tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104678730176687014.post1874147986591956330..comments2014-12-12T18:07:42.274-05:00Comments on Seminar in Composition : Prompt 2: NatureAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104678730176687014.post-46104015106439516122014-10-18T14:16:57.266-04:002014-10-18T14:16:57.266-04:00Let me focus briefly on two things I would like to...Let me focus briefly on two things I would like to have been different, or would like to be different in a revision.<br /><br />1) I would like to see you deal somehow with what I'll call the tension between innocence and experience, childhood and adulthood in Wilder. Clearly Laura loves the land; clearly, too, she has some understanding that just by being there she is part of the process of transformation/destruction of the West. I think a reading of the book which says that she holds views like Abbey's even though her family and social position means that she participates as a witness to the destruction is very defensible. But if you see Laura as a kind of witness to a transformation she abhors, I'd like to see you be more explicit about it, and to address the more problematic parts of the book for that argument (her fascination with the men building the railroad is the obvious starting point for me).<br /><br />2) What's significantly missing here is your viewpoint. The prompts calls for a useful definition of nature. So what does your definition imply for you? That we ought to aim to restore things in some way to what they once were? That's what Abbey thought (which lead, at least in part, to the foundation of the Earth First! movement).<br /><br />I like what Joe had to say. I agree with his compliments in the first half, and also that your use of quotations could use improvement.<br /><br />One reason I focused on what was absent in this version is because quite a lot was present. This is focused, interesting, and shows a good understanding of both texts. I would like to see you push against its limitations, but what you have now has considerable strength in its own right.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104678730176687014.post-76699316270610329512014-10-17T10:31:22.158-04:002014-10-17T10:31:22.158-04:00I like that you compared these two works because t...I like that you compared these two works because they don't at first lend themselves to comparison. Edward Abbey vs a children's novel; not the Venn diagram I had in mind. Some of your best insight is in the second to last paragraph when you compare the wallow to Rainbow Arch, because there are a few weird similarities and a few interesting differences in these two landmarks and how they are perceived that you talk about. You make it work though, albeit with a few hitches. <br />Whenever you use a quote, you like to drop it, then leave it there with no insight surrounding it. Don't drop the mic and walk away! Try to make your quotes fit into your sentences like puzzle pieces. Also, the paragraph length was OK, but some more complex ideas could have made for longer paragraphs. I also was not a fan of when you said phrases like, "We can all agree that the character Laura is," or, "We know very well that Edward Abbey has," because they assume just a tad too much about your reader. As someone reading your argument, I may not hold these convictions or think the same as you, and it is your job to prove these things to be true to me. You cannot assume I'm already on your side, and if I am, the argument is not worth making. <br /><br />Overall the idea for the paper was excellent, the execution was just a bit lacking.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14941977692470645744noreply@blogger.com