walkec:
I can understand wanting the security of having two texts up your sleeve, so by all means keep both in the air if you feel you can manage it, but ultimately you should be pretty secure in your primary text regardless of the prompts. Maybe have a think about what could potentially "throw you" and deal with those sort of questions now. eg. if you find structural questions difficult, or are stuped by the really broad V&V types. That way when VCAA
try and throw you, you'll be able to bounce back and hit them with an amazing essay
HHD:
Try practicing a really small-scale analysis. Just take a paragraph or two from a news article or practice piece, and just write a short paragraph on that section, focusing in particular on the pattern of your analysis (Consult the first post in this thread for my recommended what-how-why thing.)And just consciously remind yourself not to define any of the techniques.
Specificity is key for L.A.
For example, if you wanted to discuss an author's use of rhetorical questioning,
link it to the overall contention. Rather than simply stating 'the author uses a rhetorical question in order to make the readers question their views' actually provide the context; 'the author rhetorically questions whether anyone can "abide by this senseless waste of taxpayer dollars?" thereby prompting readers to concede their outrage at the squandering of their own money...'
Try to keep referencing the contention or sub-contention after most of your analyses, that should give you some direction.
hang__10:
Excellent segment on Aus/US gun control
here. This particular discussion would suit a prompt about the repurcussions/lessons we learn from conflict, but I'm sure you could make it work for other types as well.
Re: social media, depending on what angle you were going for, you could look at the way trolls cause, or exacerbate conflicts (eg. the targeting of facebook RIP pages for recently deceased children that trolls post horrible messages all over.) Alternatively you could look at one of the many documentaries that attempt to get inside the mind of a troll, or just make some broader sociological comments about whether the internet creates or enables this behaviour - 'what came first: the troll or the opportunity?' Will people find an outlet no matter the medium, or is there something about the anonymity of the internet that lends itself to this kind of conflict?
With regards to Ian Thorpe, there's definitely a lot you can say about the portrayal of 'coming out' in the media. There are some people who would argue the making a big deal about celebrities' sexuality is actually somewhat harmful to individuals trying to come to terms with their own identities, but are convinced it's some sort of life-changing-newspaper-headline moment, and that a better reaction from the public would be 'oh. that's nice, I hop you find someone to be happy with,' not 'omg! I can't believe he's gay, what a surprise, he seemed so
normal!'
^not my view, but you could argue it for essay purposes.
So I suppose this could link in with the idea of over-correcting conflicts, ie. sometimes the solutions we find can transform and perpetuate the conflict rather than lead to a proper resolution...?
Again, plenty of (opinionated) resources on this, so by all means find an interesting niche to discuss, just don't let the story get in the way of a good essay
Jason12:
Same advice as HHD, keep linking back to the contention a couple of times per para, and certainly at the end. The 'why' step of the what-how-why method (that is, why does the author want you to feel this way about the issue?) is quite critical here, and often neglected. You don't have to do this everytime; you can vary the pattern, especially if you were to combine techniques and lump them under the one umbrella like 'an appeal to fear' eg. what-why-what-how-what-why. So long as each of these elements are present and you're doing enough quoting and actual language analysis throughout, you should be fine.