Cody WIlkinson -- The Portrayal of Women in Flatland
   
   
   As we discussed, it was fine that you decided to "branch off from"
   the main topic in this essay.  The title is only partly descriptive of what
   you are trying to say now, though(!)  And there are ways in which this
   does not hang together very well as a unified essay.  Keep reading
   for some specifics.  
   
   When you say at the end of your first paragraph that " ... the true purpose
   of Flatland was not to discuss the discrimination and sexism towards women in 
   the late 1800?s, but to discuss, from a new perspective, the possibility of a fourth 
   dimension existing in the unknown reaches of our vast and nearly unlimited 
   universe" I think you have to allow for the fact that the two parts of the book
   have different purposes and agendas.  Part I seems to me to be primarily satire,
   maybe not just about the status of women in Victorian society, but certainly 
   about the rigid class structure, the repression, the attitudes about women and
   members of the "lower classes," etc.  The questions about the fourth dimension
   really only enter the story in a major way in Part II.
   
   The next sentence (start of paragraph 2) "The main idea of the book is to explore 
   the idea of a fourth dimension yet as a second-tier issue within the book that hides 
   in the details is the discrimination of women in Flatland by Abbot clearly using satire."
   is complicated and not very clear.  The "by Abbott clearly using satire" at
   the end does not really fit with the rest either.  It would be better to split this
   into more than one sentence because there is so much going on.  
   
   On page 2, you say "We know that Abbot was a social activist, especially for 
   women?s rights, so he is using satire to hide how he really feels about the
   social situation in Victorian England."  I don't think he is trying to "hide"
   anything.  Even if you are not saying exactly what you think when you 
   create a satire, the goal is not to hide or conceal. It's to get a point across
   in a different way -- by mocking or showing how ridiculous the thing
   you are satirizing is.
   
   The transition at the top of page 3 is abrupt.  You go from discussing the 
   social satire to talking about the portrayal of spaces of different dimensions
   with no connection or indication that you are changing the topic.
   
   On page four, the start of your concluding paragraph is probably too strong.
   I would say using the technique of satire definitely does involve crossing
   a sort of (metaphorical) border.  In a satire, you don't say what you really
   mean, so you are changing from a common sort of narrative strategy
   where the person who is telling the story is telling the truth to one where
   the narrator is doing the opposite.  The reader has to follow the author
   across that border in the other direction, so to speak, in order to understand
   the satire and get what the author intended.  I agree, though, that there
   is not any significant mathematical thinking involved. 
   
      
   Content:  A-
   
   Mechanics:  A-