Here is an excerpt from JD's paper. What are its strengths? How can he empower it?
"As colonization brought wealth into Australia, it split the island colony into two major regions: The 'Bush' or wilderness, and Sydney, the industrial cities. 'Sydney and the Bush' by Les Murray explores the effects of colonization on both The Bush and Sydney. Sydney received all of the economic prosperity from Europe. The frontier was shrinking. The social tensions between the two cultures worsened from colonization: 'When Sydney and the Bush meet now / There is no common ground' (Murray). Through industry in Australia, Sydney became vastly different from the Outback. The culture evolved into a western European one, while the rest of Australia was still considered uncivilized. Conflict ensued due to the fact that social status altered to favor Sydney, as they were supported by Britain: 'The bushman sank and factories rose / and warders set the tone' (Murray). The warders, or Sydney, then rules the upper class. This was all due to colonization that resulted in economic prosperity and power to Sydney."
I liked all of the major points and evidence used but would have liked to see a little bit stronger of a connection between the two regions. All of the examples and quotes were great in proving Joe's point but were unable to show the dynamic between the two regions which was supposed to be the major point. Although, based on the evidence I was able to infer that information myself. Also, I did not like the use of "this" in the last sentence. Besides that connection though, the whole piece was pretty good, especially in its use of examples to support his point.
ReplyDeleteJoe wrote a pretty solid piece here. His comparisons and contrasts between the cities of Australia and the outback were logical and his quotes were especially strong in reinforcing his points. However, I think he possibly spends too long developing his main comparison and could have instead made a more broad, global connection between the cities and the outback.
ReplyDeleteJoe's diction was simple and understandable, this really helped further his writing to me personally as i understood all aspects of it. One downside of that however is that he spent to much on one topic, he did not base all his arguments together. This made his writing unorganized and thus less believable.
ReplyDeleteThe way that Joe divides these regions is really interesting. Joe's diction allows him to be understood pretty well, but he has a hard time tying all of his points together.
ReplyDeleteJoes paper was good here. His quotes were strong and he made good comparisons and contrasted the cities and outback. This was very understandable. His writing was a little unorganized though.
ReplyDeleteJoe's piece here was a good one that had simple points and jumped from point a to b and so on. While these points were good they did seem a bit rushed, he spent very little time between each one and it could make for a bit of a confusing read. His diction here and there could have been a bit better, but nothing major. Otherwise Joe did a good job, just slow it down a bit.
ReplyDelete