Open Prompts, Part One

For this post, I chose the 2008 prompt:
In a literary work, a minor character, often known as a foil, possesses traits that emphasize, by contrast or comparison, the distinctive characteristics and qualities of the main character. For example, the ideas or behavior of a minor character might be used to highlight the weaknesses or strengths of the main character. Choose a novel or play in which a minor character serves as a foil for the main character. Then write an essay in which you analyze how the relation between the minor character and the major character illuminates the meaning of the work.

Student #1:
The introduction is very concise, but still sets up the context for the writer's argument. Without going too much into detail, describes Huang as the foil, and generates a nice thesis that returns to the real question of meaning in his/her chosen text, The Joy Luck Club. Though they have a great analysis of the overall meaning of the text, the writer spends more than half of it summarizing the text. These details were relevant because they show the interplay between Huang and Linda, which ties into the assertion that Huang's abuse led Linda to become more independent; however, it probably would have been better to shorten down on these details and intersperse their analysis of the meaning within them, as opposed to separating them into two different sections. The conclusion was exemplary, summarizing the details of the argument and tying things back to their argument on the meaning. This essay was very well-written and is actually one of the best open prompt responses that I have read so far.

Student #2:
From the beginning of this essay, the writer seems to lack focus on the prompt, which (not to sound like a stickler, but...) says the minor character, not characters. However, the author did have good insights into the interactions between Celle and the minor character, and I liked how the essay seemed to mimic the book as the descriptions of the foils seemed to mimic Celle's actual progression throughout the novel. Throughout the essay, they also do a great job of reemphasizing their original argument, which is pretty important considering the context of this essay - specifically the reader (AP test graders), who would most likely be caught somewhere between self-loathing and utter misery, who would probably like the idea of getting reminded of the argument they're grading. However, back to my original point, I think that the writer could have easily just picked one character, probably either Celle's father or Shug, who could speak to Celle's development and the overall meaning of the text, which is also never really clearly stated in the essay.

Student #3:
First of all, this writer uses the syntax of a seventh grader; their sentence structure has almost no variation. Also, as a reader I have no idea who the main character is (Baba or Hassan?). Though I can infer that Hassan is the main character, I think it is a good idea to always assume the reader has no previous context with the subject material - better safe than sorry. None of their comparisons really tie into the meaning (which they do explicitly mention, so that's good), and their conclusion does not make much sense. They start off saying that the differences between the two highlight the good traits in Hassan, but then they say that both were loyal in the end. Also they say that Hassan "kept mostly to himself," so I did not really see how this ties into the theme of loyalty, which the author actually does explain earlier with Hassan's loyalty to his friends. This contradiction really detracts from the essay. Ultimately, like a lot of these "third essays," I believe that this writer got to this question in the end with say ten minutes left and just wrote something down to get credit. Some of the basics were covered, like what the meaning of their text was, but they really failed to adequately develop their ideas and provide an understandable context for their assertions.