ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE English Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE English & EAL => Topic started by: Akirus on January 17, 2010, 03:44:44 am
-
I'm a bit rusty, as I haven't done any essay writing at all this holiday (and kinda neglected English all year) and my friend gave me a topic to play with, so I whipped something up.
The topic is "Knowledge is power": if anyone else wants to write one on this topic, I would be interested to read it. Even better, do it before you read mine to eliminate bias. Comparing ideas is worthwhile.
Anyway, here's my attempt:
Knowledge, the familiarity with facts, truths or principles is the currency of the mind and has always been a powerful commodity in human history. Education has proven of a count innumerable in many facets of society, whether be it political, social or economical ad infinitum its capacity to overturn and outweigh other factors, however massive or diverse. Regardless of the context, those with knowledge have never been thus disadvantaged; very little does the past remember a stage wherein the scholarly were not held in high regard, nor does the future forecast the coming of such a time. Indeed, it is no understatement to say that the accumulation and possession of bountiful knowledge is tantamount to success in any endeavor. However, this being said, it is not unknown for those of great wisdom to be starved and impotent in the matters of power. Just as often as we have been shown the potency of information and understanding in victory, so have we been well acquainted to entities or purposes availed nothing by it. This is evident through simple empirical observation of reality, whether it is now or three thousand years prior; it is not uncommon for the blissfully ignorant or fortunate to stand atop the well-learned and at particular times this becomes glaringly apparent. It can then thus be derived this summary: it is not the possession of knowledge but the skillful and appropriate application of such that results in the culmination of substantial power. It must also be noted, though that those deficient in intellectual merit have generally shown themselves incapable of maintaining the semblance of their supremacy. History seldom bears witness to individuals capable of blindly stumbling through life with any degree of prosperity in the highest echelons of society; this again testifies to the import of repletive knowledge.
On no account should the power of information and superior understanding ever be dismissed or neglected. Knowledge is the essence upon which all contemplation is founded. While it cannot be said to be absolute, a wealth of knowledge in capable hands is an asset sufficient to surpass any mortal difficulty. There is no shortage of historic examples to this assertion. In the late Han Dynasty, the combined strategic victory of Zhou Yu and Zhuge Liang at the famous Battle of Red Cliffs in the late Han Dynasty of China that resulted in the rout of Cao Cao’s superior army of many magnitudes is a prime example of the brilliance that can be accomplished through ingenious use of acquired knowledge. Through creating powerful pretences by means of spies intended to sabotage the enemy’s intelligence whilst concealing their own dispositions, the coalition forces attained a high ground in the affairs of strategy and subsequently an ultimate victory. It is said that “in making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them; conceal your dispositions, and you will be safe from the prying of the subtlest spies, from the machinations of the wisest brains”, which gleams on the importance of information control. The result of this struggle was determined not by prevailing circumstances or fortune but by the trafficking and manipulation of knowledge, a direct exemplification of the vitality of information. This is epitomized by the well-known words of Master Sun Tzu: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt; if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete.”
Although it may be the case that knowledge is an imperative to any fruitful enterprise, it cannot be said that it is in itself an affirmation of undisputable triumph. Even in the modern era where intellect is weighted more heftily than physical prowess, this statement holds true. Whilst it is essentially certain that one will never be at a loss to be educated, it has never been a guarantee to power. This is demonstrated in all ages over the millennia. It is far from a rarity for holders of doctorates to be inadequately employed and insignificant. Similarly, in past times the wise were often poorly lived, with decrepit conditions in rural villages and in some cases such as that of the Catholic Church and Galileo they were outright prosecuted. On the other hand, it has so happened that presidencies of powerful first world democracies have been occupied by college drop-outs and massive dynasties and empires have been headed by incompetent emperors through the inheritance of lineage. This discrepancy is prevalent throughout all of recorded history and any considerations that fail to recognize this fact may be considered highly erroneous.
However, it is nigh-impossible for good fortune alone to sustain one in power. This fact has also been made obvious by humanities many failings. How often is it that inept leadership leads to the collapse of the state, no matter how formerly powerful or great? Even the expansive Roman Empire was no exception; despite having power over the greater part of the known world, it advantages them nothing if there is not the proper knowledge to utilize it. “Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory” and this cannot possibly be accomplished without any formidable background of knowledge. Prudence must be paid to this point in deliberations over the effect of knowledge in the matter of power.
If the greater picture is observed, it becomes apparent that only in the proper use of secured knowledge does it carry substantial weight. It can be likened to the ownership of a powerful weapon without the apparatus or means to operate it; if it cannot be used in any practical affair, then its potential will remain untouched. The wise understand this disparity. Not only is effort expended in the acquisition of information, but many hours are spent on the deliberation of its use ere a prolific venture is launched. The Art of War dwells not on set maneuvers but rather the variation of tactics using knowledge to adjust to the circumstance: “He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain”. This principle is highly transferrable to all aspects of being. “Knowledge is power” is inaccurate; it is in the correct augmentation of it that it becomes a lethal tool.
Without doubt, even at a glance we can see the immediate merit of knowledge, but only in its proper usage can the full extent of its usefulness be extracted. Never in over five thousand years since the ancient civilizations of the world has this fact been altered and it is shown to us repeatedly over the years. The Art of War was written three millennia ago, but its theories that stress the dire nature of knowledge and its variable use have prevailed to this day against the test of time. Talk not then of the power of knowledge; speak instead of he who utilizes it to its full effect.
Criticize away. There are a lot of things I want to adjust, especially my implementation of quotes I feel is inadequate in particular...
I attached a .docx form if anyone would prefer to read it like that.
Oh, and the book I cite is the "Art of War", by Sun Tzu if anyone cares.
-
I have no idea how that happened. I'm sure it's a .docx on my PC.
Let me try again.
//EDIT: Fixed it. I accidentally left out the extension. You can either download it again or just rename the file and add ".docx" to the end.
On another note, I understand what you're saying completely. This is more something I did for fun to exercise my writing ability than a practice essay for VCE. And while I agree that expressly using verbose expression may be unnecessary, at the same time I don't feel a need to reduce the level of my writing.
-
how long did it take to write?
-
If you include the time I spent thinking of ideas and referencing stuff, a few hours last night. I did it on my computer with access to books and so on.
-
Marvellously written piece. As for some constructive criticism...
1. I agree with run-bandit's point on the hyper-flamboyancy employed in this piece. You have some good concepts, but sometimes the verbosity can hide these ideas and make your writing seem somewhat convoluted.
2. Excellent vocabulary, and word use. But again, some of your sentence structure can be a little too over-complicated. Yes, writing in prose may elicit the need for a little complexity in your writing, but some sentences are over the top and can be a pain to read. If this is just writing for leisure, then by all means a VERY laudable effort. But if this is for a VCE piece, then VCE English is about expressing and exploring ideas explicitly and clearly .
3. Yes, I agree with the inappropriate use of quotes (or for VCE English anyway). What my teacher has told me is that quotes should be amalgamated into your writing, and not stand out as a separate sentence altogether. This can reduce the fluency and continuity of your writing.
4. This is somewhat splitting hairs, but just glancing at the format of your writing, your introduction in proportion to other paragraphs is a bit too big.
5. I don't know if this is legitimate, but when I was reading through it, your writing didn't seem 100% cogent to the topic at hand. Just a personal feeling, though.
Overall, a VERY well written piece.
-
Marvellously written piece. As for some constructive criticism...
1. I agree with run-bandit's point on the hyper-flamboyancy employed in this piece. You have some good concepts, but sometimes the verbosity can hide these ideas and make your writing seem somewhat convoluted.
2. Excellent vocabulary, and word use. But again, some of your sentence structure can be a little too over-complicated. Yes, writing in prose may elicit the need for a little complexity in your writing, but some sentences are over the top and can be a pain to read. If this is just writing for leisure, then by all means a VERY laudable effort. But if this is for a VCE piece, then VCE English is about expressing and exploring ideas explicitly and clearly .
Yeah, as mentioned, it's more for fun than VCE assessment. If possible, could you illuminate which parts in particular you had difficulty reading?
3. Yes, I agree with the inappropriate use of quotes (or for VCE English anyway). What my teacher has told me is that quotes should be amalgamated into your writing, and not stand out as a separate sentence altogether. This can reduce the fluency and continuity of your writing.
That's what I was thinking. However, I feel that some quotes, especially those that comprise more than one line fit better as a separate statement to support my contention. Can anyone advise me in this matter?
4. This is somewhat splitting hairs, but just glancing at the format of your writing, your introduction in proportion to other paragraphs is a bit too big.
Haha, yeah, I wrote this in the middle of the night and I was getting very lazy by 2-3am (and I was pretty much shut down by the time of the conclusion). If I were to redo it, I'd spend more time expanding on the body, it's just that I think you'll agree searching for extensive references in the middle of the night is an undesirable exercise.
5. I don't know if this is legitimate, but when I was reading through it, your writing didn't seem 100% cogent to the topic at hand. Just a personal feeling, though.
Could you please explain further? Your opinion is legitimate enough for me to hear.
-
Ok, let me attempt to dissect the first paragraph of your essay just so you get what I mean (these "corrections" are by no means correct, just my two cents):
Knowledge, the familiarity with facts, truths or principles is the currency of the mind and has always been a powerful commodity in human history. Education has proven of a count innumerable Is this necessary? Using unnecessary words for the sake of sounding prose is one thing that makes the essay over-complicated and hard to read. in many facets of society, whether be it Doesn't sound grammatically correct to me. Try: ...whether it be.political, social or economical ad infinitum its capacity Another example of unnecessary convolution.to overturn and outweigh other factors, however massive or diverse. Regardless of the context, those with knowledge have never been thus disadvantaged; very little does the past remember a stage wherein the scholarly were not held in high regard, nor does the future forecast the coming of such a time. Indeed, it is no understatement to say that the accumulation and possession of bountiful knowledge is tantamount to success in any endeavor. However, this being said, it is not unknown for those of great wisdom to be starved and impotent in the matters of power. Just as often as we have been shown the potency of information and understanding in victory, so have we been well acquainted to entities or purposes availed nothing by it. This is evident through simple empirical observation of reality, whether it is now or three thousand years prior; Not appropriate here. Use a 'comma'.it is not uncommon for the blissfully ignorant or fortunate to stand atop the well-learned and at particular times this becomes glaringly apparent. It can then thus be derived this summary: it is not the possession of knowledge but the skillful and appropriate application of such that results in the culmination of substantial power. This is the first sentence that clearly states your "contention" in this piece. See footnote (1). It must also be noted, though Place a comma here. that those deficient in intellectual merit have generally shown themselves incapable of maintaining the semblance of their supremacy. History seldom bears witness to individuals capable of blindly stumbling through life with any degree of prosperity in the highest echelons of society; this again testifies to the import of repletive knowledge.
Footnote (1): Your contention should be glaringly apparent from the very start of the essay, and not after 300 words of hubbub. The longwinded nature of this introduction somewhat masks the lucidity of your actual contention and it is not until the third last sentence of your introduction that readers know your point of view. Viewing this as a VCE essay, markers do not like that. State your contention from the start, if not the very first sentence, and elaborate in your succeeding lines, in lieu of leaving the reader confused and "directionless" in the first few hundred words before bringing it all together.
Having said that though, a very good use of language, though it needs to be more controlled in that you know the line between what is good literacy, and what is simply confusing and convoluted.
-
Answering your questions:
1. It's fine to play around with your writing but at your stage, I'll probably aim towards getting the "feel" of VCE English and what the markers expect to see and what they are impressed by just to get your English marks nailed down. Just for some examples of unnecessary convolution:
"Education has proven of a count innumerable in many facets of society..." (Can you think of a simpler way to say this?)
"...ad infinitum its capacity..."
These are some obvious ones I've picked up, but this issue has grown progressively better as the piece went on. Just remember: VCE English is about expressing complex ideas, but not necessarily using complicated language. Yes, some sophistication would bid you well, but over-complication would, by any means, not. If you can express the same concept with much more lucid language, go by that.
2. Yes, by all means, include some one sentence quotes. I know a lot of people that begin a paragraph or end one with a big quote that ties everything together. But don't use it frequently, nor use it as your only means of quoting and directly relating to the text. When writing essays such as these, the topic is very closely related to what you have explored in your text, and because of this, there is a lot of room for you to assimilate and take one or two word quotes that essentially say the same thing, just to show the markers you know your text well.
4. See this example for instance:
"...it cannot be said that it is in itself an affirmation of undisputable triumph..."
Is "power" the same as "triumph"?
On another note, another problem that worries me a bit is your simple exploration of the topic. It doesn't "delve" deep enough. You provide sound examples, but examples are not always enough. Try repetively asking yourself, "Why?" instead of merely presenting facts and exmemplars. Do not rely too heavily on complex language and high-end vocabulary, but focus more on exploring, discussing. You never really fully answered "why does knowledge not equal power", but only gave readers examples of over history. If this was a context piece, which it seems like it, don't rely too much on the text, but focus on general discussion and putting your point of view to the matter in a complex manner (and I don't mean word use, etc.)
However, I must praise you on a specific thing.
"It can be likened to the ownership of a powerful weapon without the apparatus or means to operate it; if it cannot be used in any practical affair, then its potential will remain untouched."
VCE markers LOVE metaphors, especially if you have made it up yourself. This is ONE way of making your writing complex and demarcating yourself from the sea of mediocrity. Using devices such as these is more favourable over using complicated sentence structure and words.
-
Ok, let me attempt to dissect the first paragraph of your essay just so you get what I mean (these "corrections" are by no means correct, just my two cents):
Knowledge, the familiarity with facts, truths or principles is the currency of the mind and has always been a powerful commodity in human history. Education has proven of a count innumerable Is this necessary? Using unnecessary words for the sake of sounding prose is one thing that makes the essay over-complicated and hard to read. in many facets of society, whether be it Doesn't sound grammatically correct to me. Try: ...whether it be.political, social or economical ad infinitum its capacity Another example of unnecessary convolution.to overturn and outweigh other factors, however massive or diverse. Regardless of the context, those with knowledge have never been thus disadvantaged; very little does the past remember a stage wherein the scholarly were not held in high regard, nor does the future forecast the coming of such a time. Indeed, it is no understatement to say that the accumulation and possession of bountiful knowledge is tantamount to success in any endeavor. However, this being said, it is not unknown for those of great wisdom to be starved and impotent in the matters of power. Just as often as we have been shown the potency of information and understanding in victory, so have we been well acquainted to entities or purposes availed nothing by it. This is evident through simple empirical observation of reality, whether it is now or three thousand years prior; Not appropriate here. Use a 'comma'.it is not uncommon for the blissfully ignorant or fortunate to stand atop the well-learned and at particular times this becomes glaringly apparent. It can then thus be derived this summary: it is not the possession of knowledge but the skillful and appropriate application of such that results in the culmination of substantial power. This is the first sentence that clearly states your "contention" in this piece. See footnote (1). It must also be noted, though Place a comma here. that those deficient in intellectual merit have generally shown themselves incapable of maintaining the semblance of their supremacy. History seldom bears witness to individuals capable of blindly stumbling through life with any degree of prosperity in the highest echelons of society; this again testifies to the import of repletive knowledge.
Footnote (1): Your contention should be glaringly apparent from the very start of the essay, and not after 300 words of hubbub. The longwinded nature of this introduction somewhat masks the lucidity of your actual contention and it is not until the third last sentence fo your introduction that readers know your point of view. Viewing this as a VCE essay, markers do not like that. State your contention from the start, if not the very first sentence, and elaborate in your succeeding lines, in lieu of leaving the reader confused and "directionless" in the first few hundred words before bringing it all together.
Having said that though, a very good use of language, though it needs to be more controlled in that you know the line between what is good literacy, and what is simply confusing and convoluted.
Before I begin, I would like to stress one more time that it is not intended as a VCE-level piece. I would prefer criticism to be geared in a more general direction rather than what examiners like to see. My actual English essays are much different from what I do for recreational purposes.
Addressing it in order:
1. "Is this necessary? Using unnecessary words for the sake of sounding prose is one thing that makes the essay over-complicated and hard to read" - I actually feel more like I'm being forced by VCE to write in a way that is plain for the sake of simplicity. Perhaps for a younger demographic it is inappropriate, but I always figured that if the sentence structure is correct, colorful writing only makes it more enjoyable to read (provided the reader understands what is being said). I do get what you mean though. Last time I asked my friends to proof a creative piece a wrote, no one knew what I was on about. And perhaps the sentence itself could do with a little adjustment (I'll get around to it later in this post).
2. "Doesn't sound grammatically correct to me. Try: ...whether it be" - You are right, that is a mistake on my part. I got caught between two different phrasings and it ended up in a mix: I believe my intended sentence was to omit the "whether", i.e. "In many facets of society, be it...".
3. "Another example of unnecessary convolution" - really? The only way I see this part being incomprehensible is if you don't understand the word (although from what I can tell of your criticism of this part, it seems you're having trouble "deciphering" the sentence).
To clarify, let me break the sentence down:
Education has proven of a count innumerable in many facets of society, whether be it political, social or economical ad infinitum its capacity to overturn and outweigh other factors, however massive or diverse.
You might be able to understand it better if you read the blue part only. The middle is for elaboration, but I can see how it disjoints the sentence to some degree. Maybe to make it clearer:
Education has proven of a count innumerable in many facets of society, whether be it political, social or economical ad infinitum, its capacity to overturn and outweigh other factors, however massive or diverse.
When I read sentences like these it is pretty clear to me, so I'm not really sure how I can make it any easier for you to read other than if I were to write it in a very stripped form:
"Knowledge has shown that it is often more important than other factors in many areas of society."
It's plain and boring, and I don't see how it is better to phrase it like that unless the intended demographic is incapable of reading more difficult English.
4. "Not appropriate here. Use a 'comma'." - I disagree. Using a comma drags on the sentence and it feels overly stretched out. I would either use a semi-colon or break it into two sentences entirely, i.e:
This is evident through simple empirical observation of reality. Whether it is now or three thousand years prior, it is not uncommon for the blissfully ignorant or fortunate to stand atop the well-learned and at particular times this becomes glaringly apparent.
or
This is evident through simple empirical observation of reality, whether it is now or three thousand years prior. It is not uncommon for the blissfully ignorant or fortunate to stand atop the well-learned and at particular times this becomes glaringly apparent.
5. Footnote (1) - While it's true that VCE English prefers it in that format (as teachers often stress), I don't believe it's necessary to follow the formulaic approach recommended in high school when writing for purposes outside of class. The structure of my introduction paragraph makes sense to me, at least.
-
essay good
-
Answering your questions:
1. It's fine to play around with your writing but at your stage, I'll probably aim towards getting the "feel" of VCE English and what the markers expect to see and what they are impressed by just to get your English marks nailed down. Just for some examples of unnecessary convolution:
"Education has proven of a count innumerable in many facets of society..." (Can you think of a simpler way to say this?)
"...ad infinitum its capacity..."
These are some obvious ones I've picked up, but this issue has grown progressively better as the piece went on. Just remember: VCE English is about expressing complex ideas, but not necessarily using complicated language. Yes, some sophistication would bid you well, but over-complication would, by any means, not. If you can express the same concept with much more lucid language, go by that.
The tendency to use complicated language probably stems from the things I read and my orientation towards creative writing. For this piece, it was more a mental exercise to get my English back in gear, as I don't have any difficulty in downplaying my writing where appropriate (such as is required of VCE English students). I intend to do both writing and philosophy after VCE (not in uni, but more as something I enjoy in my spare time), so I feel it's important that I keep my prose in good form.
2. Yes, by all means, include some one sentence quotes. I know a lot of people that begin a paragraph or end one with a big quote that ties everything together. But don't use it frequently, nor use it as your only means of quoting and directly relating to the text. When writing essays such as these, the topic is very closely related to what you have explored in your text, and because of this, there is a lot of room for you to assimilate and take one or two word quotes that essentially say the same thing, just to show the markers you know your text well.
This is along the lines of what I had in mind. It seemed completely impracticable to implement some of the quotes I used into a sentence.
4. See this example for instance:
"...it cannot be said that it is in itself an affirmation of undisputable triumph..."
Is "power" the same as "triumph"?
On another note, another problem that worries me a bit is your simple exploration of the topic. It doesn't "delve" deep enough. You provide sound examples, but examples are not always enough. Try repetively asking yourself, "Why?" instead of merely presenting facts and exmemplars. Do not rely too heavily on complex language and high-end vocabulary, but focus more on exploring, discussing. You never really fully answered "why does knowledge not equal power", but only gave readers examples of over history. If this was a context piece, which it seems like it, don't rely too much on the text, but focus on general discussion and putting your point of view to the matter in a complex manner (and I don't mean word use, etc.)
Very true. In fact, the only paragraph I'm particularly pleased with is the first... As mentioned, I got lazy as the night progressed and evidently my paragraphs became increasingly brief. It amuses me to hear this critique as the case with my teachers is usually the opposite; I tend to leave out examples and just explore the concept (although mostly because I don't bother reading the books). If I have time, I will re-write this and expand on the body. Might do it later tonight.
However, I must praise you on a specific thing.
"It can be likened to the ownership of a powerful weapon without the apparatus or means to operate it; if it cannot be used in any practical affair, then its potential will remain untouched."
VCE markers LOVE metaphors, especially if you have made it up yourself. This is ONE way of making your writing complex and demarcating yourself from the sea of mediocrity. Using devices such as these is more favourable over using complicated sentence structure and words.
I actually had trouble managing the proportions of evidence and supportive devices against my lacking conceptual depth, i.e. I hadn't said enough to justify adding in more support.
I should also point out that the essay itself isn't based on the book in particular, I just felt like using citations from it (it's a great book, I recommend reading it).
By the way, I don't believe I've thanked you for the feedback yet. I'm grateful, analyzing my writing in this way is very helpful for me to get back on my feet, I've pretty much neglected writing for the past few years (and I maintain that English classes are a waste of time).
-
Firstly, to address your responses in a general manner, I think you are slightly misunderstanding of what "good" writing actually is. When you say that at times, your friends don't know what you're on about, that's more often than not NOT a good sign. Yes, sometimes it can be that the vocabulary is a bit complex, but general sentence structure and WORD CHOICE is what I am on about. "Good" writing, in a general sense AND in a VCE sense, does not necessarily mean using chunky words, complex sentence patterns, complex paragraphs, etc. but to explicitly convey a given idea in the clearest manner possible. Yes you can use some fancy words to add some excitement to your writing, but don't overuse, and certainly don't adapt a "hyper-prose" style of writing. Good writing is witty, not wordy.
1. Ok, I see, but although some of the specifics are more sided towards VCE (such as structure), most apply for writing in general. "Convolution" is not just a term used by VCE examiners, but a term that describes over-complication to a degree that its not "good" writing anymore. Please treat the comments accordingly.
2. I would like to change one word. VCE writing is simple for the sake of being clear. Some complexity DOES add colour to your writing, but this type of complexity isn't achieved by using convoluted, or, as my teacher once said "thesaurus-inspired" (I mean this figuratively) language. I recommend you to work on FLUENCY, CLARITY and CONCEPTUAL EXPLORATION more than anything else. Whilst "colourful writing" may be a bonus, it ISN'T if it undermines its purpose of being colourful, and smothers the clearness of your writing and expression.
3. My comment isn't targetted on a particular word, but the sentence structure and the way you have written it that makes it longwinded. I like your second correction better, it is much more clear.
And another note, as writers, we are prone to understanding our own work, but the real test is if others understand it. And no, I'm not saying you need to "dumb down" and make it plain old boring, but when you are using complex words, make sure that it does not make the sentence sound confusing.
4. No, how you have written the sentence in your essay, a semicolon is inappropriate. Another alternative is to place the semicolon in between the words "reality" and "whether", as in your first amendment. But otherwise, putting a semicolon where you have put it in your essay is grammatically erroneous.
5. If this essay is put out of VCE context, the sentiments in Footnote (1) would be invalid.
-
1. Ah ok, I understand. Maybe you should do a creative piece of the context section of the exam? :p And yes, the style of writing you have employed is probably best left for philosophy, or, by any means, literature, as both of these reward you for elaborate writing.
2. Drawing ideas and support material from books is always a bonus! :)
-
This is why I posted it in the general English board and not the specific one for VCE English.
Personally, I do not find the structure to be incomprehensible; certainly, if you're unfamiliar with the style of writing or specific words used, but otherwise it at most needs a few minor tweaks for clarity (such as with the sentence used as an example earlier on). At a higher level than that of VCE, I do not think readers would have much issue understanding the piece, other than issues associated with lack of drafting. Most people that have trouble understanding my writing, such as the example of friends I raised earlier comes mostly from unfamiliarity with the terminology I use and the style of writing, which is not as common in modern writing (whereas it is very commonplace in older English). Of course, I concede that VCE examiners would probably not look at this writing form favorably.
This is probably where we come to a crossroads. Given my intended purpose, I do not believe the essay itself is excessively complex, at most the more tricky sentences could do with a slight rearrangement for clarity through some drafting. Especially given the context of the references I use, I believe the tone and prose is quite fitting. I understand what you mean when you emphasize "fluency, clarity and conceptual exploration", but at the same time I do not believe that complex/elaborate writing is bad (at least, outside of VCE writing). That said, I respect your difference in opinion, should that be the case.
I have also taken into consideration all of your advice for when I write next, it has been helpful. Again, I thank you.
//EDIT
I looked over the original use of the semi-colon and you are indeed correct. Only paid attention to the use of a comma (which I maintain is inappropriate there). Thanks for pointing this out, will correct it if I get around to expanding on the essay.
-
Colour coding:
Green - Syntax
Purple - Lexical Choice
Pink - Grammar
Red - Corrections
Knowledge, otherwise defined as the familiarity with facts, truths or principles, is the currency of the mind and has always been a powerful commodity in human history. Education has proven of a count innumerable convoluted in many facets of society, whether be it political, social or economical ad infinitum its capacity to overturn and outweigh other factors, however massive or diverse. ??? This doesn't seem to follow on Regardless of the context, those with knowledge have never been thus ??? disadvantaged; very little does the past remember a stage "A disturbance in the force, I feel". Cut the Yoda speak wherein the scholarly were not held in high regard, nor does the future forecast the coming of such a time. I quite like this one, actually Indeed, it is no understatement to say that the accumulation and possession of bountiful knowledge is tantamount to success in any endeavor. However, this being said, it is not unknown unheard of? for those of great wisdom to be starved and impotent in the matters of power. Just as often as we have been shown the potency of information and understanding in victory, so have we been well acquainted to entities or purposes availed nothing by it yucky; too convoluted again. This is evident through simple empirical observation of reality, whether it is now or three thousand years prior; it is not uncommon for the blissfully ignorant or fortunate to stand atop the well-learned and at particular times this becomes glaringly apparent. It can then thus be derived this summary: it is not the possession of knowledge but the skillful and appropriate application of such that results in the culmination of substantial power. It must also be noted, though, that those deficient in intellectual merit have generally shown themselves incapable of maintaining the semblance of their supremacy. History seldom bears witness to individuals capable of blindly stumbling through life with any degree of prosperity in the highest echelons of society; this again testifies to the import of repletive knowledge.
Philosophical and broad intro: I like it, but brighsky's comments about your sentence construction being on the slightly convoluted side are highly apposite to the reality of your writing.
On no account should the power of information and superior understanding ever be dismissed or neglected. Knowledge is the essence upon which all contemplation is founded. Not sure why, but this sounds too much like you've just taken two random philosophical statements and placed them one after another into some sort of bizarro philosophical stew of icky philosophicalness While it cannot be said to be absolute, a wealth of knowledge in capable hands is an asset sufficient to surpass any mortal difficulty. There is no shortage of historic examples to this assertion. In the late Han Dynasty, the combined strategic victory of Zhou Yu and Zhuge Liang at the famous Battle of Red Cliffs in the late Han Dynasty of China that resulted in the rout of Cao Cao’s superior army of many magnitudes is a prime example of the brilliance that can be accomplished through ingenious use of acquired knowledge. In Star Wars Episode V, the tactics utilised by the Galactic Empire in the famous battle of Hoth, where Darth Vader's forces invaded the Rebel Alliance that resulted in the Millenium Falcon taking off and flying towards an asteroid field before escaping to Bespin is a prime example of the brilliance that can be accomplished through George Lucas' imagination. Through creating powerful pretences by means of spies intended to sabotage the enemy’s intelligence whilst concealing their own dispositions, again, too convoluted the coalition forces attained a high ground in the affairs of strategy and subsequently an ultimate victory. It is said that “in making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them; conceal your dispositions, and you will be safe from the prying of the subtlest spies, from the machinations of the wisest brains”, which gleams on the importance of information control. The result of this struggle was determined not by prevailing circumstances or fortune but by the trafficking and manipulation of knowledge, a direct exemplification of the vitality of information. This is epitomized by the well-known words of Master Sun Tzu: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt; if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete.”
Although it may be the case that knowledge is an imperative to any fruitful enterprise I'd do something more like "Nevertheless, in spite of knowledge's imperative role in any fruitful enterprise", personally, it cannot be said that it is in itself an affirmation of undisputable triumph. Even in the modern era where intellect is weighted more heftily than physical prowess, this statement holds true. Whilst it is essentially certain that one will never be at a loss to be educated, it has never been a guarantee to power. This is demonstrated in all ages over the millennia. It is far from a rarity for holders of doctorates to be inadequately employed and insignificant. Similarly, in past times the wise were often poorly lived, with decrepit conditions in rural villages and in some cases such as that of the Catholic Church and Galileo they were outright prosecuted and were even outright prosectued in cases such as those of the Catholic Church and Galileo. On the other hand, In contrast? it has so happened that presidencies of powerful first world democracies have been occupied by college drop-outs and massive dynasties and empires have been headed by incompetent emperors through the inheritance of lineage. This discrepancy is prevalent throughout all of recorded history and any considerations that fail to recognize this fact may be considered highly erroneous.
However, it is nigh-impossible for good fortune alone to sustain one in power. This fact has also been made obvious by humanities humanity's many failings. How often is it that inept leadership leads to the collapse of the state, no matter how formerly powerful or great? Even the expansive Roman Empire was no exception; despite having power over the greater part of the known world, it advantages them nothing if there is not the proper knowledge to utilize it tsk tsk, Yoda speak. “Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory” and this cannot possibly be accomplished without any formidable background of knowledge. Prudence must be paid to this point in deliberations over the effect of knowledge in the matter of power.
If the greater picture is observed, it becomes apparent that only in the proper use of secured knowledge does it carry substantial weight. It can be likened to the ownership of a powerful weapon without the apparatus or means to operate it; if it cannot be used in any practical affair, then its potential will remain untouched. The wise understand this disparity. Not only is effort expended in the acquisition of information, but many hours are spent on the deliberation of its use ere a prolific venture is launched. The Art of War dwells not on set maneuvers but rather the variation of tactics using knowledge to adjust to the circumstance: “He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain”. This principle is highly transferrable to all aspects of being. “Knowledge is power” is inaccurate; it is in the correct augmentation of it that it becomes a lethal tool. Love the sentence, although I'm not sure about its premise. I think saying that "Knowledge is power is inaccurate" is a bit much if you've just argued that it is the "essence upon which all contemplation is founded"
Without doubt, even at a glance we can see the immediate merit of knowledge, but only in its proper usage can the full extent of its usefulness be extracted. Never in over five thousand years since the ancient civilizations of the world has this fact been altered and it is shown to us repeatedly over the years. icky icky icky. Don't use the same word twice in one sentence The Art of War was written three millennia ago, but its theories that stress the dire nature of knowledge and its variable use have prevailed to this day against the test of time. Talk not then of the power of knowledge; speak instead of he who utilizes it to its full effect. lovely
Liked it overall, but try to be a bit more natural. The Yoda-speak was a bit jarring at times, and you could improve on the overall flow. Reread it out aloud to yourself and see where it sounds awkward.
-
Also, just some comments on what has been said thus far (new post, since the correction of the essay was heaps long...):
"3. Yes, I agree with the inappropriate use of quotes (or for VCE English anyway). What my teacher has told me is that quotes should be amalgamated into your writing, and not stand out as a separate sentence altogether. This can reduce the fluency and continuity of your writing. "
-Not entirely true for Context writing, which this piece seems most similar to. Often you might want to integrate a full quote, rather than simply use a run-on one.
"
5. I don't know if this is legitimate, but when I was reading through it, your writing didn't seem 100% cogent to the topic at hand. Just a personal feeling, though."
Disagree. I felt it was all quite relevant, even when he expanded towards a broader discussion of the topic's implications.
"VCE markers LOVE metaphors, especially if you have made it up yourself. This is ONE way of making your writing complex and demarcating yourself from the sea of mediocrity. Using devices such as these is more favourable over using complicated sentence structure and words."
Only true for Context. Using metaphors in any other subject will get you crucified.
"On another note, another problem that worries me a bit is your simple exploration of the topic. It doesn't "delve" deep enough. You provide sound examples, but examples are not always enough. Try repetively asking yourself, "Why?" instead of merely presenting facts and exmemplars. Do not rely too heavily on complex language and high-end vocabulary, but focus more on exploring, discussing. You never really fully answered "why does knowledge not equal power", but only gave readers examples of over history. If this was a context piece, which it seems like it, don't rely too much on the text, but focus on general discussion and putting your point of view to the matter in a complex manner (and I don't mean word use, etc.)"
Disagree again. I felt that he made enough contentions minus the examples, and he addressed the question in that he discussed how knowledge does not grant instant victory unless it is utilised properly. Examples are also highly necessary, and I don't think he overdid them.
"VCE markers LOVE metaphors, especially if you have made it up yourself. This is ONE way of making your writing complex and demarcating yourself from the sea of mediocrity. Using devices such as these is more favourable over using complicated sentence structure and words."
Not entirely true. You need to make your metaphors unwanky-sounding - personally, I don't think they work unless they're used at the start or end of the piece.
"1. Ah ok, I understand. Maybe you should do a creative piece of the context section of the exam? :p And yes, the style of writing you have employed is probably best left for philosophy, or, by any means, literature, as both of these reward you for elaborate writing."
Heavily disagree on the first and second statements. His writing is fine for an expository in a VCE Context context (lolol geddit) - if anything, VCE Context actually rewards writing that leans towards the slightly philosophical and convoluted side. Also, VCE Philosophy is (ironically) the complete opposite; elaborate and stereotypically "Philosophical"/metaphoric writing is heavily discouraged.
"Personally, I do not find the structure to be incomprehensible; certainly, if you're unfamiliar with the style of writing or specific words used, but otherwise it at most needs a few minor tweaks for clarity (such as with the sentence used as an example earlier on). At a higher level than that of VCE, I do not think readers would have much issue understanding the piece, other than issues associated with lack of drafting. Most people that have trouble understanding my writing, such as the example of friends I raised earlier comes mostly from unfamiliarity with the terminology I use and the style of writing, which is not as common in modern writing (whereas it is very commonplace in older English). Of course, I concede that VCE examiners would probably not look at this writing form favorably.
This is probably where we come to a crossroads. Given my intended purpose, I do not believe the essay itself is excessively complex, at most the more tricky sentences could do with a slight rearrangement for clarity through some drafting. Especially given the context of the references I use, I believe the tone and prose is quite fitting. I understand what you mean when you emphasize "fluency, clarity and conceptual exploration", but at the same time I do not believe that complex/elaborate writing is bad (at least, outside of VCE writing). That said, I respect your difference in opinion, should that be the case."
Agreed again, although I think most VCE examiners wouldn't have THAT much of an issue with your style.
"I looked over the original use of the semi-colon and you are indeed correct. Only paid attention to the use of a comma (which I maintain is inappropriate there). Thanks for pointing this out, will correct it if I get around to expanding on the essay. "
I'm actually in favour of the original use of the semi-colon, unless somebody can tell me why it's inappropriate. Agreed that the comma is definitely inappropriate though.
-
Hehe, seems like I've got much to learn. Thanks for correcting the errors in my post EZ! But I still think that at least some of my points hold, despite the vehemence of your disagreement.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
1. At times, it feels like the essay states a contention, then explains and explores that contention with the sole use of examples from history.
2. Why would you get crucified if you bring in a metaphor? If anything, a metaphor displays a sophisticated and abstract understanding of the text/context.
-
Hehe, seems like I've got much to learn. Thanks for correcting the errors in my post EZ! But I still think that at least some of my points hold, despite the vehemence of your disagreement.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
1. At times, it feels like the essay states a contention, then explains and explores that contention with the sole use of examples from history.
2. Why would you get crucified if you bring in a metaphor? If anything, a metaphor displays a sophisticated and abstract understanding of the text/context.
1. What else can he really do? The general rule of thumb with essay writing is topic sentence->expand (the "contention"), example, and then link to topic. TEEL.
2. The problem with metaphors is that they need to be used wisely -if they're not good/if they're overused you sound like a really bad and pretentious poet. Not only that, but they seem out of place in the academic-style essays you'll find yourself writing; teachers will advise you to use a metaphor somewhere in your Context pieces (probably towards the end), but in language analysis and text response they're newborn babies screaming for attention unless they're utilised in the ending of the latter (endings are allowed to be wanky).
-
Thanks for the feedback, Eva. Just a few things:
Regarding what you refer to as "Yoda speak", this kind of writing I find very commonly in a lot of things I read (for example, the English translation of the Art of War uses an abundance of it). Is it necessarily bad? I mean, it's far less twisted than the way Yoda actually talks and makes sense as far as I can tell. I don't actually go out of my way to write it like that, it's just something of a habit as I'm used to seeing it.
its capacity to overturn and outweigh other factors, however massive or diverse. ??? This doesn't seem to follow on - I addressed this in a previous post: http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,22195.msg225525.html#msg225525
unknown unheard of? - I believe this is fine, I'm almost certain the usage is correct and it sounds good. Or not?
so have we been well acquainted to entities or purposes availed nothing by it yucky; too convoluted again - really..? I liked this sentence.
Knowledge is the essence upon which all contemplation is founded. Not sure why, but this sounds too much like you've just taken two random philosophical statements and placed them one after another into some sort of bizarro philosophical stew of icky philosophicalness - Then, would you recommend the omission of the second part? I thought it reinforced the initial statement, but now that you mention it, it is a bit... yeah.
For the Three Kingdoms reference, are you implying I should elaborate, or..? I was planning on using a lot more examples here actually (at first I was planning at least a few pages more of writing), but I got lazy...
“Knowledge is power” is inaccurate; it is in the correct augmentation of it that it becomes a lethal tool. Love the sentence, although I'm not sure about its premise. I think saying that "Knowledge is power is inaccurate" is a bit much if you've just argued that it is the "essence upon which all contemplation is founded" - this is working with the intricacies a bit; I said it is inaccurate and not incorrect, which lends to my point that knowledge in itself is insufficient
icky icky icky. Don't use the same word twice in one sentence - I almost feel ashamed, I don't know how I let this one slip. Usually I'm completely OCD about this... I account it to the time.
Again, this is very helpful and I thank you guys again. It's actually motivated me enough to bother with a second draft.
-
@ the Yoda speak thing, it just sounds awkward/archaic. It works in poetry and fiction, but for academic/expository writing I don't think it works. Also, Art of War is about as archaic as you can get (also the fact that it's translated from Chinese means that there's a bit of Yoda going on anyway).
@ unknown, unheard of is more conventional and sounds better IMO.
@Knowledge is the essence upon which all contemplation is founded, I think it'd be better to merge the two somehow or make one of them longer so that they're of differing length.
@San Guo reference, I was saying the detail was unnecessary and that you could have simplified it a bit. The sentence is waaay too long and hard to read.
@Inaccurate, fair enough.
-
Hehe, seems like I've got much to learn. Thanks for correcting the errors in my post EZ! But I still think that at least some of my points hold, despite the vehemence of your disagreement.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
1. At times, it feels like the essay states a contention, then explains and explores that contention with the sole use of examples from history.
2. Why would you get crucified if you bring in a metaphor? If anything, a metaphor displays a sophisticated and abstract understanding of the text/context.
1. What else can he really do? The general rule of thumb with essay writing is topic sentence->expand (the "contention"), example, and then link to topic. TEEL.
2. The problem with metaphors is that they need to be used wisely -if they're not good/if they're overused you sound like a really bad and pretentious poet. Not only that, but they seem out of place in the academic-style essays you'll find yourself writing; teachers will advise you to use a metaphor somewhere in your Context pieces (probably towards the end), but in language analysis and text response they're newborn babies screaming for attention unless they're utilised in the ending of the latter (endings are allowed to be wanky).
Fair enough.
-
@ the Yoda speak thing, it just sounds awkward/archaic. It works in poetry and fiction, but for academic/expository writing I don't think it works. Also, Art of War is about as archaic as you can get (also the fact that it's translated from Chinese means that there's a bit of Yoda going on anyway).
Haha, very true. I will keep this in mind, thanks for the tip. I tend to inadvertently blend the lines between writing fiction and essays.
@ unknown, unheard of is more conventional and sounds better IMO.
But would you agree it is more of a matter of preference than validity or correctness?
@Knowledge is the essence upon which all contemplation is founded, I think it'd be better to merge the two somehow or make one of them longer so that they're of differing length.
Ah, yeah. Now I see what you mean, reading over it again it sounds awkward.
@San Guo reference, I was saying the detail was unnecessary and that you could have simplified it a bit. The sentence is waaay too long and hard to read.
Should I divide the information into multiple sentences or omit it altogether?
By the way, surprised to see someone familiar with those texts on this forum (although I'm not surprised it's you).
//EDIT: One more thing... I don't see how it is necessary for the "Knowledge, otherwise defined as.."?
-
@ unknown, I think that "unknown" sounds awkward despite being technically correct. Hence, it's "valid", but only just.
@ San Guo, omit some of it. "The combined strategic victory of Zhou Yu and Zhuge Liang at the famous Battle of Red Cliffs over Cao Cao’s vastly superior army is is a prime example of the brilliance that can be accomplished through ingenious use of acquired knowledge." might work.
And haha, I read quite widely. :p
-
This is why I posted it in the general English board and not the specific one for VCE English.
Haha, I see.
Personally, I do not find the structure to be incomprehensible; certainly, if you're unfamiliar with the style of writing or specific words used, but otherwise it at most needs a few minor tweaks for clarity (such as with the sentence used as an example earlier on). At a higher level than that of VCE, I do not think readers would have much issue understanding the piece, other than issues associated with lack of drafting. Most people that have trouble understanding my writing, such as the example of friends I raised earlier comes mostly from unfamiliarity with the terminology I use and the style of writing, which is not as common in modern writing (whereas it is very commonplace in older English). Of course, I concede that VCE examiners would probably not look at this writing form favorably.
No, I'm not saying the structure is incomprehensible, I'm saying it can be confusing to read because of some overcomplicated sentence structure you use (or as EZ said, a bit like Yoda-speak), which can have an effect on the overall clarity of the piece. Even if you retain your original words, reorganizing some of such sentences can add fluency to the essay. But yes, I agree that I'm VERY unfamiliar with this style of writing (first time I've seen it if my memory serves me well), and I was struck quite dumbfounded. (My comments are based solely on my innate feeling when I read the piece).
This is probably where we come to a crossroads. Given my intended purpose, I do not believe the essay itself is excessively complex, at most the more tricky sentences could do with a slight rearrangement for clarity through some drafting. Especially given the context of the references I use, I believe the tone and prose is quite fitting. I understand what you mean when you emphasize "fluency, clarity and conceptual exploration", but at the same time I do not believe that complex/elaborate writing is bad (at least, outside of VCE writing). That said, I respect your difference in opinion, should that be the case.
I concur fully. Never did I say that some elaborate writing is bad, provided that it doesn't sound weird and get in the way of what you are trying to express.
I have also taken into consideration all of your advice for when I write next, it has been helpful. Again, I thank you.
//EDIT
I looked over the original use of the semi-colon and you are indeed correct. Only paid attention to the use of a comma (which I maintain is inappropriate there). Thanks for pointing this out, will correct it if I get around to expanding on the essay.
Looking forward to reading your re-drafted version. Would you be able to post it up here after you've completed it?
-
//EDIT: One more thing... I don't see how it is necessary for the "Knowledge, otherwise defined as.."?
Adding that adds relevance to your "thesis statement" in regards to the topic. Separates knowledge by itself, which is what the topic at hand is related to.
-
Isn't the meaning essentially the same?
-
Yeah the meaning is the same. It's probably splitting hairs a bit, but it looks better.
-
Can any1 give me any advice regarding language analysis, it seems everything i try i still only manage B's.
-
Can any1 give me any advice regarding language analysis, it seems everything i try i still only manage B's.
Someone else can help you out, unfortunately I have never really paid any mind to language analysis, I just wing it.
@Bright: Sure, as soon as I finish it up.
-
Can any1 give me any advice regarding language analysis, it seems everything i try i still only manage B's.
It might be better if you specify which area you need help in. General comments/advice may not be as effective/helpful.
-
Mostly in the body paragraphs. I find it especially hard when analyzing the one big article, do i analyze one argument in each paragraph or do i analyze the persuasive techniques common to each argument.
Sorry if its a bit hard to understand
-
This is what my teacher told me to do:
1. When reading an article, highlight words/phrases that demonstrate how the writer uses language to persuade people, i.e. different devices or literacy techniques that are employed.
2. SELECT. Do not write everything. Select some (each demonstrating a different technique) to use/quote in your piece.
3. Start writing:
Para 1: Introduce the article, very generally, using only a few if not only one sentence. Be sure to include: What does the writer use/What techniques are evident? Who is the audience (this can be conveyed indirectly too, up to you)? What is the writer aiming to do, i.e. what is the purpose of the writing? Overall contention of the writer.
(Remember that all of this is very general, because it is the intro)
Para 2 - whatever: Now it starts to get detailed. You can separate the paragraphs in whichever way you wish, but I prefer to allocate each technique to one paragraph, if not two. A rough guide would be: 1. State what technique she is using. 2. Give a quote of some sort from the article. (This is where your highlighting at the start becomes crucial, as well as your ability to select). 3. What does the technique position the reader to feel, react, etc. etc.? 4. How does it do it?
Conclusion: Reiteration of the introduction. But in a more general and conclusive style. Do not introduce anything new. State general techniques used, the writer's contention, what it positions readers to feel, react, etc., and then a conclusive statement (often very broad and not directly related to the article, but the ideas discussed in the article.
Remember to pay as much attention to written material as with visual material. Don't neglect the visual material (as a lot of students do).
Hope this helps. :)
Be sure not to make the language analysis personal. Don't put in your opinions, but discuss the opinions of the writer (and how he/she conveys it) and how it effects you as a reader.
-
Para 2 - whatever: Now it starts to get detailed. You can separate the paragraphs in whichever way you wish, but I prefer to allocate each technique to one paragraph, if not two. A rough guide would be: 1. State what technique she is using. 2. Give a quote of some sort from the article. (This is where your highlighting at the start becomes crucial, as well as your ability to select). 3. What does the technique position the reader to feel, react, etc. etc.? 4. How does it do it?
so each paragraph should be about a technique and its effects? What about if the same technique is used again in a different context, should that also be included in the same paragraph, or in a separate one?
Also does the visual content get its own paragraph or where reaffirms the the affect on the reader, just include it eg. The adjacent image also affects the reader in a similar way by....
-
Para 2 - whatever: Now it starts to get detailed. You can separate the paragraphs in whichever way you wish, but I prefer to allocate each technique to one paragraph, if not two. A rough guide would be: 1. State what technique she is using. 2. Give a quote of some sort from the article. (This is where your highlighting at the start becomes crucial, as well as your ability to select). 3. What does the technique position the reader to feel, react, etc. etc.? 4. How does it do it?
so each paragraph should be about a technique and its effects? What about if the same technique is used again in a different context, should that also be included in the same paragraph, or in a separate one?
Also does the visual content get its own paragraph or where reaffirms the the affect on the reader, just include it eg. The adjacent image also affects the reader in a similar way by....
That is up to you. There is no real formula for writing, just need to develop your own taste.
And putting one technique in each paragraph is only a preference that many have. It might suit you better to separate paragraphs another way. Just need to keep on writing and see what you like the most and what you find most comfortable. :)
Generally speaking, visual content gets assigned its own paragraph, instead of getting amalgamated into other paragraphs. Again, a preference thing. You write on the visual material in the same way as you do the written, only difference is, you are not analysing specific literacy technique/device/word use/tone, but you are analysing specifics in an image, such as colours, details, moods, etc.
Some images also represent a metaphor. So you can discuss that too.
-
Thanks, you've been alot of help
-
Well, I finally had enough trouble sleeping that I completed a second draft. Pretty much adjusted the original piece with advice from everyone and added in more substance and justification. Also tried some different wordings, I'd like to know which parts aren't clear so I can fix it for next time.
Knowledge, otherwise defined as the familiarity with facts, truths or principles, is the currency of the mind and has always been a powerful commodity in human history. Education has proven of an innumerable count in many facets of society, be it political, social or economical ad infinitum, its capacity to overturn and outweigh other factors, however massive or diverse. Regardless of the context, those with knowledge have never been disadvantaged; there is little of the past wherein the scholarly were not held in high regard, nor does the future forecast the coming of such a time. Indeed, it is no understatement to say that the accumulation and possession of bountiful knowledge is tantamount to success in any endeavor. However, this being said, it is not unprecedented for those of considerable wisdom to be starved and impotent in the matters of power. Just as often as we have been shown the potency of information and understanding in victory, so have we been well acquainted to entities or purposes that are availed nothing by it. This is evident through simple empirical observation of reality, whether it is now or three thousand years prior; it is not uncommon for the blissfully ignorant or fortunate to stand atop the well-learned and at particular times this becomes glaringly apparent. It can then thus be derived this summary: it is not the possession of knowledge but the skillful and appropriate application of such that results in the culmination of substantial power. It must also be noted, though that those deficient in intellectual merit have generally shown themselves incapable of maintaining the semblance of their supremacy. History seldom bears witness to individuals capable of blindly stumbling through life with any degree of prosperity in the highest echelons of society; this again testifies to the import of repletive knowledge.
On no account should the power of information and superior understanding ever be dismissed or neglected. Knowledge is the essence upon which all contemplation is founded and it is an established aphorism that “what enables the wise sovereign and good general to strike and conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is FOREKNOWLEDGE”. “That is,” as is commonly inferred, the “knowledge of the enemy’s dispositions, and what he means to do”. Despite being written in a military context, this principle has broad parallels across which it can be applied. While it cannot be said to be absolute, a wealth of knowledge in capable hands is an asset sufficient to surpass any mortal difficulty. There is no shortage of historic examples to this assertion. One such event occurred in the late Han Dynasty: the combined strategic victory of Zhou Yu and Zhuge Liang at the famous Battle of Red Cliffs that resulted in the rout of Cao Cao’s numerically superior army is a prime example of the brilliance that can be accomplished through ingenious use of acquired knowledge. The coalition forces attained a high ground in the affairs of strategy and subsequently an ultimate victory by employing a fundamental principle in the art of war: it is said that “in making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them”. Zhou Yu utilized a “converted spy” scheme designed with a two-fold effect that served the purpose of undermining the enemy’s intelligence and bulking their own. The result of this struggle was determined not by prevailing circumstances or fortune but by the trafficking and manipulation of knowledge, a direct exemplification of the vitality of information. This is epitomized by the famous words of Master Sun Tzu: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt; if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete.”
Yet, be it as it may that knowledge is an imperative to any fruitful enterprise, it cannot be said that it is in itself an affirmation of undisputable triumph. Even in the modern era where intellect is undoubtedly weighted more heftily than physical prowess, this statement holds true. Whilst it is essentially certain that one will never be at a loss to be educated, it has never been a guarantee to power. This is demonstrated in all ages over the millennia. It is far from a rarity for doctorial holders to be inadequately employed and insignificant. To quote a certain academic, “I’ve two Ph.Ds and the current Prime Minister of Australia doesn’t even have a degree. How is this fair?” Similarly, in past times the wise were often poorly lived, with decrepit conditions in rural villages and were even outright prosecuted in such cases as those of the Catholic Church and Galileo. As if to provide a stark contrast, it has so happened that presidencies of powerful first world democracies have been occupied by college drop-outs and massive dynasties and empires have been headed by incompetent, even mentally disabled or child emperors through the inheritance of lineage. This discrepancy is prevalent throughout all of recorded history and any considerations that fail to recognize this fact may be considered highly erroneous.
However, it is nigh-impossible for good fortune alone to sustain one in power. This fact has also been made obvious by humanity’s many failings. How often is it that inept leadership leads to the collapse of the state, no matter how formerly powerful or vibrant? The powerless emperors of the late Han Dynasty led the kingdom to collapse by allowing corruption to seep into its structure and the relentless expansion of the Mongol Empire came to a swift closure due to the incompetence of Ghengis Khan’s later descendants. Even the expansive Roman Empire was no exception; despite exercising dominant control over the greater part of the known world, it yields no advantage if there is not the proper knowledge to capitalize on it. Like the flanks of an army, knowledge and power must succor one another if there is to be the sight of any great object. “Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory” and this cannot possibly be accomplished without any formidable background of knowledge. Prudence must be paid to this point in deliberations over the effect of knowledge in the matter of power.
If the larger picture is observed, it becomes apparent that only in the proper use of secured knowledge does it carry substantial bearing. It can be likened to the ownership of a powerful weapon without the apparatus or means to operate it; if it cannot be used in any practical affair, then its potential will remain untouched. The wise understand this disparity. Colonel Henderson has to say of this, "The rules of strategy are few and simple. They may be learned in a week. They may be taught by familiar illustrations or a dozen diagrams. But such knowledge will no more teach a man to lead an army like Napoleon than a knowledge of grammar will teach him to write like Gibbon." Not only is effort expended in the acquisition of information, but many hours are spent on the deliberation of its use ere a prolific venture is launched, as “many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat”. The Art of War dwells not on set maneuvers but rather the variation of tactics using knowledge to adjust to the circumstance: “He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain”. This principle is highly transferrable to all aspects of being. “Knowledge is power” is inaccurate; it is in the correct augmentation of it that it becomes a lethal tool.
Without doubt, even at a glance we can see the immediate merit of knowledge, but only in its proper usage can the full extent of its usefulness be extracted. Never since the ancient civilizations of the world has this fact been altered and it is shown to us repeatedly over the long span of years. The Art of War was written three millennia ago, but its theories that stress the dire nature of knowledge and its variable use have prevailed to this day against the test of time. Talk not then of the power of knowledge; speak instead of he who utilizes it to its full effect.
-
Knowledge, otherwise defined as the familiarity with facts, truths or principles, is the currency of the mind and has always been a powerful commodity in human history. Education has proven of an innumerable count in many facets of society, be it political, social or economical ad infinitum, its capacity to overturn and outweigh other factors, however massive or diverse. Personally, I'd prefer something along the lines of: "Education has proven to be significant in many facets of society; be it political...." Your first sentence here still doesn't sound right to me. Regardless of the context, those with knowledge have never been disadvantaged; there is little of the past wherein the scholarly were not held in high regard, nor does the future forecast the coming of such a time. Indeed, it is no understatement to say that the accumulation and possession of bountiful knowledge is tantamount to success in any endeavour. However, this being said, it is not unprecedented for those of considerable wisdom to be starved and impotent in the matters of power. Just as often as we have been shown the potency of information and understanding in victory, so have we been well acquainted to entities or purposes that are availed nothing by it. This is evident through simple empirical observation of reality, whether it is now or three thousand years prior Excellent! Subtle but imperative!; it is not uncommon for the blissfully ignorant or fortunate to stand atop the well-learned and at particular times this becomes glaringly apparent. It can then thus be derived this summary: it is not the possession of knowledge but the skillful and appropriate application of such that results in the culmination of substantial power. It must also be noted, though, that those deficient in intellectual merit have generally shown themselves incapable of maintaining the semblance of their supremacy. History seldom bears witness to individuals capable of blindly stumbling through life with any degree of prosperity in the highest echelons of society; this again testifies to the import of repletive Pretty sure this isn't a word. Try something like: "abundant" or "abounding" knowledge.
On no account should the power of information and superior understanding ever be dismissed or neglected. Knowledge is the essence upon which all contemplation Try another word, doesn't sound entirely right here. is founded and it is an established aphorism that “what enables the wise sovereign and good general to strike and conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is FOREKNOWLEDGE”. “That is,” as is commonly inferred, the “knowledge of the enemy’s dispositions, and what he means to do”. Despite being written in a military context, this principle has broad parallels across which it can be applied. While it cannot be said to be absolute, a wealth of knowledge in capable hands is an asset sufficient to surpass any mortal difficulty. There is no shortage of historic examples to this assertion. One such event occurred in the late Han Dynasty: the combined strategic victory of Zhou Yu and Zhuge Liang at the famous Battle of Red Cliffs that resulted in the rout of Cao Cao’s numerically superior army is a prime example of the brilliance that can be accomplished through ingenious use of acquired knowledge. The coalition forces attained a high ground in the affairs of strategy and subsequently an ultimate victory by employing a fundamental principle in the art of war: it is said that “in making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them”. Zhou Yu utilized a “converted spy” scheme designed with a two-fold effect that served the purpose of undermining the enemy’s intelligence and bulking their own. The result of this struggle was determined not by prevailing circumstances or fortune but by the trafficking and manipulation of knowledge, a direct exemplification of the vitality of information. This is epitomized by the famous words of Master Sun Tzu: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt; if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete.” Brilliant.
Yet, be it as it may that knowledge is an imperative to any fruitful enterprise, it cannot be said that it is in itself an affirmation of undisputable triumph. Even in the modern era where intellect is undoubtedly weighted more heftily than physical prowess, this statement holds true. Whilst it is essentially certain that one will never be at a loss to be educated, it has never been a guarantee to power. This is demonstrated in all ages over the millennia. It is far from a rarity for doctorial "Doctoral" is probably the term more frequently used. holders to be inadequately employed and insignificant. To quote a certain academic, “I’ve two Ph.Ds and the current Prime Minister of Australia doesn’t even have a degree. How is this fair?” Lol! I think this alludes to a good point. The knowledge in which one possesses must be congruous and applicable to the context of the "power" that the individual seeks to attain. For instance, if you were to fight for a position of power in the field of law, it would logically follow that you need to possess the knowledge applicable in THAT field and THAT position, and not something like a PhD in Veterinary Science. Similarly, in past times the wise were often poorly lived, with decrepit conditions in rural villages and were even outright prosecuted in such cases as those of the Catholic Church and Galileo. As if to provide a stark contrast, it has so happened that presidencies of powerful first world democracies have been occupied by college drop-outs and massive dynasties and empires have been headed by incompetent, even mentally disabled or child emperors through the inheritance of lineage. Good. Luck plays a huge part in the attainment of power. This discrepancy is prevalent throughout all of recorded history and any considerations that fail to recognize this fact may be considered highly erroneous.
However, it is nigh-impossible for good fortune alone to sustain one in power. This fact has also been made obvious by humanity’s many failings. How often is it that inept leadership leads to the collapse of the state, no matter how formerly powerful or vibrant? The powerless emperors of the late Han Dynasty led the kingdom to collapse by allowing corruption to seep into its structure and the relentless expansion of the Mongol Empire came to a swift closure due to the incompetence of Ghengis Khan’s later descendants. Even the expansive Roman Empire was no exception; despite exercising dominant control over the greater part of the known world, it yields no advantage if there is not the proper knowledge to capitalize on it. Like the flanks of an army, knowledge and power must succor one another if there is to be the sight of any great object. “Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory” and this cannot possibly be accomplished without any formidable background of knowledge. Prudence must be paid to this point in deliberations over the effect of knowledge in the matter of power.
If the larger picture is observed, it becomes apparent that only in the proper use of secured knowledge does it carry substantial bearing. It can be likened to the ownership of a powerful weapon without the apparatus or means to operate it; if it cannot be used in any practical affair, then its potential will remain untouched. The wise understand this disparity. Colonel Henderson has to say of this, "The rules of strategy are few and simple. They may be learned in a week. They may be taught by familiar illustrations or a dozen diagrams. But such knowledge will no more teach a man to lead an army like Napoleon than a knowledge of grammar will teach him to write like Gibbon." Not only is effort expended in the acquisition of information, but many hours are spent on the deliberation of its use ere a prolific venture is launched, as “many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat”. The Art of War dwells not on set maneuvers but rather the variation of tactics using knowledge to adjust to the circumstance: “He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain”. This principle is highly transferrable to all aspects of being. “Knowledge is power” is inaccurate; it is in the correct augmentation of it that it becomes a lethal tool. I like! I like!
Without doubt, even at a glance we can see the immediate merit of knowledge, but only in its proper usage can the full extent of its usefulness be extracted. Never since the ancient civilizations of the world has this fact been altered and it is shown to us repeatedly over the long span of years. The Art of War was written three millennia ago, but its theories that stress the dire nature of knowledge and its variable use have prevailed to this day against the test of time. Talk more about the points/ideas you have raised throughout the essay in a more concise nature, instead of reiterating that your contention has been proven repetitively throughout history. Talk not then of the power of knowledge; speak instead of he who utilizes it to its full effect. Nice conclusive statement.
This is much better than your initial essay. Your essay is complicated without being convoluted, and your language is more controlled. Kudos to you! :)
-
Pretty good attempt at a 7am re-write with no sleep, right?
I'll address a few things you mentioned.
"...innumerable count...": I think I agree with you here, it worked with the initial convoluted wording but rearranged like this, it lost the zing...
Repletive: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/repletive
Doctoral: yeah, that definitely sounds better
I believe adding apparatus makes the metaphor more complete. Often weapons have an accompanying component, such as projectile weapons (eg. guns, bows). That said, now that you mention it, "apparatus" doesn't seem too fitting.
Good advice for the conclusion, too. I was also thinking it was lacking (if the short length is any indicator) but a bit brain-dead as to how I should expand it (still dead tired... didn't sleep all night and only just had 2-3 hours).
By the way, if you guys have time, I'd like to see an essay of yours on the topic as well, it'd be interesting to compare and cross-review.