Here are two papers that do a good job explaining the significance of the selected passage. Read each one and comment on them. Discuss the strengths, areas for improvement, and anything you can take to your own writing to improve it, based on the previous comments.
Paper 1:
page 64"Both father and son were stubborn and high-strung. Given Walt's need to exert control and Chris's extravagantly independent nature, polarization was inevitable. Chris submitted to Walt's authority through high school and college to a surprising degree, but the boy raged inwardly all the while. He brooded at length over what he perceived to be his father's moral shortcomings, the hypocrisy of his parent's lifestyle, the tyranny of their conditional love. Eventually, Chris rebelled - and when he finally did, it was with characteristic immoderation.Shortly before he disappeared, Chris complained to Carine that their parents' behavior was "so irrational, so oppressive, disrespectful and insulting that I finally passed my breaking point." He went on: Since they won't ever take me seriously, for a few months after graduation I'm going to let them think they are right, I'm going to let them think that I'm "coming around to see their side of things" and that our relationship is stabilizing. And then, once the time is right, with one abrupt swift action I'm going to completely knock them out of my life. I'm going to divorce them as my parents once and for all and never speak to either of those idiots again as long as I live. I'll be through with them once and for all, forever."Family IssuesJon Krakauer's Into the Wild is about a young man named Chris McCandless who, after college, goes off on his own into the western wilderness and dies on a trip to Alaska. While in the west, Chris rarely mentions his family or other facts about his personal background. The people he meets ask him about his life and his family, but Chris reveals little. Throughout the book, the reader has to ask "What was Chris's family like? Didn't he feel bad about leaving his family?" In this passage from page sixty-four, Krakauer provides insight into the relationship between Chris and his family, especially his father, and to help portray Chris's inner emotions he uses strong, negative words.The first two sentences of the passage compare and contrast the characteristics of Chris and his father to show why they didn't have a good relationship. Krakauer describes the pair as "stubborn and high-strung". Chris seems like a good person, without many serious flaws. However, this phrase implies that Walt and Chris, not just Walt, had less than perfect qualities. The author then goes on to say that Walt needed to "exert control" while Chris was "independent". Walt wanted Chris to do what he wanted him to do. He wanted Chris to take the path in life that he felt was the right one. Chris wanted to shape his life by his own desires. He didn't want to do exactly what his father expected. Their personalities clashed and "polarization was inevitable". There was no possible way for Chris to live with his controlling father, so their relationship declined and Chris separated himself from Walt. The reader can now see that Chris did not get along with his father, but it wasn't just their differences in personalities that drove them apart.The following two sentences delve into Chris's actions and inner feelings toward his father. While in school, he "submitted to Walt's authority...to a surprising degree". Chris did what he was told even though it was against his "independent nature" while he was living with his parents or using some of his parent's money. The author says that Chris did so "to a surprising degree". From this phrase, the reader can infer that Chris didn't usually do exactly as he was expected to. During this time, Chris "raged inwardly". Chris did not want to do what his father told him. He seemed calm from the outside, but he was really very angry with his father. Chris "brooded" over Walt's "moral shortcomings, the hypocrisy of his parent's lifestyle, the tyranny of their conditional love". Chris would dwell on his father's mistakes and his "hypocrisy". He felt oppressed by the knowledge that his parents loved him when he did as they instructed. Here, Krakauer uses words like "moral shortcomings", "hypocrisy" and "tyranny" to emphasize how Chris felt about his parents. Chris didn't just feel that his parents were too controlling, like many adolescents. He saw them as tyrants and hypocrites who had faults in their sense of right and wrong. Chris felt that they were an oppressive power and were trying to hold him down. Even though he felt this way when he was younger, Chris obeyed his parents anyway; however, this changed as he grew older.The last sentence of this paragraph describes the effect of Walt's authority and transitions into Chris's own account of his parents. After spending his life under his controlling father, "Chris rebelled". He could no longer live under Walt's power, so he went against his father's wishes. He didn't go to law school, like his parents thought he would, but instead traveled west. Krakauer says that Chris's rebellion was of "characteristic immoderation". Chris wasn't a person who, to rebel from his family, would decide to start a career in something completely different than his parents wanted. For his rebellion, Chris went to an extreme which is described in the last paragraph.The final section contains an excerpt from a letter from Chris to his sister, Carine, about how he plans to stage his rebellion. Chris felt that his parents were "irrational", "oppressive", "disrespectful and insulting". He saw his parents in a very negative way, so he decided to defy them. He tells Carine "I'm going to let them think...our relationship is stabilizing". Chris let his parents think that he was going to be rational and do what they thought was best for him. He continues, saying that with "abrupt swift action" he will "completely knock them out of my life". He will "divorce them as his parents". Chris plans to, without warning, separate himself from his parents completely. He wants nothing to do with Walt and Billie. Chris repeatedly uses phrases such as "once and for all" and "forever". These words show that he never planned to see or contact his parents again. At one point, he refers to his parents as "idiots". Here, the reader can be certain that Chris despises his parents. Chris was sick of his parents and, in response, planned a permanent separation from them. Krakauer shows the reader, in this portion, how Chris felt by letting them read Chris's own words.This passage is significant because it is one of the first sections that the reader encounters that shows what Chris's family relationships were like. Walt tried to control Chris's life and Chris hated him for it. Because he felt his parents were oppressive, Chris decided to sever ties with his family forever. Chris's feelings are emphasized by terms that are very strong because that is how his personality is. Chris sees things in black and white with no grays and his parents are not exempt from this way of thinking. One of the most pressing questions of this text is "Why did Chris leave home?" A possible answer is that the domineering nature of his parents was too much for him to deal with and his inner anger forced him to take off..
Paper 2:
"I got the impression that this Alaska escapade was going to be his last big adventure," Westerberg offers, "and that he'wanted to settle down some. He said he was going to write a book about his travels. He liked Carthage. With his education, nobody thought he was going to work at a goddamn. grain elevator the rest of his life. But he definitely intended to come back here for a while, help us out at the elevator, figure out what he was going to do next." That spring, however, McCandless's sights were fixed unflinchingly on Alaska. He talked about the trip at every opportunity. He sought out experienced hunters around town and asked them for tips about stalking game, dressing animals, curing meat. Borah drove him to the Kmart in Mitchell to shop for some last pieces of gear. By mid-April, Westerberg was both shorthanded and very busy, so he asked McCandless to postpone his departure andwork a week or two longer. McCandless wouldn't even consider it. "Once Alex made up his mind about something, there was no changing it," Westerberg laments. "I even offered to buy him a plane ticket to Fairbanks, which would have let him work an extra ten days and still get to Alaska by the end of April, but he said, `No, I want to hitch north. Flying would be cheating. It would wreck the whole trip.' "(Krakauer,66-67)Into the TextIn September of 1992, the frozen body of Chris McCandless was found in his camp in the Alaskan wilderness. Many who heard of the death immediately assumed that McCandless had been insane. After all, he had ventured into Alaska with only some camping equipment, a gun, a large bag of rice, and a survival guide; surely no sane person would have gone to live an isolated life in Alaska with such inadequate supplies. When Jon Krakauer wrote Into The Wild in 1995, one of his main focuses was to dispel the myth of McCandless as an unprepared kook. “When the boy headed off into the Alaska bush, he entertained no illusions that he was trekking into a land of milk and honey…”(Krakauer), Krakauer has asserted. In writing the selected passage on pages 66-67, the author seeks to convince the reader that Chris McCandless was not only entirely sane and well-prepared for his journey, but was also a very intelligent and philosophical individual.When Chris went into Alaska, he was not a fool who expected to be able to figure out how to live in the wilderness once he got there. Before leaving for Alaska, McCandless had, “…sought out experienced hunters around town and asked them for tips about stalking game, dressing animals, curing meat,”(Krakauer, 12-13). Evidently, McCandless was no nut who went into his adventure thinking that by living in harmony with nature, nature would feed him like a mother feeding her child. He knew that if he wanted to eat, he would have to know how to take his food from the wilderness and fight for every morsel. McCandless did not view his adventure as an idealistic communion with nature, but as a rigorous, dangerous test of his individual strength. Krakauer also wanted to show that McCandless was not suicidal, as some have suggested. If McCandless wanted to die in Alaska, he would not have prepared himself so thoroughly for the adventure. If he wanted to die there, he would have learned nothing about survival and gone to Alaska with no supplies but the clothes on his back. Chris McCandless was far from a suicidal man or a lunatic, but was instead very prepared had a realistic view of his adventure and wanted to see it through to the end.Chris not only had a full understanding of the rigors he would face in Alaska, but he also found appeal in Alaska as being the most difficult of tests; and he was determined to complete this test by himself. Krakauer proves this by showing that Chris actually rejected any offer of help in completing his trip. When Wayne Westerberg, an employer and friend of McCandless’s, offers to buy Chris a plane ticket to Alaska, Chris replies, “ ‘No, I want to hitch north. Flying would be cheating,’ ”(Krakauer, 23). Chris rejected that ride for two reasons: first, taking a plane ride to Alaska seemed to Chris like climbing Mt. Everest in an elevator; second, he didn’t want to accept a favor from Westerberg or anyone else. In other words, if Chris depends on any person for anything or accepts any convenience, he cannot know for sure that he would have been strong enough to have done it by himself. Krakauer uses the fact that McCandless had a full, cogent philosophy behind his actions to prove that McCandless was not merely a crazy person living in the woods. He was an intelligent individual who wanted to prove his worth by facing whatever difficulties the wilderness could throw at him. Krakauer has also provided the reader with the impressions McCandless’ friends had of him in order to further prove that McCandless was of sound mind. “‘I got the impression that this Alaska escapade was going to be his last big adventure…and that he wanted to settle down some,’”(Krakauer, 1-3) Westerberg is quoted as saying. Westerberg seems to have been rather convinced that Chris would live through his journey. Westerberg goes on to claim that “’[Chris] definitely intended to come back here for a while…’”(Krakauer, 6). If Westerberg knew what Chris’s plans were for after the adventure and allowed Chris to embark upon it, clearly Chris had convinced Westerberg that he was well prepared for his journey and was very likely to survive it. Anyone can start telling his friends that he is about to leave to live in the Alaskan wilderness, but it takes a special kind of individual to tell his friends that he will live in the wilderness and actually convince them to believe that he will be capable of coming back alive. Such an individual must prove, through actions or character, that he has the strength to survive the trip. Chris McCandless must have somehow proven himself to Westerberg. As Krakauer shows, Chris was not a person who had any illusions about what he was getting himself into; even his friends will confirm that he appeared to be capable of life in the wilderness.The Chris McCandless Krakauer portrays is a fascinating young man. Perhaps the greatest difference between the Chris McCandless seen by Krakauer and the McCandless seen by those who assume that he is just a inexperienced fool who got himself in over his head is that the former sees McCandless in many dimensions while the latter sees him in one dimension. Krakauer tries to paint a detailed picture of McCandless by providing the reader with plenty of evidence which shows the depth of McCandless’s preparedness. This evidence comes both from the actions of Chris McCandless and the accounts of Westerberg and others who knew Chris. By giving the reader this information, Krakauer hopes to prevent the reader from taking the one-dimensional view of McCandless (that is, that he was just a loony.) Instead, Krakauer proves to the reader that Chris McCandless was an intelligent person who knew the challenges ahead of him and was fully prepared for them. Chris McCandless may have been headstrong and single-minded, but he cannot be accused of being a fool.
32 comments:
In paper 1, the writer brings up a strong topic of Chris’s personality through his relationship with his father. The writer stays on topic and provides strong textual evidence that helps explain the issues Chris has with his family. The textual evidence explains why Chris wanted to leave his family and had blamed his family for making him pass his breaking point. He wanted to escape his problems. The writer explained in depth how Chris had felt because of his father’s personality and the way his parents treated him and loved him. Chris and his father had similar characteristics that had caused them conflict and because of this they couldn’t have a good relationship. The writer does a great job of explaining the significance of the textual evidence used. He or she also really helps the reader understand Chris’s mind. Also, the passage chosen was greatly broken down in parts and the writer connects the quotations used, staying on topic.
It feels as though the writer was repeating himself or herself in many different ways. The last sentence of the paper is basically summarizing the repetition of the idea of Chris’s anger towards his parents.
Basically, I like the writer’s strong uses of textual evidence, connecting them to the same topic of the paper. I would like to also use the connections of strong textual evidence relating to topics in my papers.
In paper 2, I can understand that the main idea of this paper is about proving that Chris was not crazy and not suicidal but then it drifts off to the idea of Chris being independent, strong, and committed to his adventure. Then, it goes back again to the idea of him not being crazy because he was prepared for his challenge. I feel that the connections of the ideas of the topic is not so strong because not much strong evidence is used. It doesn’t feel like the passage was explained in great depth but it did achieve to help the readers understand that Chris was indeed not crazy or suicidal.
This is a great topic to write on but I feel like more should have been said and more textual evidence should have been used. I do, though, like the higher level of vocabulary used . That is something I need to incorporate into my paper.
Paper #1 is very well organized and the writer does a great job explaining the passage. The writer breaks down the passage in a way that the explanations are transited, from one to the next, very smoothly. The writer stays on topic and doesn’t change his/her point of view. The introduction revealed the story to the reader in a way that it is easy to understand what the text was going to be about and why the passage was chosen. The conclusion is very powerful. The writer summarizes the ideas and ends with a powerful sentence explaining the main idea of the paper.
As Maria has stated, the writer does repeat him/herself throughout the paper. Every sentence, idea or evidence can be summarized by saying, “Chris’s personality clashed with his father’s and that’s why he left home”.
Maria also says that the writer uses powerful textual evidence. The writer does use powerful textual evidence but it’s not the evidence that he/she uses that makes it powerful, it is the way that the evidence was connected to the ideas that gave it its power. That is a skill I plan on using on my next paper.
Paper #2 is strong and very well composed but the writer does not do the job of examining the passage deeply and thoroughly. The writer just picks out the main idea and uses evidence from other passages to strengthen the main idea. This is a great essay explaining Chris McCandless’ readiness for this journey and his mental sanity, but it does not do the job of explication essay. The writer of this paper also makes great textual connections to his point of view, and stays on topic with strong and powerful evidence to support his/her ideas, which is something I should incorporate on my next essay.
The first paper talks about Chris and his family relationships. The first sentence of the introduction mentions what the story is about but doesn’t go into the details of the entire story, so that people who have never read Into the Wild know what the book is basically about without hearing information that is irrelevant to the paper. In the thesis statement, the writer not only talks about the purpose of the passage, but also about how it was written. The body of the essay goes through the text, part-by-part, to explain what is going on in a certain part of the passage. The introductory sentences direct the reader to what part of the passage is being talked about. The writer uses a good amount of textual evidence in every paragraph and talks about the strengths of individual words and phrases. The conclusion summarizes the paper. Paper 1 is basically very good, but the conclusion could be a little more interesting.
I like the title on paper 2; it grabbed my attention and made really made me want to read it. The thesis statement is good and the essay deals with a topic that was often brought up in discussion ("Is Chris insane?"). In the body, every concluding sentence ties directly back to the thesis statement. A little evidence is used in every paragraph, but the evidence used is explained thoroughly. The conclusion talks about the differences between Krakauer’s view of Chris and the views of the people who believe he was crazy, which I found to be quite interesting. The paper always seems to stay on the subject.
More textual evidence could have been used, but what was there was used well. From looking at this paper, I probably need to work more on the style of my writing.
Paper 1:
The writer’s introduction explains what the topic is that he/she will be discussing; it also include a bit of contextual background to the topic which helps to bring out its wider significance. The context wasn’t too long and avoided repeating the story and was kept to a bare minimum. In addition, the introduction included a kind of brief 'map' to how the aspects of the subsequent discussion will be dealing with; in this case it will be Chris’s relationships with his family. In the body paragraphs, the writer constantly refers back to the selected passage and then quotes from it again to help the reader understand exactly what the write is trying to point out. The writer takes us from the beginning of the quote to the end of the quote, explaining every line of the passage. Lastly the writer explains the significance of the passage chosen as the writer mentions “one of the most pressing questions of this text is why did Chris leave home?” And the final sentence sums up the entire paper by explicitly telling us that “a possible answer is that the domineering nature of his parents was too much for him to deal with and his inner anger forced him to take off.”
The writer seems to lack the use of strong vocabularies in the essay, which both the writer and I need to improve. Like the previous comments from Maria and Vitor, I too need to incorporate more strong evidences in my future writings like this writer did. And also refer back to the text to clarify what I’m trying to tell the reader.
Paper 2:
The passage chosen by the writer doesn’t seem like to fit what she/he wrote in the body paragraphs, and vice versa. The body of this paper seems to do a good job in proving that Chris was not crazy and not suicidal, while making little or no connections with the passage chosen. The writer has different varieties of sentence structures, for example like the simile used: “McCandless was no nut who went into his adventure thinking that by living in harmony with nature, nature would feed him like a mother feeding her child”
As mentioned in the previous comments, the writer used “higher level of vocabulary”, which seems to lack in most of our essays including myself. The writer used a good amount of contextual evidence in the essay, which seems to be lacking again in my essay and thus I shall adopt.
Paper #1 starts with a detailed passage from the book that introduces the topic of the rest of the paper. Throughout the essay, small quotes from the introduction passage are scattered around. They are put in relevant places and help emphasize the point being made. The paper also does a good job breaking up the passage piece by piece and thoroughly explaining each part. Writing surrounds each quote, so that you can understand why it is important, instead of just throwing in a quote without explaining why it is there. I also liked how the paper ended with a question, but then answered it using the evidence that the paper was filled with.
Paper #2 starts with a passage from the book that most would think heads in a completely different direction than what the paper was talking about. However, there was a lot of evidence provided to prove that this passage shows that Chris wasn’t crazy. It seemed like a bit of a stretch at first, but the scenarios and examples used did prove the statement true. I also liked how formally the paper was written. It wasn’t written like a causal conversation, which is what I need to try to stop doing in my papers.
The first paper describes Chris’ relationship is with his family but most importantly his father and how he feels towards. I think that in paper one it’s not well organized like it’s jumpy. The use quote from the book very well it’s just the format that makes not so well. They didn’t use the right to tell what page and the author. And in the beginning its not clear as to what the writer is trying to say, I believe she should have describe the story then gave a brief idea of argument then use the quote that helps prove her point. A few times it seems as if the writer gets a little redundant but uses different words.
The topic the writer is using is very good I believe that it could be a great topic to write a paper but I think that their thoughts should be more organized and more thought out. And they should the write format to help get their point across.
In the second paper its better organized then in the first paper. Although in the first line the writer did not write down the page number or the author so how is the reader suppose to know where she got this quote from. Throughout the paper the writer stays on topic and uses very good quotes to help tie her points together. The topic of the paper is great this topic could also be a great paper to write with the write evidence and good details.
Both papers’ strong points:
Both papers have a clear, straightforward structure and an efficient “sum it all up” conclusion. Both papers lead the reader from the beginning to the end of the excerpt with little or no diversions. Both papers have a strong, general thesis. Also, both papers have strong, specific evidence. These components of evidence are backed up by well-built, in-depth analysis.
Excellent features Paper 1 that I can learn from:
Structural depth
Strong textual support
Even stronger in-depth analysis
Relevant open questions
Creative conclusion
Excellent features Paper 2 that I can learn from:
Innovative introduction
Well-defined structural build
Strong textual support
Even stronger in-depth analysis
Well-written introduction to new evidence and quotes
Fluidity of idea movements
Distinct conclusion
I'm going to be very impersonal and just provide an elaborated list in lieu of paragraphs.
Paper 1: Family Issues
--Strengths
----Background information is very clear, and does not go on forever.
----Also provides a few questions that ultimately lead to the thesis. These questions are essentially answered later within the essay, which is expected (and good).
----The thesis statement is very obvious and answers the prompt and as an added plus, it explains in one way how such an effect is achieved. Hints of knowledge of rhetoric and diction. Provides the reader with a sense that the author has indeed looked at the text carefully (mentioning diction implies the perusal of the text for individual words). Also includes the mention of a rhetorical mode later on, "comparison and contrast" (Family Issues).
----The author goes through the passage sentence by sentence (or by two's) as if the reader was reading the passage. It clearly adhered to the suggestions of the prompt.
----Before referring to quoted text, the point to be made is stated, then the quote is added, followed by further explanation: "The following two sentences delve into Chris's actions and inner feelings toward his father. While in school, he 'submitted to Walt's authority...to a surprising degree'" (Family Issues).
--Weaknesses
----Quotations are not cited at all.
----Some bits of details are not connected to the focus or the thesis at all, "less than perfect qualities" has no connection to how Walt McCandless and Christopher McCandless were always quarreling (Family Issues).
----Immature conclusion or addressing of the prompt, "This passage is significant because..." (Family Issues).
Paper 2: Into The Text
--Strengths
----Cites everything correctly.
----Interesting beginning because it mimics the image text of the book: "In XYZ time...so and so happened...".
----Formally refers to the excerpt as the "selected passage" not as in Paper 1 where the excerpt is referred to as "this passage" (Into The Text; Family Issues)
----The thesis, again, is obvious and clear.
----Present tense is used when referring to the author's actions.
----Similar to Family Issues, quotes are given context, and analysis.
----Attains some humor despite the inherent gravity of the topic, "like climbing Mt. Everest in an elevator" (Into The Text).
----Concise ending, little repetition, as others have mentioned. Essentially, short and sweet.
--Weaknesses
----"Krakauer has asserted" is awkwardly placed at the end of the quote, which provides little context for the quote until the end (Into The Text).
----Uses text outside of the selected passage; does not adhere to the prompt???
What I Can Draw From These "Exemplars"
----Context, quote, and analysis format for quotations (though it is a bit formulaic).
----Strong and appropriate conclusions like that of Into The Text.
----Consistent tense.
Paper #1:
The first paper is about Chris's relationship with his family and how it has affected through the years and the writer was quick and concise to point out his conflicts with his parents, especially his father, was the reason he left his life. With the quote the writer was quick to point out how Chris and his father constantly clashed and how Chris felt patronized by his parents making it clear in their thesis that Chris felt he had a valid reason to leave. Along with their well defined thesis statement, the writer did a good job with picking a relevant quote and having strong textual evidence to back up their thesis. In their paper, the writer showed that Chris was obviously very angry at his parents and took it so far that he left to actually get back at them. Especially with his father, Walt, the writer chooses relevant quotes to explain how strained their relationship was and how their fighting was inevitable. The writer also took a great effort to analyze the text and pointed out the nuances of Krakauer's work. Overall the paper is written very well but sometimes its feels as if the writer repeats themselves still the essay ends with a good conclusion and overall, its still a good essay.
Paper #2:
The second paper is more organized than the first but the writer lacks any page numbers in some of the quotes they chose making it difficult to know where the writer got their quotes. Its a well written essay and the writer does a good job to stay on track and is concise with their introduction and conclusion. Still the writer needs to have page numbers in the quotes they choose so their thesis could have any credibility.
Paper 1:
I liked this paper. It was packed full of quotes from the text which were arranged so that they practically explained themselves. At the same time, there was a lot of analysis of the text on the part of the writer. I really liked the way that the writer examined Krakauer’s choice of words, such as when s/he wrote, “Chris repeatedly uses phrases such as ‘once and for all’ and ‘forever’. These words show that he never planned to see or contact his parents again.” Investigating why an author uses a specific word is a really interesting part of reading and this explication did it very well. However, the conclusion ended too quickly. The conclusion could have continued exploring the answer to the rhetorical question it posed which would have made it feel more complete. As it is, the reader expects more of an explanation to the answer given by the writer, but instead the essay ends unexpectedly.
Paper 2:
There really wasn’t enough textual evidence in this one, especially compared to paper 1. The writer seemed like s/he had a good understanding of the book in his/her mind, but didn’t use much evidence, resulting in the reader being unconvinced. I liked the metaphors. The conclusion was very good and it prepared the reader for the essay to end, like breaks at the end of a rollercoaster. The one-dimensional, multi-dimensional thing in the conclusion was an interesting point of view, but like much of the essay it almost seemed to be in reference to themes explored throughout the book than in the passage.
The first paper was excellent. Used significant quotes and textual evidence. They explain, in vivid detail, every aspect to the quote. One thing that should have been further explained is the reason why Chris was "going to divorce them as my parents once and for all and never speak to either of those idiots again as long as I live." Why does Chris refer to his parents as "idiots." Well most of us could tell from this paper that his father was more in fault here. They but heads and he hated "Walt's need to exert control." But why his mother? Why someone who gave birth to him and brought him a strong kid. Yeah, she was strict as stated in the paper, but why her? She is an idiot because she chooses to stick by this man, who has showed her zero respect, zero consideration and certainly no love. He went behind her back and was caitering to another family. He put a dampering effect on not only her but his kids too. That's why in Chris will "...once the time is right, with one abrupt swift action I'm going to completely knock them out of my life. I'm going to divorce them as my parents once and for all..." His father for all the lies and control, his mother for sticking by him.
Other than that this paper was something more than I ever could write. There words use is incredable and the flow is perfect. I agree with everything this paper says. They seem to have a serious understanding to the quote which gave them a perfect explantion to it.
Paper 1:
In this paper the writer explains Chris’s relationship with his parents. The reader can see by reading the quote that Chris despises his parents to an extent farther then any other son can. I liked this paper because it had a lot of textual evidence which can help the reader understand why Chris hates his parents so much. I also like the fact that the writer included questions that were on the reader’s mind and answered them. The questions are answered with great knowledge and are explained in detail. The only question that’s not answered completely is the last one. The writer gives us a question and a very small response. I was expecting a bigger answer since it was an important question. Maybe the reader was only stating an opinion and wanted us to figure out “Why Chris left home?” Another thing I like about this essay is that the writer used vocabulary and small passages from the book. “I am going to make them think… our relationship is stabilizing.” Chris says this and then he says that he will completely wipe them out of his life forever. The writer explains this very well. The writer also uses words that Chris said such as “forever” and “once and for all”. This essay does a good job of explaining Chris’s relationship with his parents. And I like how the writer is able to back up the essay with quotes and passages.
Paper 2:
I enjoyed reading this paper because it contradicted the fact that people thought Chris was a fool and an idiot for going to Alaska. There may not be as much textual evidence in this one as there was in paper 1 but the writer has a very good understanding of why Chris is not a fool. The small amount of textual evidence in this paper was actually very good. It made sense as the reader read the paper. People believed that Chris was suicidal as he went to Alaska and that he was not prepared. The writer contradicts this statement by using a quote that showed that Chris actually was prepared for this trip and that he wasn’t suicidal. “…sought out experienced hunters around town and asked them for tips about stalking game, dressing animals, curing meat,” This quote explains that Chris was preparing for the wilderness. If he was suicidal Chris would have went to Alaska with nothing but the clothes on his back. The writer shows that Chris also never had any intention of dying. Chris wanted to come back and start a normal life. The writer does a good job of explaining why Chris was not a fool.
"Anyone can start telling his friends that he is about to leave to live in the Alaskan wilderness, but it takes a special kind of individual to tell his friends that he will live in the wilderness and actually convince them to believe that he will be capable of coming back alive." This quote said by the writeer of the second paper is nbot only true but gives a certain touch to what they are talking about in their paper. It does take a specail kind of person to do that, crazy or not. I can't say, however, that i completly agree with this paper. Though this paper contains great evidence on how Krauker explains Chris isn't crazy, I don't necceserily believe he isn't. It takes a strong, and determained person to go into the wilderness and expect to live. But just because Krauker says he isn't crazy doesnt mean he isn't.
This paper shows a strong point-og-view by the write and anyone would be able to tell he believes this. But I do agree with Jake that this paper doesn't show the strong textual evidence as shown in paper 1.
Paper 1 reminds the reader how controlling McCandless’s father, he expected more from his son whenever he did something. The writer uses strong language and they also use a lot of evidence to state their opinion. For example when the writer wrote, “One of the most pressing questions of this text is "Why did Chris leave home?" A possible answer is that the domineering nature of his parents was too much for him to deal with and his inner anger forced him to take off”, the writer gives the reader a reason of McCandless’ depature.
Paper 2 demonstrates a deep understanding of McCandless going into the wild; the writer provides their interpretation of the character’s actions. The writer gives much evidence from the book to help support their argument. For example when the writer wrote, “Instead, Krakauer proves to the reader that Chris McCandless was an intelligent person who knew the challenges ahead of him and was fully prepared for them. Chris McCandless may have been headstrong and single-minded, but he cannot be accused of being a fool”. This person makes their point about what he felt Krakauer wanted his readers to understand about McCandless.
In paper number one the writer stays on topic about Chris’ relationship with his family and most important with his father. The paper is detailed with short passages and the writer had good sentences leading to the quotes. It important for writers to do that but that way the readers who has never read the book can understand what happened and what’s happening. It did have a good analysis and a good thesis statement. Even though the paper had good quotes it lacked organization. I felt like everything kind of jumps around and a little bit redundant. With a few changes and organization this paper would be perfect.
In paper two the writer had an interesting beginning, its catches the reader’s attention. The writer wrote about Chris and his insanity. It shows how he’s not suicidal or crazy. It had strong textual evidences and a good conclusion. What the paper needs is to have better page indication of where the quote is from and in need of better connections of the passage chosen.
Both paper one and two were very good. It had lots of quotes and details along with good analysis. The papers also seemed very well laid out and organized. The papers also maintained a good focus on its thesis. Each quote was covered thoroughly and had strong in-dept analysis. What i witness from these papers that I lack in my own is I need to use more quotes and more supportive details. I also tend to loose focus and become repetitive. What I need to do is carefully plan out my own papers and make sure to use in-dept analysis from the book.
In Paper 1, the write starts off very strong stating the topic of the relationship between Chris and his father. The writer states the problems that Chris has, and how it reflects his emotions. My favorite part about the essays is that it is really organized, and structured, which can be difficult when one has a lot to say. That is one of the many things that I have to definitely improve in my writing, is how to prove and idea through out the essay in a smooth, well formatted way, instead of it being choppy and having good ideas scattered everywhere. S/he uses great vocabulary words to enhance the writing, and really develops the idea all the way through the essay. S/he gets in depth with examples and explanations, which really shows that the writer definitely knows what s/he is talking about. The only think though, I felt that at some points it seemed to get so rich in details that I got sort of lost in the paper at times, and it seemed a bit repetitive.
In Paper 2, the writer starts off the essay in an interesting way, that I would never even thought of doing. It’s great because it automatically captures one’s attention to see what the rest of the paper is going to develop into. I like how the writer is constantly proving the idea throughout the paper. This essay isn’t so rich in text like Paper 1, but it is easier to read and understand what is going on. At some points in the paper, I feel as if the writer could have expanded more, but overall it is a good paper. Another thing that I wasn’t impressed with was how the paper ended, I feel as if the concluding sentence could have been stronger, and that is definitely one of my weaknesses in writing.
Paper #1: This person did an especially good job on being strict about their points. Despite having my own different beliefs and opinions about Chris McCandless and other aspects of the story, I found myself almost immediately buying everything this person was saying. They not only were defiant with their points, but they were always quick to back it up with a wisely chosen quote. I also liked how they often referred back to a previously stated quote just to strengthen their point.
Paper #2: The evidence from the text wasn’t as popular in Paper #2 but this person did a good job of buttering the reader up before shooting them with a quote that led them perfectly into their analysis. This person did a bit more narrating in this paper, but, again, was always smart enough to put in that quote that would relieve you of any doubt about their topic. Another thing that I particularly liked was how they focused on Jon Krakauer’s writing style, and how they looked deeper into the words he chose to use to explain this story.
In the first paper the writer starts off with a summary. This is good because it lets readers know more about what the writer is writing about. The writer also talks about Krakauer’s writing technique, using “strong negative words”, in the passage. This is what an explication should have. The way the writer incorporates the quotation and then goes on to use the quotations to prove points is good. The only bad part is the writer was a little repetitive when using the quotation “to a surprising degree”.
In the second paper the writer has a good opening sentence that catches the reader’s attention and also talks a little bit about the book. This writer also incorporates the text well and uses it to make good points.
Paper one:
In this paper, the writer picks a topic that has a strong emotional point, the relationship between Chris and his oppressive father, Walt. He does a good job showing both sides of the argument; that both Walt was oppressive, and that Chris was a free spirit that couldn’t listen to others. He also continually uses bits and pieces of the quote he chose to support his topic. His analysis of the nature of both was well in depth after a brief summary of the books plot, along with insights into each ones own motives for their actions. Another good thing was the use of many small, but efficient quotes, rather than a few drawn out quotes that just seem like they’re there to take up space. The things I think the writer could improve upon though would be to mention the questions like “Why did Chris leave?” after he had given the summary of the book so the reader is digesting the question all the while reading about his past rather than pose the question after you’ve already given them the answer. Also, they mention ‘family’ troubles, but never even mention the sister or the mother once, probably because they weren’t as negative in impacting Chris, but it still would have been good to say that in a sentence for the readers benefit.
Paper two:
The writer starts with a good topic and thesis statement about the mindset of Chris McCandless. Even though this view is not shared with opinions of people who wrote letters to Krakauer, he picked a quote where it would be possible to strongly argue the opposition of such a statement. However, unlike the first paper, there are less quotations derived from the passage to support his argument, even though he does take ideas from the text like him being prepared without direct quotations. I do like how he took his point and somehow seemed not dwell as long on a sole point like the first passage did on the father, but rather looked at it with a different point from his preparation, to his not accepting a ride, to his personality as an adventure seeker. This helps the reader keep interest with the idea the writer is trying to defend.
Paper #1:
This paper went straight to the point and then further examines the ideas with facts from the book. The quotes flowed really well along the essay due to its great introductory. This paper persuades me to break my quotes into smaller pieces of information so that the quote would effectively allow the reader to further understand the passage.
Paper #2:
Great opening! It attracted the reader to continue reading. However, as the essay continued on, it became dull to read. I know it is hard to continuously maintain a “fun” essay but the essay went totally downstream from what it was to begin with. It was a downfall, but at least the introduction was excellent.
In the first paper, I like how the writer provides his or her own analysis of the situation between both father and son and uses quotes from the passage to support those ideas. It really puts into perspective the tensions between the two men and the motivation for Chris’ cross country trip. The writer also explains how certain words add to the meaning behind the tensions. The author explains the use of the word’s negativity to shed light on the severity of the failing relationship and the word “surprising” to explain Chris’ unwillingness to conform. The conclusion, though, does not have a clever restatement of the thesis. From reading this paper, I will try to provide more inferences and explain the meaning of certain lines more.
In the second paper, the essay starts off with a good short summary of the story which lets the reader know what is going on so he or she won’t be lost. The writer does a great job proving his or her own thesis. The writer’s own conclusions and thoughts along with the use of textual evidence really help to develop the main idea presented. In addition to all that the thesis statement was cleverly restated in the conclusion. Even though the writer does a good job explaining the passage, he or she doesn’t use much evidence from the passage. From reading this I learned that I really need to develop my ideas much more and provide much more inferences.
In the first essay, the writer clearly supports his/her reasoning with tons of detail and incite. However, the missing page references and personal inferences detracts from the overall essay. After rereading the essay, I notice that there is a ton of personal input without quotes to help support the ideas and again, brings the essay down. The essay contains more of “show-and-tell” (as indicated by lines such as ‘Here, the reader can be certain’ or ‘This passage is significant...’) rather than actual deductions from the book itself. Lastly, the question asked at the end of the essay should not have been asked. Questions should be avoided to not confuse the reader and because single questions such as that can be used for entire, new papers.
As for essay 2, the beginning ‘paragraph’ (if you want to call it that) feels more like a summary that goes in detail rather than an actual idea. The one thing that stuck out most from this essay than the other one was the usage of page references. But again, the writer forms some sort of personal opinion which should be kept away. It also seems that the writer uses simple vocabulary, and that the last sentence doesn’t adequately tie up the essay.
In the first paper the writer does a great job of providing textual evidence. He/She is explaining how Chris had a tough time with his family and that his family is the reason he wanted to get away. The textual evidence shows that that is what the writer of this paper is talking about and explains Chris' feelings toward why he left at the same time. Although, towards the end it seemed as if the writer ran out of ideas and started repeating himself/herself more. Overall it was a great paper.
Paper number two the writer gives a strong thesis and I was aware of what I thought I would be reading. After reading the essay though I realized it seemed as if the reader drited back and forth between two different subjects. These subjects being that McCandless was tryin to be independant and how he was not suicidal or crazy. Other than the drifting of topics, the writeer provided good evidence and it was a good overall paper
Paper 1:
The first paper chooses a strong topic to discuss, the complicated relationship between Chris McCandless and his parents. The writer used strong quotes from the book to support their argument and broke down the quote piece by piece. I think this is helpful because each part of the quote can be elaborated and supported by details throughout the entire novel that Chris mentions about his parents. The writer for the first paper also chose words which Krakauer selectively used in order to emphasize and convey Chris’ thought on his parents. What I liked about this is that the writer looked beyond the text and examined the simplicity of words to understand the emotion and feel behind the quote. Also the writer brought up several common questions which readers often ask such as why Chris left home and uses evidence to find an answer and support it. The only area of improvement the writer needs is to not be so repetitive and restate the same facts over and over again. Other then this, the writer did a good job defending their argument and using evidence from the text.
Paper 2:
The second paper also chose a strong topic for discussion, how Chris was falsely portrayed by others crazy and unreasonable. The paper was strong for the most part because it also used strong quotes and evidence from the book to support it but I don’t believe it was as clear as Paper 1. Paper 2 seemed to be developing another topic such as if Chris was suicidal or not which made it hard to understand what exactly the writer what point the writer was trying to prove.
The thing I liked about the first paper was that it used perfect evidence to support what the writer was trying to get across. Then, after the textual evidence was stated, he/she would elaborate so that someone that has never even looked at this novel would have some understanding on to why Chris has run away from his parents.
The first thing I noticed about this second paper after reading it that it is grammatically perfect, with all the right tenses and sentence structures. This topic, too, was a very broad one. The writer did a good job emphasizing on key points to get across what he/she needed to make a strong point. And last but not least, one of my favorite parts of this paper is the conclusion, the writer did an excellent job as to summing up what he/she was getting across and then closing it on a strong note because we (our class) knows through discussion that Chris was most deffinately not a fool, but was very headstrong and single minded.
Paper 1 was great! It told the reader everything you needed to know about Chris and his relationship with his family. It provided great textual evidence and it brought out the most meaningful words and explained them in each of the quotes he picked from the book. I also liked how he tried to answer his question and questions a lot of people had when reading this book “Why did Chris leave home”? Overall the person did an excellent job on explaining the rocky relationship of Chris and his family.
Paper 2: The writer chose an excellent topic to talk about. I believe that these two papers had great topics that readers reading the book would ask themselves while reading. But some of the opinions that the writer had I did not agree with. When the writer says, “Chris McCandless was far from a suicidal man or a lunatic, but was instead very prepared”. I disagree with the writer! Chris McCandless WAS not prepared to go into the wild in Alaska. How can a person say that Chris was prepared for the wild when he only brought a bag of rice, a gun, and just very few equipment and he knew that he was going to be in the wild for more then a week that’s not coming prepared. Other then that it was good overall.
Post a Comment