<p>I kina disagree with your analysis of both A Brave New World and The Prince, but I thought that your essay was written really well, organized excellently, coherent, and really, quite good. Especially for 20 minutes.</p>
<p>I would like to add a few comments in defense of Machiavelli (a hero of mine). I would like to say that Machiavelli did not think that the ends justifed the means. Note a story he tells (I forget where), in which he tells the story of a man who rises from being a private to being the leader of a Greek city-state. Machiavelli has some respect for his acheivement. But the man did it so cruelly, and with such malice, that he went down in the history books not as a successful leader, but as a cruel mass-murderer. Machiavelli makes a clear distinction. The ends justify the means to a certain extent, but after that extent, one gains sucess but not (important) NOT GLORY. </p>
<p>And I suppose that A Brave New World does have an element of that in it... I dunno. That book is about so many other things that that theme is a bit ridiculous to pull out of it. But its not bad, really.</p>
<p>I guess my biggest thing with it is that your arguments made sense for motivation, but not entirely for competition. Ive been in many classes where I've been motivated by other factors than competition.</p>
<p>it's right that Machiavelli put the ends over the means. But if it weren't for a good reason he wouldn't even be in the history books. His "ends" were good causes for the masses, and such "means" to establish these goals focused on strategy and tactics to win over competing neighbors--in an age where Italian city-states were feuding rapaciously, no one would hardly go against wise (necessarily cruel) leadership. His thoughts should be considered more in a historical context.
Yeah and some books really misnomer Machiavelli as the "inventor of modern corruption and violence"; the book Declarations of Independence for example. Of course it would be nonsense for one to directly adopt his words to today. But a historical analysis of Machiavelli would reveal some important lessons to be learned.</p>
<p>You don't have to talk about what a book is mainly about in these essays. If you can talk about something in a book that even remotely relates, it looks great. The people that grade these things quickly skim over them. They take about 2-3 minutes. The Brave New World allusion was fine. Taking a unique interpretation of a book is a good thing. It won't hurt you at all. Secondly, I hate Machiavelli. It's ashame he is your hero. Machiavelli is a metaphor for doing things for yourself, living for the now, and really not caring about any one else or the future. Hopefully when you all are on Earth you'll want to better society and help others out. They call Karl Rove the Machiavellian man (if that helps clear things up). I wouldn't take that as a compliment.</p>
<p>But the allusion to him is great :). I'm just saying I don't like him.</p>
<p>The discussion about Machiavelli is certainly interesting; if you guys would like to continue, I wouldn't mind at all. Personally, all I know about Machiavelli is what I've read in my history textbook; I've never read The Prince nor analyzed his nature.</p>
<p>I definitely didn't mean to start an argument though, in the 20 minutes to write the essay I was just pulling any ideas I could think of out of the air...</p>
<p>I think the machievelli paragraph doesnt really address the prompt but i admire the way you structured your essay. </p>
<p>Ive gotten a 12 on my SAT 2 essay and my Kaplan practice one, this is what I would suggest:</p>
<p>Your thesis should be specific to the paragraphs, list the reasons to give the reader a way to follow your paper. </p>
<p>Stay on topic and have a clear advocacy. In the way you portray Machievelli, "ends justifies the means" could apply for pretty much any ptompt. The statement does not directly deal with competition. </p>
<p>However, any essay that is not completely a personal story I tend to admire. </p>