I had a go at thinking, and have come up with a revised contention for my practice essay on "This Boy's Life". Am I on the right track?
Prompt: Discuss the conflict between Jack's desire for freedom and his desire to belong.
Original contention: Jack has an internal conflict between wanting to be free and wanting to belong.
Contention after thinking: Jack's desire to belong, despite it requiring him to betray his true self, suggests that he does not truly wish to be free – but to be free of the person that he was. (modeled after Lauren's example)
Way better contention, man! Well done!
Notice how the second one is much stronger, not just because it's longer, but because it's got more content contained within it. You're not simply saying 'Jack has a conflict,' you're saying 'Jack wanting to belong required a betrayal of his identity, meaning he wanted to be free of his former self.' You've incorporated much more of the prompt, and you've opened up several more angles of inquiry.
With that said, don't be limited by this contention either. There are still some concepts you could examine (eg. what kinds of internal conflict does Jack experience, and how do they manifest themselves? Does one of these desires (freedom or belonging) win out in the end? Why do they come into conflict in the first place? etc.)
None of these are required, but don't feel you're stuck dealing with what you can sum up in a sentence. Cover as much as you can with the contention, but expand it later if you need to.
As for language analysis, I believe I know 'what' to write - I'm fairly good at identifying the techniques used by the writer - however am constantly struggling to find a way of fabricating a piece of writing that isn't just:
technique --> effect on audience
technique --> effect on audience
etc, etc etc,
Literally my essays just look like dotpoints right now, which obviously doesn't earn you the high scores.
Any suggestions in how I can generate more fluidity in my writing?
Alrighty: your current issue is that you're only using
what and
how statements. So you clearly need to involve the
why component in some capacity, which I'll explain below, but just to clarify:
The
what section is more than just the technique, and
how is more than just the effect. You don't need to list a precise technique every time, you could simply quote, refer to tone, or comment on language generally. You definitely don't need to explain or define the technique; it's more about the language of the article than anything else. For the
how section, think about integrating the context/ background information as well (where relevant.) You could also 'split the audience,' ie. comment on how language might affect different people in different ways. Don't delve too far into this, and don't make judgements without evidence, but if you're given the information, then you're allowed to use it for analysis.
For instance, let's say you were analysing a leaflet about the dangers of fast food, and there was a paragraph talking about how it damages your health. If you've been told this leaflet was distributed amongst a vegan yoga club, then the effect would be one of self-congratulations and pride. Whereas, if they were handed out at every Maccas and KFC in town, then clearly the author is angling to elicit more shame, regret, and humiliation.
Now let's unpack that troublesome
'why.'The purpose of this component is to link your discussion back to the author's contention, thereby making it clear to the assessor that you understand how the language is persuasive and you're not simply pointing it out and leaving it at that. If the author is using a specific device in an attempt to elicit a certain response,
why would he want audience members to feel this way, or believe a certain idea?
On the surface it's a fairly obvious question to answer, but it can require a lot of practice before you are able to tread the line between giving too much detail, and not enough.
Simply put, your analysis at the moment is as follows:
Author does
this --> audience feels
this x repeat
What you need to do is round it off at the end like such:
Author does
this --> audience feels
this. Author does this for
these reasons.eg.
'The use of the childish epithet "liar liar, pants on fire" is designed to engender readers' scorn for the subject of the author's ridicule. This sense of scorn and disapproval for dishonesty is directed at the man inferred to be lying, therefore the author's unequivocal branding of him as a "liar" with firey pants forms part of a scathing attack upon the man's character.'I think there are some other examples in previous posts. Let me know if this still isn't making sense and I might be able to explain this further.
Home
Help
Search
Login
