ESSAY EVALUATION: Understanding A College Student's Argument
ESSAY BY: Laura Kesselring's
Introductory Paragraph
Essay Evaluation: Understanding Laura Kesselring's Argument In Order to write an effective essay for college You must know what you are writing about; so you can write an accurate essay. In this essay we will be Evaluating Laura Kesselring's Essay on Heart of Darkness and . By: giving an overview of the easy (i.e., Summary of the Essay), a Disposition Paragraph, Overall Evaluation, and Conclusion.
|
Overview
Laura Kesselring was a former student at Illinois Wesleyan college; she had submitted her essay to the student journal at her college. It was her analogy of the characters in Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now it was accepted, and was put in the student journal. Heart of Darkness was published in 1902 and Apocalypse Now came out on August 15, 1979 in the United States. |
Disposition
The way Laura Kesselring's, is writing her essay was why having; a simple structure by: clearly stating her there claim, then has her body paragraphs, and then restarts her Introductory paragraph. For all of her claims they are paired up with one claim about Marlow and one about Willard. This seems to be a very effective way to write a college level essay. Her three claims are 1: Is about the narrator's Marlow and willard and how they're telling the story in retrospectively 2: Is that marlow will not turn to the darks (i.e., the jungle). On the other hand willard doest he succumbs to the darkness 3:The novella kept you at a safe distance from the darkness and the person watching the film is brought deeper into the darkness. Her essay is a 10 paragraph with the introduction and the conclusion mirroring each other And the body paragraphs are paired with a claim about marlow and Willard.
The way Laura Kesselring's, is writing her essay was why having; a simple structure by: clearly stating her there claim, then has her body paragraphs, and then restarts her Introductory paragraph. For all of her claims they are paired up with one claim about Marlow and one about Willard. This seems to be a very effective way to write a college level essay. Her three claims are 1: Is about the narrator's Marlow and willard and how they're telling the story in retrospectively 2: Is that marlow will not turn to the darks (i.e., the jungle). On the other hand willard doest he succumbs to the darkness 3:The novella kept you at a safe distance from the darkness and the person watching the film is brought deeper into the darkness. Her essay is a 10 paragraph with the introduction and the conclusion mirroring each other And the body paragraphs are paired with a claim about marlow and Willard.
body Paragraphs
1)Laura Kesselring's Starts by claiming that the narrator plays an important role in unveiling the story of apocalypse now and Heart of Darkness. She says that Conrad constructs his novel by having Marlow telling his story in retrospect which shows he is distancing from the "heart of darkness” (i.e the jungle) from a physical and emotional perspective even before the conclusion of the story. They already know he did not succumb to the darkness. And she says that the apocalypse now was not in retrospect but was happening as we saw it in the movie.
2) In the second paragraph she claims that Willard loses his “His profession as a military assassin is a civilized, reasoned form of killing” slowly as he moves deeper into the "heart of darkness". One of his exapols is when Willard kills the wounded Vietnamese girl on a passing boat and that he kills her with no remorse . This was one of the big turning points in the movie for Willards character according to Laura Kesselring's .she say that in Heart Of Darkness Marlow does not scum to the "heart of darkness” but he keeps his civilized behavior and can see how Kurtz scummed to the "heart of darkness”.
3)In her last pair of clams she says in the novella heart of darkness the reader is kept away from the darkness just like marlow separates himself from the darkness.
Then she says that apocalypse now you are slowly over the course of the movie drawn closer to the darkness. With the boat scene being one of the first parties then when Willard shreds up the military documents on Kurtz bring us closer to the darkness.
1)Laura Kesselring's Starts by claiming that the narrator plays an important role in unveiling the story of apocalypse now and Heart of Darkness. She says that Conrad constructs his novel by having Marlow telling his story in retrospect which shows he is distancing from the "heart of darkness” (i.e the jungle) from a physical and emotional perspective even before the conclusion of the story. They already know he did not succumb to the darkness. And she says that the apocalypse now was not in retrospect but was happening as we saw it in the movie.
2) In the second paragraph she claims that Willard loses his “His profession as a military assassin is a civilized, reasoned form of killing” slowly as he moves deeper into the "heart of darkness". One of his exapols is when Willard kills the wounded Vietnamese girl on a passing boat and that he kills her with no remorse . This was one of the big turning points in the movie for Willards character according to Laura Kesselring's .she say that in Heart Of Darkness Marlow does not scum to the "heart of darkness” but he keeps his civilized behavior and can see how Kurtz scummed to the "heart of darkness”.
3)In her last pair of clams she says in the novella heart of darkness the reader is kept away from the darkness just like marlow separates himself from the darkness.
Then she says that apocalypse now you are slowly over the course of the movie drawn closer to the darkness. With the boat scene being one of the first parties then when Willard shreds up the military documents on Kurtz bring us closer to the darkness.
Overall Evaluation
Overall Laura Kesselring's essay had some hits and some misses in her undering in the novella and the movie. The way she structured her essay was very effectively. By organizing her claims by pairing Willard and Marlow together. But many of her claims were not accurate like When she claims that Willard slowly succumbs to the darkness and Marlow doesn’t this is frankly not true. Quite the opposite is true, that Marlow is the darkness and that he represents the darkness of civilization. For one of her examples she uses the boat scene in this scene she claims the willard just shot some girl on a passing boat this is not true The scene. As you see that is not what happened he didn’t just shoot her. What happened was the driver wanted to do a routine stop on a boat and Willard said they should not, and that they should just keep it moving but they didn’t. So at the beginning of the search for the boat they can't find anything then as the chef walks over to go to a basket a girl runs to it but clean just shoots them all. After all that they notice the girl is alive, so the captain of the boat wants to bring her somewhere where she can get help. But Willard just shoots and tells them, “I told you we shouldn't have stopped”. This is not the turning point of Willard; it is more of the fulfillment of cleans name for more on that APOCALYPSE NOW: Character & Name Analysis. In her first claim she said that Apocalypse Now is unfolding in front of us unpremeditated. But it’s not, it's just the movie that just does a great job of making it seem that way. For a peace of evidence here’s a quote from Willard "It was no accident that I got to be the caretaker of Colonel Walter E. Kurtz's memory, any more than being back in Saigon was an accident. There is no way to tell his story without telling my own. And if his story is really a confession, then so is mine". He is trying to say he didn’t expect to be telling Kurt’s story. He is most likely telling this story to kurtz’s son because kurtz asked him to.
Overall Laura Kesselring's essay had some hits and some misses in her undering in the novella and the movie. The way she structured her essay was very effectively. By organizing her claims by pairing Willard and Marlow together. But many of her claims were not accurate like When she claims that Willard slowly succumbs to the darkness and Marlow doesn’t this is frankly not true. Quite the opposite is true, that Marlow is the darkness and that he represents the darkness of civilization. For one of her examples she uses the boat scene in this scene she claims the willard just shot some girl on a passing boat this is not true The scene. As you see that is not what happened he didn’t just shoot her. What happened was the driver wanted to do a routine stop on a boat and Willard said they should not, and that they should just keep it moving but they didn’t. So at the beginning of the search for the boat they can't find anything then as the chef walks over to go to a basket a girl runs to it but clean just shoots them all. After all that they notice the girl is alive, so the captain of the boat wants to bring her somewhere where she can get help. But Willard just shoots and tells them, “I told you we shouldn't have stopped”. This is not the turning point of Willard; it is more of the fulfillment of cleans name for more on that APOCALYPSE NOW: Character & Name Analysis. In her first claim she said that Apocalypse Now is unfolding in front of us unpremeditated. But it’s not, it's just the movie that just does a great job of making it seem that way. For a peace of evidence here’s a quote from Willard "It was no accident that I got to be the caretaker of Colonel Walter E. Kurtz's memory, any more than being back in Saigon was an accident. There is no way to tell his story without telling my own. And if his story is really a confession, then so is mine". He is trying to say he didn’t expect to be telling Kurt’s story. He is most likely telling this story to kurtz’s son because kurtz asked him to.
Conclusion
In Conclusion i have learned some effective ways of writing essays for college in the form of the way you should structure an argumentative essay. Also that in many colleges will except your essay as good if you are able to use big words and know how to proper use the new “buzzwords” (i.e A college is just a social construct) or any other buzzwords.
In Conclusion i have learned some effective ways of writing essays for college in the form of the way you should structure an argumentative essay. Also that in many colleges will except your essay as good if you are able to use big words and know how to proper use the new “buzzwords” (i.e A college is just a social construct) or any other buzzwords.