Stephanie Myers left this comment:

Jose, your essay is problematic from the onset as it does not have a clear thesis. Remember a thesis must have a topic + an
opinion + a so what? (A connection to a larger/bigger picture idea). You have a topic – “Ecogothic features” in Annihilation but
that’s it. No opinion, no argument about what the filmmaker is trying to tell us about ethnocentrism or ecocentrism. Your first
body paragraph discussing annihilation does not really connect with a particular element of the ecogothic; paragraph 2 does a
better job of explaining nature as its own “character” and the fear that is generated by the humans that encounter it. But again,
in your final paragraph on the shimmer itself you contradict yourself when you say: “This plant completely blurs the boundaries
between humans and nature as it implicitly suggests that nature can be human, so there is no need for humans to define what
nature is. According to the film, this is possible because “The Shimmer is a prism, and it refracts everything” (65:45-65:50), but
the fact is that ecogothic proposes that nature can exist by its own and perhaps do things better than humans did. As a result,
´The Shimmer´ is the ultimate element that defines nature as the main character of the film.” The whole point is that nature is
not human, but rather ecocentrism sees things as being equal…not nature becoming a human. So your argument is problematic
in that regard as the intention of the essay topic is to consider ecocentrism “where are living things are of equal importance and
nature is no longer defined in terms of human value”. This is a direct quote from the assignment outline. So you can see how
your paper has not fully developed this idea when you define nature as a character. I think I understand what you were trying to
do but your diction and arguments detract from what you are trying to say. Lastly, you are a writing tutor and yet your in-text
citation is wrong throughout the work – i.e. (Estok, p.1) there is no p and no period in a citation. You should absolutely know
this! (written on December 14)

Goodnight Miss Myers,

I have checked the grade I received for my final essay and, to be honest, I am really concerned
about it. To begin with, if I am not wrong, the topic for the essay was just to “discuss” the idea
proposed by Parker in which she says that ecogothic needs a shift in perspective from
anthropocentrism to ecocentrism (where all living things are of equal importance). This means
that we can say our “opinion” about this idea and what we think about it. Therefore, in my essay
I clearly said this on my thesis: “In Alex Garland´s Annihilation (2018) we can see plenty of
examples concerning ecogothic features (topic) that make nature look as a concrete character
of the plot (opinion) , thus, the following essay will be analyzing and examining the most
representative and important ones using an ecocentric focus (so what)”. Throughout my essay I
am explaining that, because nature and humans are of equal importance, the filmmaker is using
the ecogothic examples to demonstrate that nature can be considered an actual character in
the plot of the story. That is why in each paragraph I am including a reason to support this,
making use at the same time of some ecogothic examples: nature is always present and
participating in the plot (1st), not only that, nature is the most powerful character in the story
(2nd), what is even more, nature is the main character in the story (3rd).

According to the ppt about ecophobia: “Ecophobia exists globally on both macro and micro
levels, and its manifestation is at times directly apparent and obvious but is also often deeply
obscured by the clutter of habit and ignorance” (Estok, p. 1)”. Thus, in my first paragraph I am
using this idea when I said: “This means that nature is omnipotent as it slowly observes human
extinction, sometimes contributing to it”. So, we can see that I am using a particular element of
the ecogothic such as the fact that nature is omnipotent which some people might find this
obvious or not, and that is why the director is using his film to clarify this.

Finally, in my last paragraph, I am not contradicting myself, it is just that I am providing the
ultimate reason for considering nature as an actual character of the plot. I was taught that there
are no good or bad opinions as long as you can support them properly. Once again, in my essay
I am saying that, because nature and humans are of equal importance, nature can be considered
a character in the plot, but not just a normal characters like all the other humans, since it is no
longer defined in terms of human value, but as the main and most powerful character of the
plot so nature does not need humans to exist by its own.
Maybe my opinion is not the best for the idea it was discussing but I think that it is still valid.
Therefore, since I was not that wrong in everything you mentioned, I think that I deserve at least
a 78.

Yours sincerely,

Jose

In Alex Garland´s Annihilation (2018) we can see plenty of examples concerning

ecogothic features that make nature look as a concrete character of the plot, thus, the
following essay will be analyzing and examining the most representative and important
ones using an ecocentric focus.