University Writing Program

Dear X,

Your essay offers a compelling and convincing argument! Your thesis has a wonderful tension because it addresses itself to a strange ambiguity you found in Victor’s speech to Walton’s crew at the end of the novel. Your essay is exemplary because it very successfully locates a strangeness in the novel that is worthy of a good close reading. Nice work. You selected great evidence to use and integrated it into your essay very nicely. The structure is good because it allows the argument to flow well. I particularly liked how you handled the conclusion: it is suggestive rather than definitive, which is really great way to conclude a provocative argument. Your style is good, smooth throughout. I offer a few stylistic suggestions throughout, but overall a well-written and nicely argued essay.

–Shanny

Thesis & Motive: A-

Nice job. You have an insightful and unexpected thesis that you follow throughout your paper. Your whole introduction works well as you begin with an interesting grabber and then move smoothly into incorporating both Mulvey and Rear Window; however, I am a little unclear about what is your motive.

Evidence & Analysis: A-

You have many astute observations throughout and you do a nice job of pulling out details to make your argument. See comments throughout. To improve offer more concrete evidence to back up your argument. You are making a fairly complex argument, and you do it well, but in your desire to move from one point to the next you don’t always give as much detail and analysis as would be useful. This is particularly true in the case of Lisa. Also work on your conclusion, as you wrote yourself in your cover letter it feels stagnant.

Structure: A-

Overall your structure works well as you clearly move from one point to the next and you have well thought out topic sentences. To improve your structure you want to continue to work on transitioning and stitching. Remember that you want to signal to your reader through your word choice where exactly you are going in the paper.

Style: A-/A

Overall your writing is clear and concise and a pleasure to read. You have many well stated phrases. To make your writing stronger, I want you to work on combining some of your sentences to cut out repetition or to add more sentence variety.

Great Job. A-

Dear X,

Your essay offers a good, complex thesis: you argue that Shelley encourages our sympathy for the creature so that she can expose her readers to the responsibility that people should feel. I think you might have refined the thesis even more by specifying what you mean by "responsibility"– what, in other words, is Shelley trying to expose about responsibility (i.e. that people/society should be responsible in what ways?). You did use evidence well in the essay, but you can work on forging a close connection between the details from the text and the claims you make about them. That is, you can tie your claims and your evidence together more closely by really discussing the details you have so carefully drawn from the text rather than just letting the details of the novel speak for themselves. Your essay is well structured, but you do tend to drift away from the argument at times. As we focus more closely on structure in the following weeks, you might want to think about how paragraphs can be ordered to best suit your argument (i.e., each paragraph should address a claim that is a crucial piece of the argument). The weakest part of the essay was the style; you use the passive voice throughout (keep working on that!), there are some issues with diction, and I also note some unnecessarily complex sentences (see margins).

You are off to a good start!

–Shana

Thesis & Motive: A-

You have a great thesis and motive. I am impressed with your engaging thesis. To improve your overall introduction though on your next paper I want you to work on making your introduction more engaging and succinct. It currently lacks a strong motive and becomes a little repetitive as you are trying to get to your main point.

Evidence & Analysis: B+/B
You have some great moments of analysis in your paper. Many of your comments about Ida and Mildred are quite insightful. To improve your level of analysis though you need to give more analysis to go along with your details and claims. For instance, your section on Veda lacks much analysis. One of your best observations is how Mildred resembles at one point a traditionally masculine laborer but you want to do more with it.

Structure: B-/C+

For your next paper, I want you to really focus on structure as it is currently the weakest part of your writing. You have great ideas but you do not present them in the best way possible. Your section on Mildred jumps from one idea to the next and I had a very difficult time discerning why you put certain paragraphs where you did. Remember that your job is to guide your reader from one idea to the next and make it perfectly clear how one idea connects to the next. You also need to make sure that you have strong topic sentences and transitions. Structure was also an issue within your paragraphs as you would sometimes move back and forth between ideas rather than completing one idea and then moving to the next (see page 4). You have an argument about Mildred being both masculine and feminine, but your topic sentences do not highlight this and as a result this idea is buried.

Style: B

Style feeds into structure, so make sure that on a paragraph level you move logically from one idea to the next. You have many well turned phrases that show a clever mind and insightful thinking. Watch out, however, for run-on sentences.

Your writing shows significant improvement from your first paper. Keep it up. B

Dear X,

Your essay offers an interesting thesis with a good inner tension: you argue that that which we think is most hideous or monstrous in the novel is really the most human. Though I like this argument, your essay doesn’t fully bear it out. That is, you include good evidence from the novel in your essay, but you don’t forge a strong connection between those details and the claims you make about them. You can tie your claims and your evidence together more closely by really discussing the details you have so carefully drawn from the text rather than just letting the details of the novel speak for themselves. As we focus more closely on structure in the following weeks, you might want to think about how paragraphs can be ordered to best suit your argument (i.e. each paragraph should address a claim, which is a crucial piece of the argument). The weakest part of the essay was the style: you use the passive voice throughout (keep working on that!), colloquialisms, and needless errors throughout (see margins).

You’re off to a good start, but remember that it is crucial you don’t miss any further conferences and that you go through one more round of revisions to clean up simple errors before turning in final drafts.

–Jordana

Thesis & Motive: B

You have a great title and a very compelling thesis; however, you do not carry your thesis throughout your paper. Your paper also lacks a strong motive.

Evidence & Analysis: B-/C+

You start with a compelling idea and you make many good claims throughout; however, to make your case compelling you have to offer more concrete examples that you can then analyze to make your point. You also need to give a little bit of context so your reader knows what scene or moment you are referring to. You often jump from one point to the next rather than devoting each paragraph to making a claim and then providing evidence to back you up.

One moment I want to address specifically is your paragraph on Wally stopping the plot as an erotic object. This is a great idea and you give a couple of good points to support your argument; however, you then get sidetracked into explaining how Mulvey applies and you never go back to looking at Wally and explaining how he stops the plot. Your best paragraph is looking at Mildred and Monte at the beach house because here you give more specific details and analysis. You also want to work on integrating your quotes better.

Structure: C

For your next paper I want you to concentrate on having topic sentences that clearly establish what the main claim of the paragraph will be. Currently your topic sentences do not get at the essence of your paragraph and are merely another sentence. Your topic sentences should also offer a clear roadmap as to why you are moving from one point to the next. Currently you have many good ideas, but they are often mixed together and not presented in a way that does them justice.

Style: C+

For your next paper I want you to read over your paper out loud a few times to catch your grammar errors and I would recommend visiting with the grammar consultant at the writing center. You have good ideas, but they often get lost in your syntax as you leave out words or mix verb tenses. Also work on transitioning from one idea to the next.

Conclusion:

In terms of your conclusion remember that you don’t want to summarize your whole argument. You should briefly restate your thesis in a different way and then move on. See the handout I gave in class for suggestions.

Your writing shows improvement. Keep it up. C+/B-

Paper One

Dear Pat,

You argue with conviction that Murray’s argument is wrong. The paper’s impassioned tone is what I like best about it. I also think you have moments of analytical insight—for example, when you uncover Murray’s assumptions about welfare on p. 2. But the paper has some problems that detract from its persuasiveness. I’ve outlined these below:

1. The paper is full of arguments against Murray, but instead of just listing complaints, you need to come up with a focused argument. On p. 1 alone, you refer to Murray’s reactionary misogyny, his indifference to children, his simplistic assumptions and misrepresentations, the primary burden of childrearing falling to women, and the underfunding of the AFDC. The focus you suggest in your title—Murray’s misogyny—would work well if you gave a coherent summary of Murray’s article early on and then attacked what you see as his misogyny. Don’t get sidetracked.
2. The paragraph on orphanages (p. 3) gives the best analysis in the paper. Elsewhere—for example, the shotgun marriages paragraph on the same page—your evidence is way under- analyzed. You need to analyze Murray’s arguments more using some of the tools and concepts we’ve discussed in class.
3. You obviously have the ability to write clear prose, but mechanical errors obscure your meaning and reduce your credibility. Proofread more carefully next time.

Let’s talk about your next paper before you write it. Once you learn how to sustain a single focus and make sound economic arguments, you’ll be able to write much stronger papers. — D.J.

Paper Two

Dear Celeste:

You’re at your best in this essay on cultural convergence when you analyze the various historical documents, as on p. 3 where you intelligently discuss the Declaration. I was also impressed by this essay’s “flow”: as a reader, I moved easily from one idea to the next.

• Thesis: Despite your confident use of sources, smooth style, and improved transitions, the essay still suffers from a lack of focus. You ask five questions in the opening section, each one of which, as a reader, I took to be the central focus. You could have solved this confusion by asking only the one or two questions you wanted to explore. You might also have re-read the assignment, which asks you to concentrate on Greene.
• Keyterms: I found one of your keyterms—“the common man”—to be confusing, since the Common Man is the “average” man, the man on the streets, Anybody, a meaning that conflicts with your use of the term. Do you mean to be discussing common ideals rather than the common man? In the future, think about how many keyterms you have and whether they’re precisely defined. If you have either no keyterms or several, and they’re not well-defined, you should revisit your argument.
• Orienting Your Reader: Throughout, you need to give your reader more bits of context so they can follow your argument more easily. For example, at the bottom of p. 1, you need to add phrases such as “according to Greene” or “in Greene’s view” to indicate who owns the ideas you use in your characterization of the American economy.

Paper Three

Jeremy,

Your paper has improved a lot from the rough draft. I really like the Lincoln quotation you’ve chosen—one possibility is to re-introduce the quotation in the conclusion in order to bring the essay together. The biggest challenge facing the paper is tying the evidence and analysis back to your thesis, which is that man fundamentally has two natures, good and evil. For example, you do a good job proving that Jekyll is respectable but never specifically make the connection between respectability and goodness (remember, you cannot expect the reader to do this—it's the job of the author). On a related note, I got lost in your analysis of Jekyll’s character. For example, your observations about Jekyll’s transgressions seem to undermine rather than strengthen your argument if you are showing that Jekyll is purely good. On p. 5 you claim that Jekyll has no qualms about describing Hyde’s experiences in positive terms, implying that Jekyll is not altogether “just, logical and reasonable.” Finally, the essay discusses Freud’s theories for the first two and a half pages and doesn’t begin addressing the thesis until the bottom of page 3.

Thesis and motive: The thesis is clear although not always well supported (see comments above). Motive is clear.

Evidence and analysis: You need to work on telling the reader at what point in the text your evidence appears (i.e. contextua1ize the evidence). Be careful to use full sentences and not fragments of quotations or, if you do use fragments, explain them (see p. 5). The analysis is generally good, but it won’t help if you don’t tie back to the thesis.

Structure: The introduction could still be more specific. Try to avoid generalizations like “Throughout the modem era…” The thesis and name of the text don’t appear until three quarters of the way down the page—that’s much too late. Use the quotation from the introduction again in the conclusion as a means of tying the essay together.

Style: For in-text citations with multiple sources, give the author and page (Freud 17). Also, it isn’t necessary to be explicit about the structure of the essay. Many of your paragraphs begin “Next in the discussion” or “Now that such and such has been discussed.” If your paper is logical, the reader will be able to follow your argument.

Revision: You've incorporated a lot of the comments from the rough draft, which I know isn’t easy.