Why I said what I said to Caroline

In my comment on Caroline’s piece, I stated that I liked how she began her essay with a question that acted as an attention getter and drew my interest further when she quoted for Sigmund Freud in the opening paragraph. I thought it would benefit her to be reminded that not everyone who reads her essay has read her poem, “Broken Wings”, and for this reason she should supply readers with more descriptions and details. In an attempt to get her ideas going, I asked her, “Where do the symbols of summer, sky, bluebird, that you vaguely mention, appear in the poem?” and “How does the author set a sad tone in the beginning and end the poem with great joy?” I ended my comment by assuring her that her thesis and structure are clear and reasonable but that, lacking details and examples, her average piece can be fantastic if she simply elaborates.
My choice of the high order concern of underdevelopment was arrived at by eliminating the other high order concerns of thesis, organization and voice. Caroline’s thesis is strong and explained clearly. She organized her piece nicely by putting tone and symbolism first in their own paragraphs and then in a paragraph together before wrapping it up with a conclusion and she did so with a constant sweet voice. What is lacking are explanations and supports details. The paragraph on symbolism is only two sentences long (one defining symbolism and the other claiming her poem has six symbols.) My focus therefore was to encourage her to elaborate.