Michaela Fleming -- Women in Flatland

  After reading your essay again, I think the major remaining comment I have
  is about the overall structure. I think it would have been more effective 
  to work the material from the final paragraph (the one starting "I do think 
  Abbott had a purpose ... ") into the earlier part of the essay.  For instance, 
  you might have framed this as "At first I was aggravated" (by the tone, by the 
  exaggerated description of the emotionality of the women, ... ) "but now I see 
  that this is a satire of old-fashioned attitudes about women and Abbott had a 
  serious purpose in writing this the way he did."  As it is, the first part and
  that last paragraph don't connect or link up very clearly and the overall
  point you are trying to make only becomes clear at the end.  That approach can
  be effective in some sorts of writing (fiction, especially). But in an essay
  like this, I think it's usually better to lay most of your cards out on the
  table at the start and then explain how or why you come to your conclusion.
  
  At one point, you say that these attitudes are still heard today.  
  It might be hard to appreciate for students now, but the kinds 
  of things A. Square says are just exaggerated forms of things one
  used to hear *all the time*.  Look at the first seasons of the TV show 
  "Mad Men" (set in the early 1960's) for an pretty realistic example of this. 
  Similarly, when I was growing up I remember hearing serious discussions 
  from "talking heads" about how women were too emotional and unstable to 
  be trusted with the sorts of decisions a President would have to make.  

  This point comes up in your first paragraph, for instance, when you say:
  "After reading the book, I understood that all women are generalized to be 
  like this. The book generalizes that women are over affectionate beings who 
  are too overwhelmed in their emotions." 

  This is OK, but the "all women are generalized to be like this" in the 
  first sentence is not the best choice of words.  It's really the Square 
  who is doing the generalization that all women are dominated by their passions.
  And then the second sentence doesn't add very much.  Here's a reworking
  that would make this point more effectively:  "After reading the book, it
  was clear that the Square portrays all women as over-affectionate beings
  who are overwhelmed by their emotions."  
  
  Content:  B+
  
  Mechanics: A-