Essay Summary
In the essay under analysis, the author examines the play Oil by Ella Hickson through the lens of postcolonial ecocriticism and such concepts as environmental activism, place, and borrowed time. The writer introduces the playwright and briefly describes the play, its structure, and style, giving an example of “interscenes” – a technique to include an omniscient narrator in a play. Then, the frame of the study is discussed, listing the terms and concepts at the core of the essay. A summary of the play is presented with the main characters and their story at the beginning of the play. Then, the author notes that there exists a lack of scholarship analyzing this play and presents topic examples that other researchers have covered.
Following the introductory paragraphs, the writer moves on to the theoretical background of the essay. First, the history of ecocriticism is discussed, including early theories about this concept and its progression. Next, the essay includes a segment about postcolonial ecocriticism, where the author talks about its development and primary contributors to the scholarship. Finally, the author writes about the concepts of place and borrowed time.
In the third part of the essay, the writer applies the aforementioned concepts to the play. To begin, the term “place” and the issue of power balance are used to show how the playwright comments on colonialism and ecoactivism. Then, the author moves to the topic of borrowed time, presenting examples from the play and discussing its progressing plot as well as its ending.
Critical Evaluation: Major Points
The essay presents an interesting topic of discussion and introduces a lens that seems to have not been explored in the existing scholarship. These are major strengths of this paper, and building upon them may result in a great piece of literary research. As it is unfinished, it is difficult to fully appraise its quality and determine the depth of the investigation. Nevertheless, the essay’ current structure could be improved upon to make the narrative more cohesive and understandable for the general public.
First, I noticed that the essay lists many concepts and terms as the basis for play analysis. For example, such terms as “ecocriticism, post-colonialism, environmentalization, petrodespotism” and much more are introduced very early in the essay and used throughout. However, there is no clear explanation of what these concepts mean. In particular, you aim to use “ecocriticism” as the central lens for the analysis, yet, after reading the essay, I still do not fully understand what it is and how it is applied to the themes in the play. Furthermore, what is post-modernism in the case of environmentalism? You can expand on this to add some clarity. This problem is relevant to all terms used in the essay. Another notable example appears on pages 5 and 8 – you mention the idea of “petrodespotism” but never explain it. How does this idea connect to the play? I think adding information about this concept could be very interesting for the audience.
The lack of definitions and discussions of the theoretical concepts makes the discussion hard to follow for any reader, as it is fundamental to explain the ideas to use them in one’s analysis. I suggest starting each part of the theoretical background related to these concepts with a definition and a short discussion about the terms in simple words. For example, the term “place” is extremely general and can be understood differently by readers. What exactly is meant by this concept, and how does it connect to ecocriticism?
Second, the paper’s overall structure makes it hard to imagine the essay as one complete whole. The concepts discussed in the theoretical background do not match the connections to the play in the third part of the essay. I recommend establishing a clear throughline for both parts. If the theoretical background talks about ecocriticism, postcolonial ecocriticism, place, and borrowed time, the following segment should have the same order. Furthermore, the essay currently does not move from one part to the next smoothly – transitional phrases and connecting ideas could make the narrative easier to understand.
Critical Evaluation: Minor Points in Writing
This section will comment on some minor issues and point out engaging ideas.
- Page 1) The abstract lists the essay’s concepts and ideas clearly and concisely.
- Page 1) The introduction starts by introducing the playwright rather than the topic. I suggest discussing colonialism and ecocriticism first, then presenting the play and its creator.
- Page 1) The addition of a lengthy discussion of “interscenes” seems unnecessary in the introduction. You could explain how it relates to the thesis to justify its placement.
- Page 3) I like the explanation about the lack of scholarship examining the play. It teaches the audience about other potential themes and shows that most angles are unexplored. However, I do not think the title “Reception” matches this segment. Perhaps, “Existing Literature” would suit it better?
- Pages 3-4) The summary should include more information about the play’s progression and end. It would help the readers understand later parts of the essay.
Overall, I found the topic of the essay extremely interesting and would like to read more about the play and the themes. The discussion of ecocriticism and plays like Oil is timely, and it is exciting to find works that introduce new approaches not studied previously. There are some other details I chose not to include in this opposition to focus on major points of potential improvement. I believe that this essay has great potential and would be happy to read it in its complete form.