This is an excellent set up for the arguments of your essay. After this, you should describe what societal norms Medea's actions negate, and why and how.

You might organize your essay this way: for example, making the first paragraph 1) about how Medea's story negates the traditional social norm of the obedient wife, then making the second paragraph 2) about how Medea's story negates the traditional social norm of the loving mother, etc.

This seems to me to deserve a paragraph of its own, with evidence. Isn't the deconstruction of the cliché of motherhood a big theme in Medea? Can you find some evidence to analyze for this point?

Excellent points. Medea is most definitely a strong person. What do you mean by "the cookie cutter outline of a woman?" Is this another of the societal norms? Explain.

Though this may be true, you should build your arguments from evidence in the text. What in the play suggests all this? Find some quotations.

Excellent beginning. During the course of your essay, you should plan on describing 1) the oppressive nature of patriarchy - as it appears in the play 2) the fragility of the human heart - as it appears in the play, and 3) social views on women and their deconstruction - as they appear in the play.

You've set it up beautifully. Your introduction organizes your arguments. Now you just have to follow through.

This is really a long sentence. I think you should probably separate it into a number of different sentences.

You have some excellent analysis in this essay, but the thesis is really not complete, and so you can't do much with this conclusion but repeat yourself. Also, I don't think you've shown that Hamlet has "gone insane," as he is also working to complete a sort of mission or duty.

Excellent point. Can you draw a conclusion from this? What does it tell us about Hamlet's decision making process?

Interesting. Do you think he is possessed or in the ghost's power? Has Hamlet lost his decision making ability?

Here you have two sentence combined into one incomplete sentence again.

Don't quote any more than you need to. You should be analyzing every line that you quote.

Exactly. Hasn't Hamlet also said something about how he will "speak daggers but use none" too? That would be a good example of harsh language and bloody violence combining, metaphorically.

Indent long quotes

Be careful. This is plot summary. Don't summarize the plot, analyze it.

Again, questionable actions is not specific enough here.

I very much agree, but I think this would be stronger if you found some evidence from the text to support it as a quotation.

Also, can you say more about this "positive feeling" you mention? Really interesting point but you leave it unexplained.

Nice point and well put - he does take it out on her.

I'm pretty sure it is Ophelia who says this. Check the quotation.

Excellent. This is the kind of analysis I will be looking for.

Much better, here, to say specifically that Hamlet insults Ophelia. That is clear direct language.

How do they "affect his actions"? It would be much better to say, specifically, make him hesitate to kill Claudius, if that's what you mean. Again, that something "affects his actions" is really vague.

To say someone has issues is appropriate informally - we all know what it means. But in an essay like this, which is specifically about Hamlet's "issues," you will want to say exactly what you mean. How can you analyze in depth when you refer to Hamlet's dilemma as him having "issues"?

Excellent point. This is good analysis.

I'm going to assume that this is a new paragraph.

Nice. Can you take this analysis further. What possible "uses" does he see as not worth his time? Perhaps one of them is to kill his uncle and become king.

You should do more analysis here and then end the paragraph with final claims. Remember, though, I am looking specifically at depth of analysis.

I think you, into "thoughts of suicide."

Nice point. I wonder if you can connect this argument about his clothes to the speech he makes in act one saying, "I have that within me which passeth show."

Do you mean that they "are concerned about his grief?"

Is this a new paragraph? Please tell me that it was just a copy and paste issue that makes this whole essay look like one paragraph. You need to separate and indent.

What are mental issues? What issues specifically? Again, mental issues is so broad that it could mean basically anything at all.

What about his human nature? The phrase, 'Human nature,' is so broad that it could mean just about anything at all, anything that humans do.

Think about this sentence. You're saying, essentially, 'Hamlet's craziness makes him act crazy and that makes him look crazy.' What are you really trying to explain here?

What issues? Be more specific? What is he depressed about?

I think you are combining two separate ideas into one sentence here. Try to make form each sentence with one idea. After you have done that, then you can connect them.

What do you mean by "questionable?" Questionable traits and questionable actions? You will have to be more specific with what you mean with this word.

Here you tell us what you think it means to be rational. Why haven't you shown us Medea doing this or not doing it? Why don't you explain how she feels, or whether or not she thinks about the positive and negative sides of her actions? That would make your argument much more compelling.

I don't think defending or not defending her is as interesting a question as the conflict between reason and revenge which you have mentioned several times. I would focus on that.

You seem to have several ideas pressed together in one sentence - which ends up not being grammatically complete. Separate each idea into a separate sentence.

These arguments are not at all connected to the quote above. This is not a CEA paragraph without Analysis of the Evidence.

This speech describes Medea's plan - it doesn't really explain anything. You are not really using these quotes from the text correctly; instead of finding quotes that you think will help you make your point, you need to look deeper into the meanings of confusing or complex parts of the play, in order to ask the questions you want to ask, and to try to answer them. How can you analyze Medea's plan for revenge? Perhaps you can find something more complex than this.

What does "being heartless" have to do with "steeling your heart"? Connect to the quote.

Who is speaking?

This is all repetition. You have said this earlier in the essay.

What are the boundaries of justice? What does this have to do with reason? With seeing the positives and the negatives?

Unbelievable how? That would seem to make more sense than what Medea ends up doing, killing her own loved ones.

Why is this part of the quotation? Is this in the book? If not, you'll need put it outside of the quotation marks.

Introduce your evidence. Who is speaking?

Remember, if you start a sentence with "though," that makes it a subordinate clause. This sentence is incomplete because it has not main clause.

I don't the question of whether Medea is worthy of condemnation is a strong enough thesis. Your idea about how her revenge is more important than reason seems to me like a more interesting thesis. You should be building your essay around that, not this question of condemnation.

I don't understand what any of this sentence is doing here. Of course, revenge is a theme. Of course, Medea wants to get back at Jason. Go into more depth.

This is an excellent point. Nobody is allowed to make their own justice. Find evidence from the text to support it. Otherwise, it won't seem relevant to Medea's story.

Insane how? You'll need to explain your arguments in more depth here. Also, how does this connect to the quotation above? Though you may feel very certain about your perspective, you need to use the evidence to construct an argument supporting your position. Unless you analyze the quotations, your argument won't be connected to them. Remember, I will be looking for depth of analysis.

Introduce evidence. Who is speaking?

Accused by whom?

Don't make general arguments about "life." Make arguments about the play, and use the quotations from the text to do it.

Here is a key piece of evidence. Why don't you mention it at all in your analysis? Isn't she admitting that she acted voluntarily, with "no reason at all" for doing so other than because it would help Jason. You need to be analyzing these quotations in more depth. Remember, that depth of analysis is the key grading criteria for this essay.

How did Medea kill Pelias? What does it have to do with Medea's own crimes? (She kills her children; Pelias's daughters killed him.) Why are these crimes all between parents and children?

Introduce your evidence.

Be careful: this sounds like two or three sentences combined in to one. Separate each idea into a separate sentence.

What do you mean by a conflict of interest here? Explain.

What do you mean by "reason" here? You have made some good points in this introduction about why she wants revenge, but nothing yet about reason or rationality. Is revenge irrational, and if so, why?

Please use the Hypothesis plug-in to make comments.

You seem to still need a few more arguments and a conclusion, but you're on the right track so far. Keep going.

This are a few excellent points here. Hesitating because he had "contempt" for his mother is really interesting. But I think you've got a few separate ideas pressed together again here, and this would be better as several sentences.

What role specifically did it play? It would be better to describe it specifically here. To say it played a role is very general.

It seems like you've got a few separate ideas mixed together here. I think you should separate this into multiple sentences. Try to limit it to one basic idea per sentence, and then connect them.

After all of this great analysis, you should make some final claims connecting them back to your overall thesis, and preparing for the next paragraph.

Great analysis! This is the kind of close attention to the words of the quotations that I am looking for.

I think this should be a comma, connecting these two sentences. As of now, the first sentence is incomplete.

This is a great point, but I think you should go further. How does Hamlet duty conflict with his mission to get revenge specifically. Spell it out for your readers. What about his duty means he can't get revenge?

Interesting thesis! Very original.

Don't wait until the last sentence of your introduction to mention Oedipus. If you don't mention him in the first sentence, you should do so by the second. Don't start with these general claims about "destiny"; start with the story of Oedipus and connect it to destiny.

Can you say more about this problem: yes it was his fate and he also brought it on himself?

We talked about this a little bit. You have a two-part thesis, so you'll have to keep pointing out that the answer is complicated and that both ways of looking at Oedipus's story are true.

Remember, you should have three lines of analysis for every line of quotation. I will be specifically looking for deeper analysis in this essay. Maybe you can analyze some key words from these quotes?

It seems like this "negativity in his character" is another reason why he wasn't simply a victim. Can you connect this to your overall thesis, that he was a victim but he also brought it on himself?

It seems like you might connect this quote to Oedipus's own blindness. He himself is trying not to see his fate come true, and when it does, he will blind himself. What does blindness have to do with self-knowledge?

Wouldn't this make him less a "victim" of his fate, and more like someone who brought his fate on himself?

What do you mean here? It seems more like these were what made the prophecy come true.

Instead of just saying, this was his fate, maybe you can tell us how it shows that his fate was inescapable. Connect it to your main argument.

The quotation already tells us this. Analyze it, don't summarize it.

You're going to have to make stronger connections here; how does this "totally prove" that Oedipus was a victim of fate? What do you mean by a victim of fate? More analysis needed.

True, but can you connect this to your central question about how fate is inescapable?

Be careful, this is much more like plot summary than analysis. When you analyze quotes, try to interpret them, not just repeat the story. Remember, depth of analysis will be the key grading criteria for this essay. I am expecting you to analyze more deeply than this.

Remember to indent long quotations.

I think you can make this thesis more complex. How does it connect to the quote that you start your introduction with? What does it tell us about fate and choices?

Nice creative beginning, but you will need to tell us where this came from. Perhaps it is a popular saying? If so, say so.

Interesting question. Perhaps your essay deserves a paragraph on Jokasta. You should certainly consider if Oedipus is in denial too. Denial is a word we use to suggest exactly the sort of thing about Oedipus I have tried to argue: that he knows more than he seems to know.

However, you should answer all these questions during the course of the essay; the conclusion is not the place for them. I don't see a conclusion here.

Interesting point. Why? Or is he still insecure underneath it all, which would explain why he snaps on Tiresias and Creon so quickly?

This entire paragraph is just plot summary. Use your transition sentences to advance specific claims. You begin every paragraph in this draft with plot summary, and it makes your essay seem like a play-by-play of the plot. You have to find a more creative way to connect your arguments.

Probably, the issue is that this essay doesn't have much of a thesis yet. It is the thesis that should connect it all together.

This is plot summary.

This is plot summary.

Does this have anything to do with the encounter at the crossroads? Remember, this is all the moment when he kills Laius without realizing who it is. His description of it is bizarre, like road rage. "And then I killed them all," he says.

Here is the strange irony of Oedipus's story: what does it suggest about fate and free will, that trying to avoid his fate is what leads him to fulfill the prophecy? Take your analysis deeper.

Are we so sure that Oedipus never had any doubts. It seems more likely to me that he was only upset by the drunk guy because he already suspected something wasn't right. One question this play raises is the issue of knowing oneself; how well does Oedipus know himself? Is it possible to really know himself? I suspect he knows more than he seems to all along.

Careful; when including quotations in your sentences makes sure the end result is grammatically correct.

You need to develop this thesis into a more dramatic question. As of now, it is well written and makes sense - but there's nothing much at stake. What does Oedipus's story show about the nature of trying to avoid one's fate or about ignoring prophecy? Answer a bigger question.

Which sequence of events? Perhaps chaotic is not the right word, as the idea of chaos seems to contradict your argument about predetermination. Or maybe the whole paradox can be found in that contradiction: that what seems like chaos was really the plan all along?

Word choice doesn't seem appropriate here

You should avoid general statements like this in your first sentence. It is much better to begin with the specifics of the text and your argument - ie something about Oedipus's story - than with a sweeping statements about life in general. Start with the specific details and build towards the big picture.

My question is then: why does Euripides surprise us like this?

Excellent question (without a question mark) but I think you will need to rephrase this so that it seems more like an argument rather than a question and an answer. Can you build toward this judgement - which i think is right on - that she is selfish, weak, in a word, human? You could do so by connecting all of your arguments to that idea.

This is very nice analysis. You might go a little further and say why you think it's understandable that she doesn't want her enemies to laugh at her. This seems to me to be the most problematic part of her character, and perhaps a sign of ego.

What do you mean by trauma here? What sort of injury has she suffered, and how has she reacted? I'm glad you didn't argue that she was crazy here, because she doesn't seem crazy to me - but the word trauma is general and could imply many things. Perhaps it would be useful to recall what Fiona Shaw said about Medea being in a state of extremity - sometimes people are pushed to the limit. What sort of a limit is Medea crossing?

Why does that change everything? What is the purpose of toying with our emotions and surprising us like this?

Are we meant to sympathize with her? Of course, we do. But what is the purpose of making us feel sorry for someone who does something so horrible? Perhaps you could think about why Euripides wants us to feel sorry for her.

Excellent point. Do you think it suggests that she feels guilty for what she is about to do? And if so, does that mean she is not quite as crazy as it seems? In a court of law, any admission that you knew a crime was wrong might mean you could not plead insanity, for example.

Jason is actually a foreigner also. They are a sort of family of refugees or exiles. But the quote you mention above is really interesting and perfect: Medea seems to be saying that the chorus can't understand what it's like to be separated from one's family and homeland. Is this part of Medea's justification for what she's about to do?

Why do you think she keeps looking for more and more people to blame? Is it perhaps that she is deflecting attention away from her own guilty conscience - something that guilty people often do?

Why aren't you using Hypothesis for annotations. I can't give you full credit for this. It's not very difficult to use the program, and if you're having trouble, please ask for help.

Why aren't you using Hypothesis for annotations? I can't give you full credit for this. It's not very difficult to use the program, and if you're having trouble, please ask for help.

This is very nicely put. Can you connect it more specifically to her story? Is this what happened to Medea? There is actually some irony here, perhaps, because what kind of dowry did Medea pay for Jason?

Why? Are you saying that the children are innocent victims? Certainly, that is not always the case.

Unacceptable to who? Perhaps, rather than just saying that it is unacceptable, you can consider the morality. What is the difference and why do you think this is a line that she crosses?

I wonder if you can say more about Medea's longing for death - this seems an interesting part of her character. How does this connect to what she does later in the play? Unlike many characters in tragedy, she survives. Why?

Check your use of dashes for a parenthetical statement here. Could you remove the parenthetical statement and the sentence would be intact?

These are good questions to consider. However, for your final draft, you will have to write a thesis that answers them. The thesis must be a positive statement arguing a position - not a question. You can answer them in creative ways, of course.

You are on your way to a good essay here. Keep writing.

This looks good. Keep going!

This includes a literal "show," or performance. I think you can expand this idea of Hamlet's show into a paragraph. What kind of "show" is it? What is the purpose of the "show?" How do the other characters react? Why does it help Hamlet "justify" his revenge?

Perhaps you could follow this quotation up with some examples of Hamlet's "acting crazy" - there are plenty of them. That might give you some more material to analyze; maybe you could even go deeper into the question of justification, as you see it.

This is an interesting point. Can you connect it more closely to the quotation? Where do you get the sense that he is unsure of himself? If it is from the word "coward," maybe you can consider the question of cowardice and if Hamlet is a coward at more length. Go into more depth. REMEMBER that depth of analysis is the key grading criteria for this essay.

Where is the Analysis? Don't just use Evidence just to support your claims - analyze the words of the quotations. That is the only way to develop more complex arguments in CEA style.

You seem to need a punctuation mark here, separating "Claudius's face" and "if."

This sentence doesn't really explain WHY he puts on an act: do you mean that his feigned madness will justify his revenge, and if so, what do you mean by justified?

Your sentence would be more exciting if you specified what kind of "information" you mean here; if you said, for example, the story of his murder, your sentence would be more compelling.

This is unnecessary language. You can cut it and your sentence will be stronger.

I'm not really satisfied with this conclusion. First of all, ending with a question is never a good idea. You will probably want to have answered all the questions by this point. Also, I think that your arguments point toward some more complex and interesting conclusions than simply that Oedipus was a victim of fate.

You can do a better job of analyzing the words of the quotations I think. For example, there is an extra level of irony here, as Jokasta will in fact make Oedipus believe that one man in particular - Oedipus himself - has not "mastered prophecy." Isn't the idea of "mastering prophecy" what the play is all about ie that you can never be the master of your own fate?

Intense how?

Again, metaphorical blindness and literal blindness are contrasted. Why does Sophocles do that? Say something more about it than just that it is interesting.

Good point. What does this ironic connection have to do with blindness? You might say that to see is to know the truth about oneself, but here, when Oedipus finds the truth about himself is when he stops seeing, literally.

Introduce evidence please.

What does it mean to "know" someone, in this context? Is it possible to "know" yourself? Is that the same thing as "knowing" your fate? The quotation you use is excellent, because it suggests this problem, which is central to the story. Say more about this idea of "knowledge."

True, but the irony here is that Lauis and Jokasta try to have him killed as a baby also to avoid the prophecy - so avoiding the prophecy means fulfilling the prophecy again.

Remember to introduce evidence.

Would he go to the oracle if he didn't still suspect that they were lying, or at least there was something about himself and his fate that he didn't quite know yet? There are suggestions in the play for some sort of interpretation along these lines.

This is nicely written; but other than saying it is ironic, you don't consider the point of why avoiding the prophecy means fulfilling the prophecy. What does that tell us about fate and free will? What is Sophocles' message?

Maybe you can try to answer this question. It seems to me that Oedipus knows more than he knows, somehow - like, this drunk guy at the party only said something he suspected all along, but refused to admit to himself. The question of how well he knows himself, and what it means to know oneself, is at the center of the problem.

Excellent. I love this sentence and what it suggests.

Isn't it true that the actions he takes are exactly what lead him to his fate? That is the great irony in his story, and also in that of Laius and Jokasta, who both try to avoid their fates as well and end up thereby bringing it upon themselves. Perhaps some discussion of that irony would be appropriate here. Why would Sophocles tell their stories that way?

I think you might cut this first sentence or put it somewhere else in your introduction. The second sentence would work much better as an opener.

Write either "a majority" or "the majority," but not just "majority" here. Otherwise, it's an incomplete sentence.

I think you should be able to arrive at a stronger conclusion than this. As of now, this comparison of their motivations seems more like part of a body paragraph than a conclusion.

I think you might explain this in more intelligible terms. Do you mean that he changes his position according to what he thinks is best for him in the situation? His "mutability" is going to be a direct contrast to Clytemnestra's steadfastness. Can you find more evidence for this? Also, I'm not clear what you mean here by inherent bias?

I think your argument could use more evidence to support this point.

I'm not sure this is the right word choice here. Usually, when we say something is vacuous we mean that is not particularly deep, profound, thoughtful or serious.

Excellent point. She is very certain of herself, and even when she is lying (trying to convince Agamemnon to fall into her trap) she seems to be sort of telling the truth also.

This would make more sense if you connected it specifically to the quotation: where are you getting this idea from?

Again, don't you need some other punctuation mark here?

You should think about using transition sentences. This paragraph seems to begin with evidence, not claims, for example.

Excellent point. This sentiment is everywhere in Greek Literature. Can you find a quotation to help you use it as evidence?

Say more about this. It sounds as if you are suggesting he goes to war to get rich and become famous - which might be true.

I think you need a different punctuation mark here, as the comma doesn't work to separate two complete thoughts and clauses.

You should either cut this, or rewrite it and add more so that this part of your thesis makes more sense. Contrasting Agamemnon and Clytemnestra seems like a good idea, but you should work it out so that it is more clear. What sort of bias are you talking about here, for example?

I love the word absolutism here, and I think I know what you mean, but your argument would be stronger if you explained exactly what sort of absolutism you're talking about here.

I think you need to get to the real subject of your essay a little bit faster in this introduction. By the time we find this sentence, we have already read so much about Ancient Greek justice that we might not even notice. You might begin with this sentence, and then all of your background information will be connected to it. Or you might cut some of this background information.

I think you could rephrase this first sentence for clarity. Ancient Greece was a place, not to be confused with the Ancient Greeks themselves. Usually, we say that someone "carries out" justice. And I'm really not sure what you mean by "morally relevant" - morally justifiable, maybe? Anyway, the first sentence is important and should be crystal clear.

I think what your argument is really missing is some clear discussion of the mysterious thing about Oedipus's story: that learning his fate, and trying to avoid it, is exactly what makes it come true. Perhaps it would have come true anyway, as you suggest. But it is mysterious and ironic that it comes true this way, and that is important.

Does Oedipus have any reason to believe the gods "favor him"? What does being a hero have to do with it?

Here you have suggested an important point which I think is missing from your essay. How is Oedipus's search a search "for the truth about himself" and what does that have to do with fate?

In fact, I think Oedipus was angry at having been pushed aside by the coach's driver.

If they had not decided to avoid each other, would the prophecy have come true?

Again, I would only use a long quote like this in its entirety if I were going to spend a long time analyzing each line of it. You should think about only using parts of it.

If instead of trying to kill Oedipus, they had decided to ignore the prophecy and raise him as a normal son, would it have come true?

How does it show that?

Do you really need this entire long quotation? I think you might use only part of it to make your point. Remember, you should have three lines of analysis for every line of quotation. "Depth of Analysis" is going to be the most important grading criteria.

It was, for all of them, the attempt to avoid their fate that made it happen. Can you consider this aspect? Their choices were then very important: they chose their fate. (What a contradiction in terms!)

I'm confused by this. Oedipus hears his fate from the Oracle at Delphi before he comes to Thebes and kills the Sphinx. He was still a young man. It is exactly hearing his fate that leads him to make it come true - that is the paradox here.

Your analysis should be of the words in the quotation specifically. What about what Tiresias or Oedipus says makes you think this?

Remember to introduce evidence. Who is talking? Where are they? What is the context?

I don't think it is a good idea to begin with a general point about fate and freewill. You should, rather, begin with an argument about Oedipus, and build toward these conclusions, so that they are a result of your arguments and your reading of the play. If you begin by saying what you think about fate and freewill, in a sense, why do we even need the rest of the essay?

I don't think you should introduce new information like this in your conclusion. Perhaps you could write another body paragraph about Agamemnon's infidelity - and about Clytemnestra's infidelity to Agamemnon.

Interesting argument. Do you think that Agamemnon is sort of a sacrifice also? He is naked and helpless in the bathtub when Clytemnestra kills him. Are all the victims in a sense sacrifices?

I think you have too many unanswered questions in this section. Perhaps you should rephrase this as a positive statement.

You might try to answer this question more directly.

Again, her words have two meanings here, I think. She has no tears to spare - for Agamemnon, whom she is about to kill. That is to say, she is not sorry for what she is about to do.

Is she also accusing Agamemnon here? Yes, she is talking about Orestes, but this might be one of those moments of dramatic irony where we know that she is also talking about Iphigenia, even if Agamemnon himself does not know it.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a person's loyalty to others here. Can you rewrite this question to be more clear and specific?

If he had chosen not to sacrifice Iphigenia, would Agamemnon have been betraying his people?

This is a really interesting suggestion but the way you have written it here is not very clear. What exactly is the double standard you are referring to? Are there two different imperatives clashing: 1) Agamemnon needs to get to Troy and end the war for the good of his city; 2) this seems more important to Agamemnon than the love and respect his family demands of him?

Great point. Does the quote you use in this argument suggest that Iphigenia will rush to meet her father in the underworld? If so, does that just emphasis even more how much she loved and trusted him?

Interesting. I hope you connect this to an argument about the rationality/irrationality of Clytemnestra's actions.

The sacrifice took place partway along the journey to Troy, at a place called Aulis. Clytemnestra was not there.

Excellent quotation

Here I think it is the army.

What do you mean by "his" villain? Usually, we say someone is "a" villain, in contrast with being a hero. To say someone was someone else's villain implies an enemy. Do you mean that Clytemnestra was morally justified? Or that Clytemnestra was not meant to seem like the villain of the story to the audience? I think you can clarify and rephrase this point.

What is this? I appreciate the citation here, but you should be relying on your own ideas. You don't need to consult outside sources, and they will probably only confuse your arguments. You should be thinking through these questions for yourself. If you need to consult references, find some books in the library written by credible scholars, use the introductory essay in your Norton Anthology, or ask me for some recommendations. Definitely, don't use random websites! This one does not seem at all legitimate.

I'm not satisfied by this conclusion. In fact, you have argued that Hamlet's hesitation essentially results in him facing exactly the sort of fate he was trying to avoid. When you say that it makes sense, do you mean that it is understandable? Perhaps the tragedy of the play is that we agree with all the reasons that Hamlet hesitates, and at the same time see how hesitating gets him into trouble.

I'm not sure the viewer would know ahead of time that Hamlet was going to die. The play is not based on a myth that the audience all know, like Oedipus, for example.

I'm not sure these possibilities are really very important for your argument.

Excellent point. I think you could do a better job, however, of integrating this perspective into your argument. You are essentially arguing both sides: 1) Hamlet got his revenge and probably went to Heaven; 2) Hamlet died just the way he wanted Claudius to go, and probably went to Hell. Can you do a better job of connecting these two possibilities to the arguments you made above, about Hamlet's fears for the afterlife?

Also, you need Evidence here again. I am going to mark off points if you can't write in the CEA style.

Excellent point. What does this tell us about worldly justice in comparison with otherworldly justice? What I mean is, we'll never know if Hamlet is going to Heaven or Hell etc, but the judgment of Horatio and Fortinbras about Hamlet's nobility is something we can talk about for certain.This might be a good way to conclude the argument.

Several things. First of all, where is the evidence? You need to write in CEA style, with quotations from the text in every paragraph. Second, are you so certain that Hamlet is going straight to Heaven with "flights of angels" singing him to his rest? It seems to me like he is guilty of eight deaths (including his own) and might very possibly be heading to Hell alongside Claudius. Third, rather than saying that something is "debatable," you should debate it. Argue either for one side or both sides - but make an argument with evidence and a clear position.

This all seems like plot summary and not really connected to your arguments.

How does this follow from your arguments up to this point? The question of suspense seems totally extraneous to your argument? You might include it earlier, in your introduction, so that it doesn't come out of nowhere here. Is Hamlet's fear of being damned part of the suspense? Connect.

Again, why doesn't he worry at all about this? Can you explain?

Does Hamlet have a bad conscience about this killing? If not, why not? Hasn't he already committed a terrible sin, for which he shows little remorse and which he doesn't seem to worry or think about at all?

Yes, you are correct that by conscience here is speaking in a strict sense of the afterlife. But I think the contemporary meaning of the word conscience - as in, Hamlet's potentially bad conscience - is also in play.

You might want to include slashes ("/") to mark line breaks when quoting verse.

You should analyze the quote itself. Don't end the paragraph with a quotation and don't use a quotation to support a point you've already made without adding some textual analysis.