Peter, I am very pleased to see that you have taken in at least the rudiments of essay writing we have been covering over the course of the last semester.

It has been a difficult crossing for some and no less for you, I suspect, to judge by your present effort. The essay topic, you will recall, was “What does it mean to be Australian?” Are you satisfied that you have addressed the question?

You were invited, you might further recall, to draw upon those texts with which we have dealt in some depth: George Johnston’s My Brother Jack, for instance, formed the basis for many a discussion. Your decision, then, to focus on Baz Luhrmann’s cinema epic Australia is both interesting and instructive. If nothing else it demonstrates your tendency to slip and slide within the essay form. You never quite nail down a thing with the brads of well-chosen words. Perhaps a career in politics awaits you!

Please read carefully my comments and make an appointment at the earliest opportunity so that we may discuss strategies for improvement.

pretty good I think I’ve taught you to use more resonant language than this. Paint the word picture, Peter. “Pretty good” verges on the inarticulate.

grandiose Not sure the title “Australia” connotes grandiosity. Have you been dipping into the thesaurus again?! There is a tendency towards pomposity. Don’t assume that the reader’s views coincide with your own necessarily. Remember what we said about tone.

prissy/footloose/great obstacles/vast country beware cliché

remote Northern Territory well it is, isn’t it — remote?!

beef producers I’m sure the director was not interested in making a film about primary industry!

the American market I think you’ll find it’s the Chinese market that matters these days. Don’t think you’d make a very good Treasurer!

like overuse of simile; count how many times you use the word “like”. The film surely cannot be “like Kansas” and “like Crocodile Dundee” simultaneously.

stolen generations You are entering murky waters here, dare I suggest. Your weakness for polemics over rational textual analysis is once again your undoing.

I interrupt here Please confine the use of “I” to personal reflective or creative pieces. We assume you are the author. You don’t need to tell us. Avoid solipsism, Peter.

the hardhearted authorities Your decision to assume an ironic tone comes across to the reader as very close to sneering. Try not to sound so pleased with yourself — it can be a very unattractive quality.

It is probably fair to say No, I’m afraid it is not. Avoid unsupported assumptions.

which solves the indigenous problem You really do appear to have a bee in your bonnet about indigenous Australians. You come across as someone trying to defend a thesis but what that thesis is remains something of a mystery.

not much like Australia So what is the real Australia like? You are attempting a rebuttal without offering us an alternative vision.

a nice romance I think even you will agree that this ending is lame. You want the reader to go away with an indelible image. I’m sorry to say this is totally forgettable.

To conclude: while this is structurally sound, it lacks substance. This is due in part to your choice of language which tends to be as superficial as the American model of film-making you decry.

I am sorry to be so harsh but you really need to say something, Peter, if you want to engage the reader.

Leave the cheap populism to our politicians. C+