Here is an excerpt from KR's paper. What are its strengths? How could he empower it?
"An allegiance is a pivotal method of gaining confidence that is necessary in a war. The Japanese realized the necessity of such allegiance but at the same time, failed to effectively utilize them. This lack of dedication and following of orders is quite evidence in Six Weeks of Terror. Chang's multiple paragraph footnote shows the confusion regarding the origins of the order to kill hundreds of thousands of people. If the footnote contains accurate information and an officer or officers went behind a general's back, it could be that allegiances were not very effective in Japan but rather served as outward signs of confidence, contrary to an actual solider or officer's views. At the same time, Hersey portrayed an effective allegiance by Japanese civilians in Panic Grass and Feverfew. Innocent people said, 'Let us give Banzai to our Emperor" (Hersey 115). Innocent people were willing to give up their lives for the sake of the Emperor whom they have never seen or known. That strong dedication to a being they do not even know shows an allegiance that was effective in Japan. The dedication to the Emperor was what gave citizens hope in a time of war where officers and soldiers turned their backs on one another. This balance of false allegiances were replaced by true ones though Japan would hardly have lost a war as it would be extremely strong and powerful. Japan was fortunate enough though to have the Emperor as a figurehead that caused average citizens to have hope for a powerful allegiance."
Kyle introduced and concluded the quotes very well and it flowed well. This really helped make the quotes powerful and everlasting in the minds of the reader. I feel the topic sentence of the paragraph was more about the topic while the actual paragraph was more about the stories and that made me inquire why the two didn't exactly coincide. Also the concluding sentence of the paragraph didn't properly justify the above writing as much as i feel it could have.
ReplyDeletePretty airtight, sound argument from Kyle here. His comparison skills were very strong and I was impressed at his broad vocabulary and connection to the footnote. However, he did not lead into his quote very well. He explains the situation after the quote itself and it could have produced a stronger reaction than it did.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate this great feedback. Although I do not entirely agree with it, I plan on taking it into account. I hope to better connect the structure of my work since you both mentioned that and I would also like to thank you for the comments on the flow of my writing. I hope all of these comments will improve my writing in the future.
ReplyDeleteThe quote was okay, not great. But kyle countered that with his support of the quote. He strongly supported what he was saying. i liked what he said about the dedication to the emperor. that was particularly strong. i feel as though he used allegiance too many times, and that word lost its significance and value. i dont get the second to last sentence... im not sure what he was getting at. but all in all i liked the proof that he gave, i just thought the diction could be improved.
ReplyDeleteEven thought the quote was not the best, Kyle made an interesting argument and supported it well. Classic Kyle.
ReplyDelete