an act of greed
It seems possible to me that Odysseus is greedy and that his greed gets him in trouble. He talks elsewhere about going out in search of treasure, perhaps as gifts or perhaps as whatever he can pillage while he attacks random unsuspecting towns. Maybe you should ask more specifically about his motives.
This moment is quite ironic, because Odysseus does not seem to have an issue with his crew and himself eating everything inside the cyclops’ home, while he gets extremely angry about the suitors back home helping themselves to everything there is to eat inside of his own home.
Excellent point, but what does this irony convey? Does Homer want us to think, at this moment in the poem, that Odysseus is no better than the suitors back in Ithaca? Take your analysis one step further.
After they had slept there overnight and the sun rose in the morning, Odysseus says to his crew “The rest of you stay here while I go with my ship and crew on reconnaissance. I want to find out what those men are like” (pp. 429). This moment clearly portrays how mortals bring upon their own troubles.
Careful introducing evidence here. Your analysis of the quotation is excellent: perfect example of how mortals bring their own troubles upon themselves. However, your quote is from before Odysseus arrives at the land of the Cyclops, not after sleeping in Polyphemus's cave, as you write.
on the island
Be careful of unnecessary repetition. This introduction is quite good overall, just the sort of general overview I was thinking about. However, the effect of it is a little spoiled by some carelessly repeated phrases. No big deal, but something to think about while editing these sentences.
When I revise this for draft 2 I would like to work on making my points clearer and lay them out in a way that is obvious to the readers and not just myself. I feel like I tend to repeat my ideas and drag out irrelevant or unimportant information. My claims and analysis seem to be all over the place
I think that developing a more nuanced thesis statement that is specific to Homer's portrayal of loyalty in the Odyssey will really help you. Then, at the beginning and ending of each paragraph, instead of writing these sentences about loyalty in general, you can go back to "loyalty in the Odyssey," - which may not be very much like our notions of loyalty at all.
Loyalty is represented as faithfulness towards people, obligations, and causes. The Odyssey demonstrates loyalty in the strongest sense.
This is not the most compelling of thesis statements. Can you develop a more complex question about loyalty? Perhaps it would be easier if you selected a single episode to focus on. What about the scene when Penelope tests Odysseus, for example? She is loyal, but also cautious. Odysseus is also loyal to Penelope (by coming home), but cautious to come home in disguise. Do they really trust each other? Does loyalty, according to Homer, have anything to do with trust?
As much as I miss them and miss my homeland, I miss Odysseus more
This doesn't seem strange to you? Odysseus certainly valued his own homeland and family more than anyone else. Eumaeus, remember, was kidnapped as a child and sold into slavery; it seems like he would miss his parents more than Odysseus. Is it possible to call someone "brother" and "master" at the same time? Maybe different rules apply to heroes than to ordinary people.
The relationship that a father shares with his son is filled with pride, triumph, and nobility. There is nothing that could make a father prouder then watching his own son follow in his footsteps and continue his legacy.
Why not find some evidence from the poem to demonstrate this? I'm sure there are moments describing how proud Odysseus is of Telemachus, for example.
ometimes we feel tempted
Again, avoid this sort of general "we feel" type of claims. Keep your arguments rooted in the text of poem itself.
Over time, when somebody is absent from your life for an extended period, it is simple to lose faith in the people you depend on and may become disloyal.
Be careful to avoid this sort of general statement. I think specifics about the story are always more exciting than general truths about life and human nature.
Every paragraph below also begins with similar statements. You should avoid them. They aren't actually "Claims" about the book in question at all, and are not part of a CEA essay.
Telemachus had to make a decision: he could have moved forward, following the disappearance of his father, and pick a new man for his mother to marry; or he could have stayed loyal to his father and risk his life all while leaving his distressed mother vulnerable at the hands of the suitors. Telemachus knew that his quest to find his father could lead to nothing but a devastating disappointment, however, he risked it all to either bring his father home, or at the very least have a proper farewell celebrating his life and achievements.
Excellent point. Do you think that there is a limit to loyalty? When would it have become better for Telemachus and Penelope to forget Odysseus? What if Odysseus actually had been dead the entire time? Hypothetically, wouldn't it have been better for them to move on with their own lives?
“Any other man come home from his hard travels Would rush to his house to see his children and wife, But you don’t even want to hear how they are Until you test your wife, who As a matter of fact, just sits in the house, Weeping away the lonely days and nights” (Homer 485/486).
Who is speaking? I'm confused about the context for this quote? It seems that the speaker's point is more about Odysseus' caution, his insisting on testing everyone, rather than just Penelope's grief - that is why he doesn't "rush to his house," right?
Maybe there is a more complex thesis somewhere in here: what does loyalty have to do with caution, with testing everyone? Both Odysseus and Penelope are cautious of each other; they both test each other; and they are the most loyal.
The theme of loyalty often presents itself throughout The Odyssey.
I wonder if beginning with a description of a character being loyal or a character being disloyal to Odyssey would be a more engaging opening. I would be careful of writing about "themes" as that is a very vague and unexciting term.
The Phaeacians discipline
And yet, the young Phaeacian men insult Odysseus. That is one of the moments in the poem when he is the most angry. Their insult is also interesting; they call him a merchant. That doesn't seem much like "discipline." They also are famous for being unfriendly to strangers, which is why Odysseus has to sneak into the city. That doesn't seem like "reach[ing] out to others" to me.
They are described in terms of farming
Evidence? The description of the Cyclops survive is quite detailed and important. The poem goes on at length about it.
These two civilizations contrast greatly throughout the story
Contrasting these two episodes as examples of "civilized" versus "savage" seems interesting. However, that is a subject for an entire essay, not something to begin halfway through. Perhaps you could contrast these two societies, and then compare them with the slaughter in Ithaca? That seems like perhaps too much material to analyze, however - especially because there is almost no evidence in your essay so far, and therefore no real analysis in it either. Review CEA.
Book 22 of The Odyssey depicts the event
This paragraph is almost entirely plot summary. Remember that plot summary is not part of a CEA paragraph. Perhaps you can use some of this material in a rewritten introduction, but be careful to follow the CEA format.
a state of total anarchy
This is really interesting. Even though they don't have "a truly organized culture," the other Cyclops do show up when Polyphemus calls for help. What does that moment show us about their group?
Phaecians most important aspect to maintaining civility is their assembly.
Excellent point. Do the Cyclops have anything similar? There are also assemblies on Ithaca, remember. Telemachus calls one. Good analysis, here, would be to explicitly describe how an assembly connects to the Greek notion of being "civilized."
Although not a scene from book 21, another scene from the end of book 24 can be a good example. When the town hears of the bloodbath from earlier they go to kill Odysseus in which a skirmish breaks out and many killings begin. Athena then comes down and says this isn’t right and must stop, much against what Zeus wanted , and for the crowd to make peace, which they absolutely do.
Again, this is all plot summary. Evidence is a direct quotation from the poem. Without evidence, you will have nothing really to analyze.
Civility and Savagery are both life/cultural concepts that are characteristics of the different civilizations in the story of The Odyssey.
Be careful of this sort of writing: calling something a "life/cultural concept" is not very specific.
the Gods are what controls the boundary between savagery and civility.
This sounds like a thesis statement; you need to begin your essay with your thesis in the introduction. That way, you can develop all of your arguments by explaining and exploring the thesis. Your essay will then have a structure. As of now, it seems quite disorganized.
“the Gods are on their side” or “the Gods are in his favor
Are these direct quotations? Page numbers?
Mercy is shown too Medon and Phemios meanwhile the maids loyal to Odysseus’ cause are spared and continue to work for the King as they always have.
More plot summary. Where is your Evidence?
It is somewhat obvious to see what would be considered a savage action and what would be considered civility within this book
Again, you will have to define these terms for yourself. I don't think it's obvious at all. I think answering the question of what is "a savage action and what would be considered civility" is the topic of your essay.
brutal killings
The world of the poem is a world in which brutal killings were quite a normal part of civilization. (They are still a normal part of our world, though we consider ourselves civilized.)
Odysseus and those who are with him show their savage nature by killing all of the defying suitors mercilessly and brutally.
These killings seem savage to us but they were perhaps not so savage at all in Odysseus's world. You will have to define your ideas of "savage" and "civilized" to convince me that the poem portrays Odysseus as somehow un-civilized.
One of these themes is the boundary between the savage and the civilized through peoples actions.
This is a pretty uninteresting thesis sentence; this introduction paragraph in general is very basic and not at all compelling. I would avoid writing about "themes" and come up with a more complex question. Also, you don't prepare the reader at all for the arrangement of the information to follow.
He would be the one who can heal the world after the Nazis “apocalypse”.
In the play, an apocalypse does seem to have taken place. Your reading is really quite excellent and insightful -- what you need to work on now are the details. Focus on developing your arguments with lots of evidence and careful analysis. Keep going!
e interpretation of the different social classes.
Again, I think you should describe specifically which class each represents somewhere.
Gogo, Didi, Estragon and Lucky
You mean Gogo, Didi, Pozzo and Lucky, I think.
All of these characters were lost. It feels like that someone took them from their usual conditions, exhausted them, put them on the road and forgot to tell them why are they there. In allegorical way that someone was Hitler, he brought Nazis to Europe and made all Europe and the rest of the world suffer. However, in a counterweight there should be someone who can rebuild the purpose of the existance. THat someone was Godot. Pozzo and Lucky didn’t wait for him, because Lucky didn’t know anyother life besided to live under Pozzo’s orders and Pozzo didn;t not want anyone to tell him how to live, because he considered himself even better that human spicies. Where, for Gogo and Didi Godot was the only guidance. He would be the one who could lead them to the better future , the one who take all there miseries and give them certainty. He is worst of waiting. He is the only purpose in the life that they have. Because soldiers after war forgot how to leave a normal life. Normal was unclear for them.
I think that this paragraph about Godot's role in your reading of the play is crucial -- but I'm not convinced by this version of it. First of all, where is the evidence? This paragraph is all claims, and the most important grading criteria for this essay will be evidence and analysis. What sort of salvation does Godot represent, in your reading? Is it economic (class-related) or something different?
Didi as representative of the intelligent middle class was trying to fight for Lucky’s right and get him the proper treatment by his owner.
Where is the evidence?
Lucky is a typical example of abused slave, with no opinion and no rights.
I think your argument would be helped by a clear description of what class each of these four characters represent.
represents a “slave-owner” and a slave.
I don't see how this fits into your reading of the play as a WWII allegory, as there "slave-owner and slave" were not large categories for people during WWII. Perhaps they are representations of a tyrant and his abused and powerless population?
didn’t not have money to pay for it had to wear whatever he would find.
Is your argument here that Gogo is of a lower-class background than Didi? Didi is certainly the intellectual, if there is one. If that is your argument, you should make it more clearly.
Somebody beats Gogo every night and he is tired of it.
Where is the evidence?
He says, “We’ve lost our rights? We god rid of them”(15). Based on this statement, I can argue that Vladimir had rights before the damage of the World War II,
Interesting point. The soldiers who volunteered to fight during WWII essentially had gotten rid of their rights, and could be ordered around or ordered to certain death by their commanding officers.
prototypes
Rather than prototypes, I think you might call them representations of the soldiers. In this sense, the play would be something of an allegory, perhaps.
In one of his major works Waiting for Godot between the lines hidden the spirit of the World War II.
This is a really interesting and original thesis. I think that you are really onto something, and that your intuition has lead you in the right direction. However, I think you might rephrase this to make it a bit more powerful. For example, I think you might expand upon it something like, "... behind the lines hides the spirit of WWII and the destruction, hopelessness and exhaustion left after the war was over or something along those lines, you see what I mean. That way, the scope of your thesis would include what is often called the "post-war" period.
Finally Waiting for Godot is a mirror of many individual needs to find a divine power to be rescued and overcome all kind suffering, pain and unhappiness in the present life. Godot appears in the play as a characterization of that trans human beings and it’s the hope in Estragon and Vladimir to never take individualism to find the redemption and beat all the miseries they have had to live.
This is interesting, but it doesn't seem to be what the rest of your essay has been about so far. Once you have a more certain thesis and an introduction paragraph, it will be easier to write a conclusion.
t the same time the Author introduce the Absurdism through a wide variety of themes
What does absurdism have to do with your thesis about possible Christian interpretations of the play? Does it contradict those readings?
The return of a biblical figure is present in most of the western religion, but there is not time or precise place on earth known, where the chosen one will come to save people.
Excellent point. Connect it directly to the play. They might be waiting for "the savior" in a Christian second-coming sense.
Samuel Beckett could be representing his own insensitive view of the society , or the lack of human quality to deal with daily trouble not only with humankind pertaining to back in time, but with today’s people.
What do you think? Make a more specific argument here. What do Pozzo and Lucky show us about how human beings treat one another?
This signal of practicing a good gospel, contracts with the next character – POZZO-.
Excellent point. In fact, Pozzo won't share his food at all, only the bones. This might be a good point for a comparison.
This human apprehension of trusting each other is beyond their physical condition to keep them together and safer, and it’s an emotional scenario to reduce risk of harmfulness and suffering in that precarious conditions to find the mystical figure, while they walk that cheerless and disgracefully road.
I get totally lost here. It might be better to slow down and explain each point one by one, rather than writing them all in one sentence.
This idea of dead is for something not more than the description of the nature context, instead of a revelation inside the religion sense of mortality.
Interesting idea, but I can't tell where you get it from the quotation unless you explain it with Analysis! Get into the specifics of the words of the quotation.
The small perspective of these two men are placed in the hope to receive any gratification from the goo God, and this determination seems to be the only motivation to keep walking to meet Godot and redeem their sins.
Remember that your Analysis should focus specifically on what your quotations reveal. Then you can make Claims like these. Evidence and Analysis are the most important grading criteria for this essay, so do lots of Analysis!
At the beginning of the first Act of Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett embodies the Christians reflection of Guilty,
This is a really interesting idea and an original reading. I think your essay would be much improved if you devoted an entire introduction paragraph to explaining it at length. You don't need to bring all of the quotations in until the first body paragraph.
Pozzo uses his materialistic power to control people as much as he can.
Again, this is the moment to connect your arguments back to your thesis. Keep making those connections and your essay will come together.
Pozzo’s character is that of a dominant figure and wants full control.
Perhaps this issue of control and dominance is an important part of the perspective on relationships in general that we get in the play. Pozzo clearly wants complete dominance; he is the master and Lucky is the slave. But is Didi the more dominant or controlling figure in his relationship with Gogo? Might he become more like Pozzo someday? Could he have been a Pozzo?
Although they clearly share the knowledge of Christianity, Vladimir and Estragon both reject whatever does not appeal to hope and optimism in their situation.
This is where your real analysis of the passage begins. Can you say more about what you mean by "hope and optimism in their situation?" This is the more important point.
Vladimir has a protective personality towards Estragon and has defended him from danger and would keep protecting him.
Can you connect this to the larger portrayal of relationships that we get in this play? Tie it into your thesis.
have personality dependency.
What do you mean here? If this is a medical term or a syndrome of some sort, you would be better off just describing what it is, rather than using the official medical terminology, I think.
automatically replies to that which Estragon was saying while he was by himself sitting on a rock.
Excellent point. Gogo is more or less talking to himself here, and it suddenly becomes a dialogue. What does this reveal to the audience? First of all, that they know each other really well. But perhaps something more?
(NEED A STRONGER THESIS)
How about some general perspective on what you think the author thoughts about relationships might be? For example, these two relationships are clearly quite different, with some interesting similarities, like how they stick together, which you point out very well. Why do you think we see these two opposite, but perhaps related, types of relationships? What effect is this contrast meant to have on the audience/reader? Thinking about it from the author's perspective might help you develop your thesis a bit.
It’s this answer they are looking for makes their waiting a metaphor for the question of life.
I think your conclusion might do a better job of re-envisioning your thesis. What is the metaphor, as you see it? What exactly do you mean by "the question of life?" You're on the right track, but I think you could say more.
willing to commit suicide so spontaneously
I wonder if the subject of suicide might lead you to a more specific description of their desire for transcendence. Are they just seeking to escape from an existence that they find intolerable, or do they want to know what happens after life? Perhaps suicide should be the subject of another body paragraph. There is certainly evidence from the play about it.
Didi continues to ask trivial question to which ends with Gogo asking him “what was wrong with you.”
Again, you should write some more analysis and final claims here.
he epistemology of the circumstance
Epistemology is an interesting subject in this play: if nothing is certain, then the grounds upon which they base all of their "knowledge" become subject to investigation. What do you mean by "the circumstance" here?
This also brings up the point if Mr. Godot is even waiting for these two or if in fact he is looking for someone else.
What would it mean for your thesis if Didi and Gogo happened to be mistaken, if Mr. Godot was looking for someone else entirely, someone named Albert, not them. Would their search for transcendental meaning be any less real? Would their situation seem more like a cruel joke? Explore this further.
In the beginning of Act 1 we first are introduced the characters with Didi not being able to take off his shoe while Gogo is content with how things is. Didi follows and says “let’s wait until we know exactly how we stand” with Gogo even rebutting with “what exactly did we ask him for?”
Remember to follow up evidence with analysis and final claims. CEA paragraphs should never end with quotations. Explain exactly what you see in these passages from the play, and then connect them to your thesis. Remember, the most important grading criteria for this essay will be evidence and analysis, so get as much in as you can!
It is the notion that there is something greater than the circumstance Gogo and Didi are already in that compels them both to keep waiting.
You have gone halfway to explaining your thesis here, but I think you can say more. How does this connect to your notion of "transcendental reasoning?" These are tricky questions, but I think if you go a little further it would really help your essay.
they persist on coming back and are obliged to remain.
Why do they persist? How are they obliged? These are mysteries in the play, but I think the questions might be central to your argument.
want answers beyond human transcendental reasoning.
This point seems crucial to me. I think your essay would be improved if you explained exactly what you mean by "human transcendental reasoning." Is that simply reasoning that looks beyond the "circumstance" of their daily lives? Or is it reasoning that transcends life and death and considers existence from some even more elevated perspective?
Beckett criticizes this ideology
This idea that Beckett is critical of Didi and Gogo is very interesting, but I think you will need to find some more evidence from the play to support it. He might very well be on their side. You might consider Lucky and Pozzo's relationship here. Does Lucky rely on Pozzo for meaning? Hasn't that brought him terrible suffering? They might be useful examples for you to draw upon.
they realize that their lives have become meaningless
They are certainly suffering, but I'm not so sure they think their lives are meaningless. Perhaps Gogo does, but Vladimir, and particularly in the passage you quote, seems to think that their lives do have a clear, concrete meaning: to wait for Godot.
Vladimir and Estrogen are waiting for someone to give their lives purpose
What if "waiting for someone" is the purpose of their lives? What if the only "meaning" of their existence is to show up and wait for someone who never comes? Though that might seem meaningless at first, there is perhaps quite a lot of meaning there: keeping the appointment might imply duty, responsibility, faith, humility. How many people can boast to have done what they did? "Billions," Gogo says. But that doesn't make their lives any less meaningful.
They contemplate on parting but never do for they are dependent upon each other for “entertainment” to their meaningless waiting.
I think you can connect their relationship back to your thesis here. Certainly, their fifty-year relationship has been an important part of what has given their lives meaning. Perhaps they always consider parting and only stay together because of habit, but they are with each other for more than just the "entertainment" they need while passing the time - though that is part of it.
strogen then says, “If we parted?
It seems to me that habit is one of the things that keeps these two together. They constantly consider parting but never do. Perhaps there are some positives to habit also.
His habit of waiting for Godot has become so meaningless that he no longer finds enjoyment nor desire to keep on waiting
Isn't it also possible that, at least in the moment that Vladimir is speaking, the habit of waiting for Godot is exactly what gives them meaning? He says, "We are blessed to know the answer." Using the word "blessed" sounds pretty positive; "keeping their appointment" seems pretty important. The need to keep their appointment keeps them from hanging themselves, twice. This might be a bit more complicated than you make it sound.
such habit reflects their purpose in life.
I see what you are saying here, but I think you might rephrase this for clarity.
Beckett criticizes this belief
Your arguments are convincing up to here, but I think you should show how Beckett "criticizes" the need for salvation from an outside force. Didi and Gogo certainly long for salvation, and maybe Beckett did too. Say more here.
just like the thieves are depending on Jesus to save them, so are these protagonists for they are depending on Godot to save them.
Good. Though this points might seem obvious, they make it absolutely clear how your argument connects to the play.
these characters find themselves in what Existentialist would call: an Existential Crisis.
Where is the evidence from the play for this?
hich can liberate one from the cycle of suffering.
This sounds like Buddhism to me. We are straying a bit far from the play here. Stay closer to the text.
The theory behind existentialism is that people are not born with a predetermined purpose but it’s ingrained in each one to find it within oneself as opposed to finding it in other people or things. It is people’s nature to seek meaning in life and would therefore ask questions, such as, “why am I here?”, “how should I live my life?” and so on as a way to find meaning in their lives. Existentialism focuses on a subjective point of view that one is responsible for their own happiness and purpose in life. In other words, one is the creator of his/ her life without taking into account the ideals, cultures and societal expectations.
This is a well-written, thoughtful passage about a sometimes complex philosophical movement. You should make sure to connect your thoughts here more closely to the text, by including more direct Evidence and Analysis. Remember, the most important grading criteria for this essay will be Evidence and Analysis, so try to get as much of that in there as you can!
existential.
I think you should explain what you mean by "existential" here. The play is always connected with "existentialism," but even that philosophical term is somewhat vague. It would be better to expand upon your thoughts, rather than rely on it.
representing Vladimir and Estrogen to human life
This part of your thesis leaves me a bit confused. I think you might rewrite what you mean here, being as specific as possible. Overall, your thesis is quite clear, however.
We as readers know that the life they had before this was one of great magnitude.
They have been together for 50 years. This could be a way to transition into the story of their relationship. We don't know much about those 50 years, but we get the sense that perhaps they were once more "respectable." How does this relate to their needing to be saved?
Vladimir reflects on the story in the “Bible” about “two crucified at the same time as their “savior”.
This would seem to be one of the "religious connotations" you mention. Perhaps you might connect it back to their 50-year relationship, however, or just re-organize the paragraphs so that they have a different order.
First, ask yourself
From the last sentence of your introduction, I would assume that the rest of the essay would be organized as follows:
The days of comfort are far gone for these two. All they can do is wait for nothing. Estragon and Vladimir are two longtime friends that have found themselves in this strange predicament of need. Waiting for something equates to something that you don’t have. Estragon and Vladimir have no place of security, limited amounts of foods, and general life resources. So what are they waiting for? Godot to save their souls or simply to ease their means of life until they die? Estragon and Vladimir are waiting for the ultimate “savior” to come and save their spiritual souls. To better assess the role Godot is supposed to play in Estragon and Vladimir’s life you have to look at Didi and Gogo’s 50-year relationship, the religious connotations made by them, as well as verbiage stated about Godot and his character.
Great introduction. This is very nicely written, you state your thesis super clearly, and you preview the arrangement of ideas to follow - the three things and introduction should do.
he author leave a lot of interpretation and ambiguous things for a reader.
This is a key point. Maybe you want to consider this in your body paragraphs. Why does the author leave so many ambiguous things for readers/ audience to puzzle over? What does that do?
hat does not make a sens
Why doesn't it make sense? Say more.
we have to find it.
Find what? This is interesting. Explain what you mean.
It seems to me that something interesting and sarcasm behind on it that really a joke.
Very true. Why is it funny? What exactly is the joke?
For instance, when a man fell down and dying for death, the Estagan trying to help him, but Vadimir said lets go.
Where is the evidence?
a philosophical perspectives
What philosophical perspective? Be more specific.
A lot of us today suffering depression wait so long and work so hard for a certain goal that we were blind and we forget what happened surrounding of us that means we living for future, not for today. The life meaning is yourself looking to find true assent, the assent of being human.
Though your expansive, general perspective is interesting and quite well written, I think you would be better off keeping your arguments specific to the text. Is all this true of Didi and Gogo? If so, can you find evidence to support your claim, and then analyze it to show that your claim is true?
In the play, “we wait. We are bored. No do not protest, we are bored to death, there is no dying to it.”
Careful. This is not exactly the correct quote and you have no page number here.
they react the opposite that represent something emotion behind on it.
Nice analysis. Can you connect it back to your thesis? What emotional perspective is this? How does it connect to the "idea of Godot?"
However, I think that the idea of Godot represents as emotional, mythological, and sarcastic, and philosophical perspectives that the beginning is different from ending.
I'm confused about your thesis. I think you should revise this, trying to say in more definite terms exactly what you think the "idea of Godot represents" and what relation this has to the change between the beginning and ending.
Why they choose to do such of things.
Instead of asking this sort of rhetorical question, you might try to answer it as best as possible. Why do they insist on "keeping their appointment" with Godot?
I think,
Again, this use of "I think" is not necessary.
epresents as emotion
"Emotion" and "emotional perspectives" are very general descriptions; what emotions specifically are you referring to? Say more about this and, as Zachary mentions, try to connect it to your thesis.
Everyone has their own goal or purpose to have something or expect outcomes from based on their work. They try to live a certain existence and hope to have benefits in future.
I always say that it is better to start with something very specific rather than a general very expansive first sentence like this one. Instead of beginning with the wide lens view of "everyone" why don't you begin by focusing on Didi and Gogo?
I think that
I don't think your use of the first-person "I" helps you here. Perhaps you could rephrase.
The fumbling futility in keeping a conversation seems to represent the ineffectiveness of all mankind in its attempt at communication. It rapidly becomes apparent that Vladimir and Estragon, as representatives of modern man, cannot express any clear or useful resolution or action; and what seems more pathetic, they cannot communicate their helpless longings to one another.
This is an interesting development of your argument and deserves to be explored in its own CEA paragraph.
Exactly like the audience who get the chance to self-reflect
This point is too important to leave as a sentence fragment: the audience is also being amused by a "diversion."
“big game”
I like this idea of "games" but I think it deserves some more careful explanation. Didi and Gogo play games to amuse themselves; the creator of this world/ Godot has invented the characters and scenario to amuse himself -- is that the idea?
nd uses the entire play as a diversion in his day.
Do you mean to suggest that Godot orchestrates the events of the play to amuse himself? If so, you should find some evidence, analyze and say more. Wouldn't this put him in a position very much like the writer?
them
Who makes appointments but does not keep them?
We are never told where this road is located; all we know is that the entirety of the play unfolds on this lonely road. The transition from one act to the other, there is no difference in either the setting or in the time and, thus, instead of a progression of time within an identifiable setting, we have a repetition in the second act of the same things that we saw and heard in the first act.
Nice description, but what is the effect of all this? Why is the setting so simple and unspecific? Why does time not seem to progress from one day to the next, but to repeat each day over again - though of course there are some changes?
In the absurdist sense, he is a god that is ubiquitous and all-knowing, someone who exists out of the physical space and time.
How is this in the "absurdist sense?" Can you say more about what you mean by "absurdist?"
A careful reading of the play shows that unlike the God of the Bible, Godot does not protect the sheep. While God protects the sheep, and curses the goats as mentioned in the Bible; Godot protects the boy who takes care of the goats and beats the boy who takes care of the sheep. This leads us to that Godot might have a savior-like significance in the tramps’ life, but he is no biblical God.
Excellent analysis. This is an original interpretation!
which alludes to a biblical Proverb 13:12: “Hope deferred maketh the heart sick”
Very nice. Do you think this is meant to be funny? If so, what is the point of the joke? Perhaps Beckett is not only alluding to the bible but satirizing it.
Essentially, Beckett’s characters remain a puzzle which each individual viewer must solve and try to apply within their own lives.
Instead of ending the paragraph here, you might introduce some evidence to support your point. Though this is a nicely written paragraph and a thoughtful description of the style, it would benefit from evidence and analysis. I think you could very easily turn it into a CEA paragraph.
these feelings
What feelings?
the characterization of the foils
I think you might explain what you mean by foils here. Perhaps it would be simpler to say something along the lines of the "the setting up of opposites," or "the creation of paired doubles," etc.
The author portrays most of the remainder of the play through the lugubrious tone and dismal setting of the play.
Careful with repetitiveness here: "the play ... the play." Sentence level editing will help make your thesis crystal clear and more persuasive.
In conclusion, Beckett’s play lacks sense and history because of uncertainty spread throughout his play. The characters in his plays such as Vladimir, Estragon, Lucky, Pozzo, Godot, and boys teach many lessons about life. Nothing is sure about life. Everything can happen suddenly. Perhaps Beckett took this uncertainty of life to question the way people are treating each other. He used this play to better off our society.
Your investigation of uncertainty is quite organized and convincing. I wonder if you might expand upon it by considering how all this uncertainty affects the reader/audience. This play is very frustrating for many people who want it to have a meaning they can understand; why might Beckett insist on denying them? What situation does all this uncertainty put the reader/audience in?
Therefore, Godot cannot be God because God is the supreme being able to change everything. Perhaps Godot is someone wealthier shepherd that can provide them shelter and food. When the boy was asked about Godot he said that he mind the goats for Godot. (page 79). This quote confirms that Godot is not God, he should be a shepherd, but he does nothing.
I think you can connect this final point to your thesis more strongly: the suggestion at times is clearly that Godot is some sort of god-like salvational figure; but the evidence here suggests that he is not god at all. He may not even be a wealthy farmer - they work, they do not do nothing. Doesn't all of this add to the uncertainty somehow?
When he said, “let’s wait and see what he says” (page 20).
Careful with sentence fragments!
Vladimir and Estragon have been waiting for Godot for a while; desperate, they decide to hang themselves (Page 18).
Nice writing here
Lucky and Pozzo , two people that Vladimir met in the first act. Lucky was poor while Pozzo was rich, strong, and full of assurance. The following day, Pozzo becomes blind, and Lucky leads now Pozzo (page 127). The abrupt change of these two people explains that life is uncertain. The highest place that one occupies today can change suddenly into worse just like we see with Pozzo and Lucky. It is a proof that people lives can swing from one end to the other.
Excellent point. It does seem that Pozzo's fate goes from good to bad overnight, and that everything can change in a day, for better or worse. I think that your connection of the uncertainty of day to day existence to Lucky and Pozzo might deserve a separate paragraph here, rather than just concluding the paragraph about the tree. That way you could use evidence and investigate further.
ses different themes such as the relationship between Vladimir and Estragon, time, memory, and place to draw conclusion life is full of uncertainty because everything can happen at any time.
This thesis is much more clear.
an be a metaphor of lack of knowledge of human beings where they live.
Interesting. Can you explain the metaphor, as you see it?
have no past
I think not remembering the past very well is different from having no past. They've been together for fifty years, remember. They do remember certain things, sometimes. Picking grapes, throwing themselves in the Rhone, et cetera.
Vladimir and Estragon, two tramps on the side of the road to meet Godot. They are spending their time talking about everything and nothing, and hoping that the famous Godot will come. The purpose of waiting for Godot is to find deliverance from their purposeless, and meaningless lives. The tramps are unable to change their lives and prefer to entrust their lives to Godot. Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot” is such a tragicomedy play written in two acts. Through this endless waiting for Godot, Beckett uses different themes such as the relationship between Vladimir and Estragon, time, memory, and place to draw conclusion life is full of uncertainty because everything can happen at any time.
Nicely written introduction
It is unfortunate that even though Vladimir seems to have no direction in life, he probably knows how to get a companion to give him psych while waiting for Godot. That is if he used skepticism to lure Estragon to stick with him in the wait. It also means that Estragon has no idea of whatever is even happening around him.
Interesting idea. Can you prepare us for it a bit more with your arguments. This might make for a strong conclusion, but only if you build towards it.
They have made all the time in their miserable and useless lives for waiting for probably nothing. It becomes their goal. It is as if they are on a blind journey without a sense of direction.
What about considering a metaphorical reading of their situation? Do you think that they are meant to represent something more than just two tramps? Yes they are miserable and useless but perhaps the story is about more than just them?
It is as if they expect that Godot will come solve all their problems.
Evidence?
The whole scenario here again also implies the lack of independence between these two characters.
They certainly rely on each other completely. Why is that? Can you connect that more closely to your thesis?
As the two cannot come to a consensus, Estragon suggests that they be quiet to one another for a brief moment.
When? Where is the evidence?
relentless individuals
You should explain exactly what you mean here. Relentless how?
He asserts that if Godot fails to appear, the two would return the following day. As if jokingly, Estragon says then that if would not show, they would return all the coming days to check if he would come.
Why do you think the two characters disagree about the tree and whether or not they are in the right place? What is the point of all this uncertainty? This paragraph could use some final claims.
Those statements imply that he is no
Careful with sentences of Analysis that start so generally. Instead of writing "those statements imply..." why not just say, "They don't know if they are in the right place," or something equally direct?
xpressed excitement
I'm confused by your point here. Gogo seems to be the one who wants to leave.
Beckett once directed the preparations of the play in Berlin in 1975, and another in London in 1984.
I'm not sure how this is relevant to your argument.
here is that instance where Vladimir vomits after getting to smell Estragon’s boot. At that very moment Estragon goes behind the stage with his back facing the audience the gives a remark for that scene by saying it is a charming spot.
Where is the evidence?
Vladimir, in the story, is also known as Didi and Gogo is also called Estragon.
Is this the most engaging, exciting sentence to begin with?
It is as if the two do not use their brains to full capacity to realize they need to make something out of themselves. The two constantly are not aware of the very vivid compressed vacuum in their lives.
I think this thesis would be improved by some more specifics about what exactly you mean by phrases like "make something out of themselves" and "compressed vacuum."
Becket criticize the human religion by correlating it to uncertainty, lack of truth and argues that skepticism is the main reasons of and absurd life. He also emphasizes that human religions stories which is carried from generation to generation, and becomes a routine which is not compatible with logic. This uncertain routing prevent human from a meaningful action and decision in his life, and become a prison of own made.
Some of this should be in the introduction. Then, you can use this thesis to link paragraphs with transition sentences.
Keep up with the promise is part of new and old tenements.
It's not at all clear to me what you mean here. This paragraph is an example of where it would be useful to slow down and try to rephrase each sentence as clearly as possible.
Vladimir is referring to the Bible and presenting another example of the two thefts one was saved due to his faith and belief. The two thefts who were also crucified with the Jesus and one of them were saved and said by the Jesus that “you would be with me in the paradise”. By so much deep Biblical references with not doubt that Beckett is talking of Christ God. Vladimir and Estragon fell guilty and sin therefore wait for Godot as their “saviour” to save them from hell as he “God” did save the theft.
It seems also relevant that there are two thieves and two of them; Didi is considering the probability that either he or Gogo will be saved. Perhaps the insistence on numbers here is meant to satirize the gospels?
but they know their religion so deeply
Really? The only thing Gogo can remember of the bible are the maps. That doesn't seem like he knows it "deeply."
he nails it down that he mean God, probably God of Christs.
I'm not so sure. I think it would be safer to say that Beckett "suggests" a Christian god, rather than that he "nails it down."
Religion is one of the other important them of the play.
You can find a more original way to phrase transition sentences than writing, each time, 'XYZ is an important theme.'
Beckett argues that human being waste their life by believing in Gods that even they are note sure about him, yet they wait him whole life. He argues that such waiting makes life a prison which people are dependent rather than a free human and repeat their limited action.
This sounds like what your thesis is missing; some of this argument maybe should be in the the thesis in your intro.
which confirms the misfortune of the human being.
Do you mean that Didi and Gogo's misfortune - having to wait for Godot - is symbolic of the general misfortune of human existence? I think this point deserves more explanation.
them
You mean "theme," I think
this is the knowledge and understanding of human from their personal God which is based on imagination rather than logic. Beckett suggest that Vladimir and Estragon who “represent human beings at that moment” simply believe in their personal God “Godot” without any reason rather than the imagination they have had in mind for him.
I think you can do a better job of connecting this point to the quotation above -- that Beckett "suggests" this by showing Estragon mistaking Pozzo for Godot. This might lead somewhere interesting.
“Pozzo: Who is Godot? / Vladimir: Oh he’s a… he’s a kind of acquaintance/ Estragon: Nothing of the kind, we hardly know him. / Vladimir: True…we don’t know him very well…but all the same… /Estragon: Personally I wouldn’t even know him if I saw him” (Beckett 21).
Remember to introduce evidence.
Either of Vladimir or Estragon who represent human “in this place, at this moment, all mankind is us, whether we like it not” (Beckett 90) have ever seen or even talked to Godot before.
Excellent point and quotation
By “nothing” he means independent, logical and rational action.
And yet, they still manage to "do" enough to entertain an audience for two hours. The play consists of them "doing nothing" and this "nothing," though it is perhaps not logical or rational action, is still something.
The author argues that religion is a routine by human which is not compatible with logic. He argues that this routine “deaden” or stun them and prohibit them taking any rational decision. “
Excellent. This is the sort of detail that helps to explain how Beckett's play "challenges" religion. Maybe you should include some of this in your thesis.
Beckett suggests that human beings even does not have any clue of their waiting spot for their deity as the basic road map, but they just follow what they have heard of their ancestors.
Interesting. Make the connection more explicit. What does this have to do with Vladimir's insistence on "keeping their appointment?"
Beckett emphasis that all human beings have doubt about the religion
In the quotation here, they seem to have doubts about everything, including what they did the day before. This is a bit more complicated than just having doubts about religion. There are suggestions that they are suffering some sort of purgatorial punishment, in which they live out the same day again and again, with no memory of the day before. Can you make your analysis of the text more complex, so as to include some of this nuance?
fifty-fifty chance of life
Interesting. What do you mean by "fifty-fifty chance of life" here? Remember, "one of the two thieves was saved."
Beckett argues that humans’ religions are meaningless and nothing is certain.
Interesting point but how does it connect to the quotation above? You need more analysis of your evidence here, especially after a long quotation like this one. What does it mean to be "made for the same road" or not?
by tying it
True, but be more specific. Do you mean that Beckett suggests human religions rely on the uncertainty of their assertions in order to win converts ie it is impossible ever to test whether or not God and Heaven exist the way that a religion describes them?
challenge
I wonder if you could say more about what you mean by "challenge" here. Do you read the play as an "attack" on religions in general? If so, why do Didi and Gogo seem to need Godot so desperately?
waiting
Here is an example of a verb in the "-ing" form which should be conjugated so as to make this an independent clause and a complete sentence.
a road one lacks
It seems there should be some mark of punctuation between "road" and "one"; these are two independent clauses, and might even be separate sentences.
yet the play remain in the same consequence.
What do you mean by "consequence" here? Please say more.
renders all the situations, dialogue, language and action taken by the characters as inconsequential
This is very nicely put. You might expand upon this point by considering how this endless repetition connects to several themes, for example: 1) memory - if the same things happen endlessly and without meaning, what is the point of memory? 2) punishment - is the salvation they are hoping Godot will bring merely an end of the sort of purgatorial punishment they are forced to suffer each day? 3) the audience - doesn't this absurdity, meaninglessness, what you call the "inconsequential" put the reader./audience in the same position as Didi and Gogo?
Ultimately, Vladimir and Estragon arrive at the same overarching conclusion, that in their state of uncertainty, companionship surpasses being alone. Furthermore, through their companionship, they find comfort in the validity of their existence and find purpose in helping each other cope.
I feel like there is so much more to be said about the passage you have just quoted. Why do they think they might be better off alone? What does it meant to be "made for the same road?" How is "road" - which is also the stage where all the action is taking place- functioning metaphorically here?
However, their refusal to separate suggests more than their decision to wait for Godot; their companionship gives them a confirmation of existence, consequently giving them a deeper sense of purpose; to help each other cope with the ambiguity, hopelessness, boredom, loneliness and despair, while also providing encouragement in fulfilling their purpose of waiting for Godot.
Here is another sentence with enough subject matter to be revised as two or three separate sentences, I think.
Once establishing their false sense of purpose
Do you mean "Once they have established etc"?
In obstinately deciding to wait, given the inevitable uncertainty of the situation, Vladimir and Estragon fabricate a sense of purpose, preoccupying themselves with a self-invented illusion that Godot will eventually arrive.
You might do some more close analysis of the quotation before you arrive at your final claims here. For example, Didi here seems to suggest that they have had a prior meeting with Godot. They set the appointment, somehow. This is undermined by the suggestion later that they don't know what he looks like. These sorts of internal contradictions are exactly what create the uncertainty you're getting at in this paragraph.
;
Watch out for these semicolons.
a purposeful agenda
Again, I think you would be better served by plain, direct language: 'they seem to know what they are doing,' 'their actions seem to have a purpose,' etcetera.
their pursuance of waiting
This language is a bit ambiguous; I think "pursuance" as it is used here is one of those nouns derived from verbs we talked about watching out for.
to vacillate
Usually we say "vacillate between" two alternatives. The word is an excellent description of Didi and Gogo's aimless existence, but perhaps you might rephrase this bit.
as the play lacks the tools
What do you mean by tools here? That is an interesting way to phrase it; I would have said perhaps that the plays withholds any contextual evidence that might reveal ..." Perhaps you mean the tools for the reader?
The pursuit of defining human existence is a pilgrimage in which infinite possibilities guarantees no definitive explanation. Samuel Beckett’s play, Waiting for Godot explores this inexorable uncertainty through the abandonment of traditional metaphysical conceptions, logical exposition and resolution; creating a world in which there is no absolute truth other than existence. The play’s circular structure and dissection of the metaphysical human psyche; deserting abstract concepts including being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space; leaves the main characters, Estragon and Vladimir, to their own devices in discerning meaning and purpose in a barren and equivocal universe. However, in their interminable waiting for Godot, Estragon and Vladimir’s situations, actions, dialogue and language are rendered insignificant, as they find themselves in an infinite cycle of inevitable ambiguity nonetheless.
Each of these sentences seems to be quite dense. I think your argument might be easier to graph if you turned some of these long, quite-complex sentences into more simple, shorter ones. Perhaps the "play's circular structure" and its "dissection of abstract concepts" might be treated separately, and with a bit more explanation, for example.
resolution; creating
Remember that the clauses on both sides of a semi-colon should be independent; with this sentence in the form it is in now, I think it would be better served by either a colon, m-dash or simple comma here. Alternatively, you might simplify things by separating it into an independent sentence.
; deserting abstract concepts including being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space;
I think the subordinate clause here in the middle of this long sentence might be better set off between dashes - for example - to show that it is parenthetical. You might rephrase it many other different ways also.
Will Didi and Gogo wait for the possibility of death with an afterlife through Godot, or tomorrow, bring a bit of rope to that weeping willow tree?
I don't feel that this sort of a rhetorical question is the most powerful way to conclude. The role of the tree as a symbol of life seems like the right subject; but perhaps it would be better to try to answer the question you pose here. I know we will never know, but you can still try.
Death is viewed as an escape from our unhappiness, but if there is in fact an afterlife, what if it’s just an eternity of the uncertainty we faced while living and not the thing that brings us closure?
I think this sort of very interesting analysis might be tied more closely to the text; you might rephrase it along the lines of "The boy's answers to Didi's questions suggest the possibility that if there is in fact an afterlife ..." There are a number of similar passages in your essay that might be tied more closely to the text they analyze.
There was a build up to Didi’s breaking point.
This is key: that the characters change during the course of the play, and perhaps even reach "a breaking point." Say more about this "breaking point" and how they got there.
The concept of suicide is common in existentialism because it’s thought that people should avoid having to live under the pressure of a crumbling existence.
Perhaps you might explain here. Does this describe the play? Existentialism in itself is a tricky, larger subject.
They have no identity.
I think you might need to say more about what exactly you mean here. They are certainly individual characters with their own particular quirks and idiosyncrasies who are clearly distinct from one another. What do you mean by identity?
Thus, to truly live, we cannot subject ourselves to coping mechanisms but instead accept the irrationality of our existence and the randomness of the universe and find meaning in spite of it.
Excellent analysis!
Estragon “We’re not tied?
Don't forget to introduce evidence.
We, as human beings, crave explanations, purpose, and meaning for our existence. Yet the answers to the mysteries of the universe cannot be determined. We are incapable of discovering this knowledge no matter the yearning. We can only hypothesize, wonder, and dream to know how we got here and what happens next; next being twenty-four years from now, twenty-four hours from now, or as little as twenty-four minutes from now. Nothing is certain.
This analysis feels a bit informal and perhaps not sufficiently rooted in the text. Can you make explicit how this relates to Didi and Gogo's experience and the quotations you are using?
Oftentimes putting blind faith in something beyond comprehension is easier than succumbing to the unknown.
This is an excellent point. Shouldn't you connect it specifically to Godot and Didi and Gogo's insistence on keeping their appointment?
To combat such feelings of despair, individuals are either forced to accept the absurdity and impose no constraints to live with the knowledge of not knowing everything, put blind faith in an idea or concept that will provide salvation to the absurd existence, or escape the absurdity by way of suicide.
What about humor? It seems to me that humor is Beckett and Didi and Gogo's best defense against the absurdity of a seemingly meaningless existence.
Even Pozzo references the struggle of such an ultimate decision. Pozzo “I don’t seem to be able…[long hesitation]…to depart.” Estragon “Such is life.” Page 38.
Excellent quotation!
Didi and Gogo have given their life no further purpose beyond consciously lying in wait for the mysterious Godot, or ultimately, death.
I think you might explain a bit more about what you mean by "purpose" here; they themselves seem uncertain WHY they are waiting for Godot, other than that they have an "appointment" with him. What does this purpose have to do with certainty and ambiguity?
characterized by a sense of disorientation and trepidation in a world that feels somewhat meaningless and void.
Very nice
ahead; only that they must wait.
Remember that the clauses on both sides of a semi-colon should be independent. I think just a comma here would be better perhaps.
Waiting for Godot show us how the society is social constructed after the war and how these two character Vladimir and Estragon live in an uncertain world and how they ability to make a choice is unable, how they have to belief and truth other person world to have some to still living, and they show their friendship and how they are afraid to be alone in a world who doesn’t care for them. The play also show the suffering and unhappy that humanity in the play are living and how they find death in a quickly solution to end with the pain and the endless waiting for Godot.
I don't see a specific thesis here. You are going to have to focus on one of these big ideas - and probably just one - and then make sure that the arguments in your body paragraphs all explore that subject.
In Waiting for Godot Vladimir and Estragon not are far from the fact of death. For them one solution to get out of the misery that they are living is death, “What about hanging ourselves?… Hmm. It’d give us an erection… (highly excited) An erection! …Let’s hang ourselves immediately!” Human choices in the society that the play show is depend in others people and death.
This is not so much a conclusion as another theme. Each of these paragraphs seems to be exploring a separate theme in the play. You will need to develop a more specific thesis and focus on it throughout - if you want this to come together as an essay.
Suffering is part of the daily life of these two character Vladimir and Estragon it shows how pain is necessary in the human condition of these two.
Again, there is no analysis here: just Claim, Evidence, Final Claim. Analyze in greater detail.
A rope around Lucky neck is an evidence of suffering in the society in the play.
Say more here. What does this kind of relationship have to do with Didi and Gogo and Godot?
the structure of humanity in the play is unhappy and misery that made people believe that they are some kind of god that they are better than others.
Connect this final claim to your evidence with analysis. After you quote the play, explain what the quotation shows. There needs to be more analysis here.
the fair of loneliness
Do you mean the "fear of loneliness?"
They transform their mental choice in physical performanc
This is an interesting idea. Can you explain more about what exactly you mean here by mental choice and physical performance?
I believe that what they mean
This sort of first-person, "I believe" statement is unnecessary and should be cut. Be confident of your interpretation.
Waiting for Godot show us how the society is social constructed after the war and how these two character Vladimir and Estragon live in an uncertain world and how they ability to make a choice is unable, how they have to belief and truth other person world to have some to still living, and they show their friendship and how they are afraid to be alone in a world who doesn’t care for them.
This first sentence is way too long and has too many ideas in it; try to separate each of these ideas into individual sentences. Focus on whichever of them you think is your thesis, then introduce the book, the characters and your main idea more slowly. This is too much too fast.
but in the case of the Sensuous Woman she learns her lesson with sexual experience.
Can you find some evidence to support your claim that the Sensuous Woman is also learning new things from each of her lovers?
Both main character find their truth life and live their life with all the knowledge life offer them.
This final sentence should be expanded into a separate conclusion paragraph. Remember that a conclusion should return to your overall thesis, and show how it has developed based on all of your claims and analysis.
So, all three of us were happy.”
Do you believe that Lazarillo is really happy here? Or is this meant to be ironic, like the last line about him attaining the summit of good fortune? Is the reader meant to laugh at or sympathize with Lazarillo, or both?
in the case of Lazarillo, he find a new master and the last master who was very good with him, he give Lazarillo a house, a wife even to administered his business, but his master was sleeping with his wife but lazarillo try not to think about that because for all he went through Lazarillo don’t want lose everything he accomplish,
This is a bit of a run-on sentence.
the wisdom to survive
What sort of "wisdom" does he give Lazarillo? Go into specifics.
The Sensuous Woman got used to the priest and she found herself waiting for him late at night, she learns how to live her life in that moment.
What does this have to do with being a trickster and/or with the struggle to survive?
the Sensuous Woman’s family lose everything and she end up as a prostitute is different as Lazarillo because Lazarillo was poor from the beginning but they both go through all the obstacles of life.
Good point. This is an important difference in their stories. Perhaps you can discuss these similarities and differences in a revised introduction.
himself, “I’d better keep my eyes open and my wits about me, for I’m on my own, and I’ll have to figure out how to manage for myself.” (12)
Remember that CEA paragraphs should never end with quotations. Analysis always has to follow evidence. Then you should make final claims that connect back to your thesis.