tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104678730176687014.post8788791183849148972..comments2014-12-12T18:07:42.274-05:00Comments on Seminar in Composition : Essay 2: MisanthropyAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104678730176687014.post-43675155396447230222014-09-21T12:21:17.198-04:002014-09-21T12:21:17.198-04:00Your intro is a little long to say what it says. ...Your intro is a little long to say what it says. Your research is *correct*, as far as it goes, but I'm not yet sure what you're trying to do with it. <br /><br />Take this line: "As a person Abbey clearly did not appreciate the company of fellow men and while in the book he does not single out people to hate, he always seems to attack civilization and what the collective whole of America is doing to the planet." How does this follow from your research? The facts you've researched - that Abbey seems to have inherited some degree of political radicalism from his father - don't seem to have anything to do with a hatred of humanity. You need to connect the one to the other.<br /><br />I'm not sure what you're doing with your reference to "Into the Wild." There are similarities, yes, but there are also differences - but your specific strategy is unclear. How does the fact that McCandless went overboard prove that Abbey, too, went overboard, when you haven't done anything with the details of either book? For instance, take this line: "As a person Abbey clearly did not appreciate the company of fellow men and while in the book he does not single out people to hate, he always seems to attack civilization and what the collective whole of America is doing to the planet." - you are supporting this only with assumptions, not with detailed evidence.<br /><br />The claim that Abbey-as-character hasn't changed is interesting. I'm not sure that you're wrong, but I think this is a bad argument to make unless you're prepared to engage, at the very least, with Newcomb's character - after all, Abbey is in the apparent ironic position of *sharing misanthropy* with him.<br /><br />Overall: For the most part, your paragraphs and ideas don't connect with one another. Your positions are clear, but it's not clear why you hold them, or why we should hold them. It's not even clear what purpose your research serves.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104678730176687014.post-81168070707235154402014-09-18T21:12:20.846-04:002014-09-18T21:12:20.846-04:00Ryan, I think your essay is overall well written a...Ryan, I think your essay is overall well written and it states an argument that flows through your essay. I found that your argument was in the last sentence of the first paragraph, "I interpret Abbey to practice, mistrust and near hatred in humanity, characteristics of a misanthropists[...],". I enjoyed the way you interpreted the prompt and the direction you took.I really liked the addition of the background history of Abbey's father and mother. I think it gives us a better understanding of Abbeys views and the reason of his specific viewpoints. I also enjoyed the comparison between Abbey and Christopher McCandless. While those other sources were very helpful, I think you need more analysis from the book and Abbey's experiences. I would also add additional analysis in your second to last paragraph where you start talking about his six solutions of industrialism in national parks. If you took one of his six solutions and elaborated on it, it would have supported your argument even more. Overall, I think your essay was great and kept me wanting to read more! Good job!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13355454183575182147noreply@blogger.com