After reading Denamarie's rough draft on the psychoanalytical criticism of The Tempest and Cinderella was a bit rough, but had many interesting points. I think that she went into plot summary a bit too much, and needed to place more emphasis on her argument. Her paper has a great thesis paragraph, and nice mechanics. I believe that if she changed her argument slightly, using the ID vs. Superego, it will tighten her paper up considerably, and she will do dynamite on the final paper.
There is also a bit of repetition with the words "dreams" and "desires" but some of them are necessary to her paper. I think that she implements them well, but she might be using them a bit too much in order to create an argument. I also think that there is a little too much "quotage" from critical authors, than from her own thoughts, and that will not take much to revise. She has a great style of writing: to the point, no flowery style like myself. I think that if she incorporates more from her own argument, and more quotes from the literary texts as well, she will be able to create a very sound paper. There is also a slight difficulty with subject-verb agreement, but that won't take much to fix.
Overall, I think that her paper is good, but it still requires some work in developing the arguement. With some time, dedication, and hard work, she will be able to create a criticism that will be very good to read. I would suggest more quotes from the text, less plot summary, and more critical arguements about the ID vs. Superego will boost the depth of her paper considerably, and knowing Denamarie, she will have no problems in accomplishing these tasks. I wish her the best of luck!Posted by The Gentle Giant at May 3, 2007 7:41 PM