Good and Better

Below are two paragraphs from one of your classmates. They are both about The Brothers Karamazov and they contain spoilers, so consider yourself warned.  I'll follow each response with a little commentary.

The first is from Quarterly Response 2. It is a very good response.

The Response: Aloysha finds this captain in deep poverty, drowning his troubles in a hovel, surrounded by his family. The small demon, Ilusha, is the captain's son, and attacked Aloysha because he was a Karamazov. The phrase "wisp of tow" refers to the captain's thin blond beard. After meeting the family, the captain and Aloysha walk out to talk. At first, the captain is immensely grateful for the money, but then seems to be either suspicious or ashamed. He grinds the money into the dust rabidly and walks off. I believe Dostoevsky's point here is that pride can also save you from dishonor or contempt.

My Comments: This is a very good response because it's a clear, well-written summary of an event in the section. Beyond that, the writer quotes the text directly (though he doesn't analyze the quotation at all). Most importantly, the writer finishes the paragraph with an analysis of Dostoevsky's argument. It's not just summary - it's summary that captures the reason the author included the event in the first place.

The second example is from Quarterly Response 4. It might not make sense if you haven't read the novel. Read it anyway, and I'll explain what makes it an excellent response in the commentary.

The Response: The actual case is rather ridiculous, in my opinion. The people clamoring for clemency for the accused believe, for the most part, that Dmitri is indeed guilty. They apparently consider patricide a forgivable crime. Is justice based merely on the current whims of the people? I feel that 'right' and 'wrong' are not affected by the burgeoning Bolshevik beau ideal. Luckily, the Russian peasants who compose the jury find patricide worthy of twenty years in the Siberian gold mines (Mme. Hohlakov suggested this to Dmitri as a money-making scheme. Ironic.). Yet another irony lies in the fact that Dmitri is innocent, and the 'enlightened' perversion of justice (the acquittal of a patricide) would actually have been fair. One slightly off-topic statement that I found interesting was Fetyukovitch's (Dmitri's excellent lawyer) reminder 'that the Russian court does not exist for punishment only, but also for the salvation of the criminal!' I am not sure if this is only impassioned rhetoric or the actual purpose of Russia's judicial system, but it could be the reason people are clinging to the hope of an acquittal.

My Comments: This is an excellent response because it synthesizes rather than summarizes. It begins with the student's opinion - that the case is ridiculous - and draws evidence from diverse places in the book to support that opinion. The first example simply moves from the beginning of the event to the end; this example covers a broader section of the text. At the end of the paragraph, the writer again moves away from summary towards analysis and reflection. 


Neither of these approaches is "wrong." In fact, other than the few responses which have simply been too short, it's hard to do this wrong. The second approach, however, is better, and it's much closer to the style of writing we'll be working on this year.

I hope you've been enjoying your books as much as I've enjoyed your responses!