The point of an ending

Overthe years that I've read student essays, I've come up with a scale to rank endings. The worst essays just stop, vaulting the reader out onto the pavement like a car crash. Clearly in some of these cases the writer ran out of time or collapsed from exhaustion. Mediocre essays end with a more or less complete summary of the essay's argument, reminding the reader of key points. Good essays provide some sense of order and emphasis, moving from a mere summary list to a thoughtful recapitulation of the argument. And the best essays manage to look outward, drawing some larger conclusion, pointing to a significant implication or opportunity for further research.

　　Here's a weak ending. All it does is recapitulate each point the essay has made—it's a shopping list, not a conclusion:

　　Coriolanus has many personality traits, traits that explain his greatness as well as his downfall. His pride is well-earned, but is also the cause of his volatile relationship with the plebeians. Coriolanus has an ingenious military mind that is signaled by his glorious military career as well as his ineptitude as a politician. While his passion drives him toward superiority, it also causes him to lose control of his emotions. Finally, Coriolanus' compassionate side is illustrated by his relationship with his mother. However, Volumnia is able to manipulate her son as a result of his devotion. Coriolanus refuses to change his personality or his actions to please anyone but himself or his mother. His refusal comes under intense pressure, but is also endorsed by various characters throughout the play. In the end, the opinions of others become meaningless as Coriolanus is isolated from the country he fought so hard to defend.

　　What's missing is any real sense of summation, of a conclusion with heft. The last sentence, on Coriolanus' isolation, does gesture toward an interesting conclusion. But as written it rushes by too quickly, at the end of an overlong paragraph. Revision would seize on isolation as the key idea and build the paragraph's structure around it. Note that to do this the writer is going to have to think a lot more deeply about the topic and the argument. How do the various things mentioned here （and presumably discussed in the essay） tie to Coriolanus' isolation? Does Coriolanus grow more isolated over the course of the play? Why? （Note the unhelpful passive voice, is isolated, in the original—by now, we recognize this as a way of ducking the question of agency.

　　As typically happens, serious revision would lead here to rethinking, more thinking, and better thinking—maybe even, with luck and pluck, to a bit of wisdom.

　　One more weak ending:

　　Although Mark Antony seems like an unimportant character at the beginning of Julius Caesar, he develops into an extremely shrewd and powerful ruler who successfully utilizes Machiavellian strategies such as plotting political moves, gaining the acceptance of the common people and never deferring war.

　　As with the previous conclusion, this simply reiterates the points made in the essay. It lacks any larger vision or context; it does not broaden the essay's argument in any fashion. The revision tries to do that:

　　Mark Antony seems, at the beginning of Julius Caesar, a shallow and unimportant character. But by the end of the play he has been revealed as bold, shrewd, and ambitious, the play's most thoroughly Machiavellian character. Has he changed—or has Shakespeare merely allowed us to see beneath his mask? And was his love for Caesar genuine, or opportunistic? Shakespeare poses these questions about Antony without providing easy answers. Contemplating Antony, we come to see Julius Caesar as a deeply political play, a play that challenges and teaches us about the nature of politics and the temptations of power.