Essay paragraph Feedback (1 Viewer)

[mmmm.]

Hi there, could i please get feedback on my paragraph please

"Write a paragraph that shows how Lawson has presented a particular ideal about the Australian identity."​

Lawson has presented the Australian identity as a place where the landscape shapes identity, smoking is prominent throughout society, and portrays the male identity. From the beginning of the story, it is evident that the bush shapes identity as the ‘fringe of the mulga’ and the ‘moon looked like a … copper boiler’, creating a sense of visual imagery which represents the landscape as rugged. The landscape allows for the Australian identity to be seen as a place where the harsh landscape shapes the identity as the people have to survive in the rural environment. Smoking is seen as a part of the Australian culture as Mitchell was asked as to “what [his] old man [did] when he found out that [he was smoking]”, he responded with saying that his father “brightened up”, suggesting that smoking is seen as a part of the culture and his father didn’t mind him smoking, and that smoking is used by males to connect with each other. The identity of men having to be masculine and not showing a lot of emotion is seen when the “lit up and began to answer each other. It got … pretty comfortable”, reinforcing the masculine stereotype of men showing little emotion as it took them time before they were able to share in conversation. Hence, Lawson has presented the Australian identity as a place where the landscape shapes identity, smoking is prominent throughout society, and portrays the male identity.

 

[beetree1]

Lawson has presented the Australian identity as a place where the landscape shapes identity, smoking is prominent throughout society, and portrays the male identity.
this is too vague and your expression needs some revising.

Lawson's presentation of the Australian identity as one that is largely determined by the surrounding landscape is prevalent in his objective correlative of the environment. (sorry i dont know your text so i am making stuff up. generally, your thesis should not include a technique as "smoking" seems too micro, but i guess if you think that this works then go for it)

From the beginning of the story, it is evident that the bush shapes identity as the ‘fringe of the mulga’ and the ‘moon looked like a … copper boiler’, creating a sense of visual imagery which represents the landscape as rugged.

At the commencement of the story, the ironic comparisons between the bush and humanity is evident in "fringe of the mulga" and "moon looked like a ... copper boiler", evoking a confronting empathy for the rugged landscape through such sensory imagery.

The landscape allows for the Australian identity to be seen as a place where the harsh landscape shapes the identity as the people have to survive in the rural environment. Smoking is seen as a part of the Australian culture as Mitchell was asked as to “what [his] old man [did] when he found out that [he was smoking]”, he responded with saying that his father “brightened up”, suggesting that smoking is seen as a part of the culture and his father didn’t mind him smoking, and that smoking is used by males to connect with each other.

Smoking is exhibited as a engraved within the Australian culture in Mitchell's father's leniency as his face "brightened up", where the audience's assumptions on the reaction is challenged, further emphasising how smoking acts as a means of connection between Australian men, reflective of the landscape's influences on individuals.

The identity of men having to be masculine and not showing a lot of emotion is seen when the “lit up and began to answer each other. It got … pretty comfortable”, reinforcing the masculine stereotype of men showing little emotion as it took them time before they were able to share in conversation.

this is pretty weak as your quote does not have a technique, ultimately rendering it invalid - even so, this quote fails to effectively link to the question. I dont know your text so please find a quote that relates better and would be better in arguing your point.

Hence, Lawson has presented the Australian identity as a place where the landscape shapes identity, smoking is prominent throughout society, and portrays the male identity.
- your concluding sentence should at least reword your thesis, not simply copy and pasted


Overall, I do not know your text, so I cannot provide you as much constructive feedback as possible. You must find better quotes and analyse them in order to make your argument persuasive and valid. You also need to relate to the question more

 

[mmmm.]

Thank you so much, although you don't know my text, your feedback is very helpful, i really appreciate it.

 

[jimmysmith560]

Hello, basically i have no idea which areas need to be improved, this is part of my homework. a few suggestions will be appreciated. can someone please help me out. btw this wasn't written by me, this response was written by one of my teachers older students and she told us she wants us to critique and evaluate the response.
The response:
The discursive essay Lessons from the Fall of Rome effectively parallels the egotistical political ambitions of contemporary America and the Roman Empire, ultimately culminating in their collapse. The text offers a vehement condemnation of Western Imperialism as a means of expanding global political influence through asymmetrical trade relationships which oppose their platitudes of liberation and equality. In the opening, an epilogue alluding that the “haughty” Roman Empire would be “plundered and destroyed” melodramatically illustrates the extensive escalation of civil unrest due to the rigid confinements of imperialistic regimes. This suppression of power is reiterated through the caesural embellishment, “at the expense of the world,” crystallizing the selfish and insensitive nature of civilisations such as Rome, who gained global political recognition through immoral acts. The authoritarian ideologies that characterized the Roman Empire is effectively epitomized in “Americans conquer and slaughter people all over the world….resources back to US corporations,” drawing on the parallelism between the hypocritical constitutions of a developed, modern America and the brutal beliefs of the ancient Romans, invoking contempt and critique within the audience. In the ending line, the audience is confronted with a metaphorical epithet, “blood-soaked stolen riches,” which vividly captures the civil suffering and paucities of personal wealth forced to drive the imperialist “monster” that symbolises all civilisations, irrespective of time. Thus, this congruency between modern and ancient civilisations exhorts the present-day reader to expose the façade of regimes that support the hypocritical and exploitive agencies of Western Imperialism. Hence, the writer offers an effective comparison between the victimising political ambitions of contemporary America and the Roman Empire, eventuating in their collapse from within. 
thank you!

Hey, here's what I think:

The discursive essay "Lessons from the Fall of Rome" (always a good idea to add quotation marks to titles) effectively parallels mirrors the egotistical political ambitions of contemporary America and the Roman Empire, ultimately culminating in their collapse. The text offers a vehement condemnation of Western Imperialism as a means of expanding global political influence through asymmetrical trade relationships which oppose their platitudes of liberation and equality.

In the opening, an epilogue alluding that the “haughty” Roman Empire would be “plundered and destroyed” melodramatically illustrates the extensive grave escalation of civil unrest due to the rigid confinements of imperialistic regimes. This suppression of power is reiterated through the caesural embellishment, “at the expense of the world,” crystallizing the selfish and insensitive nature of civilisations such as Rome, who gained global political recognition through immoral acts. The authoritarian ideologies that characterized the Roman Empire is are effectively epitomized in “Americans conquer and slaughter people all over the world….resources back to US corporations,” drawing on the parallelism between the hypocritical constitutions of a developed, modern America and the brutal beliefs of the ancient Romans and invoking contempt and critique within the audience. In the ending line, the audience is confronted with a metaphorical epithet, “blood-soaked stolen riches,” which vividly captures the civil suffering and paucities of personal wealth forced to drive the imperialist “monster” that symbolises all civilisations, irrespective of time. Thus, this congruency between modern and ancient civilisations exhorts the present-day reader to expose the façade of regimes that support the hypocritical and exploitive agencies of Western Imperialism. Hence, the writer offers an effective comparison between the victimising political ambitions of contemporary America and the Roman Empire, eventuating in their collapse from within.

Overall, I'd say the quality of this response is pretty good in terms of what it covers, but at the same time I think making those minor changes to words/expressions may help with the flow of response and the ease with which ideas are communicated. Structure is also an important element to consider, particularly due to the fact that the original response is presented as one big paragraph, when it can instead be divided into more than one paragraph depending on the ideas (what I did is an example), allowing for better presentability, ultimately making it easier to read and interpret.

I hope this helps!

 

[jimmysmith560]

This helps a lot! Thank you so much!!!

No worries! All the best!

 

[CM_Tutor]

The description "ultimately culminating in their collapse" is questionable given that America remains a superpower and has not collapsed. Perhaps it will... but it hasn't yet.

Critique calls for evaluation of strengths and weaknesses and some of this sounds hyperbolic to me. For example, the US constitution is labelled hypocritical without any justification offered. Perhaps the writer was juxtaposing the American notions of freedom at home with its anti-democratic actions abroad, both using its military strength and trade power in unethical ways - yet the US constitution is not written to govern outsiders. Further, corporate interests and the power of the strong are deployed against the weak at home - look at the US health system that denies care to the poor and the social support structures which are woeful by the standards of comparable nations. So, the behaviour might be unethical, but is it that hypocritical? The US constitution is also a document that has been used to bring about many very positive changes. Its ideals are sound, even if America regularly fails to live up to them.

This response gives me a flavour of what the essayist was saying, and even of the views of the response writer, but it is weak IMO on what argument was being made. Is it a persuasive piece of writing for anyone not already in agreement with the writer's opinion? Is the description of America as a conquering nation so self-evident that it need only be asserted to be accepted as true? Conquering nations tend to occupy territory, subjugate the native population, and remain in control until they are expelled through local resistance. certainly Roman expansion in North Africa and Europe fits the model, but does American action? It certainly has waged wars in Europe and more recently Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, but it occupies none of them. It was an occupying power in both Japan and Germany following WW2, and yet both are now strong democracies in their own right.

I am impressed by the vocabulary of the response writer but much less impressed with how s/he has used it. Far too much assertion and not enough persuasion for my taste.

 

[CM_Tutor]

How did the discussion in class go? Any feedback on the passage? I'm curious...

 

[CM_Tutor]

Yes, I understood your task was to critique and the piece was not yours, though I didn't realise it was for a tutor. I'm just curious what evaluation they gave to the piece.