Dear Reader,
Keep going. You've got a good beginning here, but a lot of work left to do. I will be looking forward to reading the rest of your arguments. Remember to stick to the CEA format and to do plenty of close analysis of the words of the quotations, analyzing their different meanings - that is the key grading criteria for this essay.
What determines the course of our lives? Is it the decisions we make? Or are our paths predetermined by a higher power? The response will alter depending on the religious beliefs of who you ask, which both sides have been debating for centuries.
I always say that it is better to jump right into the story and your argument. Avoid first sentences that make grand general statements about human nature and the big questions of life. Focus on Oedipus' story and your specific argument about Oedipus' story. You should be writing about that from the very first sentence - not talking about human nature or life outside of the play itself.
However, the tragedy illustrates that every action taken of “free-will” leads Oedipus on the path of sealing his fate of slaying his father and wed his mother.
Can you explain the irony of that? What does it suggest? Can anyone ever avoid their fate?
You can develop your thesis at least one step further. Your thesis should be a bit more complex; how does it explain the contradiction that you point out so well? That Oedipus is both helpless and responsible?
Even when Oedipus acknowledges that the gods were in fact the masters of his destiny he’s adamant in attesting that he still has some free will as he alone blinded himself.
Excellent observation. This is a really good example of the irony of Oedipus' position: he is both the powerless victim of the gods, and a guy who made all his own mistakes. Can you make this contradiction part of your thesis?
Oedipus: Agent or Victim of His Fate
Your essay is coming along. With a little more work it will be excellent. You do a particularly good job of using the CEA format throughout. Here are two things to work on:
Develop your thesis. It is a bit too simplistic right now. Try to confront the irony of Oedipus' story and to explain exactly what you mean by him being "the agent of his fate."
Make your analysis interpret the exact words of the quotation and take your analysis one step further. Depth of analysis is the key grading criteria for this essay.
Some might argue that Oedipus couldn’t control his fate because it was one given to him by a higher power, but what if god was only fortelling what Oedipus will do based on his own actions? Oedipus could have avoided his fate from the very beginning if he took appropriate action and is therefore accountable for his fate.
Excellent question and good point. This might help you to develop your thesis, if you include some of this idea in your intro.
Although Oedipus was an innocent victim at birth whose fate was already determined, he bears some responsibility for his downfall.
Here is the key: how do you connect his innocence with his responsibility?
There was a riddle,
Is this play also a sort of riddle? Is the irony in Oedipus' story a sort of riddle?
When the Sphinx, that chanting Fury kept her death watch here… There was a riddle, not for some passer-by to solve- it cried out for a prophet. Where were you?
Excellent quotation.
He has pride in his ability to change his future and his action led to the fulfillment of the prophecy.
Again, this is the irony you should focus on.
His action to thwart the prophecy is prideful because it shows that he thinks that he is better than god. Oedipus, just like Laios and Jocasta, thought they can outsmart God.
Excellent point. Is the point of the play to show that nobody can outsmart god, i.e. escape one's fate?
The irony is that if Oedipus was not determined to find out who murdered Laios, he would not have discovered who he really is
This irony is what you need to explore. How exactly does it connect to your argument? Make the connection more clear in your overall thesis.
the child who must not be born!…
What does this have to do with fate? Go deeper.
Let this be the last time I look on you
Blindness again. Why?
Jocasta is a character who from the very beginning was skeptical about prophecies and believed they held no merit. She didn’t believe in prophecies because she thought she maneuvered hers when she and Laios decided to kill baby Oedipus. However, as we all know, the prophecy came true.
This is a good argument, but you are missing the nuances in your quote. Doesn't your quote show that she knew the prophecy had already come true? That's why she's in pain. That's why she knows it will ruin Oedipus' life. Take your analysis one step further.
the agent of his fate
What exactly does it mean to be the agent of one's fate? Does that mean he is responsible? He brings it on himself? Say more.
Oedipus anger towards Tiresias and Kreon shows that he was the agent of his fate.
How do you connect these arguments to the fact that Oedipus was trying to avoid his fate all along? Your thesis is a bit more complicated than just the argument Oedipus was the agent of his fate.
ou have blind eyes, blind ears, and a blind brain
Why is blindness symbolically important in this play? What does it represent?
Someone who is labeled as a prophet should be held in high regard yet Oedipus disrespects Tiresias out of anger.
Remember, depth of analysis is the key grading criteria for this essay. That means analyzing the meanings of the specific words of the quote. You should be going further with your analysis - three times as much analysis as evidence is a good rule.
Oedipus is the agent of his fate because his anger, determination to uncover the truth, and pride led to his demise.
Good preview of organization of ideas here.
Such a horrifying fate is enough to make anyone take immediate action to prevent it from coming true. Oedipus, of his own free will, took actions that resulted in the prophecy invariably occurring.
There is a contradiction here, which I think you should explore in your essay. You argue that Oedipus is the agent of his fate because he "took actions that resulted in the prophecy" coming true. But the actions he took were specifically "to prevent it from coming true." How do these two points touch? Connect them and you will have a strong thesis.
The Greeks
Though this is true, what seems more important is that the question of fate versus free will is important in Oedipus the King, not that it was important to the Greeks in general. Keep your arguments focused on the text.
Dear Reader
You have a clear sense of the essay you want to write, but seem not to have started writing it yet. Don't procrastinate. The point of the first draft is to write a first draft, not a cover letter about the essay you want to write.
Here are some points to consider as you write:
Follow CEA carefully. Make your central thesis the organizing idea of the entire essay, and make sure all of your body paragraphs follow the CEA format.
Do as much close analysis of the text as possible. The key grading criteria for this essay is depth of analysis. That means thinking about the meaning of particular words from the text and connecting them to your argument.
Don't wait until the last minute. Good essays are never written the night before they are due.
There are various reasons why one might kill another person. Greed, jealousy, revenge, these are some of the classic motives that propel murder in various circumstances.
I know this is just a cover letter, but be careful not to begin your essay with a general sentence like this, about human nature or why people commit murder. It is much better to begin by jumping straight into the play and your argument.
is the Prince of Denmark crazy? Is he actually very smart and calculating?
This is certainly a central question of the play. I will be interested to see how you connect it to your earlier argument, that Hamlet is "seeking to emulate his uncle Claudius' rise to power." In order to develop a complete, nuanced thesis, you will have to bring these separate points together somehow. I think that is actually important to try to formulate the essence of your argument as a single sentence; it will force you to develop a straightforward position.
he is seeking to emulate his uncle Claudius’ rise to power
This is an interesting argument. I will be very curious to see what evidence you use to support it. I think there certainly is evidence that Hamlet is ambitious - he tells Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that he "lacks advancement," or something like that. But usually, people interpret Hamlet as hesitant about trying to take power. Look forward to seeing your argument.
THE END OF OEDIPUS
Nice job so far but lots of work left to do. You've got a strong introduction, but I don't think it is quite focused enough on your thesis. Here are some things to work on:
Revise the intro so that the first four sentences are not just a summary but are also about the central question of fate versus free will.
Take your analysis one step further in your body paragraphs. Really consider the meanings of the words of the quotations.
Finish the essay following the outline at the end of your intro paragraph. Make sure to cover the point about Oedipus' lack of knowledge of the consequences of his actions.
Oedipus didn’t kill them all because of his strength, he had to kill them the fulfillment of this old prophecy. This means that was not another way around, humans are powerless when it comes to overthrowing the will of the gods.
I don't understand this part of your argument. You need to take this analysis one step further, so that your point is absolutely clear.
Also, ou should be considering the words of the quote more closely here too.
makes it clear that this was the work of fate
How so? Explain.
Ending up killing him and his crew as he got mad because he was forced off the road.
Be careful. This is not a complete sentence.
Too obvious to be true, so it could easily be considered as a coincidence that Oedipus run into his father when coming to Thebes
I'm not sure what you mean here. I think it would be more important for your argument to point out that Oedipus had no idea the old man was his father or a king when he killed him. So he could not have met your point from the intro - that it only counts as free will if you know the consequences of your actions.
herefore, his fate brings him straight on the road of Thebes
Isn't it strange that it is exactly trying to avoid his fate that makes it come true? If he had stayed in Korinth, nothing would have happened. Can you explain that?
Here, Oedipus proves his quality as a moral person. He knows that being with your mother and killing your father is something unbearable. Plus, having children that will not be considered on the same standard in the society is like a curse. So, he thinks quick and he decides to run away in order to prevent himself from doing it.
Good analysis. Can you connect it more closely to the words of the quotation above? Remember that depth of analysis is the key grading criteria for this essay. That means really considering the possible meanings of the words of the play.
knowing the bad consequences that come with it.
This seems to me to be a key part of your argument: only when you act with knowledge of the consequences of your actions does it count as free will. I hope that you show that Oedipus did not have this sort of knowledge.
To support my thesis, I am going bring the readers to certain steps that king takes to avoid the prophecy such as leaving Corinth where he was raised, pronouncing himself on justice that murderer is going to face, and sad ignorance, were all however meant to make it happen.
Nice preview of the organization of the argument.
,
You might try a different punctuation mark here.
has always brought us to the question about free-will or fate concept when referring to what happen to the king
You have not mentioned fate or free will at all yet. Your summary of the play is very nice, but it is not at all connected to your thesis. You should be preparing the reader for the subject of fate vs free-will from the beginning, from the very first sentence.
As the investigation is going along, the queen ends up hanging herself and Oedipus blinds himself because the prophecy was about them
These things happen after the investigation is concluded, not while it "is going along," -- after Oedipus realizes the truth about himself.
Essay #2 Draft
You've got a good start here, but this draft is incomplete and the paragraphs you do have still need some work. Good work on doing in-depth analysis on some (still missing) evidence. Here are some things to work on:
Make your thesis more precise. You've got a lot of good ideas in your introduction, but they are not totally developed. You want the thesis to be crystal clear.
Connect your arguments (as you develop them) back to your thesis about Hamlet. You should be connecting all that good analysis from your body paragraphs to your main argument.
Keep going. This needs to be a complete essay.
This decision-making skill of the characters in The Hamlet basically resolved on the same spectrum.
What is the spectrum? Do you mean they all make bad or childish decisions? If so, what is Hamlet's (or Shakespeare's) perspective on people in general? Human nature?
In addition to revealing his nature of sanity to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, he also exposed their betraying nature, and not having the ability to choose to do the right thing.
I think you might say more about Hamlet's relationship with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and about spies. Everyone in Hamlet's world is under surveillance, and Hamlet cannot even trust his oldest friends.
As a noun the work hawk describes a bird that performs surprise attacks in a short chase on its prey.
In Renaissance Europe, hawks were used for hunting. Hamlet's "hawk to a handsaw" is perhaps a hunting metaphor, with fits nicely with your interpretation.
sensual
Careful with word choice here.
The hunter becomes the hunted when Hamlet’s friends approach him.
Nice
To label revenge as justice
This is a really interesting insight. Does this connect to the idea from your thesis that Hamlet is trying to make his "thirst for revenge justifiable" (or Shakespeare is trying to make our natural human thirst for revenge justifiable - I wasn't exactly clear which you were arguing)? Maybe include in a revised thesis.
imbedded characters who are childlike
Interesting. I'm not sure "imbedded" is the right word - or is a word at all - but you might develop the point about Hamlet's, or others', childishness.
to elevate among many the ultimate moral standards of his mother, his girlfriend and his childhood friends
I'm lost here. How is he "elevat[ing] the moral standards of his mother?" Do you mean that he wants them to remember his father and respect his memory/ghost?
teething
I'm not sure what you mean by "teething" here.
morally weak
Interesting but not totally clear. Who is morally weak? Do you mean that Shakespeare reveals general moral weaknesses that we all share? Or that he reveals how Hamlet is morally weak? What exactly is moral weakness, and how does it connect to the "thirst for revenge?"
This is the beginning of a strong thesis, but you will need to rewrite and clarify it. Make your idea as crystal clear as possible.
a standing complex work of Shakespeare, the center goal of all the plays are rather simple.
This sentence is confusing - and first sentences have to be very clear and engaging. What do you mean by "standing complex work"? Why do you write "all the plays"? Are you writing about any works other than Hamlet?
the hamlet
Careful with the title here.
The next events happen in such rapid succession that it’s hard to pick out who dies first. First, Queen Gertrude unknowingly drinks the poisoned wine against Claudius’s plea – he says, not to her but aside, “It is the poisoned cup. It Is too late.” Then, Laertes wounds Hamlet and Hamlet wounds Laertes with the same poisoned weapon. As the queen dies, Laertes exclaims “The King, the King’s to blame” and Hamlet finally gets the job done. He hurts him, likely with the foil, and forces him to drink poison. He finally made his move, only when faced with his dead mother and his own impending death.
You've got some work left to do on this essay. Overall, your writing is very strong and you have some nice insights. Here are two things to work on:
You lose track of your thesis partway through the essay, and it ends up turning into a summary of what happens in the play more than an argument. Make sure to go back to your thesis at the beginning and ending of each paragraph. Avoid just telling the reader what happens - but connect what happens explicitly to your argument.
Take your analysis one step further. You want to be looking at the specific words of the quotations - you should probably get some more quotations too. That's the category that will be worth the most points when I'm grading.
Although it’s certain that Hamlet knew what he had to do by this point, it was the fencing match that triggered his final actions.
Does this mean that he was intentionally acting or just got caught up in the development of the events? Did he finally overcome his hesitation, or in the end did he just have no choice? If you frame this paragraph around a question like that, it will feel more like a conclusion and less like a the end of the summary of what happened in the play.
something the immature and boyish Hamlet from a few days earlier would never be able to do.
Interesting. I like the idea that the character is changing during the play. You should write more about that.
Hamlet, less walk and more talk, runs on over to his mother to confront her about marrying his father’s brother. When he realizes they have an unwelcome guest, he blindly stabs through the arras and kills Polonius, revealing to his mother just how crazy he has become. Once Claudius learns of this, he exiles Hamlet off to England, with a secret letter saying Hamlet must be executed. However, the ghost has already reminded Hamlet of his task: “Do not forget. This visitation Is but to whet thy almost blunted purpose” (Pg 715, lines 111-112). Hamlet changes the letter and sends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their execution.
This is all basically plot summary. You should do analysis, not summary.
Here, Hamlet has his easiest best opportunity to kill Claudius, and he lets it slide by. Although Hamlet acknowledges that “Now might [he] do it pat” (Pg 711, Line 74), he laments over the idea that he might send Claudius to heaven if he kills him during his prayer (Claudius isn’t even actually praying).
I think you can say more about this. Right now, it reads more like plot summary than argument - though of course this part of the story is important for your argument. But analyze it further.
easiest best
Easiest best or easiest, best?
This is most brave
Do you think Hamlet is a coward, which is what he calls himself? His ideas about bravery might be important for your argument.
It’s especially funny
Isn't it also ironic that his soliloquy is only more "words?" Hamlet speaks a lot in this play; "words" is what he is good at and what he does most of. Why don't you connect this to your argument about him being an academic, perhaps? Connect it to your thesis more closely.
Hamlet, though, is an academic, and is far from crazy and passionate (at least in the beginning)
Evidence?
However, it’s odd that Hamlet pushes this idea, because during his meeting with his father’s ghost he claims his revenge will be “swift as meditation or the thoughts of love”
You need to be doing more in-depth analysis here. Your argument is excellent and well-written, but remember, depth of analysis is the key grading criteria for this essay. That means analyzing the possible interpretations of your quotes, and connecting those ideas to your argument. For example, is meditation really swift, in Hamlet's case, or is it too much meditation, too much thinking, that slows down his revenge? There may be some irony here to be explored. That is the kind of analysis I will be looking for.
nonchalant
I think instead of using this adjective you might describe at more length what you mean. Nonchalance is not exactly right for describing his behavior at the beginning of the play, though I understand what you're getting at.
and he most definitely does not want to become King
Fascinating point. I hope you develop on this. It connects to your argument about his youth, and it is really perceptive.
adding to everyone’s supposition that something was amiss
Does anyone but Hamlet think something is amiss? Maybe Horatio, but I'm not sure.
In the beginning of Shakespeare’s Hamlet: Prince of Denmark, our young protagonist (Prince Hamlet) is confronted by the ghost of his father (King Hamlet), who explains the murky circumstances surrounding his recent death.
This is a nicely written sentence. However, I think you write a more dramatic one. This is sort of a dramatic scene you are describing, after all. You want to catch the reader's attention with the first sentence.
Hamlet is a character that you don’t really know what’s going on in his mind and trying to decipher a lot of his actions was interesting because as a person you add your own beliefs into our own interpretations.
Why is this not part of your thesis?
In my opinion
You should cut all these "in my opinions" and "I believe"s.
when you have been betrayed by someone dear and close to you, the first thing you want to do is take revenge.
This is an interesting point. Why do you think the ghost wants Hamlet to leave his mother out of it? And how does that connect to your thesis?
Remember that depth of analysis is the key grading criteria for this essay. That means really thinking about all the possible interpretations for the specific words of your quotes.
mysterious
What do you think is mysterious about them? Say a bit more about the mystery. This could be a really good first sentence, if you take it further. Is the mystery of Hamlet, as you put it, the fact that "you don't really know what's going on in his mind" and you spend the play trying to "decipher" it? That could make for a great opening sentence.
Remember, this is where you want to really state your thesis as clearly as possible. It seems that you need to develop your thesis a bit. What exactly are you arguing? You don't spend any time in this essay showing how the play builds towards a climax.You write about Hamlet's hesitations, his intelligence, his cunning. It seems that your thesis is much more about what's going on inside Hamlet, than about how the play builds tension.
He ended up dying but he died with his goal achieved so he was successful in my eyes even though he had no remorse whatsoever of what he did.
What happened to your idea about the play's mystery? Do we really ever find out what Hamlet was thinking? Remember, your conclusion should connect back to the overall thesis from your introduction.
In Hamlet, Prince of Denmark there are many occasions in which we ask ourselves why Hamlet takes so long to take revenge for his father’s death.
This sentence sounds like it should be in your introduction. Aren't all your paragraphs examples of these "occasions"?
he did just that,
Where is the evidence?
he responds back with weird riddles
Where is the evidence? If you quoted some of his weird riddles, or something else from the scene, you could analyze it further. I think you need more quotations throughout this essay - which doesn't mean longer quotations. Just more of them.
I believe
Here again, you don't need this. It just sounds like you're not sure about your argument.
s, to me
Two things. 1) Don't connect separate sentences with a comma. 2) Why say, "To me it seems"? Don't be hesitant. Be confident about your argument.
his may be another reason
What is the reason? Say more here. But be careful, again, not to put two complete sentences together with a comma.
because he is unable to do this awful deed that he wants everyone who betrayed his father to suffer and has yet to figure out how to do as the ghost of his father tells him to do and follow through to feel satisfied with his revenge list he has on his head.
This sentence sort of runs away from you. Break it up into its separate ideas.
The fact that they make you sit at the edge of your seat with tension waiting for what’s to happen next.
Make sure that you write in complete sentences: "The fact IS that they make you ..."
The fact that the king’s ghost wants to spare Gertrude, might make things a little less clear to Hamlet. At this point, it is not certain who knows what and who is involved in the king’s murder.
You should do more analysis of the quotes, and make it more specific to the words of the quotes. For example, do we know that Hamlet ever did "love" his "dear father"? The way the ghost speaks makes us wonder. Or, why is the murder "unnatural"? Can the ghost really be sure Gertrude is going to heaven? I just mean, look more closely at the quotes.
Remember, the key grading criteria for this essay is depth of analysis. That means looking at the different possible interpretations of the specific words of the text, and connecting that to your thesis.
He showed no remorse sending two of his closest friend to a final and fatal journey to England and attributed their dead as their own doings.
This seems like the beginning of another example, rather than a conclusion.
Hamlet lack of passion to all things explains his passivity and apathy on his actions. He lacked the urge act in the spur of the moment and instead, he overcalculated his moves and thinking: his “native hue of resolution / Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought.”.
Here is your thesis, but it should be in the introduction, so that all of your paragraphs can develop from it.
Hamlet had the opportunity to challenge Claudius after the play, as Claudius is proven guilty by his visceral reaction to the plot. “Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave, That I, the son of a dear father murdered, Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell, Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words”. However once again Hamlet decides that it is not the appropriate moment as he doesn’t seem to be able to convince himself that revenge his father’s death is the right thing to do.
I feel like there is a lot more to say here. Why does Hamlet decide this is not the moment? What does it have to do with his reliance on "words?"
To his friends, Hamlet confesses that his madness is not real, regardless of what his “uncle-father and aunt-mother” believe: “I am but mad north-northwest: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.”
Again, you should connect this to your thesis.
Hamlet’s motives however, are ambivalent and he implies that Denmark is a prison, just like his mind: “there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.”
Can you connect this to your thesis? Do we have evidence that Claudius does not have the same problems that Hamlet does i.e. he is not a pragmatic intellectual and does have the passion required for action etc.
How can one blame Hamlet? How could a pragmatic intellectual believe in ghosts? And even if they existed, how could one be sure of the ghost’s intention?
Interesting questions. I think you should connect them to the subject of cowardice. They show - I think - that Hamlet is not a coward, but that he is a bit more pragmatic than passionate, which could help your argument.
Although Hamlet has strong convictions that Claudius have murdered his father, he is troubled about confronting Claudio
Here is where it would help to have stated your thesis more clearly in the introduction. This might be a good example of how he "lacks the passion to act," and that would be a good way to begin the paragraph.
Hamlet returns to Denmark to attend both his father’s funeral and his mother’s wedding to his father’s brother: his uncle Claudius. Hamlet has strong suspicious that his father’s death and mother’s rushed marriage are directly related and not a coincidence. His apprehensions were confirmed when the ghost of his father appears to him to confirm his suspicions: that his uncle Claudius is in fact guilty of poisoning him.
This is very well written paragraph, but I think Jonathon is correct. You should state your overall thesis more specifically here at the beginning.
More examples of his anger that back up the claim that it was not fate at all was how he reacted when Kreon brought the seer to help solve the city’s plague. Another was with his thought process clouded by excessive rage came to extreme and illogical theory of Kreon betraying him to claim the crown.
Why are you listing more examples in a conclusion? Your conclusion should be a return to your thesis, showing how your arguments developed your main point.
You have some serious work to do on this essay. Here are three things to focus on:
Your thesis needs to be more developed. You need to figure out exactly what you are arguing about Oedipus's anger problem, about how his jumping to conclusions without using his judgment makes his problems worse, how they chain react, etc.
You need to review CEA style. None of these paragraphs are written in CEA style. You've got no preliminary claims, the evidence is way too long for each, and the analysis is not specific to the evidence, but basically is just claims.
You need to analyze these quotes further. Remember, the key grading criteria for this essay is depth of analysis. That means thinking about the specific words of the quotes and analyzing different possible meanings, different possible interpretations. Then connect that back to your thesis.
, t
Don't connect two complete sentences with a comma.
which in a way was even much worse
Much worse than what? I'm confused here.
Oedipus- At a banquet, a man who had drunk too much wine claimed I was not my father’s son. Seething, I said nothing. All that day I barely held it in. But next morning I questioned mother and father. Furious, they took their anger out on the man who shot the insult. They reassured me. But the rumor still rankled, it hounded me. So, with no word to my parents, I traveled to Pythian oracle. But the god would not honor me with the knowledge I craved. Instead, his words flashed other things, horrible, wretched things, -at me: I would be my mother’s, I would show the world children no one could bear to look at, I would murder the father whose seed I am. When I heard that, and ever after, I traced the road back to Korinth only by looking at the stars. I fled to somewhere I’d never see outrages like those the god promised, happen to me. But my flight carried me to just the place where, you tell me, the king was killed. Oh, woman, here is the truth. As I approached the place where three roads joined, a herald, a colt-drawn wagon, and a man like the one you described, met me head on. The man out front and the old man himself began toc crowd me off the road. The driver who’s forcing me aside, I smashed in anger. The old man watches me, he measures my approach, then leans out lunging with his two spiked goad dead at my skull. He’s more than repaid: I hit him so fast with the staff this hand holds, he’s knocked back rolling off the cart. Where he lies, face up. Then I kill them all.
This quotation is much too long.
can be referred to
His anger can be referred to or his anger makes him seem like a mad man? What do you mean by madman, exactly?
It is clear Oedipus is willing to jump to extremes without any real thoughts to his judgement as king when angered.
This is describes his way of thinking a bit better: He is "jumping" to extremes without really using his judgment. What does it have to do with the chain reaction?
and
If you use "and" here, you are saying he wants to kill two different people. Without "and," then the subordinate clause becomes an appositive - which just means that it is a description of who the "once loyal subject" is and not an entirely different person.
The city is plagued with all the inhabitants suffering horrible deaths, why would anyone want to be king of these lands? But apparently it seemed well likely in the eyes of Oedipus,
This doesn't tell me anything. Why do you think Oedipus wanted to be king? What does that have to do with his character, his angry temperament, and your argument? Connect the points of your argument.
mind covered in rage
Where do you see rage in the quotation above? How does connect to your thesis about the "chain reaction" of his anger and how it is his fault that the story ends in tragedy?
After Oedipus went out his way to bring the seer to solve the city’s critical problem, he is soon after threating the seer’s life because of what he heard. After threating Oedipus claims he will not listen anymore, but they were just empty words because he continues to engage the seer.
Here again you are not connecting your analysis to the evidence. You can't really do analysis without talking about the specific words of the quotations, what about them suggests this to you. These sentences read much more like the claims that were missing at the top of your paragraph than analysis.
“T-You killed the man whose killer you now hunt. O- The second time is even me outrageous. You’ll wish you’d never said a word. T- shall I feed your fury with more words? O- Use any words you like. They’ll be wasted T-I say: you have been living unaware in the most hideous intimacy with your nearest and most loving kin immersed in evil that you cannot see. O- you think you can blithely go on like this? T- I can, if truth has any strength. O-Oh, truth has strength, but you have none. You have blind eyes, blind ears, and a blind brain. T- And you’re a desperate fool-throwing taunts at me that these men, very soon, will throw at you. O-You survive in the grip of black unbroken night! You can’t harm me or any man who can see the sunlight. T-I’m not the one who will bring you down. Apollo will do that. You’re his concern O- did you make up these lies? Or was it Kreon? T- Kreon isn’t your enemy. You are.
Again this is probably more than you need from the text.
Another example of Oedipus’s rage clouded his thought process was in lines 435-467
Same comment as on your transition sentence to body paragraph one.
Oedipus instantly thinking the hesitation of the seer to reveal what he knows to about the truth is an act of betrayal was an extreme response.
Absolutely true, but you have to connect your analysis specifically to the words of the evidence. What about the quotation tells you this? Where exactly do you see Oedipus' extreme behavior?
“Tiresias- You don’t understand! If I spoke of my grief, then it would be yours. Oedipus- What did you say? You know and wont help? You would betray us all and destroy Thebes? T- I’ll cause no grief to you or me. Why ask futile questions? You’ll learn nothing O- So the traitor won’t answer. You would enrage a rock. Still won’t speak? Are you so thick-skinned nothing touches you? T- You blame your rage on me? When you don’t see how she embraces you, this fury you live with? No, you blame me. O-Who wouldn’t be enraged? Your refusal to speak dishonors the city. T-I’d rather not. Rage at that, if you like, with all the savage fury in your heart. 0-That’s right. I am angry enough to speak my mind. I think you helped plot the murder. Did everything but kill him with your own hands. Had you eyes, though, I would have said you alone were the killer.”
Do you really need all of this quotation? Remember, you should have about three times more analysis than evidence. This looks like the opposite. You can assume that your reader has read the play.
In lines 397-419 show how, quick tempered Oedipus could be when even slightly irritated, leading to rash responses.
I'm sure you can come up with a more creative transition sentence than this. What are your claims for this paragraph?
Oedipus’s anger problems chain reacted a series of events
This is an interesting idea. I'll want to hear exactly what you mean by "chain reacted" here. Is it just that one thing leads to another? Is it that he keeps losing his temper and digging himself in deeper, as we say? Say more.
Even if Oedipus did not know who his real parents were, his fate could have been avoided if he never learned of the oracle.
Why did the gods give the oracle, then? Was it the oracle that made his fate occur, or did it just describe what was always going to happen anyway?
the degree of free will
This is a really interesting idea. Do you think Oedipus has any free will at all? Can he make any choices for himself, or does everything he does lead him to his fate? Explain more.
It was Apollo who did this.
Why don't you connect this to your thesis? Doesn't this prove that it wasn't Oedipus' fault, but Apollo (the gods)?
Some may feel pity for Oedipus or fear.
Does our pity or fear have anything to do with your thesis, that Oedipus was a victim of fate? Make the connections.
Not only does this quote show evidence that he is doomed by fate, it also shows that the anagnorisis is directly caused by the peripeteia in the play
Excellent point here
Furthermore, this play not only uses dramatic irony, as we also see a tragic plot taking place since the play is a tragedy after all. As mentioned previously we definitely see reversal (Peripeteia) and recognition (anagnorisis) devices being used. Peripeteia means a reversal of intention or a turning point. In Oedipus this happens when the Messenger shows up from Corinth.
Again, how does this relate to your argument? It seems like you are just including these terms and paragraphs because they were on the prompt. You should make them part of your argument. How does recognition and reversal reveal to us that Oedipus was, as your thesis argues, a victim of fate?
In the play we also should consider some factors, like the technique of dramatic irony being portrayed throughout the story. These kind of plays tend to be more suspenseful because the characters words and actions are clear to the readers although unknown to the character.
Here is where you might connect dramatic irony to the question of fate. This general introduction of the concept sounds like it is unrelated to the arguments that came before it.
Every attempt he makes to help his subjects of Thebes only serves to bring more harm to himself, we see that he has to keep forcing people to tell him the truth thinking it will save him and his people, but it only causes more harm when he finds out it was him all along. We even see his wife Jokasta beg him multiple times throughout the play to stop digging for answers, and even Tiresias warns him and says their lives will be easier if he would just send him back home.
How does this connect to your arguments about Oedipus' good intentions and unjust fate? It seems important, but you're not really making the connection explicit.
What did you will me to do?
Analyze your evidence in more depth. To "will" someone to do something is to force someone to do it. "Will" in this sense is what we mean when we say "free will." So in your quote you have specific evidence showing that it was not "free will" but Zeus' "will" that made Oedipus act. What better evidence could you find? But if you don't explain it then you're not really using it.
good intentions
Oedipus' good intentions are crucial. This is a very good description of his position; he has good intentions, and still does all the wrong things. You should include this idea about his good intentions in the thesis statement in the introduction, maybe. It is more powerful than saying that it was "unintentional."
Oedipus would have stayed in Korinth and eventually become the king there, but because he thought he was doing the right thing by running away it actually forced him to make his fate come true.
Can you take this line of argument one step further? If everything we do to avoid our fate only makes fall into the trap, then what? What's the next step in the argument?
even though we know what is to come
Maybe you can connect this point to the question of dramatic irony. Remember, the audience knows all along that Oedipus' fate will come true, and the suspense runs parallel to the workings of fate, which will entrap him in the end. How do our expectations of tragedy mirror the inevitability of his fate?
your birth has doomed you
Remember, the most important grading criteria for this essay is depth of analysis. Here is an opportunity for you to go further in your analysis. Why would being doomed from birth confirm your argument that Oedipus's fate is unfair and to blame, rather than his mistakes? Take your analysis further.
In my opinion I believe it is clear that
I don't think you need any of this first-person. It just makes you sound less authoritative. Be confident in your argument.
theme being used
Is it really a "theme being used," or is it the most important question in the whole play, the mystery that the play sets out to resolve? To say it is a "theme being used" doesn't tell us enough about how important it is.
Fate is the development of events beyond a person’s control, regarded as determined by a supernatural power. It is a very common theme used
I don't think you should begin with a general description of what fate is or how it comes up in literature in general. The important point is what fate is IN THE PLAY, not in life. What is fate in Oedipus' world/life/story? That would be a better place to begin.
cheat fate
I think you should include this idea of cheating fate in your thesis sentence and throughout your essay. This is the point, right? That Oedipus tried to cheat fate and failed? You've got it in two words here. You should focus on that.
how the gods take pleasure in causing pain one way or the other
Can we say then that fate is cruel? Or that the gods are cruel?
Oedipus became a victim of his father mistakes.
What does this have to do with fate? Being punished for a father's mistakes?
Despite his fear of the prophecy and trying to escape his reality, it has found him. Oedipus didn’t choose to kill his own father or marry his mother willingly.
Here, again, I think you can take your argument one step further and connect it to an overall thesis.
This is a moment of recognition for Oedipus. He is almost sure that he can potentially be Laios killer whom he has been looking for incessantly.
Very good point
Faith
I think you mean fate. However, faith and fate are connected in the play. Believing in Apollo's prophecies is a measure of faith.
faith
Do you mean fate? How does faith fit in here?
In this part of the story is where suspense starts to take place as the pieces of the puzzles are now being put together. This turns into a turning point in the story as Oedipus is now forced to want to know the details of Laios’ death.
Excellent
“a long time back, an oracle reached Laios, I don’t say Apollo himself sent it. But the priests who interpret him did. It said that Laios was destined to die at the hands of a son born to him and me. yet as rumor had it, foreign bandits killed Laios at a place where the roads meet” (Line 827 – 832; Page 726).
Remember to indent long quotes.
These events were all meant to happen to him. Therefore, there is not such thing as free will,
Very nice
Oedipus has been a victim of his own fate, from the moment he was conceived. Despite the attempts and decisions, he tried in many ways to cheat fate, but he couldn’t scape it.
Why don't you write your thesis this clearly in the actual essay? This thesis sentence should be in your introduction, not just your cover letter.
The story makes you question whether it was faith or freewill that has brought Oedipus into this situation.
Yes, but which do you think it was? Or why does the story present us with that question? Your essay needs a more complete thesis. The easiest thing is to choose a position, one side of the question. Or you might also write about the question itself, more specifically. That should be your overall thesis for the whole essay, maybe.
Although the will is not free, insofar as freedom would mean that each choice is completely neutral. However, not matter what decision Oedipus took; each one of them will lead him to his fate.
These are good points, but can you go one step further and form them into a complete thesis? He seems to have free will, but all his freely made choices lead to his pre-ordained fate. What's the next step in the argument?
today you will be born into ruin” and line 536 he also says to Oedipus:” your very luck is what destroyed you”.
The most important grading criteria on this essay is depth of analysis. These two quotes present opportunities for analysis. You might connect them both back to the overarching question of your paper. What does it mean to be born into ruin? Does that have anything to do with fate? What about having luck so bad that it destroys you? Make those connections and develop them.
You write that it represents the strength of faith over the weakness of men. How does faith connect to destiny, then? How does weakness connect?
Apollo
God of Prophecy ie Fate
by taking a very defensive stand to every accusation and confusing conclusions as evidence.
Excellent point. Can you connect it to the question of fate vs free will?
“What’s meant to be will be”, it’s a saying that most people use when they accept that we can’t not scape our own fate or destiny that life has in store for us.
I don't think you should open with a general statement about fate and what it means to us. Fate was a very different thing in Ancient Greece. I always advise students to avoid this sort of general first sentence and begin by going straight to the text. Perhaps you might tell us something about what Fate means in Oedipus's world, without referencing the text.
Laios the king that once ruled Thebes has been killed and Oedipus is on a quest to avenge his death; he sends for the blind seer Tiresias and when he is finally brought to him this is what he says to Oedipus: “the most terrible knowledge is the kind it pays no wise man to possess” (Line83-84; Page716). Oedipus has set himself for tragedy. He has no idea of what’s about to unfold as he is unaware of the destiny that has been set out for him. The seer doesn’t want to reveal to Oedipus what he knows causing the rage of Oedipus. To what the seer says: “you blame your rage on me? When you don’t see she embraces you, this fury you live with?” (Line 406-408; Page 717). The rage the seer speaks about is the curse that has fallen upon oedisus which becomes a series of unfortunate events. Consequently, Oedipus flaws are responsible for the disaster that takes place in the story including his lack of self-control and anger.
This seems to me more like a body paragraph than an introduction paragraph. It is dangerous to use quotes in an introduction, and it seems like you are here introducing the first of Oedipus' flaws - or misfortunes - anger.
I think your introduction would be much stronger if you just introduced your point of view and then described the organization of the arguments to follow.
conclusion, Oedipus’ tragedy is caused by his own mistakes, not the fate. Not only because he does not listen to other’s advices which challenge his power and escapes the fate on purpose, but is his thoughtlessness and emotion, and living unawareness. All of those are the mistakes he made to push him close to his tragedy. The tragedy tells us not to abuse the power we have and listen to others. Also, do not escape the fate we are afraid of, face it.
This is a very strong first draft. My main suggestion is to do more in-depth analysis of the words of the quotations. Really go to the next level - analysis is the most important criteria for this essay.
If he has been aware of something, he may choose to keep it as a secret and leave the country, That may prevent him from the tragedy he made. However, he is not, he chose to dig into the fact deeper.
In fact, that is exactly what both Tiresias and Jokasta asked him to do: stop searching for the truth. Why does he insist?
From what Tiresias’ saying, he is not aware of who he is at all. Even though he has eyes, he cannot see the true himself.
Excellent point. Say more about "self-knowledge."
he lives unawareness
Can you explain what you mean here? What exactly is this mistake?
From what he said, he is so scare of what the oracle said. Therefore, he ran away from the parents, who raised him, Polybos and Merope. When he heard his life like that, he chose to escape. He said, “traced the road back to Korinth only by looking at the stars.” From what he said, it seems he really do not want to be the one as the oracle saying. That’s because he has chosen to leave his parents, who raise him and love him, rather to live a life like that. With this fear, he escaped the fate on purpose pushing him closer to the fate he was afraid of. In order to disobey the predicted fate, he arrived Thebe. He says, “my flight carried me to just the place where, you tell me, the king was killed.” If he does not listen to what the oracle said as does not listen to Tiresias said, he will not leave the parents who raise him and go to Thebe. His tragedy caused by himself at the beginning: he escaped his fate on purpose.
Can you analyze the quote more closely? What do the specific words of the quote reveal? For example, it is significant that before Oedipus describes the prophecy, he says "horrible, wretched things."
Escaping his fate on purpose push him closer to the tragedy
Great point. I would say "trying to escape his fate," but it's the same idea.
He said, “I kill them all” as saying “I have dinner today.” It seems so plain when he is saying this. He does not think there is anything wrong or special by killing the people who obstructed his way. He doesn’t ever care about lives.
Yes it's very strange the way he says it. I'm not sure it's totally thoughtless though. Why does he say it in the present tense? Why not 'I killed them all'?
What do you mean by "thoughtless?" Can you say more? He definitely has some anger issues.
If someone say something wrong to him, he rather thinks that they must want to harm his power instead of concerning the words that the seer meant.
Excellent point
“It took Oedipus, the know-nothing, to silence her. I needed no help from the birds; I used my wits to find the answer.”(718)
This is the only quotation from above you need. Oedipus's power is based on knowledge, which is exactly what Tiresias is challenging. Say more.
Why—when the Sphinx who barked black songs was hounding us— why didn’t you speak up and free the city? Her riddle wasn’t the sort just anyone who happened by could solve: prophetic skill was needed. But the kind you learned from birds or gods failed you. It took Oedipus, the know-nothing, to silence her. I needed no help from the birds; I used my wits to find the answer. I solved it—the same man for whom you plot disgrace and exile, so you can maneuver close to Kreon’s throne. But your scheme to rid Thebes of its plague will destroy both you and the man who planned it.” (718-719, line470-485)
This quote seems a bit long to me. Can you use only part of it? Remember, you should have three times as much claims and analysis as evidence.
Remember that the main grading criteria for this essay will be depth of analysis. That means, lots of analysis of every quote - of every word in every quote, really.
For example, it is ironic when Oedipus calls himself the "know-nothing." Why?
Oedipus does not accept any advices that challenging his power.
Excellent point
The author uses many dramatic ironies to get the readers into the story as real. During we are reading this tragedy, how many times we want to tell Oedipus the truth he is figuring out; how many moments we feel sad to the characters; how many times we want to tell the main characters do not curse himself like that. The readers are worrying what will happen if the main character find out the truth.
This is an excellent description of the uses of dramatic irony and how it makes the audience feel. I wonder if you can connect it to the question of fate and free will? How does dramatic irony and suspense connect to Oedipus' mistakes? How do we react when we watch him making those mistakes?
four points, four mistakes he made
That seems like a good, focused idea.
The continuous actions by Medea should help validate that she is insane and this condition should be used to help sympathize for her character.
Your essay is well-written, focused, well-organized, and it stays on topic from the beginning to the end. You use your claims really well, and continually return to this thesis throughout. You quote well - though your analysis should go into more depth. This is a solid first-draft, with some very good writing in it.
That said, I really think your thesis has to be more complex. Just calling Medea insane is not enough - not unless you really analyze how she thinks and describe how her thinking is sick. I have pointed out a few places where it seemed like you might have some evidence of her strange thought process. But most of your evidence is not really appropriate to this thesis and your analysis doesn't go far enough.
Medea was incapable of making rational decisions.
I have to argue with this point. It seems to me that everything she does is rational (that is, for a reason). We might not agree with her reasons, but she certainly has them. Making plans, as you note she does, is by definition "rational."
She could have easily taken them with her in her travels to reside with Aegeus.
This is a good point. If she flies away on a magic chariot in the end, it seems like she might have been able to take the kids with her, if she had wanted to.
This passage exhibits so much evidence of how we can conclude that Medea is not mentally right.
Actually, I think there is a lot of evidence here that Medea is sane. She knows that what she is going to do is a terrible crime. She knows that she will regret it for the rest of her life. She knows that it will cause her terrible pain. That is all evidence of sanity.
An in-depth analysis would consider why she feels that, despite all that, it is "necessary." Why does she claim to be "cursed by fortune?"
She finally justifies her actions as even if she does kill her children, so what, they were hers. For someone to actually think that killing their children should be ok because they belonged to them is absolutely ludicrous. There is surely no excuse for killing your own innocent children unless in your mind you see no wrong with it, thus labeling you as an insane individual.
This is a really interesting observation, but your arguments are not at all convincing. It is really strange that she says, basically, 'they were mine anyway, so I can kill them if I need to.' Very strange and scary. But just to call it "absolutely ludicrous" and "insane" tells me nothing about it. Why is it so strange? What is ludicrous about it? Her point makes a certain kind of sense, even if we find it bizarre and horrifying. Yet you haven't explored the nuances at all.
Just calling Medea crazy all the time is like a short-cut or what Fiona Shaw called a cop-out -- you have to explain exactly how Medea's way of thinking is bizarre. This quote is weird and scary and you could use to make a strong argument - if you explained it rather than just "labeling" it.
but talking to their own hand is another level of crazy.
I think that she's just being rhetorical. In order for this to be really "crazy," wouldn't she have to believe that her hand was listening?
“My friends, it is decided: as soon as possible I must kill my children and leave this land before I give my enemies a chance to slaughter them with a hand that’s moved my hatred. They must die anyway, and since they must, I will kill them. I’m the one who bore them. Arm yourself, my heart. Why am I waiting to do this terrible, necessary crime? Unhappy hand, act now. Take up the sword, just take it; approach the starting post of pain to last a lifetime; do not weaken, don’t remember that you love your children dearly, that you gave them life. For one short day forget your children. Afterward you’ll grieve. For even if you kill them, they were yours; you loved them. I’m a woman cursed by fortune.” (p. 817, lines 1260-1275)
Remember to indent long quotes.
She rationalizes that it is better for her to commit the act then her enemies to do it for their hatred of her.
How do you explain her rationalizing her act? This sort of thinking - even if we don't agree with her reasons - has to be connected to the question of her mental abilities.
Pathetic! Really, I must have been insane to stand opposed to those who plan so well, to be an enemy to those in power and to my husband, who’s done so well by me…
Remember how we talked in class about Medea using Jason's perspectives against him, claiming that she was only upset because she was a women etc, in order to deceive him? This may be something similar; she does not really believe she is pathetic or insane - she is only using his prejudices to entrap him. Of course, she thinks she is the one who "plans well," not Jason - and in fact, her plan is the successful one in the end.
For someone to know “many” paths of death and the only trouble being which one to choose from shows how she has been thinking about this moment for quite sometime.
Excellent point. This is a really interesting piece of analysis - she must think about murder way too much, if she "knows so many pathways" etc.
Knowing the consequences she will suffer if she was ever caught demonstrates that she is not in her right mind.
In fact, in a trial, this is exactly the point that disqualifies a defendant from pleading insanity. If you understand that you are doing something wrong and know the consequences, then you technically can't be judged legally insane.
Someone who is willing to kill a king and his daughter must surely be “insane.
She says later that she kills the princess just to punish Jason. That's not necessarily insane so much as vindictive and spiteful. What's really creepy about the quote is how she describes killing them - turning her enemies into dead bodies. Not the way most people would think about it. That is perhaps evidence of a disturbed or dangerous view of life. Can you describe it in more nuanced terms than "insane"?
I left you in horror- I killed my own brother.
Maybe you could focus more on the "horror" of this. Clearly, being able not just to kill but to dismember a family member, a brother, for a total stranger, is evidence of the capacity to commit atrocities -- and not out of anger, emotionally, but strategically, so Jason could escape.
Remember, the most important grading criteria for this essay will be depth of analysis - which means, in part, really focusing on the words of the quotations.
psychotic
Again, be careful with how you use these mental health terms. We say psychotic, informally, as a synonym for crazy. But in fact psychosis is a real health designation - it means someone who has lost touch with our shared reality - and it doesn't really describe Medea here.
Rather than psychotic, Medea is deceitful and manipulative and cunning. Evil maybe. Definitely dangerous. Crazy, I'm not so sure.
capable of making rational decisions
The scary thing is that this is rational - she reasons that the fleet of ships chasing her and Jason will have to stop to collect all of the pieces of her brother. She is not acting irrationally.
and much less to help someone they don’t even know
This might be better evidence of Medea's mental instability/unhealthy emotional state: she falls in love too quickly, with a total stranger, and is willing to do anything for him. This suggests insanity, to me, a lot more than fighting a dragon.
If Medea having the courage to fight fire-breathing bulls doesn’t convince someone that she has a screw loose, then having the fortitude to face a dragon definitely should. Who in their right mind would ever face a dragon and much less to help someone they don’t even kno
This is very funny, but I'm not sure it's effective to describe what is clearly a story from mythology as evidence that Medea "has a screw loose." So does every hero in every fairy-tale who ever fought a monster, then - which would obviously be true, if they were fighting monsters in real life.
Mental health questions like insanity really belong to another genre - Realism - whereas stories about killing dragons are fantasy.
mental disturbance
For example, how do you distinguish mental disturbance from insanity? Or are you using the two terms interchangeably.
where we could label her as insane
I'm going to suggest that we be very careful with how we use labels like "insane" here. In a strict legal sense, committing a murder does not make a person insane. If we are going to apply mental health perspectives to literary characters, we are going to have to be very deliberate in finding evidence of mental instability.
Can killing your own children ever be justified?
I think you might avoid beginning your essay with this question. You should begin with your arguments, rather than with the question from the prompt that your essay sets out to answer. Maybe you can pose the problem in new terms. In fact, your essay is not really about "justifying" or condemning Medea's actions at all, but about passing judgment on her mental state. Begin with that, maybe.
tells him his name is “Noman.”
Keep going. The identity/anonymity part of the story is really interesting - how does it connect to the uses or mis-uses of xenia?
in the form of story.
What story does he tell Polyphemus? What about Polyphemus instantly assuming he is a "pirate?"
acting out of xenia
What do you mean, acting out? It seems like he is testing the limits of xenia, maybe. He wants to see if the cyclops will give him a gift (token) of friendship, and then proceeds to behave badly. This point should be explored further earlier in the essay.
Odysseus uses his clout as both a storyteller and as a warrior in order to intimidate people into giving him things that he needs. Here, his stories and claims fall on deaf ears when Polyphemus completely dismisses the importance Odysseus tries to instill in Polyphemus of him and his men by eating two of them.
How does the Polyphemus episode connect to Odysseus's selective uses of the xenia ideology? Analyze your quotes further and connect them to your thesis.
Later Odysseus goes on to tell the Phaeacians about what happened when Polyphemus arrived home. Polyphemus returns to his cave and moves a gigantic boulder over the opening, which serves as his door and as soon as the giant Cyclops notices Odysseus and his men he immediately asks them who they are.
Again, you're using plot summary in place of claims here.
At least that’s Odysseus’ mentality in this story with Polyphemus.
This sentence seems totally unnecessary. Be confident. It's your essay - make your points boldly.
As Odysseus and his crew land on the land of the Cyclopses they happen upon a cave filled with milks, cheeses and giant goats. The crew urges Odysseus that they shouldn’t stay long and Odysseus ignores them. They consume the food, including slaughtering and cooking the goats when Polyphemus, the cave’s inhabitant, arrives.
Be careful. This is all plot summary and should not be part of a CEA paragraph.
Polyphemus. After Odysseus and what’s left of his crew leave Ismaros they journey to the land of the Cyclopses.
Why is there another paragraph break here? Keeping your paragraphs intact and in the CEA form is a key part of this exercise. You don't need short transition paragraphs between your arguments - especially not transition sentences, like this one, which are just plot summary.
Poseidon is a very powerful god and perhaps the most prominent antagonist in The Odyssey.
Keep your claims focused on the thesis of your essay. This transition feels like you're wandering off-topic - though of course Poisedon's anger against Odysseus is central to the depiction of xenia in the book.
At this point in The Odyssey, Alcinous hasn’t yet offered Odysseus safe passage home,
Are you suggesting that Odysseus tells this story to frighten Alcinous into offering him passage? Connect your points here.
his sort of take on xenia
What exactly is his take on xenia?
Odysseus is telling the Phaeacians of his exploits and wants to include a story about how he murdered a bunch of people for their valuables.
To make this sentence into a strong claim, you might focus on the strangeness of what you're suggesting: WHY does Odysseus want to brag about "murdering a bunch of people for their valuables?" Be more direct.
Odysseus’ story of Ismaros serves to show how xenia can be used to justify murder for the sake of self-betterment.
This is crystal clear, but I think you might go a little bit further in setting out some of the nuances of your thesis here. You might say more about your idea of the weaponization of xenia - an original and interesting perspective. Was it just Odysseus's personal use of xenia as a tool for survival and self-enrichment? Or did the Greeks use xenia as a social tool to advance their culture in the face of competing cultures? (For example, the cyclops episode is sometimes read as a parable of Greek proto-colonialism, as an encounter with a competing pre-agrarian culture).
In any case, use your first paragraph as a more general introduction, a chance to describe your thesis in detail and outline your ideas. I would hesitate to jump into the quotations so quickly.
lying, stealing, or cheating
Why is he so dishonest? What about being cunning might have made him so appealing to a Greek audience? Yes, we don't approve of our heroes lying - but we do have lots of crafty, sneaky, not entirely honest heroes today. Think about all the heist movies and cops vs robbers movies, in which the heroes are thieves or swindlers. We still appreciate trickster characters, in a sense.
Their actions caused them to lose six men per ship when Zeus cursed them to suffer heavy losses. Even when they thought they cheated destiny and death Zeus caused a huge hurricane in order to make them suffer further for nine days.
I'm not sure this is necessary. You can assume that the reader (me) knows the plot. Why is it important that Odysseus' lack of respect and civility causes him to suffer?
his whole book is based on respect and hospitality, but Odysseus failed to show these characteristics when him and his men pillaged the town of Cicones because of greed
Excellent. So is this contradiction a flaw in the plot of the poem, or does it suggest something? Is it a deliberate message about Greek society and how much all that respect and hospitality is really worth (not very much, it seems)?
Additionally, it is safe to say that compared to modern-day society, Greek society has a different definition of what is deemed as savagery and civilized.
Again, I feel like this comparison to our times is not the best way to end your essay. I think you should focus more closely on the poem and try to take your arguments a little further.
e even see in book seventeen one of the suitors tells Antinous “ That was foul, Antinous, hitting a poor beggar. You’re done for if he turns out to be a god. Come down from heaven, they way they do, disguised as strangers from abroad or whatever, going around to different cities, and seeing who’s lawless and who lives by the rules” ( Lines 524-529). This is the perfect quote to show that criminals and savages are those who do not show hospitality to strangers, and will be condemned by the gods.
I think that this quote might deserve a body paragraph, rather than just to appear in your conclusion. It is an excellent example of what the consequences might be for a lack of hospitality - for everyone but Odysseus.
All in all, it is clear that Greek society has different definitions of what is civilized and savagery.
I think you might write a more creative transition sentence here. Be direct. If the most important part of the sentence is "what is civilized and savagery," then put that at the beginning of the sentence as the subject.
Odysseus is saying this f because disregarding hospitality is a serious offense in the Greek and it is so important that he has to remind this Cyclops, because he knows something bad will happen if someone does not welcome strangers.
Why is this the case? Can you take your argument a little further to consider why disregarding hospitality might have been such a big deal?
But what is defined as right or wrong, civilized or savagery in Greek society?
I think you might rephrase this, so that it isn't a question but a description of this contradiction you have been exploring. You do a good job of answering it, in any case.
He is supposed to be this epic hero who helped defeat the trojans, but throughout the story we see him acting out in savage like behavior.
Do you think Homer might be trying to tell us what those 'heroes' from ancient times were really like?
But beside that, murdering, lying, stealing, and cheating are not considered serious crimes because we see that when Odysseus does it, it is never pointed out as a savage like behavior or a crime.
Why might this be true? Why do you think hospitality is so much more important for Odysseus than peace or justice? Say more.
intelligent and self-possessed
When we think of someone who is "intelligent and self-possessed," lying and cheating for an advantage is not what comes to mind. I think you can focus your analysis on the words of the quotations a bit more closely.
This definitely shows us that in the Greek society, Odysseus is the kind of man who is civilized and someone everyone should glorify.
I think you've already made this point. You might be able to edit some of this, and take your analysis one step further.
In today’s society a hero does not lie, as it’s usually the villains who are corrupt and misleading.
You should be careful about too many comparisons with "today's society." Your essay will be more interesting and will go further if you focus on the poem and how strange it is, rather than how different ancient Greece was from our world.
because the gods act like this to,
This is a really interesting point. I think that you should focus this paragraph on this part of your argument - not just that Odysseus lies and cheats, but that the gods do too. Which gods lie and cheat? Athena is often in disguise, pretending to be someone else. Odysseus also has his disguises. What does it accomplish?
It appears that slaughtering a town for no good reason and stealing someone’s goods are part of the “norm”in a civilized society and not something that is seen as wrongdoing or savagery.
Can you take your argument one step further here? How would you describe this 'norm,' as you see it? What is the value of civilization, if Odysseus can still sack cities and kill innocent people whenever he likes? Say more.
Just looking at these few lines we begin to wonder what is the line between being civilized and being considered a savage.
I think you might rephrase this sentence. This is the first glimpse of the contradiction - don't be afraid to be dramatic and direct.
Book nine, lines 43-45 and lines 169-171 of the Odyssey portrays a contradiction of Greek society
I think you might begin with a more engaging, creative first sentence. You should jump right into the heart of your argument. What is the contradiction your are going to write about? Start with that at the very beginning.