Please critique King Lear essay! (2 Viewers)

Timske

Sequential
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
794
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Uni Grad
2016
hmm do i lack arguments? i thought i had too much of them? i make green what i think are arguments



Leadership is a conceptual framework of understanding ascribed to the underlying notion of successful guidance of a group by one or more individuals. The whole idea relies on successful relationships between a leader and his people. Thus derived is an assumption, a leader must maintain social aptness, avoid hegemony, and still have the determination to fulfil tasks for the benefit of the group. This framework of ideas is explored in varying intricacies in Shakespeare’s play “King Lear” as well as J. R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy of novels.

A starting point of analysis one may consider is given in the character of Edmund, the bastard son of the Earl of Gloucester in “King Lear”. Edmund is described as one who holds a high antipathy for society, for renouncing him over his brother Edgar, who stands to inherit the wealth of their father Gloucester, All due to Edmund’s bastard status. In his first epideictic oration, “Thou nature art my goddess; to thy law my services are bound…Now gods, stand up for bastards!”, one is given the implication of a starting campaign of Edmund’s, in his quest for recognition against his censure by society. The asyndeta in his soliloquy develop one’s appreciation of his incredible determination to lead, as well as present powerful imagery of the characters cerebral strength in general.
.

Edmund is a stereotypically ridiculed bastard, but holds the ambitions to rise above his status. This framing device allows Shakespeare to set the scene for a portfolio of situations and established social networks to unfold for Edmund which serve to assist his own personal goals. This shows his flagrant ambition drives his need for supremacy. Eventually, Edmund “receives” a letter from Edgar, which shocks Gloucester when he reads it. This deceit craftily creates the first scenario for a follower to fall into his trap. As he then describes, “A credulous father and a brother noble, whose nature is so far from doing harms…” one can see an almost virile tone of authority expressed in his speech. Extra use of polysyndeta even more effectively reiterates his cerebral dominance. Shakespeare’s introduced emphasis on Edmund creates powerful associative imagery in the readers minds of the important role Edmund shall play

Edmunds meeting with Edgar, subsequent to the letter being read, is another thematically driven situation. He tells Edgar to remain armed at all times. “Pray ye, go, there’s my key. If you do stir abroad, go armed”. Edgar is instructed in a sincere manner by Edmund to leave to Edmunds lodging. The red herring here is seen to be successful in literally restructuring the entire familial bond between Gloucester and Edgar. Shakespeare’s structure of the scenario allows one to sympathise with Edgar and Gloucester, as they’re so critically being pulled apart from each other by Edmund.

On a different angle, Frodo from The Lord Of the Rings possesses a different personality which is expressed differently to Edmund. He is described as a jovial little fellow, a hobbit who comes to be in possession of the one ring, the ruling ring of Middle Earth. This ring becomes a perfect example of Chekhov’s gun, the mysterious properties posed as a wonder to the characters in the novel as well as the reader. The eventual task Frodo comes to face comes as a striking juxtaposition to the antecedent reputation built up for him by JR Tolkien.

LOTR also elapses with a progressive dwindling of Company members. This pathetic fallacy is symbolic in its representation of the greater independence required of the leader, in the changing situations his group faces. JR Tolkien presents to the reader the idea of the necessity of social bonding, asking the question, what occurs when Frodo’s social network decreases in magnitude? What effect does this have on his ability and desire to continue? This puts Frodo’s leadership abilities to the test

When Frodo escapes Boromir’s accost in the forest, he encounters Sam, who demands “Im going with you”, to Mount Doom. Frodo accepts this decision on Sam’s part to remain with him, this instills a greater subconscious sense of success, therein giving Frodo mental support. The connective rapport between Sam and Frodo reduces the lingering feeling of solitude the reader holds for Frodo, and promotes ideals of his success.

After the acquaintance with Gollum, from an altercation that ensues with regard to Frodo wanting “To help him” (Gollum), the conversation allows the reader to sympathise with Gollum, and suggests to us the caring nature of Frodo is imminent in his desire to help Gollum. Then after a brief aspersion to Sam’s request to assist with the Ring, Frodo exclaims “It’s my task! My own!” suggesting to the reader the ring is altering his personality, adding a darker element of avarice and forcing Frodo to battle against the attractive power of the ring. So the flow on effect is a change in Frodo’s capabilities to uphold his leadership efficiency, a contrasting representation to that of Edmund in King Lear, who only keeps on increasing his power.

He also maintains with the exigency of his task, and still manages to form a sympathetic relationship with Gollum, as well as a mostly sympathetic, but fluctuating one with Sam. This case is unique in that it is an exemplification of the notion that leadership does not necessarily come in physical size, a small character by stature is shown to have the greatest power and influence

In summation, the texts “King Lear” and “The Lord of the Rings” give not only a practical application of the leadership framework but drive thematic patterning in their respective storylines. Overall, in King Lear, through the character of Edmund, Shakespeare poses to the reader the questions, are altruism and justice necessarily characteristics of leadership? Does a hamartia always arise in the different agendas of leaders such as Edmund? On the same note, Frodo, in the Lord of the Rings, endures a whole series of obstacles with the overarching kindness and sympathy of a great leader, as well as the strength and determination to overcome deterrents. JR Tolkien thus teaches the importance of will, and that the greatest power is vested in it.


yea i did a bit, pretty much all of it is argumentative vernacular isnt it? does that fulfill teachers criteria or is it argumentative in too vague of a way? what constitutes a direct argumentative approach?
If not more than half of your essay should be green.
 

Absolutezero

real human bean
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
15,077
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
that in red is the only retelling i do. i feel there will be a complete lack of context if i get rid of that?
Your retelling though is coming at the expensive of clearly stating an argument. State your argument first, then provide context. In the case of Shakespeare, a simple: In Act 1, Scene II (for example) would suffice for context.
 

Absolutezero

real human bean
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
15,077
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
On a different angle, Frodo from The Lord Of the Rings possesses a different personality which is expressed differently to Edmund. He is described as a jovial little fellow, a hobbit who comes to be in possession of the one ring, the ruling ring of Middle Earth. This ring becomes a perfect example of Chekhov’s gun, the mysterious properties posed as a wonder to the characters in the novel as well as the reader. The eventual task Frodo comes to face comes as a striking juxtaposition to the antecedent reputation built up for him by JR Tolkien.

For example, an argument roughly based on your set-up here could be:

In The Lord of The Rings, Frodo's friend-based leadership reveals an effective counterpart to leadership style offered by Shakespeare.


That doesn't quite blend with your evidence, but you get the idea.


did i improve from my first draft though? or am i only digging a bigger hole for myself? about where would i be /15?
Yes, it is better. I'd say around a 10-11, but I hate giving numerical estimates.
 
Last edited:

Autonomatic

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
66
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
From my experience (being crap at English), that response would be at least 13/20 at Hurlstone. I've done much worse at essays and and get around that mark.
 

hayabusaboston

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
2,387
Location
Calabi Yau Manifold
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
okay this latest draft has drained me of ideas, how much closer am i to 15/15?


Leadership is a conceptual framework of understanding ascribed to the underlying notion of successful guidance of a group by one or more individuals. The whole idea relies on successful relationships between a leader and his people. Thus derived is an assumption, a leader must maintain social aptness, avoid hegemony, and still have the determination to fulfil tasks for the benefit of the group. This framework of ideas is explored in varying intricacies in Shakespeare’s play “King Lear” as well as J.
R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy of novels.

A starting point of analysis one may consider is given in the character of Edmund, the bastard son of the Earl of Gloucester in “King Lear”. Edmund is described as one who holds a high antipathy for society, for renouncing him over his brother Edgar, who stands to inherit the wealth of their father Gloucester, All due to Edmund’s bastard status. In his first epideictic oration, “Thou nature art my goddess; to thy law my services are bound…Now gods, stand up for bastards!”, one is given the implication of a starting campaign of Edmund’s, in his quest for recognition against his censure by society. The asyndeta in his soliloquy develop one’s appreciation of his incredible determination to lead, as well as present powerful imagery of the characters cerebral strength in general.
.
Edmund is a stereotypically ridiculed bastard, but holds the ambitions to rise above his status. This framing device allows Shakespeare to set the scene for a portfolio of situations and established social networks to unfold for Edmund which serve to assist his own personal goals. This shows his flagrant ambition drives his need for supremacy. Eventually, Edmund “receives” a letter from Edgar, which shocks Gloucester when he reads it. This deceit craftily creates the first scenario for a follower to fall into his trap. As he then describes, “A credulous father and a brother noble, whose nature is so far from doing harms…” one can see an almost virile tone of authority expressed in his speech. Extra use of polysyndeta even more effectively reiterates his cerebral dominance. Shakespeare’s introduced emphasis on Edmund creates powerful associative imagery in the readers minds of the important role Edmund shall play

Edmunds meeting with Edgar, subsequent to the letter being read, is another thematically driven situation. He tells Edgar to remain armed at all times. “Pray ye, go, there’s my key. If you do stir abroad, go armed”. Edgar is instructed in a sincere manner by Edmund to leave to Edmunds lodging. The red herring here is seen to be successful in literally restructuring the entire familial bond between Gloucester and Edgar. Shakespeare’s structure of the scenario allows one to sympathise with Edgar and Gloucester, as they’re so critically being pulled apart from each other by Edmund.


On a different angle, Frodo from The Lord Of the Rings possesses a different personality which is expressed differently to Edmund. He is described as a jovial little fellow, a hobbit who comes to be in possession of “the one ring, the ring to rule them all”. This ring becomes a perfect example of Chekhov’s gun, the mysterious properties posed as a wonder to the characters in the novel as well as the reader. The eventual task Frodo comes to face comes as a striking juxtaposition to the antecedent reputation built up for him by JR Tolkien.


LOTR also elapses with a progressive dwindling of Company members. This pathetic fallacy is symbolic in its representation of the greater independence required of the leader, in the changing situations his group faces. JR Tolkien presents to the reader the idea of the necessity of social bonding, asking the question, what occurs when Frodo’s social network decreases in magnitude? What effect does this have on his ability and desire to continue? This puts Frodo’s leadership abilities to the test
When Frodo escapes Boromir’s accost in the forest, he encounters Sam, who demands “Im going with you”, to Mount Doom. Frodo accepts this decision on Sam’s part to remain with him, this instills a greater subconscious sense of success, therein giving Frodo mental support. The connective rapport between Sam and Frodo reduces the lingering feeling of solitude the reader holds for Frodo, and promotes ideals of his success. This


After the acquaintance with Gollum, from an altercation that ensues with regard to Frodo wanting “To help him” (Gollum), the conversation allows the reader to sympathise with Gollum, and suggests to us the caring nature of Frodo is imminent in his desire to help Gollum. Then after a brief aspersion to Sam’s request to assist with the Ring, Frodo exclaims “It’s my task! My own!” suggesting to the reader the ring is altering his personality, adding a darker element of avarice and forcing Frodo to battle against the attractive power of the ring. So the flow on effect is a change in Frodo’s capabilities to uphold his leadership efficiency, a contrasting representation to that of Edmund in King Lear, who only keeps on increasing his power.
He also maintains with the exigency of his task, and still manages to form a sympathetic relationship with Gollum, as well as a mostly sympathetic, but fluctuating one with Sam. This case is unique in that it is an exemplification of the notion that leadership does not necessarily come in physical size, a small character by stature is shown to have the greatest power and influence


In summation, the texts “King Lear” and “The Lord of the Rings” give not only a practical application of the leadership framework but drive thematic patterning in their respective storylines. Overall, in King Lear, through the character of Edmund, Shakespeare poses to the reader the questions, are altruism and justice necessarily characteristics of leadership? Does a hamartia always arise in the different agendas of leaders such as Edmund? On the same note, Frodo, in the Lord of the Rings, endures a whole series of obstacles with the overarching kindness and sympathy of a great leader, as well as the strength and determination to overcome deterrents. JR Tolkien thus teaches the importance of will, and that the greatest power is vested in it.
 

RivalryofTroll

Sleep Deprived Entity
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
3,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Uni Grad
2019
From my experience (being crap at English), that response would be at least 13/20 at Hurlstone. I've done much worse at essays and and get around that mark.
Like a few selective schools, Hurlstone tends to be quite weak at Engrish so Hayabusa, don't stress out too much about it.

As for your essay, it is quite beneficial to look at past students' A range essays to get a fair idea of the expectations from teachers.
I've seen essays that get 15/15, 20/20, etc. but use an average level (sometimes very ordinary) of vocabulary (this is due to the fact that they've done the minimum of just answering the question in sophisticated detail rather than adding big words) and there are essays that use big words but are under the A range due to weak arguments.

The level of analysis, answering the question and understanding the text will be assessed.
I'm sure that you have seen:
P (Point, Notion, etc.)
E (Example in text)
E (Evidence - Quotes, Techniques, etc.)
L (Link back to the question)
 

Absolutezero

real human bean
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
15,077
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
You're still not getting the idea of putting your argument as the first sentence of each paragraph. Without doing that, you're basically just talking around the issues.
 

wildchild666

Active Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
607
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
On a different angle, Frodo from The Lord Of the Rings possesses a different personality which is expressed differently to Edmund.
All I got from that sentence was "different". Maybe you could come up with some alternate words?
 

nazfiz

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
121
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
You keep starting your paragraphs with your evidence and not the point you are trying to prove.
 

Examine

same
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
2,376
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2013
okay this latest draft has drained me of ideas, how much closer am i to 15/15?


Leadership is a conceptual framework of understanding ascribed to the underlying notion of successful guidance of a group by one or more individuals. The whole idea relies on successful relationships between a leader and his people. Thus derived is an assumption, a leader must maintain social aptness, avoid hegemony, and still have the determination to fulfil tasks for the benefit of the group. This framework of ideas is explored in varying intricacies in Shakespeare’s play “King Lear” as well as J.
R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy of novels.

A starting point of analysis one may consider is given in the character of Edmund, the bastard son of the Earl of Gloucester in “King Lear”. Edmund is described as one who holds a high antipathy for society, for renouncing him over his brother Edgar, who stands to inherit the wealth of their father Gloucester, All due to Edmund’s bastard status. In his first epideictic oration, “Thou nature art my goddess; to thy law my services are bound…Now gods, stand up for bastards!”, one is given the implication of a starting campaign of Edmund’s, in his quest for recognition against his censure by society. The asyndeta in his soliloquy develop one’s appreciation of his incredible determination to lead, as well as present powerful imagery of the characters cerebral strength in general.
.
Edmund is a stereotypically ridiculed bastard, but holds the ambitions to rise above his status. This framing device allows Shakespeare to set the scene for a portfolio of situations and established social networks to unfold for Edmund which serve to assist his own personal goals. This shows his flagrant ambition drives his need for supremacy. Eventually, Edmund “receives” a letter from Edgar, which shocks Gloucester when he reads it. This deceit craftily creates the first scenario for a follower to fall into his trap. As he then describes, “A credulous father and a brother noble, whose nature is so far from doing harms…” one can see an almost virile tone of authority expressed in his speech. Extra use of polysyndeta even more effectively reiterates his cerebral dominance. Shakespeare’s introduced emphasis on Edmund creates powerful associative imagery in the readers minds of the important role Edmund shall play

Edmunds meeting with Edgar, subsequent to the letter being read, is another thematically driven situation. He tells Edgar to remain armed at all times. “Pray ye, go, there’s my key. If you do stir abroad, go armed”. Edgar is instructed in a sincere manner by Edmund to leave to Edmunds lodging. The red herring here is seen to be successful in literally restructuring the entire familial bond between Gloucester and Edgar. Shakespeare’s structure of the scenario allows one to sympathise with Edgar and Gloucester, as they’re so critically being pulled apart from each other by Edmund.


On a different angle, Frodo from The Lord Of the Rings possesses a different personality which is expressed differently to Edmund. He is described as a jovial little fellow, a hobbit who comes to be in possession of “the one ring, the ring to rule them all”. This ring becomes a perfect example of Chekhov’s gun, the mysterious properties posed as a wonder to the characters in the novel as well as the reader. The eventual task Frodo comes to face comes as a striking juxtaposition to the antecedent reputation built up for him by JR Tolkien.


LOTR also elapses with a progressive dwindling of Company members. This pathetic fallacy is symbolic in its representation of the greater independence required of the leader, in the changing situations his group faces. JR Tolkien presents to the reader the idea of the necessity of social bonding, asking the question, what occurs when Frodo’s social network decreases in magnitude? What effect does this have on his ability and desire to continue? This puts Frodo’s leadership abilities to the test
When Frodo escapes Boromir’s accost in the forest, he encounters Sam, who demands “Im going with you”, to Mount Doom. Frodo accepts this decision on Sam’s part to remain with him, this instills a greater subconscious sense of success, therein giving Frodo mental support. The connective rapport between Sam and Frodo reduces the lingering feeling of solitude the reader holds for Frodo, and promotes ideals of his success. This


After the acquaintance with Gollum, from an altercation that ensues with regard to Frodo wanting “To help him” (Gollum), the conversation allows the reader to sympathise with Gollum, and suggests to us the caring nature of Frodo is imminent in his desire to help Gollum. Then after a brief aspersion to Sam’s request to assist with the Ring, Frodo exclaims “It’s my task! My own!” suggesting to the reader the ring is altering his personality, adding a darker element of avarice and forcing Frodo to battle against the attractive power of the ring. So the flow on effect is a change in Frodo’s capabilities to uphold his leadership efficiency, a contrasting representation to that of Edmund in King Lear, who only keeps on increasing his power.
He also maintains with the exigency of his task, and still manages to form a sympathetic relationship with Gollum, as well as a mostly sympathetic, but fluctuating one with Sam. This case is unique in that it is an exemplification of the notion that leadership does not necessarily come in physical size, a small character by stature is shown to have the greatest power and influence


In summation, the texts “King Lear” and “The Lord of the Rings” give not only a practical application of the leadership framework but drive thematic patterning in their respective storylines. Overall, in King Lear, through the character of Edmund, Shakespeare poses to the reader the questions, are altruism and justice necessarily characteristics of leadership? Does a hamartia always arise in the different agendas of leaders such as Edmund? On the same note, Frodo, in the Lord of the Rings, endures a whole series of obstacles with the overarching kindness and sympathy of a great leader, as well as the strength and determination to overcome deterrents. JR Tolkien thus teaches the importance of will, and that the greatest power is vested in it.
You need to stay on BoS. :L
 

hayabusaboston

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
2,387
Location
Calabi Yau Manifold
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
You need to stay on BoS. :L
Um, sorry I dont get it?
AYY okay I tried to put topic sentence and link back to question stuff in this time. Red and green respectively



Leadership is a conceptual framework of understanding ascribed to the underlying notion of successful guidance of a group by one or more individuals. The whole idea relies on successful relationships between a leader and his people. Thus derived is an assumption, a leader must maintain social aptness, avoid hegemony, and still have the determination to fulfil tasks for the benefit of the group. This framework of ideas is explored in varying intricacies in Shakespeare’s play “King Lear” as well as J.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy of novels.


Edmunds first “speech” in King Lear gives a good starting point of analysis. The asyndeta in his soliloquy develop one’s appreciation of his incredible determination to lead, as well as present powerful imagery of his cerebral strength in general. Thus Shakespeare builds up a general impression of Edmunds importance in the story, as one who skilfully manipulates social networks to his will. This is shown in his description, as one who holds a high antipathy for society, for renouncing him over his brother Edgar, who stands a noble, while Edmund a bastard. In his first epideictic oration, “Thou nature art my goddess; to thy law my services are bound…Now gods, stand up for bastards!”, one is given the implication of a starting campaign of Edmund’s, in his quest for recognition against his censure by society, a step in the direction of leadership.
.
Edmund is, by stereotype in his society, a ridiculed bastard, but he holds the ambitions to rise above his status, immediately forming a strong contrast in the readers mind. This framing device of “origin vs destination” allows Shakespeare to set the scene for a multitude of situations to unfold for Edmund which serve to assist his own personal goals. This shows his flagrant ambition drives his need for supremacy. Eventually, Edmund “receives” a letter from Edgar, which shocks Gloucester when he reads it. This deceit craftily creates the first scenario for a follower to fall into his trap. As he then describes, “A credulous father and a brother noble, whose nature is so far from doing harms…” one can see an almost virile tone of authority expressed in his speech, further emphasising his cerebral dominance. Shakespeare’s introduced emphasis on Edmund creates powerful associative imagery in the readers minds of the important role Edmund shall play in the story, wit.

The red herring seen in the “Letter from Edmund situation” is successful in literally restructuring the entire familial bond between Gloucester and Edgar. Shakespeare’s structure of the scenario allows one to sympathise with Edgar and Gloucester, as they’re so critically being pulled apart from each other by Edmund. Edmunds manipulative efficiency once again helps him acquire success in the situation. When he meets with Edgar, subsequent to the letter being read, He tells Edgar to remain armed at all times. “Pray ye, go, there’s my key. If you do stir abroad, go armed”. Edgar is instructed in a sincere manner by Edmund to leave to Edmunds lodging. Thus the deceit and flattering speech is clearly shown to the reader.




On a different angle, Frodo from The Lord Of the Rings is a character portrayed as an alternate expression of leadership to that of Edmund. He is described as a jovial little fellow, a hobbit who comes to be in possession of “the one ring, the ring to rule them all”. This ring becomes a perfect example of Chekhov’s gun, the mysterious properties posed as a wonder to the characters in the novel as well as the reader, eventually followed by revelatory circumstances. The eventual task Frodo comes to face also comes as a striking juxtaposition to the antecedent reputation built up for him by JR Tolkien, as a mere hobbit of minor intellectual or physical capabilities, let alone leadership.


LOTR also elapses with a progressive dwindling of Company members. This pathetic fallacy is symbolic in its representation of the greater independence required of the leader, in the changing situations his group faces. JR Tolkien presents to the reader the idea of the necessity of social bonding, asking the question, what occurs when Frodo’s social network decreases in magnitude? What effect does this have on his ability and desire to continue? This puts Frodo’s leadership abilities to the test, both through social relationships and determination to continue.


Frodo accepts a decision on Sam’s part to remain with him, which instills a greater subconscious sense of success, therein giving Frodo mental support
. This event occurs when Frodo escapes Boromir’s accost in the forest, he encounters Sam, who demands “Im going with you”, to Mount Doom.. The connective rapport between Sam and Frodo reduces the lingering feeling of solitude the reader holds for Frodo, and promotes ideals of his success. This emphasises Sams influential role on Frodo’s leadership


After the acquaintance with Gollum, from an altercation that ensues with regard to Frodo wanting “To help him” (Gollum), the reader sympathises with Gollum on account of his defenceless portrayal. Then after a brief aspersion to Sam’s request to assist with the Ring, Frodo exclaims “It’s my task! My own!” suggesting to the reader the ring is altering his personality, adding a darker element of avarice and forcing Frodo to battle against the attractive power of the ring. So the flow on effect is a change in Frodo’s capabilities to uphold his leadership efficiency, a contrasting representation to that of Edmund in King Lear, who only keeps on increasing his power.

He also maintains with the exigency of his task, and still manages to form a sympathetic relationship with Gollum, as well as a mostly sympathetic, but fluctuating one with Sam. This case is unique in that it is an exemplification of the notion that leadership does not necessarily come in physical size, a small character by stature is shown to have the greatest power and influence, especially with rapport from close friends of similar antecedent reputation.


In summation, the texts “King Lear” and “The Lord of the Rings” give not only a practical application of the leadership framework but drive thematic patterning in their respective storylines. Overall, in King Lear, through the character of Edmund, Shakespeare poses to the reader the questions, are altruism and justice necessarily characteristics of leadership? Does a hamartia always arise in the different agendas of leaders such as Edmund? On the same note, Frodo, in the Lord of the Rings, endures a whole series of obstacles with the overarching kindness and sympathy of a great leader, as well as the strength and determination to overcome deterrents. JR Tolkien thus teaches the importance of will, and that the greatest power is vested in it.
 
Last edited:

Absolutezero

real human bean
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
15,077
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Going through each of your first lines, I should be able to find your argument. This is what I came up with

Leadership is a conceptual framework of understanding ascribed to the underlying notion of successful guidance of a group by one or more individuals.
This is good.

Edmunds first “speech” in King Lear gives a good starting point of analysis. The asyndeta in his soliloquy develop one’s appreciation of his incredible determination to lead, as well as present powerful imagery of his cerebral strength in general.
This is not an argument. You are leading with context and evidence.

Edmund is, by stereotype in his society, a ridiculed bastard, but he holds the ambitions to rise above his status, immediately forming a strong contrast in the readers mind. This framing device of “origin vs destination” allows Shakespeare to set the scene for a multitude of situations to unfold for Edmund which serve to assist his own personal goals. This shows his flagrant ambition drives his need for supremacy.
Again, this is just context and evidence. You need to state something like: In King Lear, Edmunds desire for leadership is a result of his quest to rise out of his current situation.

The red herring seen in the “Letter from Edmund situation” is successful in literally restructuring the entire familial bond between Gloucester and Edgar.
Not an argument. Also a poor explanation of the technique being used in relation to the scene quoted.

On a different angle, Frodo from The Lord Of the Rings is a character portrayed as an alternate expression of leadership to that of Edmund. He is described as a jovial little fellow, a hobbit who comes to be in possession of “the one ring, the ring to rule them all”.
This is alright, but your second sentence contains to much context.

After the acquaintance with Gollum, from an altercation that ensues with regard to Frodo wanting “To help him” (Gollum), the reader sympathises with Gollum on account of his defenceless portrayal.
Not an argument, it is a retelling followed by a reaction

He also maintains with the exigency of his task, and still manages to form a sympathetic relationship with Gollum, as well as a mostly sympathetic, but fluctuating one with Sam.
This paragraph should be part of the one above. This is not an argument.

In summation, the texts “King Lear” and “The Lord of the Rings” give not only a practical application of the leadership framework but drive thematic patterning in their respective storylines.
Probably your best one in the entire essay.
 

Absolutezero

real human bean
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
15,077
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Edmund in King Lear delivers a soliloquy which develop one’s appreciation of his incredible determination to lead, as well as produce powerful images of his general cerebral strength
Is that a better one?
Better. But you're still using evidence in your opening line.

also please tell if these next first lines are considered arguments.

Edmunds bastard status prompts his vicious desire to transcend these barriers restricting him, forming an immediate contrast, an image of the underdog rising up to power
Pretty good.

The red herring Edmund creates with a false letter from Edgar is successful in literally restructuring the entire familial bond between Gloucester and Edgar.
The red herring and false letter are still quotes and techniques which shouldn't be in your first line argument.

On a different angle, Frodo from The Lord Of the Rings is a character portrayed as an alternate expression of leadership to that of Edmund. He is described as a “mere hobbit” who comes into possession of a great power, “the one ring, the ring to rule them all”.
You're second line isn't your argument (keep that in mind). Your first line though, is pretty much correct.

Following acquaintance with Gollum, a heated discussion by Frodo and Sam relating to “Keeping him” (Gollum), the reader is able to sympathise with Gollum on account of his treatment in the tenuous argument between Sam and Frodo, putting Gollum into a discreet light of innocence, allowing him to freely plot their demise.
Not an argument. You haven't said how any of this relates to leadership.


Overall, it's looking much better. Still needs work, but it's definitely improving.
 
Last edited:

hayabusaboston

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
2,387
Location
Calabi Yau Manifold
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Better. But you're still using evidence in your opening line.

also please tell if these next first lines are considered arguments.



Pretty good.



The red herring and false letter are still quotes and techniques which should be in your first line argument.



You're second line isn't your argument (keep that in mind). Your first line though, is pretty much correct.



Not an argument. You haven't said how any of this relates to leadership.


Overall, it's looking much better. Still needs work, but it's definitely improving.
In a heated discussion by Frodo and Sam relating to “Keeping him” (Gollum), gollum is put into a discreet light of innocence amongst the bickering Sam and Frodo. This creates a sensitive fork in the road, in which Gollum could either give into treachery, or maintain deceit. Gollum's new position of power contrasts to the antecedent image of Frodo as the entity of power.



Okay, so is that all ive got to work on? Have I done and dusted all other problems? Can I start memorizing now :p
 
Last edited:

kingkong123

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2011
Messages
98
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Following acquaintance with Gollum, a heated discussion by Frodo and Sam relating to “Keeping him” (Gollum), gollum is put into a discreet light of innocence amongst the bickering Sam and Frodo, which not only puts the position of power into his control, giving him the option of treachery or maintaining his deceit, but contrasts to the antecedent image of Frodo as the entity of power.



Okay, so is that all ive got to work on? Have I done and dusted all other problems? Can I start memorizing now :p
lol that's too long for a sentence. work on simplicity and clarity. try splitting it up into a few sentences, like that it loses all its essence after about the 5th comma :p
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top