my eye, and a pair of soul chilling eyes!
The next thing I knew I was falling, it was surreal, a dream. I thought I was going to wake up before I hit the ground, and it would all just be one of those falling dreams you hear so much about. I couldn't have been more wrong. My body hit the ground with a sickening crack... Right before I blacked out I thought I saw those eyes again piercing into my soul, and heard a playful laugh. That was the first time I saw death. Now obviously I'm alive to write this all down, so I survived, rushed to the emergency room, in a state that could barely be called alive, but I got better. I always got better.

The incident didn't really slow me down any; I mean, I look before I leap now, as the saying goes, but I still leap, whatever I might see awaiting me. The next nine years of school passed without further run ins with death, and yet I could feel his spectre haunting me, a vague threat that my life was
temporary and I should make the most of it. See all that I can see you know. My teacher made us study a poem in english where the guy was like, “all experience is an arch werethro'/ Gleams that untravell'd world whose margin fades/ For ever and for ever when I move.” Back then I was like,
whatever, but now I realize that is some pretty deep stuff; you've just got to keep moving from experience to experience to stop from wasting your life away.

This I guess brings me to the second encounter with death. It was in pursing a fulfilling life that I met him again, in Africa, he found me at home, in Tunisia. Here he lurked all around a man I was to love; Andreas. Death lingers on his flesh like sickly perfume. For the man who I had met, and who captured my heart, was afflicted by the virus; HIV/AIDS. But love him I did, and so once again death found its way to me, a virus which would take hold. I had but a few short years to live; yet a few short years is long enough. While, my vagrant nature has been tamed by the virus; and I am not possessed of
the strength which in old days I thought could move earth and heaven, I still strive to live life to its fullest and pull from it every drop of enjoyment.

Yesterday he died. My Andreas... the virus claimed him, and my time, will come when it comes however I feel it coming nearer each day. Already I see the spectre of death all around me, in the faces of the people who walk past, filled with anger, and hate; the speeding car and its unspoken threat.. I
feel death lingering too in my flesh. Waiting for a time to take over, and consume, yet I will not go gentle into that good night. Life is precious and I intend fully to die upon my feet, living it. I will die a hero, a man who conquered the virus and sparked a revolution (at home, in Tunisia), tis not to late to seek a newer world, and strive for change. But death, death closes all; but afore the end, some work of noble note, may yet be done.

December, 17th, 2010. I change the world. I torch myself in protest to the injustice in my home, Tunisia must be free. As my flesh is consumed by the flames, I am eternally burned into the collective memory of the world, a martyr. I am the spark that set off the revolution. My eyes drift shut as I fall
into that good night, and I see the eyes of death one last time, no longer fearsome or terrifying but the eyes of an old friend. I had accepted my fate. There was no fear. I had changed the world.


See now this? This was brilliant :smallbiggrin: Loved it. As much as one can love a story about a person setting themselves on fire. Prose is definiately your strong point.


Grading must be a lot different where you are, since where I am (and I assume it's the same with celtois given the information provided), 60% is nearly a failing grade, or is a failing grade depending (60% is a D-, which is a below average (C) mark). I don't think your paper deserved a 60%, a paper described as "slightly above average" should be, at the very least, a C (70-79%).

Seriously? :smallconfused: 60% is a D-? Damn... I'm in Australia and did school in New Zealand - at home 60% is a B grade and I'm pretty sure it's roughly the same here. 50% is a ... okay I'm not sure what it is... I think it's a C or a C-.

[celtois]

See now this? This was brilliant :smallbiggrin: Loved it. As much as one can love a story about a person setting themselves on fire. Prose is definiately your strong point.



Seriously? :smallconfused: 60% is a D-? Damn... I'm in Australia and did school in New Zealand - at home 60% is a B grade and I'm pretty sure it's roughly the same here. 50% is a ... okay I'm not sure what it is... I think it's a C or a C-.

Aww thank you very much! I'm hoping for a good mark on that one. It was an test piece had to write the entire thing in 85 minutes plus 30 minutes to edit. :smallbiggrin: I'm quite proud of how it turned out and judging from the reactions people have given me I'm beginning to feel justified in that pride.

Yeah, I've never been good with the structure of essays, I usually write poetry. I'm glad my prose is enjoyable too.


Yeah an B here is around an 80/85ish% A is a 90/95. Very very different from the sound of things. :smalleek: At least at universities here. High school doesn't use the letter grades, just percentages.

[Lady Moreta]

Yeah an B here is around an 80/85ish% A is a 90/95. Very very different from the sound of things. :smalleek: At least at universities here. High school doesn't use the letter grades, just percentages.

Ouch :smalleek: Over here (well in NZ at least) 80% is an A. Now that I understand your grading system I can see why you were annoyed by your grade. And I agree with Vaynor, it was better than that and I think you should have gotten closer to 70 at least.

[celtois]

Yeah little bit of an ouch. I'm counting on getting an 80-85 in english for getting into university.

Well thank you. Hopefully my teacher can explain to me what she feels I can improve. She's also going to get it marked by another teacher just in case she marked to hard. Because I'd really like to bring my essay marks up to at least 70%, since I get 85%+ on most everything else.

Anyway. Thank you all for you support and help with the paper. Hopefully even if I can't improve the disappointing result I can learn from it. :smallsmile:

[Lady Moreta]

That's nice of her to get it marked by another teacher just in case. All teachers should do that :smallsmile:

[Lioness]

Our marking system is:

85-100: High Distinction
75-84: Distinction
65-74: Credit
50-64: Pass
Less than 50: Fail.

We've been told that we should be pleased if we get a Credit...in fact, that we should throw a party if we get a credit.

[celtois]

So, double marked.

The second teacher gave it a 48.5% ... :smallfrown:

My teacher decided to leave my mark as is, a 60%.....

Either way. Yuck.