Excellent point. What role do you think the ghost's testimony about the afterlife played in Hamlet's thinking? Would it make sense for you to quote the ghost? I think quoting the ghost from Act One might be a good place to start with this essay.

This idea doesn't quite fit here, the way you have it now. But I don't think you should ignore it - rather, you should consider in more depth this issue of whether it is possible to justify killing for revenge, in any situation. Isn't this question part of what makes Hamlet hesitate? Or does he believe completely that killing for revenge is not evil?

How is it a disadvantage to Hamlet? You might say more to explain this point, which I think could make your argument more interesting and complex.

Clearly, but your sentence would be more engaging if you told us, in your own words, what Hamlet is worrying about. Since you have done so already a bit, you might use this moment to draw our attention to some words in the quote. Or perhaps rephrase as "Hamlet won't make a move until..." which would make for a dynamic sentence.

Citation? Act and Line #s?

This introductory clause is quite confusing and repetitive. I think some words might be cut from here. Perhaps you can introduce the quotation in a more creative style.

I think you might come up with a more creative title than this one, which sounds sort of like a complete sentence.

I feel like you could write a more exciting, dramatic sentence than this for the conclusion of the essay.

Perhaps this is the moment to consider whether this sort of relationship is normal, if "reciprocity" is really possible in relationships or if we always end up being "hurt" most by those we "treat" best.

I feel like you might be able to define or at least give a more specific name to the sort of "unfair treatment" the poem describes. This might be the chance to introduce your idea of "reciprocity," of the "ethics" of a relationship, or even to call this particular relationship unhealthy, abusive, unequal - however you want to describe it. "Unfair treatment" just doesn't seem specific enough to me.

You don't mention what you later call the "story" of the poem: the main character goes through a transformation, as you see it. Can you prepare the reader for it by mentioning it in your introduction here?

Excellent point, though I think you might be find words a little more specific than "nice" and "bad" here. This is the story of her transformation which you conclude with. Very well done.

Can we say, then, that the character has gone through a transformation during the course of the poem? If so, that might be a useful way to describe the overall story of the poem. You could prepare us for this by mentioning it in your introduction, so that we know where we are heading.

What do you mean by physical movement here? Explain.

Excellent point. I wonder if you can connect this to the quotation about how this thing has been happening "frequently."

Again, I feel like this is a good description of what we call an "abusive relationship."

This is a really interesting quotation. Is she saying that she wants to suffer herself? Or that she wants her loved one to suffer? Or both at the same time?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that she shows how disappointment and vulnerability can lead to the natural desire for vengeance?

Excellent point. Now you're getting to the psychology of the situation. I wonder if this is another example of the type of "abusive" or "unhealthy" relationship being described. Say more.

Interesting idea but I'm not really sure what you mean. Is this the same thing as to "be one's own worst enemy?" Is she her own problem, just as much as the people mistreating her?

Can you be more specific here? What kind of bad things? This is very ambiguous language. Is she going "crazy?" Is she saying "crazy" things? What does "crazy" have to do with it?

Also, what about those brackets? Perhaps they seem to represent her inability to express herself now.

This is an interesting point. Can you say more about it? Do you think that "frequently" in life we find a lack of "reciprocity," that treating other people well leads to being hurt? If so, what does that say about the big picture of how human beings treat each other? Can we count on reciprocity?

What exactly do you mean by "ethically" here? Is this the same thing as the "reciprocity" you mentioned earlier? Define the terms of your argument and stick with them.

Are there some words missing from the quotation here?

This sentence feels a bit long to me. I think you might divide it into two or more sentences, or break it up somehow with subordinate clauses.

Is it possible that we don't need to know the specifics, because the overall emotion is so recognizable? Perhaps the bracket actually makes the poem easier to understand - though we won't ever know exactly what happened.

This is an excellent term to describe what the speaker of the poem does not receive. She gets no reciprocity. I wonder if you might use the idea of reciprocity in your thesis and introduction, to introduce your reader to the concept earlier.

Here is an opportunity for some deeper analysis. Does the word "frequently" suggest that this situation has been going on for a long time? It has certainly happened more than once. Is this the description of a certain type of relationship, something we might call 'emotional abuse?' Or is this just a description of how opening up to people makes us "vulnerable" as you put it?

I wonder if you can include some of these positive descriptions of Odysseus' character in your introduction and thesis sentence: if you mention his discipline, temperance, valor, etc, at the beginning, then the reader will be prepared for each paragraph to demonstrate one of these virtues.

I was more convinced by your idea about the hospitality ritual and the fear of Zeus as part of "the structure" of Greek society. The concept of "a moral compass" is a bit of an inexact cliché; what exactly is "a moral compass?" Polyphemus does not live in a world without any sort of consequences; he has fellows who come to help him when he calls out for help; he even gets his own sort of revenge on Odysseus. It may be that the morality of Polyphemus' world is that of revenge - in this case, getting his dad to curse Odysseus. But that is not so different from the morality of Odysseus' own world, which operates largely on revenge.

In any case, I think this conclusion needs work. Returning to the discoveries you made in each of the paragraphs about Odysseus' discipline, temperance, etc, will make the conclusion feel more like a result of your different arguments.

Again, these passive voice constructions really impair your sentences. Learning to avoid them will make your writing much more emphatic and effective.

It is perhaps Odysseus himself punishing Polyphemus much more than Zeus. He says, I think, something along the lines of "Now Zeus has punished you for etc." Zeus seemed to have no idea, however, and to have always let the cyclops live in peace before this.

Your point about Odysseus' sacrifice not being accepted is an interesting one. In fact, Odysseus himself gets in trouble with the gods for this. Perhaps you can make something more out of all this.

In any case, this paragraph does not really conclude but sort of ends abruptly here. Perhaps you could boil this all down to another one of Odysseus' heroic characteristics like "discipline" or "temperance."

I wonder if it is significant that Polyphemus' grammar breaks down here. He even begins talking like a monster or a giant.

Again, the fact that he offers a gift in return - albeit a sarcastic one - contradicts your argument a bit, as he is clearly aware of proper "civilized" behavior.

I think you should emphasize the importance of the hospitality ritual and the fear of Zeus as the "structure" of Greek society earlier. Perhaps try to include this idea in your introduction. This is a much more nuanced description of the ways that Homer divides civilized from savage.

Here is an example of a sentence in which passive voice construction makes the argument less clear.

However, when Polyphemus calls for help, even from inside his cave, the other cyclops come running. He is not alone, but he seems responsible for himself alone; he literally lives alone rather than in a village of some sort.

Also, Polyphemus assumes that Odysseus is a pirate; we can imagine that perhaps other pirates have come to the land of the cyclops before, and that he is not entirely ignorant of the world beyond its shores. In fact, there is real evidence in the passage that Polyphemus does at least "know" the laws, when he seems to mock the hospitality ritual itself.

Nice. Analyze the words of the quote themselves as much as possible and your arguments will necessarily be developed from the evidence.

Of course, we might also say that he is being greedy. Odysseus' crew become jealous of all the hospitality gifts that Odysseus has accumulated, which he doesn't seem to share with them, and open the bag that Aeolus gave him. Perhaps your analysis here might consider this alternate perspective on Odysseus' character.

Another reading of this passage might suggest that Odysseus insists on seeing Polyphemus and asking for a gift of hospitality in defense of civilization and Zeus' laws. Perhaps he has become Zeus' enforcer here, bringing civilization to the savages.

Why does Odysseus insist on "seeing him?" Clearly, he expects to get something out of it - he wants "a gift." But if you are correct and he knows that Polyphemus is a savage "with no notion of right or wrong," then this seems like a strange decision for Odysseus to make.

I'm not sure this metaphor of "mirroring" and "reflecting" is the best description. Do you think that Homer uses the hospitality question to "depict" or "demonstrate" what it means to be civilized? In any case, "is mirrored" is the sort of passive voice construction that can lead to confusion.

I think you might rewrite this opening sentence to make it more engaging. Your introduction overall is quite well written, as is this sentence. However, it might improve your argument to begin not with the general perspective - how Homer "highlights major facets of Grecian society" in each episode - but with the theme of your essay: hospitality and the question of civilization. Can you start with that?

What key difference? Be a bit more specific.

Here is an interesting idea. Can you find some evidence for this?

You haven't brought up the subject of whether or not Odysseus is a "hero" until now. That could be an important part of this essay -- but if so, you should make it part of your thesis and introduce the subject in your introduction.

I think you can analyze this quote in more detail. Why does Zeus call it "shameless?" Does Odysseus have any shame about blaming the gods and refusing to accept responsibility? Can you think of any examples of Odysseus' "reckless ways?" Also, this phrase at the end of the quote is really interesting: to "compound their pains beyond their proper share" suggests that human life has to involve some pain; but it is recklessness that brings on too much pain. What kind of a god is Zeus, looking down at the suffering mortals, talking about their shamelessness? He knows they are miserable, and he seems to be in charge of everything -- is it possible that Zeus, like Odysseus, doesn't want to accept responsibility?

Again, this sort of hesitant language only obscures your point. Be direct.

Can you find an example of this? Perhaps this has something do with why he always seems to be falling asleep at the crucial moment. You should find some evidence here.

You also don't need this first-person. Keep the focus on the book itself.

All of this at the beginning of the sentence can be cut. Make Odysseus the subject of the sentence and edit out all of these extra words.

Believed by who? This sort of sentence construction is not very definite. Is this a lesson that Odysseus never learned? Be more direct.

Don't use the first-person "I" here. Find a way to rephrase it with impersonal language, keeping the focus on the book.

Is it significant that Odysseus blames someone else? Does he ever really takes responsibility for his own mistakes? Perhaps he refuses to answer the "whose fault is that" question by looking in the mirror.

Remember that in CEA essays the quotations always need to be introduced.

What attitude in particular? He kind of just ignores them most of the time, it seems to me. Say more here.

Can you say more? Why don't they trust him or believe him? Remember Odysseus is famous for his cunning, which is to say, for his ability to tell lies. If you can connect this point about his un-trustworthiness back to your overall thesis, that would help prove your point that the whole thing is his fault.

Don't be hesitant. Put your thesis in bold terms. You describe it so much more clearly in your cover letter, just by saying "the idea of 'Whose fault is that?'" Whereas this is much less clear: certainly both the gods and Odysseus impacted the hero's destiny - but if you think it's really all Odysseus' own fault, you should say that.

Why don't you phrase it in the form of a question? That would feel more natural, and then you might introduce your thesis simply by answering it.

True, but I think you can phrase this in bolder, more compelling terms. He certainly faces "challenges along his life path," but then so do you and I, and our "challenges" (I suspect) probably are not very similar to his. First sentences especially need to grab the reader's attention with bold statements and vivid images.

Sometimes a common-sense perspective like that can be one of the best ways to read a difficult text like this one.

This is an interesting question. I think maybe you should focus your essay on the episode with Aeolus, rather than the whole chapter. You might try to answer this question. Was it the gods who cursed Odysseus? Or was it the fault of his men? And why was he able to get so close to home, only to be sent all the way back to where he started from?

Aeolus is the god of the winds.

Here you are coming close to writing a thesis statement. However, to make this a working thesis, you would need to begin with it, in an introduction paragraph. That way, all of your arguments can proceed from it and develop it.

If this is going to be your thesis, you will need to explain exactly what you mean by "influence." How do they "influence" Odysseus life? Is it for good or bad? Is this influence the same as the "curse" Aeolus mentions? You mention Odysseus' "decisions." Is that how they "influence" him? What decisions in particular? Do they lead him to make poor decisions? What does Odysseus

How does she know he is Odysseus? Was it fate that they would come together? What role does fate play in Odysseus' adventures?

Is this true? If Odysseus really can't be "beguiled" why does he end up spending an entire year with Circe? What does she mean by "beguile" here? He refuses to let her turn him into an animal, but he seems to like living in her palace.

Up to this point your essay is entirely plot summary. If you were going to turn this into a CEA essay, you would need to analyze this sort of evidence. You could try to answer questions like, Why does Aeolus send Odysseus away instead of helping him for a second time? Is he right or wrong to do so? What makes him say Odysseus is "the most cursed of all living things?" Is that a fair assessment? Is this the chapter in the book when Odysseus' "curse" becomes clear?

Be careful not to write plot summaries. Remember that there is no plot summary in a CEA paragraph (though you can get away with some in an introduction and conclusion paragraph).

However, I'm not sure you have an introduction paragraph here. You should review the outline for the CEA essay format that we went over in class. You can find it on the website under the "Lecture notes, worksheets and materials" tab. It is the one called "Claims, Evidence, Analysis - The Parts of an Argument." I am expecting your essay to follow the outline format that I give you there. That means an intro paragraph, CEA style body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

Each of these clauses should be an independent sentence. This is something called "comma splice." That is is when you use a comma to divide clauses that have both a subject and a verb in them. Independent clauses like these need to be separated with a conjunction (but, and, as, etc) or with a different punctuation mark (you can use a semi-colon sometimes). In any case, the important thing is to first separate these different ideas out into individual sentences. Then, you can figure out what relationship they have, and develop longer, more complex sentences.

I think you might begin with a more exciting, engaging sentence than this. What sorts of adventures does he have in these places? Can you sum them up in a way that will make your reader want to keep reading?

This is kind of a fascinating moment. He is overwhelmed by a rush of ghosts, it seems. "A pandemonium of whispers" is such a creepy description.

Again, I feel like you can do more with your analysis here. Does his courage give out here? Can he not stand it any longer?

What does this mean? It's pretty mysterious. I am curious and would be impressed if you figured it out. Persephone is the Queen of the underworld, but I don't know what a "saurian death's head" might be?

This is another opportunity to connect this moment in the story to your overall thesis. How does this scene undercut the portrayal of Odysseus as strong and untouchable? How does it show him confronting his fears?

I think you can do a much better job of analyzing this quotation. "Denial" is a fuzzy psychological concept; can you describe Odysseus' experience in your own words? Why does he try three times? What does that phrase mean, "embittered all the pain I bore?" He already was in pain, but now he grows bitter - why? Why is she "like a dream?"

A good rule of thumb is three lines of analysis for every line of evidence. You have about the opposite here.

This is an opportunity for you to connect your arguments back to your overall thesis. What does this have to do with Odysseus facing his fears, and continuing his journey? Make the connection.

This is a really interesting point and a good observation you make. Why do the dead want sacrifices? Are they sort of like the gods, in that sense? What exactly is he "buying" from them, as you put it? Why does he want to please them?

I think you mean "dead" here.

You can use a period here to end the sentence, even though it is a quotation.

Punctuation marks?

Who? Who is doing the action?

I don't think saying this "We" is necessary at all in this sentence. Can you make the rituals or the people performing them the subject?

Again, you have a really clear, original thesis here. Good work. However, I think you can rewrite this sentence for emphasis. What do you mean by "this represents" exactly? What exactly are we talking about? How is it represented? Be direct and emphatic.

I think you can rewrite this opening sentence to make it more engaging and original. The point you make is a good one - that Odysseus, as a hero, is not often afraid - but you can make it more forceful. Try putting the key information at the beginning or ending of the sentence, for example.

Developing your thesis further will help you to write a more satisfying conclusion. If you think through all the questions, it will write itself.

Why is it important that the gods struggle with the same problem that is such a big deal in the human world? Perhaps this paragraph should come earlier in your essay. You might rearrange things, so that this discussion of immortal infidelity (along with the role infidelity plays in determining Greek history) introduce the importance of the subject. Then you could turn to Odysseus' relationships and the double standard. An outline like that might help you develop your ideas towards a more satisfying conclusion. As of now, this paragraph seems sort of clipped on at the end.

True, and I think you have shown the double standard undeniably. But your essay would be more interesting if you took your analysis to the next level. Was that double-standard an accurate representation of the double-standard in Greek society? Or was Homer making a point?

Do you think this makes Odysseus a hypocrite? He claims to have been wandering at sea for so many years - but really he didn't seem to mind that year with Circe so much. Can you connect this point to your thesis about a double-standard and why fidelity was so important to Homer and the Greeks?

Careful to write in complete sentences.

He is a human. Remember Calypso offers him immortality and he would rather go home instead.

Or does Homer only consider unfaithful women a problem, whereas the male mortals and gods can be as unfaithful as they like? I believe that Calypso says something very similar about female goddesses taking human lovers in the very same book that the quote below comes from.

This is really interesting. I'm not sure exactly where you see evidence for it, but I would love to hear more. In any case, you should try to connect it to the subject of gender inequality, which seems much more present to me than social inequality (there are only three servant/ slave characters in the book who are clearly of a lower class). But the question of gender inequality is perhaps directly related to the issue of power.

Who are you speaking about here? What do they have control over? Do the mortals have any control over their loved ones? What makes Penelope so special - if she is the only faithful husband or wife in the story?

This is an opportunity for you to connect your arguments back to the overall thesis of your essay: here is another way in which the question of infidelity is an organizing principle of Odysseus' story, literally making history.

I think your essay would be improved by some consideration of the question of WHY fidelity was such an important subject for Homer and the Greeks. You might consider to what degree gender inequality was an organizing principle of Greek society, for example.

Is it just the gods who struggle with infidelity? Menelaus and Helen are both mortals, as are Agamemnon and Clytemnestra, and Odysseus and Penelope.

Again, this thesis sentence is absolutely true, but it is a bit lukewarm and uninteresting. Fidelity certainly plays "a huge role," but you might describe that role in more specific terms. WHAT role does it play, exactly?

This is certainly true, but I think you might begin with a sentence that is more dramatic. Does Homer just "emphasize the significance" of fidelity, or is fidelity a crucial pivot upon which the entire plot turns, the cause of the Trojan War itself, trouble even for the gods? Be more assertive here.

I don't see a conclusion paragraph here. It will be easier to write a conclusion once you have a more developed thesis and introduction. Keep going!

Excellent point. Is he really a total savage then, if he at least knows how he is supposed to treat strangers? This is a tricky question, but I think it might be an interesting twist at the end of your essay.

Is this what it means to be a savage?

What does fearing the gods have to do with being civilized?

What do you mean by "savage" here? Be careful with the terms of your argument. Defining them - ie what is savage and what is civilized - will help you to develop a stronger thesis.

This is an opportunity to connect your arguments back to your thesis: what do these regular interactions have to do with the line between civilized and savage?

True, but being a "freak of nature" is a bit stronger than just being "out of touch." What does the fact that Polyphemus is a literal freak of nature - with one eye - have to do with it? Or is he just a metaphorical freak? Also, what does eating bread have to do with being civilized? Polyphemus doesn't make bread, but he does have sheep that he milks, he does make cheese.

What does it mean to "Know no law?" Perhaps laws are social institutions which are designed to make it possible for people to live together, and wanting to live in isolation "apart from others" is part of that. Take your analysis further her.

Your thesis could become much stronger if you specified exactly what that "manner" is and how exactly he "acts toward Odysseus and his crew" which reveals him to be a savage. Is it that he lives alone, far from society? Is it that he doesn't obey the rituals of hospitality and treat guests as though they might be gods in disguise? Is it that he eats human flesh? You should try to define the border between savage and civilized.

Why have none of your group mates commented here yet? Both Daniel and Taylor should have already made comments on this essay. Please make sure that you are commenting on their work.

I think you need a stronger thesis statement. What is Homer trying to express about love or human relationships with the comparison of Odysseus' two loves, or the comparison of human and divine loves? Expand your lens a bit. Coming up with a bigger thesis here will help you tie all of your arguments together.

This is a really interesting point. I wish that you had returned to it in your essay. The gods themselves don't seem to have very happy marriages. Maybe that's one of the reasons why Odysseus decides not to become an immortal?

Interesting question: was his love for Penelope also passionate in the way that his love for Calypso was, as you see it? Was his love for Penelope lacking passion?

Doesn't Odysseus say something like "mysterious woman" when Penelope insists on hearing that there is more bad news? That would suggest that perhaps they don't have a perfect understanding - though people often think Odysseus himself is mysterious. And why does Odysseus tell her this right away? He's basically saying already that he will have to leave again. It seems to me that one possible interpretation of this would be that Odysseus will never be satisfied at home and will have to keep wandering forever.

Is the secret of the bed really the only secret that they share? Or does Penelope mean something more like the special connection they share?

Again, terms like "unconditional love" need to be defined. What exactly do you mean? Thinking through the terms will help you develop a real thesis.

You should analyze these quotes in more depth. Why would Penelope "pale" beside Calypso? Are we just talking about appearance? Is it possible that Odysseus WANTS to get old with her?

What is it about mortality that gives Odysseus this "quality?" Go further here. If you can connect this point about mortality to the question of the difference between Odysseus' relationships with Calypso and Penelope, you might use it to write a more nuanced, complete thesis.

Why does Odysseus decide NOT to become immortal? This seems crucial to me. There are other characters in Greek mythology who did become immortal. Why is Odysseus different?

You might define exactly what you mean by a "balanced" or "unbalanced" relationship. You should be as clear as possible about the terms of your argument.

Careful with verb form here.

What exactly does she find in him that he doesn't see? By trying to make him immortal, is she trying to make him something like her "life-partner"? Odysseus already seems to have one of those. You might say more here.

I always think it is best not to begin essays with these sorts of very general statements about humankind in general or how "We all" are. It would be much better just to get right into the specifics of Homer's poem. Even a sentence about the different kinds of relationships in The Odyssey would be a more direct beginning.

These are important questions. Developing a more complete thesis will mean coming up with answers for them. What do you think? There is no right answer; but you do have to phrase your thesis in the form of an answer.

Won't Zeus also make Odysseus pay for his own incivility? Is Odysseus any better than Polyphemus here?

This is a new point and an important part of what makes someone a hero, I think. What does being "a good leader" have to do with the "hero's heart?"

What if heroes were supposed to be arrogant? Some of them were willing to trade their lives in exchange for fame, to die in battle so that they would be remembered as warriors.

Again, please don't use any outside source material. If you want to use the perspectives in these articles - without quoting or plagiarizing from them - that's fine. But your analysis would be better off sticking to the poem and exploring the question of exactly what it means in Odysseus' world to be a hero. (An excellent question.)

Why does he want Polyphemus to know his name? Go further in your explanation of exactly why this is arrogance, rather than confidence.

What does this have to do with being heroic or unheroic? This is an opportunity for you to connect your arguments to your thesis. Is this a description of the "hero's heart?" Make the connections.

This seems to be a valid claim to make in connection with the story. Odyssey gets angry and puts his whole crew at risk. You don't need an outside quote to support it.

Please don't use any material from outside The Odyssey. You don't need it and it won't help your essay. Rather than quoting outside sources, try to analyze the quotations from the poem in more depth.

Maybe Odysseus means that his "hero's heart" refuses to back down from a confrontation - that is to say, that it IS heroic to get angry. Can you interpret the phrase "hero's heart" more? What does it mean?

What reveals his mood? Homer? Odysseus' speech?

This sounds like a thesis sentence to me - or maybe part of a thesis sentence. You could finish it by describing some of the other sorts of emotions that can also lead a hero's heart. Also, I think this should be part of your introduction paragraph. Then, your first body paragraph can be about "the scene with the cyclops" specifically.

Interesting topic. Two suggestions: 1) your entire introduction does not need to be a single sentence. You can expand upon this. Begin with a short sentence setting the scene, perhaps. Try to phrase your thesis in short simple terms. 2) It would help your argument if you explained what you mean by "unheroic" behaviors. What does it mean to be heroic, as you see it? Are anger, fear and arrogance always unheroic?

Forming questions like these is a great way to begin developing a thesis; your thesis itself, however, should take the form of answers to these (or other) questions. Be positive and assert your position.

Writing a stronger thesis is the most important next step for this essay. After you have done that, everything else will become much easier.

This is a crucial point; you should say more about it. Hospitality rituals were also about getting someone in your debt, so that you knew you could call on them in return. This is not about Zeus at all, but about debt and obligation. Can you connect this insight to your overall thesis?

It makes sense that in a poem about wandering and spending years trying to get home, being taken as a guest in other people's homes along the way would be important.

You can make this larger perspective more clear. Perhaps you can find some of your thesis here: is this the reason why hospitality is so important in this poem and society?

Again, this sort of hesitant language doesn't help your argument. You make an excellent point here. Be assertive.

Is this an example of one of Zeus' punishments? Or did their failure to respect social rituals like hospitality result in their deaths? Or is it both? Get back to your thesis here.

Excellent point. You can take your analysis a step further by asking what Homer was trying to achieve with the "irony" that you describe here. Is Antinous blind to his own hypocrisy? Is he just a villain? Say more.

This is an opportunity for you to think about the question you began the essay with: What makes courtesy and hospitality so important in this poem? Is it just the fear of Zeus' punishments, or is the expectation of good treatment in return?

You might say more about Polyphemus's strange "courtesy" and how he makes fun of the hospitality ritual. Doesn't he pretend to be a good host only to taunt Odysseus?

Excellent point. This is central to your argument. I wonder if you might try to answer WHY it was so disrespectful to Zeus to disrespect beggars and strangers? This might help you come up with a more nuanced thesis.

I think there is more to say about this. Isn't Odysseus' special talent exactly charming people and winning them over with lies? How do fear of Zeus and pity for the stranger fit together? Analyze further.

Try to connect your analysis more closely to the quotations, and try to go into more depth. Perhaps considering what Eumaeus means by "respect" would be appropriate, in connection with this point about his class position. (He is essentially a slave). You should analyze in more depth: is he saying that all mortals are like slaves to Zeus? Is he saying that he is afraid of how his master would treat him if he failed to respect a stranger/guest?

A good rule of thumb is to have three times as much analysis as evidence.

Be confident in your claims, especially in the first sentence. Saying that something "seems" to be the case is not very convincing, though it is certainly true.

Again, this is an opportunity to connect your arguments to your thesis. Make it explicit: what does this have to do with being civilized? Why do they treat Odysseus like this?

I think that you can make your thesis here more nuanced. Being savage is more than just behaving "badly"; it is also not fearing the gods or respecting rituals; it is not having civil institutions like the assembly; it is not having "art" like the storytelling of the bards. You make these points in your essay - can you expand your thesis to include these ideas?

I really like that you attempt to define what it means to be civilized and what it means to be savage. However, I think that you might do a better job of showing how your understanding of these concepts is tied to the book. For example, you don't explain at all what doing "what might seem right" means in the world of Odysseus; neither do you explain how Polyphemus the cyclops (or Odysseus) prefers satisfying his own "selfish needs" over acting more "civilized."

Once you have a more complete thesis, and you have developed some of these arguments at length, it will be easier to write a conclusion. As of now, I don't see a conclusion here.

This point seems too important to be left until the end. Polyphemus the Cyclops makes it clear that he doesn't fear the revenge of the gods; the ritual of hospitality is connected to the fear that the stranger at the door might be a god in disguise. Can you make the gods and being "god-fearing" part of your thesis? This would help to make it more nuanced.

This is a great insight. I think it probably deserves to be its own paragraph. In both Ithaca and Phaeacia there are bards who sing and tell stories; I think you are absolutely right that this "art" of storytelling is an important element of "civilization." How does it connect to hospitality?

This might be a point to develop upon your insight about agriculture versus the Cyclops raising animals; perhaps agriculture is connected somehow to an "interest in their neighbors affairs" and to the development of those customs (and laws) we think of as civilization?

Remember that there is also an assembly in Ithaca. Telemachus calls it, in the first book. Do you think the people of Ithaca are as civilized as the Phaeacians? This might be an interesting question. What other customs do the Ithacans and Phaeacians share?

Remember, however, that the Phaecians are famous for being unfriendly to strangers. That is why Athena has to make Odysseus invisible when he enters the city; that is why he has to go straight to the queen and clasp her knees. Can you make this part of your argument more complex than just that the Phaecians are more civilized than the cyclops?

This is an opportunity to return to your thesis about the line between civilized and savage. Stay focused on that theme. Make sure all of your arguments connect to it. How is the Cyclops behaving in an uncivilized way? What does this episode show us about the "boundary between civilized and savage?"

Careful to use exact quotations.

Once you develop a more complex thesis, it will be much easier to write a satisfying conclusion. I think your essay is not so much about rituals in general as it is about the social and religious importance of rituals, and all the ways that not completing rituals get characters in The Odyssey into trouble. Perhaps you might come up with a thesis about ritual being the link between the human and the divine, or between fate and chance. Perhaps hospitality and sacrifice are both attempts to placate the unknown (the unknown guest at your door; the unknown storm sent by the gods to keep you from getting home). Think through this further and then reframe your essay around a more nuanced thesis, and you'll have an excellent essay here.

True, and I think this is an excellent contrast to draw. However, I think you might phrase it in language stronger than "is inconsistent." It is, as you say, "the extreme opposite."

Careful with how you introduce Evidence.

Though it is interesting to compare Greek hospitality to our own, I don't think it really pertains to your argument. You would do better to consider WHY Alcinous and Arete are so hospitable to Odysseus. Why is it "not proper" to let a guest sit in the ashes and go uncared for? And why is it proper, on the contrary, to give him gifts and help him on his way?

Nice observation. Isn't also true that the suitors have offended the gods, or at least the normal social order, by failing to respect the suppliant/stranger (Odysseus in disguise)? Remember that an important part of the hospital ritual was the belief that all suppliants/strangers come from Zeus and might be gods in disguise.

This should be a full colon ":" not a semi-colon ";" because a semicolon only divides two complete independent clauses.

I don't think this sort of sentence is really necessary. The quotation shows that the gods HAVE intervened in Odysseus' life; he has made the same mistake that Menelaus did, essentially. I think you can move your argument along a little faster.

A question: is it possible to keep all of the gods in mind all of the time? Odysseus is very devout and always offers sacrifice to Athena - but some other god, but he forgets about Zeus, he angers Poseidon. How do you know when you have sacrificed enough?

Interesting observation. This seems like a missed opportunity though: can you connect this back to your overall thesis about ritual?

Perhaps this can help you to develop a more complex thesis. Ritual is not only about placating the gods so that they don't punish you with repercussions; it is also about winning them over, getting them on your side. Athena helps Odysseus throughout, and he offers more ritual sacrifices than anyone.

This is really good analysis, and exactly the sort of in-depth thinking through the words that I'm looking for. In a sense, Menelaos has already forgotten about the gods, and that's exactly what he gets punished for. Perhaps you might make that connection more clearly.

Excellent choice of an example from the text.

Excellent introduction of the main question. Remember that developing a complex thesis begins with questions; but then you have to answer them. Which is it? Or is it both? Rituals might perform both social and religious functions in The Odyssey. They might be perfunctory, or sincere. You don't have to choose. You just have to frame your thesis in the form of a definite claim.

Sometimes, coming up with a creative title can really help you focus your thoughts. Not only do you need a more complex title than "Rituals," I think that developing one would help you to see what argument you're really making ABOUT rituals.

See comment above about CEA

Nice transition, but I think this question should come at the beginning of this paragraph. That way, your argument will remain relevant to your overall thesis; as it is now, this argument about the role of the gods in human affairs seems to have no connection to the subject of "infidelity" and how the gods are "flawed."

This is an excellent, interesting thesis; I don't feel like it is complete, however. You don't attempt to explain WHY Homer makes the gods flawed and no better than humanity. Later, you say that it is to make the story more nuanced and to make the gods relatable. "Relatable" is a word we use to describe literary characters. Has Homer reduced the gods to mere characters in a book? Are they included in the poem simply to make it more exciting? Is this a religious story at all, or are these gods more like superheroes with special powers, strange creatures from a fantasy story? Go further.

Is this the same as: "To make the story more entertaining"?

Very nice, but what exactly do you mean by "making the characters relatable" and what is the point of doing that? God in the Old Testament, for example, is not at all "relatable." Do you think Homer is writing a religious poem, or are the gods just literary characters who help to make the story more exciting? Go one step further with this point - and make it sooner in your essay. This seems to me to be the true thesis of your essay, and infidelity is more just one way that Homer makes the gods "relatable."

Look at your sentence structure here: "seemed to be ..." and "didn't appear to resonate ..." are both vague constructions. Resonate with whom? Seem to whom? Make a precise argument. eg. "Many characters had extramarital affairs and this suggests etc."

Get to the subject of marriage sooner in your essay. Shouldn't the strange Greek "concept of marriage" be central to your essay - and part of your thesis - from the very beginning?

This is a really interesting comparison that you're making here; however, I think that with each of these pieces of Evidence, you might go into much more detailed Analysis about how the gods interfere with mankind.

Do the gods always either protect or curse mortals? Why are these particular gods out to help and hurt Odysseus? What are the different contexts for these quotes? Is it really the same thing to blame a natural disaster like a tsunami on a vengeful god, and to praise a god of wisdom for helping mankind avoid cycles of endless violence and live in peace? How do these two interventions by the gods into human affairs organize the Odysseus' story? Etc etc.

Be careful with CEA and how you introduce Evidence. Remember that in a CEA paragraph no quotation should ever appear without at least a few words introducing it. Then, each quotation should be followed by Analysis. A good rule of thumb is three lines of analysis for each line of evidence - though that is not a strict rule.

I wonder if it might be more interesting to conclude by considering the overall trajectory of his journey. For example, some thoughts on how getting back to ordinary life, for Odysseus, means facing death up close, seeing the dead, and learning the lesson (as you show very well) that it is much better to remain among the living.

Doesn't this line really prove your argument? Why don't you connect it explicitly to your thesis? It is perhaps through Achilles that Homer best makes his point about how much better off the living are than the dead.

It sounds so simple and obvious to us now, the living are better off than the dead - but perhaps this wasn't so obvious in the world of Odysseus, where trading life for honor and glory was exactly what the heroes were expected to do.

Can you think through this question one step further?

What emotions specifically do you mean? Was it his anger at Achilles, his desire to get revenge for his brother Menelaus, his greed for treasure, his pride? Say more.

Is this a different translation of the poem? I don't see a Works Cited page here.

You should use direct quotations for Evidence. Without quotations, you can't really do complex Analysis; you have to look at the words and really pick them apart and consider different possible meanings.

Interesting questions. I wonder if it would not be more pertinent, however, to think about the importance of the burial ritual itself. Why does Elpenor want so badly for his body to be buried? What significance does it have for Odysseus, perhaps metaphorical significance, to perform the burial? Burial would seem to be another important dividing line between life and death, in this world.

This is the happy ending that the ghosts he meets in Hades will never know, after all. The best thing possible, for Homer, is to get old and die with "peace of mind," it seems.

Why go out adventuring at all then?

Evidence here?

In a sense, she was valuing the dead over the living, perhaps. What if Odysseus had actually been dead? She would have given up her own life for his sake - although we know that, in this poem, being alive is the most valuable thing.

I'm not sure what you mean by this exactly. Can you rephrase?

Excellent point. Doesn't he try to embrace her? Can you find evidence of Odysseus' emotional state here to back this up?

Why does he choose "his earthly goal" over the alternative? Take your analysis one step further. Also, can the dead recognize the living before they drink blood? Odysseus recognizes his mother, but does she recognize him yet?

The whole question of why the living make an offering of blood to the dead is really interesting. Blood is exactly what the dead don't have anymore. Why do they want it?

Remember that you need to use Evidence in the CEA format. That means, direct quotations from the text. Why don't you find some lines of the poem that pertain to this poem and analyze them?

Really fascinating and original topic for an essay. I'm very excited about this one. However, I think you might rewrite your thesis sentence to be more engaging and complex. Avoid the word "theme." What does Homer suggest about the value of life? Why are the dead a lost cause?

Can you connect this failure to appreciate others' kindness to your thesis? Might have something to do with ego.

Also, you need a conclusion here.

Interesting interpretation. Do you have evidence? I don't remember exactly the passage that you're referring to. Wasn't he asleep when they opened the bag?

I don't think this use of the first-person is particularly helpful. You might just say, "However, Odysseus' crew members ..."

Though this transition sentence works, I wonder if you might find a better way to conclude the paragraph. What about writing some final claims here, developing your thesis further? It seems like you are already doing it: needing to "proclaim his triumph and dominance" is a more nuanced, developed version of the ideas of "pride" and "ego" that you began with.

Instead of this plot summary, I think it would be better to slow down and find some quotations to analyze. Why does Odysseus want to stay in the cave, when his men want to leave? Why is he so curious about the cyclops to begin with?

This is a good start for an introduction. You've got a strong opening sentence here. You can expand upon it by explaining exactly what you mean with words like "enemy," "circumstance," "pride" and "ego."

For example, Odysseus has many actual "enemies" in the story, and Polyphemus the Cyclops is one of them. But in fact, he hurts himself more than they do.

What do you mean by "circumstance" here? How does Odysseus show his pride and ego? Remember that your introduction can outline your ideas for the rest of the essay.

Or was it greed? If so, then we have to consider a much less "heroic" portrayal of Odysseus.

Excellent point. I wonder if this might not be better at the top of the paragraph, as a transition. That would help the feeling I had at the beginning of this paragraph that some of this material was similar to that of the paragraph before.

Why does Polyphemus ask for Odysseus to have "trouble at home," not just 'let him die at sea' or something? Does he want Odysseus to see what it feels like to have unruly guests?

Your analysis is very good throughout but I often feel you might think it through one step further.

Why does he say "any mortal man" here? Is his ego only challenged by other mortals, but he would rather the gods, on the other hand, didn't find out what he did?

I wonder if you might write a more artful, subtle transition sentence here. Overall, the organization of your essay is excellent. You follow the CEA format very well. Your transition sentences all return to your thesis etc. etc.

So now that you've got all the pieces in place, you can really polish these sentences up. I would try to avoid anything quite so obvious as "moving forward in the story," and develop the more subtle connections between your points.

I wonder if it is important that he uses the epithet, "the marauder" here? It's almost like saying, Odysseus the pirate did it. Is that really his "true name?"