Help me quickly with my english homework?

#

Hey mate,

I’ll try and provide some serious help as it seems like no one really is.

What I’ll do is respond in terms of how I believe you met objective number one.

Your . paper titled “Forum Response” I think met the first bullet point of outcome one for the following reason. Primarily, you gave a response which both got your point across but you also undermined the credibility of the poster whose post you were referring to “so I won’t make a big deal about you not being able to get your facts straight”. So the fact that you actually engaged with the post was good as it actually reflected the genre of “forum post”.

When you look at your papers . (Forum Response), . (Letter Synthesis) and Major Paper (On a Grecian Urn) at the same time, I think you accurately satisfy the second sub point of objective one. This is because you have written for different types of audiences, forum readers, your friend and academics. This seems to simaltaenously satisfy the third point in objective one that for these pieces to have been compelling at all, you had to understand the audience of that genre. Even in “Forum Response” you go as far as overtly stating that you are engaging with the original poster as “The reason it can be seen as a naïve comment is because you are failing to take into account the size of editing”, thus satisfying the fourth point to objective one.

I hope this helped mate and I wish you the best of luck with this project.

After careful consideration, I firmly conclude that the forth objective has been fully been demonstrated. In several instances, even within this yahoo question Stuart has gone above and beyond to polish and refine the words that were so clearly inspired by the same muse as many great men before him,

For example, as is true in the writing of Spenser, and Shakespeare, Stuart has made his share of word donations to the English language. He has seen where all previously existing words have failed, and has had no choice but create his own to express his ideas, and to preserve the perfection of his meter. As has been so aptly pointed out in this link http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com///alot…

the meaning of “alot” has been highly disputed, but is commonly accepted in the internet community to be a large fuzzy animal. It could only have been after careful proofreading, and torturous contemplation that this word choice was made in the line ” Wow! that’s alot”

Were Stuart to have been an average man, he would have failed to note that the flow and divinity of his iambic pentameter would have been lost in the separation of these two words. Not to mention, he is placing an ambiguous metaphor in the statement, comparing the large amount of objectives to a large fuzzy animal, while at the same time making it sound eerily similar to the existing phrase “a lot.”

He has employed a dauntlessness whit to have used a common typo of our generation. After-all, how else might young Stuart be the voice of our generation? He has the moral obligation to point to the flaws and vulnerabilities intrinsically layered in our human experience.

At first glance, it may appear that he has some grammar errors, or too flippant of word choice for a cover letter, but only to a half-whit. They are all stylistic choices. Examples are: Dayum,”totes ” I don’t want to look like a dumb ***. Once again, he is making the brilliant stylistic choice to employ the vernacular of our generation for the sake of speaking to his audience.

He has also taken close attention to ask the help of his peers, as is asked for, by posting the assignment online to be done by others.

hey you said in the first essay that you wanted to emphasise your use of the word ‘change’. We all know who else emphasized the use of that word, yes, Obama. Now either this is a serious paper you have written for your so called ‘english homework’, or your a government representative working for Obama trying to brainwash all of us through your innocent schoolboy essay but you dont have me fooled. i see right through your little scheme and how your use of Han Solo and Gearge Lucas against the opnion of this so called ‘flexiblecat’ (and by the way cats cant even write responses so busted there with your made up opponent)vis really a representation of the election between Obama and Mitt Romney. Well I’l have you know that your Illuminati bullshit wont fool me. Dooms day is coming and I will get the word out there and theres nothing you can do to stop me. / was staged and Bin Laden isn’t dead.

The editing was good in your essay though but not as good as your mum last night BOOM

======================D———————–(your face here)

#

Hey. Seeing as Helper answered in terms of objective #, here are my thoughts on how your stuff managed to satisfy objective #.

Your essay (Letter Synthesis) are probably my first two choices as to how you satisfied this objective. This is because to summarize W&B arguments in a letter to your friend Jim, you clearly paraphrased their arguments and didn’t use quotes. To successfully paraphrase you must have an understanding of the text. As a result I feel you managed to hit the nail on the head in terms of the first two points of objective #, that is you understood the texts and were able to paraphrase and quote in the correct instances.

Major paper (On a Grecian Urn) looks to be the paper in which you maintain a good conversation between the different editions of “On a Grecian Urn” and your paper as you are able to look at specific words and lines of the poem, and analyze and explain their meaning in terms of how it applies to your claim.

Your major paper also is probably the only one which really satisfies the fourth point in objective two in terms of using a variety of sources. For that, you obviously looked at published editions as well as transcripts of the poem. However, generally the rest of your papers could have done this a bit better as you seemed to only really focus on one style of sources per paper.

In terms of MLA formatting, from what I understand of it by looking over this style guide at http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/// I believe you’ve met this objective in both your major papers. The only thing is that it looks like you were unsure about the publishers and authors in “On a Grecian Urn” but perhaps that’s because they were transcripts so while they are technically transcribed by someone else they are still the same author?? But yeah, this is something I’d probably check into.

#

Wow, looks like Objective still hasn’t been looked at, so I’ll do my best to help you there.

Based on the file name of all of your papers it looks like you have written multiple versions/done multiple edits of these papers then you’ve obviously revised them, but the question of whether or not they are substantial and successful is hard for me to see. So, I think that’s something that you’ll have to answer yourself sorry.

In fact, it’s probably best if you are able to do all of objective # on your own as I need to see prior work before I make a comment.

Good luck! Sorry I couldn’t help more.

Hey,

I just read your first essay, and I thought it would be helpful to elaborate a bit on the “change” described in the Han first shot scene. You offer an apt analysis on flexiblekitten’s critique of the change, but to an outside reader, the writing might come off a bit like jargon. I think a one or two sentence specific description of the original scene and the change would help round out the paper.

Hope that helps!

How about the Europeans ultimately admitting that the universe isn’t geocentric. And that the earth is not flat. Besides the devout revolution that ensued, it modified the entire course of world history. One other subject is the progress of the Christian faith. The holy Roman Empire surely had a exceptional outcome on world history. How about the invention of gun powder in china? Obviously modified battle. A subject not often discussed is the contrubution of the Muslim civilization of Andaluz (historical Spain). Apart from the scientific advancements that passed off there at the same time the relaxation of Europe used to be within the throes of the darkish a while, these Muslims kept hundreds of pages of Greek philosophy that the Latin Europeans didn’t even comprehend existed. The invention of this big body of labor was once one of the vital essential influences that launched the european Renaissance. Undoubtedly, you are going to be the only one to write on this subject and there are mounds of information to be had for you to learn. Good good fortune!

#

Ok, so it looks like objective hasn’t been responded to, so I’ll do that.

Your . paper (Close Reading) is an essay which seems to satisfy the first sub point of objective three. This is because, you begin by drawing an analogy between Gin and Tonic and Love as

“The choice of the couples to drink gin and tonic in both “Beginners” and “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” is indicative of the reciprocal nature of love within both stories.”

From there, you continue to explore the complex nature of love throughout the rest of your paper. Your claim in that paper probably isn’t the best but you do seem to develop a better claim in Major Paper (Nameless) as your introduction paragraph begins immediately with an example of how meaning is changed through language, even at the level of the title of a story. You then intertwine this example by engaging with Wimsatt and Beardsley to provide stakes for the paper (objective , second sub point) as

““the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art” in terms of the critic trying to understanding the meaning “which lies behind…the text” (W&B ; )”

Finally, you develop your claim by stating that want to show that they were somewhat correct in wanting to look purely at the text when it comes to gaining understanding and meaning.

“Essentially, that although language has independent and literal meaning, it is authorial intention which links the independent meaning of words into a greater level of significance for the reader.”

which ultimately looks like you are able to develop a complex claim.

When it comes to satisfying the third point in objective three, you seem to do that best in Major paper (On a Grecian Urn) where you literally go through words and sentences and analyze those both at a close level and in terms of your general contention

“Like the capitalization of “Sylvan Historian” the capitalization of “Of Deities, or Mortals” is indicative of something with individual identity or robust character; something which the very Urn that these images lie on seems to lack (A .; A .)”

As you then continued to do this for the rest of the paper, through each line and through each stanza, you also met the fifth and final point to objective three which talks about organizational structure of your work.

Suggest you using Checker if you need to check texts for grammar, spell or punctuation issues.

It’s helpful.

Certainly, it’s an automatic checking tool which needs your examination after checking.

http://checker.com/