Open Prompt 1 Jan 28

2006 Question 3

3A

This response does a really well job of responding to the prompt and staying on topic. The author focused on the setting of the book, and the specific development it had on one character. The main issue with this response was how much it overfocused on only one aspect of one character. While there was some comparisons between two settings, the majority of the essay was talking about how the Anne was innocent and smart, just like the countryside. As I read it, I felt that the author was simple repeating themselves, without giving much new information. I also thought that the author could include more focused detail. Certain characters were introduced without giving much more thought, when related to the setting. Overall, this author definitely connected the setting to the values of the character they chose, Anne. This is a very strong response.

 

3B

This response tries to respond to the prompt, but doesn’t do that well of a job. One entire paragraph is dedicated to just plot summary, without focusing on the details of the setting. This author connected setting to plot influence, but barely touched on the values of the setting that add to the story. The only affect the author describes is one of confusion due to the contrasting countryside and city. The conclusion makes a different point than the introduction. The conclusion says that the main point the play makes is that of comedy through confusion, whereas the introduction says that the setting develops confusion, in a comedic play. I feel like the author should have focused more on the point they were making in the conclusion rather than the thesis they put forward at the start. The value they would have used would be comedy, and they could show how the differences between the two settings creates comedy. Adding the confusion intermediate weakens their response.

 

3C

The thesis starts out weak, and simply spits back out at the question/prompt. The second paragraph gives no specific examples of setting. The author simply makes generic statements about how the text uses diction and has a stream of consciousness. The third paragraph makes a generic point about how Faulkner says that the south has backward values in his story, but the author fails to provide any specific evidence or plot points to corroborate this argument. The next few paragraphs start to make a point about a specific character being influenced from where they are from, but that is not the same as setting. The book doesn’t (from what I could gather) actually take place in the south. It just has characters that are from the south. All of the comparisons that the author makes seems to rely on calling southerners stupid, even though the south isn’t the setting. The conclusion says that all of the weird bits in the story can be blamed on the south. The author never discusses any values or ideals that might lead to this conclusion.