Essay introductions

[spontaneouscombustion]

Our teacher told us to structure introductions as:
1. Give your interpretation of the text based on given passages
2. List views and values of author
3. List techniques used in the text

But I reckon this kind of structure is quite limiting. Those three points can actually all be stated in one sentence. On the other hand, I am a bit tentative about jumping straight into analysing the passages. What kind of structure do you use, and what do you think is best?

[Trent]

Personally, I do not use an introduction whatsoever. For literature I find them limiting and a waste of time, especially when that time is so precious. A lecturer from the VATE lectures a couple of weeks ago said virtually the same thing, just jump straight in.

The structure your teacher has given you seems very...simplistic. My teacher says they should be 'working introductions' mind you I do not know how to do that because I have never done one. But, you should never 'list' anything it just seems like you are brain-dumping what you have learnt of spark notes. Rather, intergrate the V&V's into your essay seemlessly, the same with the techniques.

[Spreadbury]

I like to use an intro, although they aren't necessary for a literature essay, they can help the assessor see that you are linking the passages back to your central ideas and understanding of the text

But I would not advise you to list, it may seem disjointed and as Trent said, brain dumping

[vexx]

For some reason i was reading the literature assessor report from last year the other day... and remembered something about this so i went and checked:

"Students should always aim to provide a working introduction, seeing it as an opportunity to set up their interpretation
and perhaps to indicate how they intend to use the passage/s to structure their response. Too many students offered only
a very general introduction which was far too long and often seemingly prepared prior to sighting the passage/s. It also
had little relevance to the concerns and techniques which there were opportunities to discuss."

[Trent]

If you don't get the working introduction right you have just wasted time.

[vexx]

If you don't get the working introduction right you have just wasted time.

this is a stupid question, but what exactly is a working introduction, how does it differ from a normal one?
i only posted that cos it could have been relevant. haha.

[Trent]

I don't particularly know what exactly constitutes a 'working introduction' because I have never done one. I'm not the right person to ask lol

[vexx]

I don't particularly know what exactly constitutes a 'working introduction' because I have never done one. I'm not the right person to ask lol

haha. i'm not in year 12 yet, i have some time to find out >_>.

[derivativex]

My understanding of a 'working introduction' is one where you address the task and what you plan to do, rather than just the text.  Ie. You don't make an argument/contention like you would in response to a question.

By that I mean if you're doing Hamlet like I am, you wouldn't say anything like "Hamlet's delay is caused by [blah blah]/results in [blah blah].

You're introducing what you're going to be writing about, and that is a discussion on the text based on passages they give you.  You should discuss how meaning is constructed etc, so any contention regarding the book won't be a prominent feature of you're essay.

tl;dr:

Your intro should indicate how you will approach the text/perhaps link the passages together.  It is 'working' in the sense that it provides an outline of how you will write your essay, but not an outline of what you will be writing.

I think. haha

[derivativex]

*your essay.  *sigh*

[Trent]

My teacher also says you need immediate reference to the text eg/ quote, even if your introduction so you make it clear you aren't just copying a slab.

[vexx]

hmmm, i sort of get it thanks derivative. still, i''ll be more clear about this next year:)