ENGL 200 D: Reading Literature: Literature in the Marketplace

I liked your introduction–it was a nice lead-in to the main point of your paper. You have a good, arguable/controversial thesis, too: labor has no intrinsic value.

Your analysis of Duck is more thorough than your analysis of Locke. When you expand your paper, you could write a little more about how the labor Locke describes translates directly into value. And in your summary, perhaps you could tie it together on how labor is given value. Is money necessary?

Your arguments are very focused and contribute to your thesis.

The organization of the essay is well written. What made the essay more interesting and effective was when you spoke about both authors’ idea on labor value. You explain the two authors disagree with each other when it comes to labor value.You also said, “However, when looked at with the idea that labor itself is valueless, it becomes prevalent that the two do not oppose each other as much as they originally appear to.” Like the way you expanded by giving a counter positions. Maybe use a few more quotes for evidence.

A solid rough draft, I really like your ideas and evidence. I don’t think you need the first sentence of the intro or the first sentence of the conclusion, in both cases the second sentence says the same thing and expands more upon the idea. And maybe the transitions between paragraphs, especially the sections between the two pieces could be a bit smoother, connecting them would create a flow that would back up your argument.

Notes from the meeting (sorry if they’re a little disjointed)
Can you say that labor has no intrinsic value just
because people disagree over its value?

Or maybe because people can work for free?

I really like your thesis because it is unusual and
“disagreeable”

Summary: Also connect it to how value is granted to labor. Sure, it
doesn’t have intrinsic value, but when it is given
value, is it from money? Do we agree on how much it’s
worth?

Point with Locke: how to develop? No intrinsic value
because it doesn’t have a monetary purpose?

Help you find direction if you define “intrinsic value”
–>locke and duck if you read them thinking that labor
has no intrinsic value, they’re actually really similar
Locke: labor for yourself in order to survive; has a lot
of value to yourself because you need it
Duck: labor for other people; has a lot of value because
it is hard work and he puts a lot of effort in

Labor’s value depends on who does it and who is
benefitting from it