You do know you don't have to agree with the prompt right?
Edit: Also some of the sentences are a bit clunky. Have you tried listening to your sentences?
Edit 2: To clarify why I ask, if I was writing on this prompt I would agree that Hal starts off as an unattractive character, but that he transforms/redeems himself over the course of the play; and (perhaps go on to say) that this stands in contrast to Hotspur and Falstaff who start off as attractive characters but become less attractive over the course of the play as we come to appreciate their flwas.
Thanks for the feedback.
Yes, I am aware that you do not have to agree with the prompt. However, I wrote this essay when I had finished reading Act 1. It was probably not wise to write up an essay unless I knew the content but I just wanted to write one to pinpoint the flaws in my sentence structures, paragraphs, etc and etc.
Although Hal may had this glorifying transformation, I still think he is an unattractive character.
- He uses commoners for his selfish purpose then disregard them.
- He steals the spotlight from Hotspur. Even though I don't like Hotspur as well, he fought in many wars to gain reputation and honour.
I hate that Hal, who has been a scum for the last 3 months, did nothing but drank alcohol in a tavern while Hotspur risked his lives when he went to battles.
Also, I began to see the arrogance in his speech especially after scene 3. Overall, I think he is not that pleasant. It's just my opinion, I guess.
I put up this essay for people to comment about my English usage rather than the arguments made.
Could you please be more specific about your comment on clunky sentences? How can I improve this? What makes it sound awkward?
Not quite sue Falstaff is the angel you set him up to be
He lies all the time, is self serving, a thief, and also took bribes in order to release soldiers till he only had cripples and beggars
And about Hal enlisting him to fight, I'm pretty sure Falstaff was obliged to anyway, he had been knighted 'Sir John Falstaff'
Thank you for your feedback. As this prompt focuses on Hal, I purposely did not talk about Falstaff's own flaws.
I didn't really set Falstaff to look like an angel... I just didn't mention it.
Instead, I tried to reprimand Hal's actions to support my arguments by including necessary snippets from the play that can be used as an evidence against Hal.
I do agree with you but I also see Hal as a liar, thief, and self-serving. If I were to start talking about Falstaff in the second paragraph it would seem that I am side-tracked. Hope that made some sense(?)