Victoria Pierce -- Pygmalion The metamorphosis stories in Ovid might seem strange, almost "random," and occasionally "creepy" to us, but when you look at them carefully, it turns out that they (and the myths they are based on) always have a sort of internal logic. The change almost always comes as either a reward or a punishment for something one of the characters has done, or sometimes for something they are. In addition, the effector of the metamorphosis is always a god--an agent who has a well-defined and established power to effect the transformation. The "creepiness" of the idea of someone falling in love with a statue he has created is definitely a part of the meanings here, but I think you are missing out on other aspects and your reading of the Ovid story is too one-sided as a result. You're too focused on the fact that the statue isn't real to start with to allow for the fact that maybe Venus does have the power to turn her into an actual woman! Also, I think the Cinyras/Myrrha story is more about the difficulty humans have controling sexual desire (see discussion of Venus in the next paragraph!) than an indictment of Pygmalion's family. To me, it's more revealing to try to fit this story into the reward/punishment framework. Venus is the agent of the transformation and we can see the transformation of the statue into a real woman as a hybrid: *part punishment* and also *part reward* for Pygmalion. (It's definitely rare to see things mixed that way in Ovid!) Why is it in part a punishment? Well, Venus was the goddess of female beauty, attraction, sex, fertility, prosperity etc. She wasn't the goddess of the marriage relationship (that was Juno/Hera). The ancient world tended to be much more accepting of prostitution and other institutions designed to give men (and to a much lesser extent, women too) ways to express sexuality outside of marriage and Venus was associated with some of that. So I think another way to read this myth is that Venus is partly punishing Pygmalion for being so scornful of women (as at the start) -- in effect he's disrespecting her (Venus) and the things she has power over (especially sexuality) with those attitudes too. When he creates an inanimate replacement for a real woman and falls in love with it, he begs Venus to turn the statue into a real woman. But it's not clear he has any idea what that would really mean. So Venus grants his request to teach him a lesson and also gives him the main consequence of that sexual attraction -- a child. It's almost as if she's saying, "You say you want a real woman now -- OK, here she is! And by the way, now you have to deal with all the complications of trying to have a real relationship with a female!" Of course it turns out that Pygmalion and his woman (she's sometimes called Galatea, but not in Ovid) seem to have a somewhat happy life together too, so perhaps she relents somewhat and lets him have some of the rewards as well! You point out some of the parallels and differences between the myth and the Shaw play, but I think there is one key difference that you could have done more with. Namely, Eliza is never a statue -- she's a real human woman from the very start, even before Higgins cleans up her English and her accent. Higgins' idea that he can transform her into someone who can pass as a duchess is an attempt to do almost the *reverse* of the transformation in Ovid -- he wants to turn her from who she is into a perfect, statue-like, image of something he has in his mind. Of course he fails and ends up alone: she's an actual person who resents his attempts to make her into something she is not, and he's not a god who can do that sort of thing in the first place! You say some of this, but I think you could have put things together more explicitly. Your writing is mostly good here, but there are a few incomplete sentences and other slips. Content: B+ Mechanics: B+