This report for Brian Boru is in depth and factually correct for the most part. One typo leaves a question on a date. 1102 should be 1002 where Boru marched into Tara.. His life as King of Ireland is portrayed effectively, but the lack of a strong thesis leaves the reader wondering exactly what is being discussed. This fact, in conjunction with the constant change in tense, makes the paper difficult to fully comprehend.
The paper's thesis is weak and is hardly supported. "Boru's reputation as an innovative, disciplined warrior or chieftain confirmed by his many successes in battle, may have ultimately transformed him into an arrogant, selfish tyrant in his later years." The use of the word "may" leaves little ground to stand on. A more definitive approach would have been more appropriate in this case. Clearly saying that he was a tyrant and then proving that would have solved this problem. In addition to the lack of confirmation in the thesis, there is little support at all of Boru's tyrannical ways. He is portrayed as a stern ruler, but the word tyrant is never mentioned again as proof that he is a tyrant. The author calls him a tyrant in paragraph ten, but does not say anything definitive about his tyranny. . Examples of tyranny need to be reiterated in order to drive home the point that is ultimately trying to be made. Overall, the paper seems to be an in depth history of Boru rather than a comment on his kingship. A simple way to alleviate this problem would have been to clearly state a thesis and then support it. The thesis is weak, so it is difficult to support that because the author has nothing to base his or her paper on.
Another aspect of the report that makes it difficult to understand is the constant change in tense. The author puts Boru's history in the present tense on several occasions. "Brian reproached Mahoun with cowardice; Mahoun reproached Brian with imprudence. Brian hints broadly that Mahoun had interested motives in making this truce." Using the past tense is more appropriate in this case. These events are in the past. "Hints" implies that the action is taking place now; this is untrue as we know because the action took place in the 1000's. Other examples of the tense being incorrect are apparent throughout the paper. As mentioned earlier, where the date was mixed up between 1102 and 1002, the author states that Boru "marches." Boru marched, not "marches."
Finally, the conclusion of the paper is lacking. There is little said about the body of the paper in the conclusion. Again, this goes back to the lack of a strong thesis. There is little to go off of, so the rest of the paper suffers. More emphasis should have been put on the thesis. Bringing up pubs, beer and music in a historical account seems sort of odd considering there is no mention of them earlier. How exactly is Boru a hero? This is never fully developed in the paper. These are all valid points, but should not be mentioned if they are not discussed earlier.
Keeping the paper in the correct tense and making a clear, concise thesis would have
solved many problems for this paper. The history is all there, but there is nothing else. More
expression and opinion of Boru would have added spice and personality to the paper. Playing off
of Boru would have been an effective method because it seems as though Boru himself was a
character in every sense of the word. We see his actions, but not his thoughts. Bringing Boru to
life would have brought this paper to life, instead we are left with a great deal of potential and no
interesting or grabbing qualities.