Fix History Essay

Hello folks,

I had paid 20$ to this work and the teacher dose not want to answer me to fix his worst work ever. I have no problem to say his name. He is Pros. I wrote it in order to everyone be away form such an trustbale teacher.

Here are the ponts that my professor wants me to fix my esaay:

I've read the 1st draft of your essay on the emergence of science fiction in the 1800s, and while I think it covers a fair amount of ground I also think it still needs some work in terms of conceptualization, organization and explanation. Please allow me to make the following comments:

1. Your introduction is good, though you repeat/overuse the "many authors" phrase. Still, nice and clear. Good.

2. Para #2 -- not sure what you mean by "many people thought that civilization would have a negative impact for humankind". Which people do you have in mind, and what aspects of civilization, and what negative impacts exactly? It's all a bit vague. Also, the sudden jump to WWII is confusing -- keep in mind your essay is dealing with the 1800s. Also, did dystopian stories really pre-date the 20th century in any great measure?

3. Para #3 -- not sure why we're going all the way back to the Greeks. OK, you can make this argument if you wish, but it doesn't really relate to or add to your paper.

4. Para #4 -- again, Bacon and the whole Scientific revolution predate the 1800s by a century or more, so this isn't strictly on topic either. As to the "social and technological changes" of the 1800s, it would greatly strengthen your case if you were to specify a few of them!

5. Para #5 -- once more, you need to offer some examples. Not sure what you mean by "hard fiction," even though you do attempt to define it. The final three sentences don't really make any sense -- what are your trying to argue here?

6. Para #6 -- you're right on the impact of electricity on the imagination, byt then (once again) do not really develop thbis idea with any precision or illustrations. How did it, for example, "provide mankind with the ability to foresee things that did not happen since the very first day," whatever those last 9 words actually refer to?? And again, which authors do you have in mind?

7. Para #7 -- this is OK, but once more I'm not convinced it actually adds much to your argument in the absence of any specific examples.

8. Para #8 -- some more confusion I'm afraid. How do scientific principles contradict the laws of nature? Do they not, in fact, throw light on the workings of nature that hitherto had been little understood? Did the scientific revolution really give people the ability of telepathy and mind control -- where did you get this from?

9. The final two paragraphs (pp. 6-7) before the conclusion show some more promise, but again (!) with no specific details or examples (other than The Time Machine, which you unfortunately credit to H.G. Orwell rather than its author H.G. Wells). As a result, by the time we come to the end, I'm left with the overall impression that you may well be right much of the time, but really have provided no evidence or illustrations to show why. This is important.

This isn't necessarily cause for panic or despair. As said, the basic structure and premise of your paper are OK; what's missing is a more focused exploration of the topic at hand (leaving aside stuff that is not strictly relevant), at least a few concrete examples to demonstrate your case more convincingly, and rigorous documentation of your argument to back it up.

If you want to discuss any of this, I'd be happy to do so.

For now, 5/10 for the draft.

David