Kumin and Stafford

Kumin and Stafford both present descriptive language and an overall theme of life and death that present insight into the savageness of man and innocence of animal. "Woodchucks" and "Traveling through the Dark" both show the inhumane side of animal treatment - yet Kumin's tone is much more harsh, aggressive and unforgiving than Staffords. He attacks the evil psychology of humans and even alludes to Nazism- his relationship to nature is one of contempt. (Yet, it compels me to question the mental state of the speaker and his legitimacy if his perspective is influenced by the utmost extremisms like Nazi warfare.) Now, Stafford's tone is much more gentler but he is still saddened by the treatment of such poor animals. His relationship to nature is one of concern and despair - he see's much beauty in nature but also it's state of destruction. Stafford is very much "traveling through the dark," unable to find the pacifism or mercifulness he so wishes for.

D.W. Harding

I believe Harding accurately emphasized both the wit and physchology Austen implores in Pride & Prejudice, yet he misjudged her intentions and desire. I agree with him that Austen, whom was surrounded by a conventional society of customs and material social and economic institutions, was a truly remarkable person. For her time and environment, she did an amazing job of discussing and bringing full front the serious evils in societies. Now, i disagree with his proposition that she wrote about these social issues as a sort of self-preservation; rather, i believe that Austen wrote for both theraputic and moral reasons while admist a world of crude complacency. And, although i agree that she did bring satire into her work to discuss the faults of her world- i disagree with Harding that she was merely a "delicate satirist." Austen wasn't writing to simply employ humor into her readers, but rather, to enlighten her readers. I disagree with Harding that Austen exaggerated her characters in efforts of hoping to maintain and or camouflage her hatred so she could still "fit in."Austen doesn't care what so ever about social niches and to imply that she does simply shows Hardings ignorance of that which Austen stands most for. Yet, i agree with him that Austen's ability (through satire) to bring "fake" characters and "real" characters together artistically displays the massive disconnect between them and their worlds. Moreover, Harding claims that she did not have any "didactic intentions", however, i strongly disagree. I believe that through her satire she was trying to inspire and teach her readers of the follies of society and its trivialities. Also, Harding claims that Austen wanted people not to go to her writings as a means of escape but rather one of alliance. In part, i agree that Austen would of liked to have support for her thoughts, however, i believe she did write for people's relief- and more than that, for people's benefits- for knowledge. Austen was trying to expand, open people's consciousness to their embarrassing unconscious social world.

Revisions

• I need to tremendously shorten my essay and create concise strong points
• I need to structure my essay more 
• I need to revise both my thesis and topic sentences to better clearly state my position
• I need to both introduce and strengthen points made for individuality
• I need to research better Mill quotes (there's so many great ones!)
• I need to better develop and repeat my debate

Rubric Ranking

A for Alfi: I would rank the first essay in the B-range. Although the essay is both arguable and logical the writer lacks mastery in both interest, progressive structure, and strong and obvious links to points. Also, the writer offers one point, that is, that Austen supplies "good" and "bad" lists. But, where is the writers other points to offer? Her argument, although generally solid, lacks sufficient support and only provides a few simple points. A few simple points won't win over the reader nor earn the writer an A-range. Sorry Alfi.
B for Beatrice: I would rank this essay in the A-range. The writer begins from the start with an interesting and insightful thesis. Moreover, the structure was strong and the essay flowed with both conversational and professional diction. Also, the writers examples and support were clear and well-chosen. Good job Beatrice!
C for Cecilia: Uh oh! I would rank this essay in the C-range. First of all, let me say, quantity does not equal quality. Second, the writer is vague on all accounts of analysis, nothing was fresh, nothing was insightful, nothing "changed me". Also, the writers topics are small, simplistic and underdeveloped and are generally confusing.

Intro

A society is made up of individuals where each man is responsible for himself. In each of our own contemporary societies we individually discriminate our values, ideals and our identity. And while at first, society seems to appear to be a means of survival promising protection and support, it is individuality that leads rise to change and close examination reveals that there is no extent to when or why individuality should be compromised. Indeed, contemporary society is suffocating, the environment inescapable, media and culture spiritually killing. So, let chaos rise and a society break. Let people get scared and unsure. Why do we find such security in conforming to the crowd when society’s focus will remain on itself, never the individual? Moreover, when our environment (Buckley, college, 1813 London) calls for conformity to the consensus, it is a necessity to have individuals that can and will break free from their environment and set change. In short, individuality forms when those concerned see society less mindful of the needs of the individual. If the society wants to break down the individual to obedience and agreement then the society itself needs to be broken down. The needs of the many outweigh the few? But, what if it is those few that guarantee ideas, happiness and liberty.

To His Coy Mistress

"Had we but world enough and time, This coyness, lady, were no crime. We would sit down and think which way To walk, and pass our long love's day."
In To His Coy Mistress, the poet uses scare tactics in order to terrify his love into submission. He seems to have an agenda as he appeals to her with a idyllic world, a world one might consider unattainable. Moreover, he stresses the urgency of time and alludes to Time constantly running out. Marvell's tone shifts throughout the poem from positive to negative. However, overall his tone seems to be somberly whimsical. Indeed, the poet has not the time to play the games of love- for in this reality, time is limited and her old-fashioned charm and coyness is one of waste in his eyes. In the end, we're restricted, all human beings die, so the question remains..are you going to let your virginity go to waste with the worms or have sex with me? I guess we'll never know what his coy mistress choose but let's hope she did carpe diem.

Alice in Wonderland

I read Alice in Wonderland a while back, I was hoping to go down the rabbit hole, into a good read full of literary nonsense and a fantasy world. I was so in love with the book the minute i started it that i began to annotate everything i loved; certain philosophies, mathematical concepts, metaphysical properties, truth symbolisms and a myriad of others. Moreover, the best part of all is every individual can perceive and discuss Carroll's concepts for him or her self. Lewis Carroll provides his audience with beginning theses that provide ideals, but leaves the manifestation of those ideas to develop in the imagination of the individual.