[ORDER SOLUTION] homosexuality
As the assignment states, you were expected to respond to, both, the play by Hwang and the short story by Long. Your essay only refers to the play and, at that, it is not until the end of the second page that you stop summarizing information and start analyzing the play. However, as your conclusion reveals, you spend more time agreeing with Garber rather than offering your own argument. In several places, you make sweeping and misrepresentative claims. For instance, when you note that in the 1980s, homosexuality was not accepted in the West, consider that this seems to imply that homosexuality was accepted in the East. You may have not intended to give this impression, but it is created by the way you have structured this point. In another part of the essay, you refer to Garber to argue that the press did not make a similar judgment on the male partner, Boursicot regarding his homosexuality. This is not what Garber is suggesting. Rather, she aligns Boursicots sexuality with his nationality, implying that, for the French, the notion that a Frenchman could not tell the difference between a man and a woman was more embarrassing than has it been evident that Boursicot was a homosexual. At several points in your essay, I am quite confused by what you mean. Take this statement: the man in a relationship who takes the role of a woman. What does this mean? As I stated repeatedly in my lectures, Song is gender-fluid. While Song is playing a role in the relationship with Boursicot, what if you thought of that role as being less about gender and more about Song being a spy, which is in fact exactly what Song is!
For your final assignment, please pay careful attention to the assignment!! Read it and make sure that you understand its requirements. Moreover, always begin with your argument. I do NOT need a summary; I need to know what YOU think.
