Ari,

Overall you make a lot of good points throughout your paper and use substantial evidence and make use of all the sources to support your arguments. Each of your paragraphs is important to itself and for the most part you move between ideas very well. It seems to me you are discussing both the play as a tragedy and how it is intertwined between the idea of humans and their environment.

Your first two paragraphs seem to me to be more of introduction paragraphs there is a lot of contextualizing background within the first two paragraphs and you only finally get to the idea of human and nature in the last sentence of the second paragraph. Your third paragraph then begins to start your argument or idea that Albee is redefining tragedy in The Goat.

As I previously stated you have a lot of good thoughts and good paragraphs that I wouldn’t think to take out but some of the information you have within those paragraphs you can take out. For example in your fourth paragraph you discuss how Gainor says, “…Albee’s work has progressed since Seascape.” Now, I don’t know about you but I haven’t read Seascape therefore I don’t know how his work could have progressed from something I know nothing about. If you made it more vague, which might seem odd, and changed it to “…Albee’s work has progressed since his previous works.” One would not have to worry about thinking how he progressed from that specific work and would just be able to understand that he has progressed in his writing.

Also, in regards to the fourth paragraph you might be able to combine the fourth and fifth paragraphs together since you are discussing the same quote in both paragraphs or rework it so that you take ideas from the fourth and fifth and make it one paragraph.

Lastly, in your final paragraph see if you can take out “In conclusion,” it would sound just fine in starting right off with “Edward Albee’s…” The moment you discuss how Gainor discusses Ellen DeGeneres can also be taken out it, at least to me, doesn’t seem needed and since it hasn’t been previously discussed in the paper it just seems like filler in a way.

Concluding, what I believe your paper does best is having a lot of solid evidence and you utilize the sources very well. Just be sure to really make your ideas clear when going from paragraph to paragraph that you’re not too drastically changing from the previous thought.

Sincerely, Matt Hart

Arturo,

Overall I had few critiques on your paper. I thought you had a good flow of ideas and transitioned nicely between them as well as providing good contextual background in your introduction. Your introduction seems to me to be the first two paragraphs and you could even try and put together the first two paragraphs into one because you provide a good amount of background of the play in the second paragraph that could be used in the first paragraph.

I personally don’t think you need the first two sentences of the paper however I do see how you connect that thought later in the paper when discussing humans as animals. If you were going to keep it, I would definitely change where that thought is within the paper because it seems like a very grandiose statement to make.

The rest of your paper is very well written however there are a couple spots that I would either change or reword. Paragraph 5, Last Sentence:

“Thus, Martin himself is the problem that he wishes to escape placing him in a battle against himself yet he doesn’t realize it.”

I know what you mean and after reading the sentence a few times I see the flow but if you were to reword it and make it more like:

“Thus, Martin himself is the problem that he wishes to escape, without realizing it, placing him in a battle against himself.”

Paragraph 7, First Two Sentences:“The reactions that Martin receives from Stevie, Billy, and Ross…These three reactions serve as a representation of how...”

Once again I know what you mean but what keeps throwing me off is the ending of both sentences is very similar. I think you can take both of these sentences and make them into one thought.

“The reactions that Martin receives from Stevie, Billy, and Ross are all negative, filled with disgust and represent how “normal” society would react to what Martin has done”

Concluding, I had few large things to say about your paper and I feel like you have used the sources available to make your argument and quite possibly could use more evidence the really solidify the main idea of the paper. You have a good flow between paragraphs and nothing seems disjointed. My one piece of advice that I could give is to proof read there are small things in the paper such as words missing or points where I could see you were going to write one thing and then changed like in the seventh paragraph “The reactions that Martin receives from his Stevie…” I could tell you were going to write family but then changed it so just make sure that you reread you paper to find those small things.

Sincerely, Matt Hart