the greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries.
While we believe that our judgements are the best based on what we have been taught, values and ideas change throughout the time. In other words, not every value is permanently true. Thus, I generally agree with the statement that the greatness of individuals can be decided more likely by those who live after them because our values and standards change throughout the time and contemporaries may not be able to see the values of new approaches.
Admittedly, there are cases of great individuals whose achievements were already recognized when they were alive. For instance, there are many great writers that were already recognized for their achievements by their contemporaries. Fyodor Dostoevsky was one of the greatest writers and philosophers of all time. While we still consider him a great mind from the 20th century, his works already received a lot of attention when he lived and Tsar of Russia even called Dostoevsky to tutor his children based on Dostoevsky’s fame. Albert Camus is another example. As we still consider him a great writer, he already was a Nobel laureate when he was young.
However, values and ideas change. Not in all cases, our judgment on what is great and what is mediocre stays the same as it did for Dostoevsky and Camus. Sometimes, formerly great achievements become mediocre and barbaric while formerly mediocre work becomes excellen as our perception changes. It is often difficult to find a new and innovative work great because we are not used to the new way of thinking and viewing. Edouard Manet’s career as a painter substantiates it. In the 19th century, success for young French artists was only allowed through the official Academy exhibition, known as Salons. At salons, conservative juries favored biblical themes and a polished technique. This atmosphere outcasted all the young artists with different styles of painting. When Manet submitted his work “Luncheon on the Grass” to the Salons, it was immediately rejected because his work did not fit to the existing conventions. He painted the nude female surrounded by men and reinforced artificial studio light only on the female. During his time, his art was obviously considered mediocre and immature. However, now we consider him a pivotal figure in the transition from Impressionism to Realism. From our perspective, his once mediocre artwork broke away from the classical view that arts should obey established conventions and opened a new paradigm for Impressionists, such as Claude Monet. This example illustrates how once mediocre work can be great in the future because our tradition and values change as well. While his contemporaries could not immediately recognize the value of his work, people in different eras find his work innovating and groundbreaking.
In conclusion, I agree with the author’s claim that the greatness of individuals cannot be decided by their contemporaries but more often by those who live after them. We may not see the true value of individuals because we may find a new and innovative work odd or mediocre as we are not used to it.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, so, still, thus, well, while, for instance, in conclusion, such as, in all cases, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 54.0 33.0505617978 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2602.0 2235.4752809 116% => OK
No of words: 505.0 442.535393258 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15247524752 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74048574033 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99525488208 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 249.0 215.323595506 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493069306931 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 818.1 704.065955056 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 0.0 4.99550561798 0% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.8098366538 60.3974514979 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.076923077 118.986275619 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4230769231 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.57692307692 5.21951772744 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 10.2758426966 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.228178487927 0.243740707755 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0563345068322 0.0831039109588 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.109898423458 0.0758088955206 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176773489057 0.150359130593 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0961074291013 0.0667264976115 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 100.480337079 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.