The essay is very good at getting the point across: that war perpetuates because of the heroic culture so strongly attached to the image of it. At first I was like, hey, where the thesis at the beginning? That's the standard essay that I'm used too, but this essay works really well with the thesis at the end to tie together all ideas. Good introduction at the beginning; it really snags the readers interest.

I think the ending was appropriate given the topic. Throughout the essay, the author used evidence that acknowledged both sides of the argument. In my opinion, it's OK to be in a gray area as long as you provide evidence that shows why that standpoint is a logical one to have. This is clearly a very complicated question and one that is hard to respond to with one definitive answer. The ending states that while the ideal goal of war should be to eradicate itself, this might not be realistically possible. The evidence to this viewpoint is well-argued in the essay and I think it is a good answer to the question.

The most important thing that stood out for me was the tone and voice. It was distinct and had somewhat of a conversational tone. The intriguing quality was how this tone made the reader drawn in more, almost like it gave the reader a trust to read on (which sounds bizarre, but I actually felt like I trusted the authors perspective)The use of quotes didnt interrupt the essay either. Many times in a essay the author stops to analyze the quotation, whereas in this essay the quotes analyzed the ideas. I though the ideas were well thought out, but they jumped around a little. I had to read it a few times over, because the colloquial tone sometimes downplayed the importance of the idea. Those ideas though were well written and had some interesting perspectives I wouldnt've thought about. Not all the paragraphs could tie back into the thesis, but the final product answered the question well in my opinion.

Before I begin, I'll extend an apology if I at all offend anyone. Debate has made me oftentimes more critical than necessary.
I agree with a few of the things said by Josh, Hyun, and Daniel. First, I entirely agree that the voice is personal and therefore engaging to the reader. Second, As Josh and Hyun noted, the author fails to stand behind a single argument strongly. To me, this creates the feeling that the author is equivocating, which ultimately makes the argument as a whole much weaker. For example, the author ends with, "Should war’s aim be to eradicate itself? Absolutely, and we’re moving in that direction." The author finally takes a definitive stance and says that he believes war will eradicate itself, but this strong statement is followed by a weak statement, "But it’s far from clear that it’s a truly achievable goal." These two statements conflict with each other, so that at the end of the essay, the question of whether or not war will eradicate itself has still been left unanswered.

In addition, I feel that the conclusions the author presents are based too heavily on unwarranted claims from before. For example, the first assumption the author makes is that democracies lead to peace. The author notes that in more economically developed countries, which also happen to be democratic countries. This, however, fails to prove that democracies are peaceful. In fact, an equally if not more likely cause of the peace is the economic security of these countries. Citizens with higher standards of living are bound to be unwilling to go to war, which would risk the destruction of the lifestyle they are used to. The next assumption the author makes is that our wars are fought because the "macho imagery" of war, where soldiers are "seduced into uniform." From my point of view, wars are not fought because men desire to feel 'manly' but rather because of a clash of ideological views. Given this, the argument that media exposure of war will ultimately eradicate war seems highly unlikely. Because even though it may "puncture its heroic mythology," the base cause for war, the conflict of ideas, still exists. And as long as people exist, there will always be clash between ideologies, there will always be war.

Despite my criticism on the arguments presented, I truly enjoyed the writing. The voice was comforting to the reader, and the prose flowed smoothly. There were even fun things like the alliteration used in the description of "isolated black blobs bob like lily pads on the ocean."

To me, the strongest aspect of this essay was its structure. Each paragraph seemed very intentional and focused, and I think it allowed the author to explore/expand upon the argument in a natural way. I do agree with Tony, though, in his point that the paragraph transitions were often lacking. Because the author chose to structure his essay more freely rather than follow a rigid 5-paragraph-essay set-up, I thought that some stronger transition sentences were necessary in order to make connections from one point to another. Without references/connections made among different arguments, I found it harder to follow the author's logical thinking process.

I also felt that with more analysis and possibly less description in the third paragraph, the author could have more meaningfully juxtaposed his first point with his argument about the public's access to media on war. Yes, the idea of the public's increased access is made clear, but the implications of that seem to be understated. Contrasting this idea to the previous statement in a more direct way could have brought the point home and applied it more to the thesis.

Unlike Thomas, I liked the tension created at the end when the author acknowledges that though war should aim to eradicate itself, doing so is not necessarily possible. The disconnect here is between what should happen and what will happen, and therefore I don't think this point contradicts itself as much as it gets at the complex nature of war.

Being a student who has dealt only with the rigid five paragraph, formal voice format in the past, I was initially unsure how I felt about the distinct, colloquial voice and setup of the essay. However, once I accepted the differences from my preconceived notion to what an essay should be, I found the essay to be rather convincing, with a few misgivings.

The tone is excellent; I instinctively wanted to agree with whatever point the author was making. I felt, however, that there weren't very many points being made. The essay rested largely on the fence, with somewhat tangential evidence that wasn't always tied back to the thesis. Several times it seemed as though the author was going to make that final strong point necessary, but he never quite did. Even the final point answered a slightly skewed question: whether war's "aim" should be to eradicate itself.

I think that the author's voice and organization lay a strong foundation for the essay, and that it would take only a few small tweaks and a push off the fence to make this essay excellent

Though the thought behind the essay definitely made me think twice, the way this essay flows is what really kept me intrigued. Even though I ended up being convinced for opposite views, I wasn't left feeling confused. The structure of the essay is not what I'm used to, but it made sense. A traditionally structured essay would feel out of place with the conversational feel that made the piece so enjoyable to read. I don't think having a thesis that sticks to one side is always necessary, because when one has strong opinions and evidence to back up opposing views it feels almost impossible to do so.

When you talk about the photo, "isolated black blobs bob like lily pads on the ocean as dawn breaks over the cliffs," I was tricked into feeling the same peace that the viewers of this picture probably feel. I, too, was briefly distracted by the fact that this peace I feel is far from reality.

Since a lot of people posted their thoughts already, they already mentioned most of what I was going to say but I'll say it anyway.

Like Danny, I'm used to a five paragraph essay. However, I definitely like this system much better. It felt so much freer than many essays I've read, yet it was still clear and concise. The informal prose worked well (such as the use of contractions and starting sentences with conjunctions), but like Tony I was also very confused about the use of "w/" rather than "with."

One of the best parts of the essay was the way in which the sources were incorporated. Direct quotations were used only when absolutely necessary, and most of the time these were just short phrases. Too many quotations would have interrupted the flow of the argument; paraphrasing or simply mentioning sources on the other helped make the thesis sound intelligent.

As other people also talked about, the description helped create a strong visual image. These created subtle connections with the reader; instead of simply righting "the media," the author wrote "the 6 o'clock news" (but maybe that's just me reading too much into the writing...).

Finally, the conclusion was a bit disappointing. I agree with Meryl's point that if you can prove that a question is complex, you should be allowed to leave the answer somewhat unresolved. However, I felt like I was waiting the entire time for the author to come up with some brilliant answer, but then it never happened.

But overall this essay was very enjoyable!

This essay is one of the most straightforward and logical essays I have read for a high school English class. Reading this essay feels like reading a map; the argument is clear, concise and easy to follow. Both the quotations and the questions throughout the essay help lead the reader through the reasoning. Additionally, I feel that the essay does a great job of invoking thought from the reader without directly stating an opinion. Although this style of writing can be criticized for its lack of a clear thesis, I find the essay to be very effective. I think realizing the fact that not all essays have to argue a point is a critical part of journalism, and by showing both sides of the argument and not necessarily taking a side, the author accomplished his/her goal of bringing up an issue and getting readers to respond to it.

Foremost, the essay was a pleasure to read. The brisk reference-to-reference transitions kept me interested throughout, though at points I almost wished the arguments were further explored (specifically the ambiguous point as to whether the introduction of democracy means the end of war.) Used to the 5-paragraph structure, I was a bit surprised the essay didn't more prominently feature democracy as a talking point as the opening paragraph (and especially the lede) hinted. While I don't think of myself a stickler for rigidity, I did feel like the introduction's focus was a bit off: The essay contained three commentaries on the eradication of war in the context of democracy, in the context of heroic macho culture, and in the context of the recent explosion of accessible audio-visual content, and I felt the introduction, instead of opening with one of those points, could have presented a unifying theme to the argument. This unification, I think, the essay lacked.

The voice of the essay was distinct, coming through best in the 3rd paragraph with the seamless transition from D-Day to Vietnam. The dynamic transitions throughout the essay gave the impression that the essay was more of a stream-of-consciousness than an extremely detailed, meticulously planned assignment. I agree with Danny that this fluidity made me more receptive to the author's points than I would have originally been.

Overall, I think the essay's chief success was its ability to actually make the reader think about where he or she came down on the issue of war's eradication. The author's tone was hardly polemical, leaving an intentionally ambiguous conclusion for the reader for the reader to contemplate. In the end, the arguments for both sides were understood, but the author remained uniformly objective.

The essay effectively uses the source material to support a central idea. Instead of simply presenting facts or examples followed by analysis, the writer weaves these elements into the fabric of the essay, integrating commentary in a an incredibly thoughtful manner. Though this essay is devoid of any traditional form of organization, the reader still comes away with a clear sense of what the writer was intending to communicate. In fact, had this essay been presented in a standard five-paragraph format, many of the rhetorical devices used by the writer would have been rendered ineffective. Instead, this essay is presented in a way that makes it incredibly readable- it is easy to follow the writer’s train of thought and the commentary and conclusions seem appropriate and well-timed.

As others have mentioned, the tone of the essay is one its strongest points. The message doesn’t come across as dry or analytical, nor is it overly sentimental to the point of preaching. The language is just complex enough to express deep thought, yet the sentences are short enough to give the essay a conversational air.

Overall, the writer did an excellent job of approaching the topic. Despite a few weak points, this essay does a remarkable job of communicating the writer’s thoughts. Though other people have criticized the tangential nature of some of the content, I think this style more accurately mirrors actual thought. It is hard to read a five-paragraph essay all the way through without thinking “I get it already” by the end. This essay, however, keeps the reader captivated until the very last line.