Nice reprisal of the three main subjects of your essay, but I think you might come up with a more inspired, exciting final twist here for a conclusion.

Again, way too general. Stick to your specific argument.

True, but I think you are getting at some much more interesting points in this paragraph, and these final claims are much too bland and obvious.

Excellent point. Is blaming the whims of the gods another way of suggesting that good luck today might turn to bad luck tomorrow etc?

You should read the story of Aphrodite and Adonis. There is perhaps a suggestion, in that particular myth being named, that the future may not only hold success and happiness, and that the newlyweds who are so happy today might feel very differently tomorrow. Adonis and Aphrodite have a tragic love story - not a happy one. Sappho is always striking a sad note at the happiest moment, or vice-versa, to suggest that human emotions are always changing, or that life always holds something else in store for us.

Why is it no surprise? Do you mean that the Greeks are always calling for the gods or imagining them intervening in human affairs?

I think you can be a little more direct here. How exactly do they depend on the (their?) perception of the gods' attitudes? Say more about the connection between the social world of the Greeks and their vision of the gods.

This is all excellent. A thoughtful, original interpretation.

I'm curious what you think this success looks like and if it is the same for both. It is slightly odd that the poet wishes them both well separately - not, 'may you (both) fare well' but 'may you and you fare well.' Does that suggest something about how enjoined their lives and future success will be?

What does it hint about the married life that they are about to begin? Intriguing point - I want to hear just a little more about it in the introduction.

I don't understand what you mean, "not without reason." Just that they have a purpose? Say more. If so, what kind of purpose? What social function or role?

I'm sure you can find a more creative, original way to begin your essay. Yes, there are many opinions, but what is yours? Be direct and go straight into the heart of your argument with an engaging opening sentence.

Interesting point. This seems like a good example of him only ever seeing things from his own perspective. Is this a flaw in his character? How would you describe it? What other moments reveal it?

Why can't he see his own mistakes or blame himself? Is he blind, in a way? Is this the same thing as being selfish - only being able to see things from your own perspective?

This is a really interesting point - you shouldn't wait until the last sentence in your paragraph to make it. How is he not very heroic? Perhaps the whole paragraph should be about how he is arrogant rather than heroic.

Why does he do this? Can you say more about his arrogance? What makes him behave this way?

Who is speaking here?

Arrogance is a great subject for a paragraph, but I don't know that's what your going to write about until we get here. It would be much better to start out by saying, directly, what Odysseus' arrogance does to him, or something along those lines.

How is this claim related to your argument about suffering? Remember, in a CEA paragraph transition sentences don't just set the scene - they also introduce the subject of the next argument. What are you arguing in this paragraph?

I think you should rephrase this. You seem to be suggesting that Odysseus's cruelty and "unreason" or irrationality is what makes him suffer, but you don't say so until the end of the sentence, which makes your point less clear. Perhaps you should turn this into two sentences, or revise it somehow.

I think you might combine these sentences and ideas. They seem to be related, but how you think they are connected is not exactly clear. This might make for a really strong first sentence, if you can find a way to rewrite it. Alternatively, you might just jump straight into the specifics of your argument about Odysseus. It is usually best to be as direct as possible.

Be specific. This is true, but your conclusion should be about your arguments, not about the poem. What have you proven in your essay?

Is she at that level, or is she going to keep repeating the mistake that she "frequently" makes? Perhaps writing the poem is a way to change?

Excellent. Awareness in the poem is a great subject for a paragraph. What is she aware of? What is she not aware of? Does her awareness help her?

Interesting. You should say more about her anger. I'm really curious about this idea. You might develop it more and make it another paragraph.

Remember that Anne Carson uses the brackets to tell the reader that a part of the poem is missing or lost. Sappho didn't put the brackets in the poem herself. What do you think might have been there? Perhaps you might write about what Anne Carson, the translator, is suggesting with her brackets - what is the story she is telling?

If she is aware, why does she do it? If she knows she is only going to suffer, why doesn't she change?

You have already said this. Your claims should describe the argument of the paragraph. This paragraph is about how she wants to suffer. I'm sure you can write a claim about that.

I think you should focus more on this question of vulnerability. Does love always make us vulnerable? What sort of vulnerable position is she in? Say more.

I think you can analyze the word "harm" here a littl ebit more. Yes it is a sad image and sounds aggressive - but what kind of harm are we talking about here? Harm her in what sense? Is emotional pain the same as physical pain?

I think you can go further here in describing her disappointment. If we "expect" this, is that why we are so disappointed? Should we expect to be hurt by the people we love instead? Is that the point of the poem?

This claim is way too vague and general. You should jump right into the heart of your argument. What are you arguing in this paragraph?

This is nicely put, but I wonder if you might sum this up in fewer words. What exactly are we talking about here? Is it how love makes us vulnerable? Is it the connection between love and suffering? I would keep this, but try to summarize it a bit more succinctly first.

Again, this point is true but seems pretty basic. Your essay should be developing an original argument - that Odysseus's pride caused him and his men to suffer is not that. Go further.

All of this is just repeating the point about how it was dangerous for him to taunt Polyphemus. It isn't really an argument, just the same idea drawn out for half a paragraph.

What can we say about Odysseus's pride, other than that it was dangerous? I'm sure you can make a bolder, more complex argument than this.

This point is pretty obvious, isn't it? Perhaps you can consider what makes Odysseus taunt Polyphemus - that might help you describe his pride with more nuance.

Long quotes like this should be indented.

Who is speaking?

Again, this claim is way too vague and general. Yes, pride causes Odysseus to suffer, but what argument about his pride are you making? Develop your point further.

Be careful to write in complete sentences.

Is greed the same thing as hunger then? If you think so, explain.

Again, good work connecting your evidence back to the subject of greed here. I still think this paragraph could make the same point much faster. Then you might ask more interesting questions: why are Odysseus and his men so greedy? Why is everyone in the poem obsessed with gifts and treasure? Is it meant to be ironic that being greedy means Odysseus loses all of his treasure?

This part of the paragraph, connecting your evidence to the subject of greed, is a claim. But be careful not to summarize so much of the plot or include such long quotations. Get to your argument faster.

Don't write about greed in general - write about greed in the poem. Be specific and go straight into your argument.

I'm sure you can find a more creative, original way to begin your essay than this. Your first sentence here is the most general description of the plot of the poem. Wouldn't it be better to go right into the heart of your argument? You can assume that the reader (me) is familiar with the plot.

The second sentence here - your thesis - is much too general. Yes, suffering is a theme. But what is your argument about suffering in the poem?

Is it the gods who bring those consequences on humans? Can you explain more this idea of consequences?

Do you think that Homer intends to confuse readers about who is at fault? If so, why does he do it? Answering these questions might make your thesis more complex.

Instead of using the first-person, "I am positive," maybe you can explain a little bit more about what you mean by the reason why. Is it the gods punishing humans for their crimes, like Odysseus attacking a town in the Cicones?

This seems like it should be a separate body paragraph considering Penelope and how Odysseus has caused her to suffer.

Like what? These instances might be good examples for your argument. Find some evidence in them.

Expand on this. How does being a pirate not go with the story of Odysseus trying for years to reach home? What is the contradiction?

Remember to introduce evidence. Who is speaking here?

That he brought what upon himself? Be specific.

Say more about this. How did the suitors plan for the situation to go? What was reckless about what they did?

When he says it was both divine destiny AND their own recklessness, isn't he saying it is both the gods AND humans themselves who cause human suffering? He is restating the problem. Analyze in more depth.

I'm not sure how all this part of the sentence helps your argument. It distracts me a bit from the point you are trying to make. Be as direct as possible.

How do you fit this into your thesis that humans are to blame? If the gods are meddling, then is it really that simple? I think you can make your thesis more complicated and interesting.

I'm sure you could find a more creative way to begin this essay. Rather than the question, why not jump right into the heart of your argument.

This is a really interesting idea. I wish you had brought up his failing in his responsibilities and the harm it caused sooner - maybe in the introduction, as part of your thesis. That way, you would be able to investigate the idea throughout the essay.

Again, all plot summary here. Review the CEA lecture notes on the class website.

Again, this is all plot summary, not a CEA argument.

How does this quote connect to your thesis? How does Poisedon's anger connect to humans bringing suffering on themselves?

This is a claim. You should start your paragraph with claims. Then, introduce evidence and analyze it, connecting it to this idea i.e. what kind of wrong decisions do they make? Why do they make them? How does it cause them to suffer?

Be careful not to summarize the plot or recapitulate the story. This passage seems like a long section of plot summary to me, which is not part of the CEA paragraph. Instead, analyze the evidence (quotations) and connect it to your claims.

Careful with incomplete sentences. Maybe these two should be combined.

What exactly is their human nature? Is it weakness - they are always doing what they shouldn't do, making tragic mistakes? Say more.

I think you might find a more creative, engaging way to begin this essay. Rather than starting with a question, why not go straight into your argument?

Remember to introduce your quotations. Tell us who is speaking. You must do this every time.

The double-standard is not just in mortal society, but also among the gods - that is what Calypso is saying here. Why?

I'm confused by your questions here. Try to connect all this more closely to your thesis.

Again, if you ask the question, you should also answer it.

Try to cut all this use of the first-person "I"

Again, I don't think this whole quote is necessary here.

How do they take control of human free will? Do any of your examples show this?

What do these examples of selfishness have to do with your thesis?

Answer your own question. Doesn't she call Zeus and the other gods jealous bastards (or something like that) for sending Odysseus home?

Remember to separate and indent long quotes. Make sure to only quote what you need to analyze.

What is especially true in her case? Revise your thesis sentence so as to include its relevance to Penelope.

Remember that the intro paragraph should be separate from body paragraph one, where you begin the CEA format.

These words are unnecessary and make the sentence less clear. Be careful with the first-person "I" here.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the mainstream" here. Say more about this relation, as you see it. How does it work?

Rather than making this comparison with "the times of The Odyssey," it would be more interesting to consider what Homer might have been attempting to say, by giving so many female characters such a clear role.

You have a number of these short, declarative, incomplete sentences in the essay. One or two might be okay, but probably not so many or as the last sentence in a paragraph.

Instead of saying that it is obvious, describe the dynamic. How exactly does Homer make us recognize the meaningful purpose these women have? Be specific.

Why do you think this aspect of the story so prominent in this section?

One think you have not yet described is why Athena helps him. Why is he her favorite? Why does she arrange all this, so that everything works out for him?

What exactly is the irony here? That the powerful god would appear as a powerless child? Spell it out for us.

What might have happened to him? Aren't the Phaeacians very unfriendly to strangers?

It is almost like Athena is setting up the narrative, like she is the poet herself, with a plan to set up the plot. Say more about this maybe.

Now she is the one planning for him!

Can you describe a bit further what kind of support Athena is giving Odysseus here? Step back and connect it to your overall idea of the female figures in the poem.

Page numbers?

Be careful of plot summary. You can get away with a little of it, but it is much better to use your transition sentences to connect your arguments to your overall thesis.

In your cover letter, you write that these women characters are never really given full credit. That part of your thesis doesn't appear here -- though it might be the most interesting part of all. Is Homer not giving the women the credit they deserve? Say more.

Not sure that this mention is necessary; perhaps it would be better to say that in the world of the Odyssey, women are represented as socially inferior - we don't really know anything about how accurate or truthful the poem is.

I'm not sure these are exactly the same qualities, though they are also perhaps human weaknesses, from our perspective.

Fascinating point. Why have you waited until the conclusion to put it like this? You should put this idea in your introduction and then show throughout the body paragraphs how the ripple effects work, what they look like, etc.

Careful to write in complete sentences. Maybe connect with the previous sentence.

Again, these words seem unnecessary.

Great point. Are these the benefits you began by discussing?

Evidence?

Are these moments then examples of human weakness? Can you connect this more closely to your thesis be describing them as "consequences?"

Do you think that Homer is suggesting that Odysseus has brought his misfortune on himself? If so, can you find evidence for this? Take your analysis further here, perhaps by considering how we are meant to see Odysseus.

Why does he think so? What is the meaning of the hospitality gift and the hospitality ritual? How does it connect to the gods?

Wouldn't this sentence be much more direct and positive if you edited out some of these extra words and just wrote something like, "Odysseus blinded the Cyclops because ..."

What do you mean by symbiotic here? Very interesting. Say a bit more.

Very clear thesis. I hope that you will describe those consequences and/or benefits with the same words, so that we are brought back to the thesis throughout.

Great point. Athena, though she is female, is described in very masculine terms, she is always eager for battle, and she often appears as a man. Perhaps she is a good example of Homer's misogyny. More about Penelope?

Rather than using this contrast to end the essay, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on how Homer does give his female characters some power. What does female power look like in the Odyssey? That might be a more interesting twist to conclude with.

I think this has to be a whole paragraph also, maybe at the beginning. Questions about Penelope's fidelity are central to the poem, and she is directly contrasted with both Helen, but even more, Helen's sister, Clytemnestra. Say more about Penelope.

I think the example of Helen could make for another body paragraph. She is a really interesting character: Homer seems biased against her, but also depicts her as very powerful. She sits on a beautiful chair, argues with her husband, drugs him and their guests. Say more about her.

Remember not to end a paragraph with evidence. Is it important that the sphere of the gods is just as unfair as the realm of mortals - Zeus can sleep with as many mortal women as he wants, but no goddess is allowed to take a mortal lover?

I think you might revise this thesis sentence. Do you mean he spends a good share of the poem doing this? Or this is his general outlook on women? Your point is clear, but I think might be developed.

Excellent. This sentence sets up the arrangement of ideas to follow very well.

I don't think you need to begin with the question. It would probably be better just to jump right into your argument, or perhaps ask the question in your intro paragraph, and then answer it.

Your conclusion should return to the thesis, now changed by your arguments. Avoid comparisons with "today."

Very interesting. Doesn't this connect to "godlike" from the beginning of the poem?

Again, off-topic here.

Is this the danger? Say more.

Interesting, but you should stick to your thesis about this poem. What is new about it and how is it dangerous, connected to "peril" etc?

I'm confused here. She is describing how she felt?

Again, connect to your thesis.

You have already compared to present common experience in relationships. You can get away with that maybe once or twice only. Instead of comparing to our times, why don't you analyze the words of the quotes in more depth. How is this connected to your thesis about "peril?"

Sweet how? What are sweet words?

Excellent. Say more about this distance. Describe it. What kind of distance are we talking about? Emotional? Physical? Difference in esteem? Power? Also, why do the words equal and opposite appear so close together? Can you connect the specific words to your argument.

Two points: 1) Where is the thesis sentence? I don't see a single unifying idea here. What about being at peril with oneself? This is the place for that idea. 2) Your introduction paragraph should be separate from the first paragraph, in which you begin writing in CEA. Maybe a paragraph break at "despite"?

I like this idea very much, but I am going to want you to explain exactly what you mean. How can one be "at peril with oneself?" What does that look like? What is the danger she faces?

Instead of a question, you will need to come up with a thesis statement in the form of a positive statement or answer. What are you going to try to prove?

I always tell students not to begin with general introductions about "people" or about "life," but by going straight into the specifics of the text you are writing about. Use the story to build toward bigger points - don't start with the big picture.

I think you will need to arrive at a more satisfying conclusion. Have you answered the question that you began the essay with?

I think you can describe in stronger terms than this the situation that Oedipus finds himself in.

Several sentences in one here.

I think you mean "his" here.

These "signs" are the signs of his fate, and so connected to your central question. You should make those connections here by looking more closely at the quotes.

Instead of just moving to the next event in the plot, you will need to analyze the quotations in more depth. What can you tell us about Jokasta and maybe also about Oedipus by thinking more closely about what she says? What do the words mean (key words, metaphors, suggestions etc)?

This is an entertaining simile; to make it work, however, you will have to explain the connection. Are you saying that Oedipus was just doing what came naturally to him? Being himself? Losing self-control? Explain.

What about this quote makes you think Oedipus is particularly innocent? Explain your idea of his innocent mind further - especially as it connects to the question of him being "guilty," from your introduction.

Remember not to end the paragraph with Evidence. You need more analysis of these quotes here throughout. Remember, that I will be looking specifically for lots of Analysis.

Here you're getting at the central irony of the story: why does trying to avoid the prophecy actually make it come true? Perhaps you can go one step further and make an argument about what that suggests about fate, as you see it.

Here you've got a few separate sentences combined into one again.

Rather than turning to the general - what "we" often do when we encounter problems - you should be getting even more specific in your analysis. What can you show about the quotation by looking at the words closely (key words, metaphors, suggestions)? Why doesn't Oedipus tell his parents? What sort of knowledge did Oedipus expect or crave? How did the prophecy make him feel about the gods and their plans for humans, about prophecy, about fate?

Remember, I am looking specifically for depth of analysis in this essay.

Excellent opening question. Why doesn't the subject of guilt come up again in your introduction? I think you would be better off using this introduction to set the terms of this question, or at least discuss it a little more thoroughly. What do you mean by guilty? What is fate? This is the place to define the terms and prepare the reader for the arguments that will follow.

Remember, your introduction should have a thesis statement - which can't be in the form of a question. That means that you will have to try to answer this in your introduction, or at least suggest an answer.

Here you begin to get to the question of guilt which you raised in your introduction. If you use the same word, then it will be obvious to your reader you are returning to the subject of your essay.

Again, it seems like you've got two separate sentences combined into one here. Also, be careful of plot summary. A little bit in the claims is okay, but not three or four sentences of it.

Here again, you should either change the punctuation or add a conjunction word ("but," "although") to make this grammatically correct.

This final clause could be an independent sentence; it has a subject and a verb. So you should not attach it to the end of the previous sentence following a comma. You might use another punctuation mark, like a colon, semicolon or a dash, or make it an independent sentence.

Is this whole story about the relationship between humans and the gods? We've seen that in other Greek stories. If so, perhaps you can interpret what Sophocles is telling us about that relationship.

This is an interesting idea and deserves to be considered more in the body paragraphs of the essay.

Interesting, but I still think you should consider how it is exactly the trying to avoid the main road that leads all these characters to it. That suggests something important.

Rather than repeating the plot points here, you should consider the words of the quotation in more depth. What role do fear and pity play in the completion of the prophecy, for example? What does it mean that his "birth" has doomed him? Why did the shepherd not follow instructions? Was it perhaps because he didn't believe the prophecies Jokasta feared, and if so, is this another reminder about the danger of ignoring the gods?

You might use a slash or something to differentiate between the different speakers in this quotation.

In fact, isn't it the case that it is exactly trying to avoid the prophecy that makes the prophecy come true? This is the real irony here, the mystery that Sophocles presents us with, and which I think you still need to consider. If Laius and Jokasta and Oedipus had not tried to avoid their fate, would it have still come true? Avoiding it is what makes it come true. Why? What does Sophocles want to show us?

The suspense comes from us watching him 'dig his own grave' as the saying goes. Nice.

This paragraph deserves some Evidence from this moment. Can you find a quotation showing everything becoming clear to Oedipus? It would make your argument much stronger, and perhaps you will find some details to analyze in it that can make this argument a little more complex.

You might analyze this quote in greater depth. Here, for example, Jokasta expresses her doubts about whether the oracle is true, or if it truly comes from Apollo. The question arises of whether all prophecies are true prophecies, if some might be the misinterpretations of priests, and if people must believe every prophecy they hear. Jokasta seems to suggest that the prophecy can sometimes be wrong, or wrongly interpreted - even though we know that won't be true in Oedipus's case.

Perhaps rather than just saying, "officially," you might point out that the audience is probably aware of who the killer of Laius really is and how that generates suspense. Something more along those lines here, I think, would help.

It is mysterious but at the same time, unlike the oracles usually do, this one "made his meaning very clear."

I'm not sure rhetoric is the right word here. Rhetoric usually means speech or discourse. If you mean to say that it gets mentioned a lot, you should be more specific.

This is excellent.

I'm not quite certain what you mean by "a point of suspense" here? Do you mean that it generated suspense, because we know ahead of time what Oedipus's fate is?

I'm not sure polarized is exactly the right word here. Usually, when we say polarized we mean split between two poles, divided, or in an argument. I'm not sure what the split would be for Oedipus's audience - though the play certainly leaves us disturbed, shocked, stunned, etc. If you do mean "divided," perhaps you can say more to clarify.

Is it better to know? I'm not sure that's true for Oedipus.

I think the question of the "intensity" of the viewer's experience should be considered before the conclusion.

This would seem to be the beginning of a new sentence. Check your punctuation. It's a good idea to try to keep each idea in a separate sentence.

Again, I still want to know why Oedipus needs to find the truth so badly. This is one way your essay can expand.

I'm not so clear what you mean here, and I think it might be worthwhile thinking a little bit more about why Oedipus wants the truth so badly. Is he just fundamentally an honest guy? Or is there some part of him that needs to know - and if so, why?

You seem to need another punctuation mark here to separate the two sides of this sentence.

I'm not sure what you mean by "safe vault" here.

I don't quite understand what you mean here. Is it that Oedipus could lie about it all and ignore it if he wanted to? Is that what Jokasta has been doing?

Excellent point. This is the moment where the play really seems like a sort of detective story. He is uncovering the crucial testimony.

I think you mean "truth" here.

Tiresias also receives no thanks for his knowledge. On the contrary, Oedipus only threatens him because of it. Is knowledge like this dangerous to everyone?

I think you can analyze this quote further. What kind of knowledge is particularly dreadful here? If it is self-knowledge, then why is knowing ones' self so painful? We normally think that it is a good thing to 'know thyself,' but one ironic thing about Oedipus's story is that discovering who he really is makes Oedipus miserable and tragic.

We the audience, however, are aware or at least suspect that he himself is the killer. Again, I think some discussion of this dramatic irony would make your arguments more complex.

This sentence is the only part of your introduction which seems incomplete to me; perhaps you could think more about dramatic irony here. The audience also knows that Oedipus is heading toward "tremendous pain." Oedipus is the only one who doesn't see it coming.

This sentence is a bit confusing as written. Try to simply if it and separate separate ideas into separate sentences if necessary.

You can come up with a more creative title than this.

What do you mean by extremism here? Is it Medea's extreme actions? Medea's deconstruction of social norms like motherhood or marriage? Be more specific about what you mean with this word. I think you might even develop this sentence into a more complete thesis statement about Euripides' intentions in writing this play.

Can you say more about what you mean here? It's not so clear to me yet. What about the quotation suggests it?

Good point. Why do you think Euripides is so sarcastic? Is he disdainful of sexist attitudes like Creon's? Does Creon get what he deserves? Do you think Euripides is attacking the sexist norms of Greek society?

Excellent point here about Hera. That is a really good observation. Also, Jove, Hera's husband, is a total cheater just like Jason.

I think this point about Hera might make for an excellent conclusion, but it seems separate from the rest of the paragraph. Maybe you should say more about why Medea seems insane to some people, and then save this Hera stuff for an independent conclusion paragraph.

Introduce evidence.

I think I see what you mean here - that Jason was also selfish, so why shouldn't Medea be selfish - but this sentence is confusing as written.

This is a really interesting idea. You should consider it in your paragraph on motherhood. How do these two social norms - woman and mother - conflict in Medea's behavior and why does that conflict make some see her as crazy?

Excellent final claims here.

You might vary the sentence structure for your Analysis instead of beginning each sentence with "this shows." Readers will understand that you are analyzing the quote without it.

Here your argument might run into a problem: how is what she is doing so different from what Jason does? She is also trying to cover up her faults with her tongue - she lies to Creon to convince him to let her stay one more day.

This might not be such a problem for your argument, if you show how she is judged by a different standard than Jason is for doing it, for example. Why, for example, is it wise and strategic for her to do this, whereas or Jason to do it is base and deceitful?

Perhaps your arguments here could be connected to something that Jason specifically says. He also tries to cover up his faults with his tongue, when he makes that unbelievable argument to Medea claiming that he is leaving her for her own good.

Doesn't he end up by giving her until the end of the day to leave, exactly because he feels empathy?

Perhaps it would be stronger to say something more specific than the bias opinion of society. Do we see, in Medea's banishment and Jason's marriage, a double standard - one for men and one for women - in which the women are punished and the men rewarded?

Very true, and it was a specifically male thing to do. Going to battle and coming back as a hero was like the most male social role possible. I think you can say a bit more about how Euripides specifically challenges gender roles and societies lack of appreciation for motherhood here.

Great quotation. When he says "getting children" he means "begetting children," and so he is literally insulting motherhood. This would seem to support your argument.

I'm not sure you need this language at the beginning of the sentence. However, I like the point very much. What is Euripides pointing out? Do you think that Medea's revenge is a response to Jason insulting "motherhood"?

Great point. How would you describe his tone?

Nice job laying out the points you are going to cover and the organization of body paragraphs here. That is a great way to use introductions.

Interesting. I expect you will draw this contrast in your arguments too: she might be doing something "evil," but because of the context it is still justified.

I wonder if you can write one more sentence here summarizing this strange double perspective on Medea: what does Euripides accomplish by balancing both her guilt and her justification? If you write a little bit more, you might write a more complete thesis sentence.

This is unnecessary language that you can cut.

This is unnecessary language that you can cut.

Rather than ending with a question, you will need a conclusion. I think that this essay still needs a few more paragraphs too. Most of all, I think it needs to be organized according to either a discussion of the different societal norms Medea breaks, or the three themes you outline in your introduction: 1) patriarchy, 2) human fragility, and 3) social views on women. By organized, I mean separated into paragraphs on these different subjects. Once you have written more, it will be easier to write a strong conclusion.

Do you think Medea should be praised for telling the truth, though it might sound harsh? Is she a social critic, or does she have her own best interests at heart? She may be trying to convince the chorus (of women) to be on her side. Is it important that the chorus is all women?