How do you make an expository essay less text response like. Like how is an expository essay different from a text response. Also how would you go about making an expository less dry, and more interesting to the reader so that they are captivated by it. (cause apparently my expository essays are to text response like, but not sure how to change it and also a bit dry.
THanks for the advice.
A Context piece uses a text for evidence in order to say something about the Context itself. In Text Response, you're given a prompt that relates
only to your chosen text, and told to discuss the ideas within that text.
So Context has no limits, because you're talking about the entirety of the Imaginative Landscape/ Whose Reality/ Conflict/ Identity and Belonging. But Text Response is
just about the text itself, and you can't just go off on tangents about other themes or ideas.
For instance, the sentence: 'The desire for revenge is a fundamental part of human nature, even though we don't often like to admit it' would be perfectly fine in a Context essay, because it's dealing with a general concept. However, you couldn't use this in T.R. because it's not telling us anything about the book/film/play etc.
By contrast, something like: 'This character's quest for revenge can be seen as emblematic of his flawed, but relatable nature' would be fine in both Context and T.R. The difference here is that, after this sentence, a T.R. essay would stick with the character and link the discussion to the overall message of the book - while a Context piece would start to zoom out from the text and try to say something about IL/WR/C/Id&b.
In terms of 'spicing up' essays and making them more interesting, there's some general stuff
here and
here that might help get you started, but ultimately it just depends on your writing style and how 'creative' you want to get.
For the play macbeth, do I refer to the audience as 'viewers', 'playgoers', 'audience' or something else?
'Audience' is the conventionally accepted term, with 'playwright' (preferred) or 'author' being used for Shakespeare. You could use 'playgoers'/'theatre-goers' if you wanted, but only in moderation. This'd more likely be the case if you were saying something about Jacobean society at the time, and how
those specific theatre-goers in Shakespeare's day would've responded to something; in contrast to how 'audience' members (read: anyone who is viewing the play) could judge a certain character or infer a certain idea.
Just a quick question For Context, how do I explain a quote I've chosen that relates to my prompt as an example?... I know I have to mention the author's name but is there a specific amount about what I have to say about the author or do I just mention his/her name and write the quote and then explain how it relates to the prompt?
And is a single quote enough for one paragraph? (I know that examples arent meant to take up the whole paragraph)
Any ideas?
Oh and if it helps, im writing a persuasive speech!
It depends how well known the person is. If you're quoting, say, John Lennon, then you probably don't have to clarify
which John Lennon you're talking about, so specifications like 'Renowned British pop singer, and counter-culture activist John Lennon who was born on...' is going to sound superfluous. However, a brief adjective or two can be a good way to sum up a certain person; eg.
In her monumental address to the United Nations summit, then political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi said "quote"The same can be done for lesser known figures, or even completely random people you found by searching 'quotes about conflict/reality/identity.' We've all done it
So long as it doesn't detract from the flow of your speech, you should be fine.
As to the ratio of quotes to examples/explanation, I'm afraid your teacher will have to answer that because it's very subjective. Technically you don't need any quotes at all in Context - you just need 'evidence' of some kind. The most important thing is that your essay is able to find a balance between Context-based discussion, and example-based discussion - how exactly you do this is totally up to you.
I've heard some teachers say things like 'you have to have three or more quotes in every paragraph' while others say 'never use quotes; they're clunky and awful' so definitely check with your teacher to see if they have a hard-and-fast-rule either way. If you're lucky, they'll be cool with whatever you choose, and so it'll be up to you to determine whether your speech feels balanced or not.
ie. does it seem like
a) there are two many quotes and you can't explore them in enough depth, meaning the rest of the speech is compromised because you don't have enough time to talk about the bigger ideas?
b) there aren't enough quotes, so you end up stretching out the ones you do have to the point where you're reading too much into them, or they become sort of over-worked - OR - there aren't enough quotes and the whole thing feels like a stack of huge, lofty ideas with nothing supporting it underneath
or c) none of the above, so pretty much fine
Also a very straightforward question...
I have my English Oral SAC tomorrow. I feel very prepared as I've been refining and practising my speech since the beginning of the term. As a result, I can recite my entire piece without fault (i.e. I've memorised it quite well) to the extent that I can perform it without any cue cards/notes at all. With this being said, I would like to know which would be preferable of two possibilities: should I perform my speech without any aids at all, or should I perform it with cue cards in my hand without necessarily referring to them? I understand this might seem like a ridiculously stupid question, but could the skill of being able to interact/articulate your ideas without any aid make it seem to the assessor as if you're of a higher calibre, or does it make your presentation seem arrogant/disorganised?
The reason I ask it is because, while I would've gone with cards in hand to the actual speech to begin with, I was present at a VCAA Plain English speaking competition today. The winner was commended on his prepared speech above all, particularly for the fact that he did so without any notes. Is this a subjective assessment that the assessor will make, it is objectively better to be able to perform in this manner if you have very good interaction abilities when speaking? Thanks in advance and sorry for the unusually niche nature of this question.
I'm of the opinion that having cue cards in front of you is fairly sensible, even if you feel like you've memorised everything entirely... it's a good security blanket in case your brain just flies out the window when you need it most. Also, for someone who never knew what to do with her hands whilst giving a speech unless I had something to hold, it can kind of detract from the awkwardness in a weird psychological-boundary-between-you-and-the-audience sort of way.
But, assuming public speaking isn't too terrifying a prospect for you, then you could go either way. You
definitely won't be penalised for having cue cards (unless your teachers are especially cruel, but I've never heard of this happening) and whilst you would get
some credit for being able to speak confidently without them, ultimately the marks come down to how good your content is and how well you present it. Things like body language and tone of voice are way mroe influencial factors in the marking scheme than whether you have the speech in front of you.
Ultimately it comes down to what
kind of public speaker you are. If your speech is suited to a more personal, perhaps even borderline colloquial delivery where you talk directly to the audience (eg. 'Imagine
you were in this situation...' or 'How can
we abide this?') then a lack of cards might work in your favour. Whereas, if it's a very formal speech and you're suited to a very formal delivery style, then having your speech there is probably best.
Incidentally, it's kind of like how newsreaders today still have sheets of paper on their desks and occasionally shuffle them around a bit, even though they're almost completely reliant on teleprompters and ear-feeds. It's partly in case everything goes wrong and they need to rely on the hardcopy, but it's mostly about the way they deliver and transition between points.
If you're still undecided, wait and see what others in your class do tomorrow. If it seems like everyone's using cue cards, then maybe just stick with the system, but if there are a few solid speeches delivered without them, then by all means test that memorisation-prowess!
Good luck!