|
Sample
Web Board Discussion
(based on "A" sample as essay #1 and "C" sample
as #2)
1. (30/30)
After
reading both short essays, it became obvious that the first essay
was much stronger than the second one. The first essay begins with
a strong, clear thesis that names the artist and the work--and answers
all parts of the essay question: "Van Der Zee uses line in Couple
in Raccoon Coats to create a portrait of African American dignity
and prosperity." The writer then announces the first kinds of line
she will discuss (horizontal and vertical), and immediately launches
into a quick but detailed examination of each kind of line, in the
process showing how the examples of each type work together. The transition
between discussions of the two types of line is smooth, as is the
segue to the second paragraph. By setting up a relationship between
the horizontal and vertical lines, the writer is able to use
their intersection to emphasize her increasingly narrowed focus, the
couple at the center of the photograph, something she began signaling
at the end of the first paragraph. The next observations about the
photo's curved lines then lead the reader directly to the figures.
Once there, the writer moves into the meaning of the work, noting
details of clothing that reinforce the idea of the couple's prosperity,
a subject first suggested in the discussion on curved lines. The essay
concludes with a strong statement of meaning, noting that Van Der
Zee's use of line reinforced "celebration of a new African American identity--the
success and achievement of the Harlem Renaissance." This essay has
a narrow focus, stays on track, and connects all its observations
to the thesis, thus providing great support for the conclusion. It
even used two relevant concepts from the textbook (the tension created
by line intersection and closed composition).
The second essay is much weaker. Instead
of beginning with a clear thesis and launching right into analysis,
this essay just repeats the general textbook definitions of different
types of line, wasting the entire first paragraph. After all the definitions,
the thesis suddenly appears: "In this photograph, James Van Der Zee
uses all these kinds of lines to create meaning." This just restates
the essay question; it doesn't even begin to say what the meaning
might be. It is also too broad; the essay touches on too many line
types to be able to adequately analyze any of them. The second paragraph
contains examples of the different line types, but they are just noted
as existing; they are never connected to any meaning. For example,
for lines created by outline the essay states that "Some of the lines
in 'Couple in Raccoon Coats' are outlines, such as the wheels of the
car," then moves on to boundary lines. There seems to be very
little point to the observations. After several kinds of lines
are "covered" like this, the essay abruptly shifts to how the horizontal
lines give the photograph "a feeling of energy" and forward motion.
This is an interesting idea--and finally brings some meaning to the
essay--but because horizontal lines were only mentioned toward the
very end of the essay, the reader is left thinking, "Huh? What? Where
did that come from?" All in all, a focused thesis and stronger analysis
throughout would have made this a stronger essay.
2. (20/30)
I
think that the first sample essay is stronger than the other one because
it is more analytical. For example, it has a strong
thesis statement, which is located at the very beginning of the essay: "Van
Der Zee uses line in Couple in Raccoon Coats to create a portrait
of African American dignity and prosperity." Then the essay does
a good job in showing which things make horizontal lines and which
things make vertical lines. The author's ability to examine
line indicates that he has mastered the vocabulary needed for a good
analysis and also is able to use this knowledge to understand how
the differing pieces fit together. This continues to be true
in the second paragraph where he talks about intersections between
lines and about the curved lines in the photo. Finally, he brings
attention to the richness of the human couple, as is evident from
their fur coats and shiny car. The conclusion is very excellent because
it talks about the meaning of the photograph, which relates to the
richness of the couple.
The
second essay was definitely the weaker one. There is no formal introduction
and the reader is not aware of what she is reading about until the
end of the first paragraph. Most of the paragraph just repeats
all the material the textbook gave about lines. The thesis is the
last sentence: "In
this photograph, James Van Der Zee uses all these kinds of lines to
create meaning." This is vague and doesn't even mention what kind
of meaning Van Der Zee created. Then the author goes on to
give some examples of too many different kinds of lines in the photograph.
Then all of a sudden he picks one kind--horizontal, which he didn't
even talk about before, and states that this makes the photo have
energy and forward motion. It was interesting but confusing. Altogether,
the second essay was not very analytical and didn't really have much
to say.
3. (10/30)
I
think that the second essay was the strong one. It gave very good
definitions of all the kinds of line there are, which was a very
good way to use the material from the text book. Then it had a nice
clear thesis that answered the essay question: "In this photograph,
James Van Der Zee uses all these kinds of lines to create meaning." The
essay was easy to read and ended on a fun note. The first essay was
boring and only talked about two kinds of lines. It hardly mentioned
any of the other kinds. And it was way too picky about examples of
lines, going on and on when just one example would have been okay.
Also, the thesis was very wordy: "Van Der Zee uses line in Couple
in Raccoon Coats to create a portrait of African America n dignity
and prosperity." Altogether, this was a confusing essay.
Response:
Our PLT had mixed opinions about which
short essay sample was the strongest. About a third of us of us picked
the second essay as the higher-range one. Believing that the
first essay was boring, picky, and only talked about two kinds of
lines, this group found that the second essay's definitions of many
kinds of lines were a very good way to use the material from the
textbook and that the essay, which was fun to read, had a nice clear
thesis. However, the rest of our PLT found the first essay
to be the strongest because of its thesis and development, which
were considered superior to what was seen as the vague generalities
of the second essay. I agree with this stance. Clearly, the first
essay was the higher-range one. The strong, clear thesis named the
artist and the work--and answered all parts of the essay question
by giving a specific meaning. The first paragraph had a concise but
detailed examination of each kind of line, showing how the examples
work together. The second paragraph clearly connected the lines to
the meaning. As one person in our group summed up, "This first essay
had a narrow focus, stayed on track, and connected all its observations
to the thesis, thus providing great support for its strong conclusion." So
therefore--obviously--the second essay, with its vague thesis, irrelevant
textbook definitions, and unsupported claims, was the weaker one.
|
