<p>Yeah, I'm taking the SAT tomorrow and I'm just now asking someone to grade my essay (which I've never done on CC before). Whoopee.
I'd appreciate if, when offering critique, state the grade you received on your own essay if you've ever taken the SAT. I'll also grade/read something of yours in return if you'd like.
Thanks in advance (lack of proper underlining intentional; spelling mistakes also left in place):</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do people accomplish more when they are allowed to do things in their own way? Blah blah blah develop your ideas and support with examples blah blah blah.
[/quote]
</p>
<pre><code>Individualism is an ideal long fraught with danger, and those who must go their own way should be wary; however, the rewards can be great. Creativity and idiosyncracy mark great art, but failed art can be a greater tragedy than not trying at all. Victor Frankenstein of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein evinces this idea; so does John the Savage of Huxley's Brave New World. People, overall, only accomplish more when their 'way' proves superior and relevant to established tradition. The rest are merely failed artists.
Successful people do not only accomplish more by finishing tasks in their own way but cannot accomplish at all otherwise; John the Savage of proves this statement correct. In Brave New World, John becomes introduced to ways which alienate and disgust him. As a result, he eventually rebels, secluding himself into a happy island where he toils and practices asceticism for his own sake. Yet because these actions eventually earn him not the scorn but the unwanted praise of society, he eventually commits suicide. How has John accomplished anything when he has merely ended up misunderstood? His tragedy, after all, is not that his lifestyle was inferior to his society's--few would applaud a totally hedonistic lifestyle which encouraged mindless soma-trips and discouraged love and attachment--but that he failed in enlightening such a society to his own ways. Because of this he becomes lost in the drive of mindless indulgences surrounding him. Even though John had complete freedom to tolerate the lasciviousness around him, his lack of ability to bear it destroys him--and labels him permanently a failed artist.
The ironically named Victor Frankenstein--for he only finds defeat in his pursuits to elevate and edify mankind--proves the same point of failure in an opposite manner. He eventually finds his own creation to be his undoing. Early in the novel, he finds the great alchemists he once worshiped to be fallacious and as relevant as mythical 'chimeras'. Because of this, he turns to society's then-accepted scientists in order to advance his own career for fame and self-gratification--and creates a monster which parallels his own degraded mental state. Victor Frankenstein was not pressured by others to create this being--on the contrary, he pushed himself, literally to insanity, to produce--and thus sacrificed his empathy, and eventually, family in order to fulfill his scientific wish. He eventually regrets this, not only for the sacrifices he has made but for what his own idiosyncrasy has metamorphisized him into; because of his self-isolation from society, he has forever rendered himself lonely.
Both Victor and John illustrate an important point: idiosyncrasy is worthless without the relevancy of society, and accomplishes nothing--or far worse, accomplishes something monstrously and ironically depraved in the eyes of society. While individuality is a vital skill for success in certain scientists, moderation in keeping such individuality tangential to its times is by far preferred. Unfortunately for Victor and John, their own nature, no matter how initially noble or ultimately regretful, never promises salvation. They are, at each of their novels' end, alone both in their defeat and in their ideas.
</code></pre>
<p>Word count: 519
(Longest SAT essay I've written; even though this was originally typed, I had about 6-7 minutes remaining.)</p>
