Essay on I'm Not Scared

[MBBS]

I understand to most of you, my essay will be absolute crap, laughable even. But we all have to start somewhere and next year I take Year 12 Literature, so I need to improve as much as possible from where I am now, even if that is very very low at the moment. So please, tell me how I can improve and I will write another essay on the book tomorrow on another two topics with what you say in mind. THANKYOU SO MUCH

Melichetti’s personification of his pet in his deliverance of a, ‘proper Christian funeral’ is juxtaposed by his comparative treatment of Skull, treating him like a ‘dog’ to use a cliché. His elevation of an animal and demeaning actions towards skull; he pointed his finger at Skull,’ display to Michele that not all humans are good. The general belittling language associated with animals throughout the text augments this comparison.

Thematically, Michele’s earlier fondness of Skull is about to change, Michele will realise his perceptions of adults may be skewed. Skull is symbolic of the adults as he is the eldest in the group, and the most ‘adult-like.’ Concordant with his immaturity, parallels can be found between Michele’s growing distaste for Skull and his developing maturity. Michele’s comment that Melichetti sounded, ‘like he was delivering a sermon’ indicates that Michele believes Melichetti and is under the impression that the truth must always be told. Michele’s initial apprehensive interpretation of his father’s wrongdoings can be attributed to this.

When rescuing Fillipo, Michele tells a lie in order to gain his co-operation. Filippo’s metaphoric similar characteristics, complimenting his immature nature can be related to Michele’s maturity at the beginning of the text and the development of it throughout the text. Michele states that ‘he did return’ and this self-justifies Michele’s lie as he distances himself from his father. His father having lied earlier and being described as the ‘bogeyman.’ A figure who didn’t always return when promised.

Ammaniti uses imagery using the adjectives,‘bent’, ‘crooked’ and ‘stiff’ to paint the portrait of a tortured boy, subject to heinous actions at the hands of heinous people inclusive of Michele’s father. A binary opposite of this is Michele’s self-giving nature further highlighting his maturity and his compassionate nature. Michele exemplifies his defiance of his father who is debatably a ‘bad’ man.

Michele’s father’s actions are perhaps justifiable, with a daughter in need of an operation and his seeking of a better life for the family. However, he is disconnected with his children, exampling this is the ‘Gondola’ he bought for his children highlighting that he is not interested in his children’s interests to a degree. His willingness to submit to the torture and execution of a young boy ultimately begs the question. Is Michele’s new found maturity pivotal enough to see him avoid moral corruption like the other adults of Aqua Traverse?

[EvangelionZeta]

Basically, your essay is approaching the Lit style wrong.  What you want to do is essentially offer an interpretation of what the text "means" - start by analysing the language (as you're doing), move towards analysis to what it means in the total context of the text and then start "interpreting" what it all means as a whole - your passages should jumpstart your discussion, not BE your discussion.

[simpak]

I'm going to come back and read this after I finish reading the fun that is 'Consumption and Identity: Manufacturing Choice', which as we all can imagine is the thrill of all thrills.
But just reading the first line, all I can say is; SO MANY TECHNIQUES AT ONCE /dies.

[MBBS]

Basically, your essay is approaching the Lit style wrong.  What you want to do is essentially offer an interpretation of what the text "means" - start by analysing the language (as you're doing), move towards analysis to what it means in the total context of the text and then start "interpreting" what it all means as a whole - your passages should jumpstart your discussion, not BE your discussion.

I understand the first two parts, however I need you to clarify 'and then start "interpreting" what it all means as a whole - your passages should jumpstart your discussion, not BE your discussion.'


When you say interpret, interpret the values the author was trying to press forth or in the context of the book?



Thank-you both for helping me sooooooo much. I'm good in the maths/science subjects but I've always neglected Literature as I'm awful at it.

[EvangelionZeta]

Pretty much - you want to present the author's views and values, and interpret what is being "said" within the text.

[Russ]

When you say interpret, interpret the values the author was trying to press forth or in the context of the book?

Whilst I won't speak for what EZ meant, generally you want to discuss the passages in the wider context of the book (and potentially any social or political influences if known/relevant).

Here's a copy of your essay in a word document with my comments added via the review function of word.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/qpkv2e

I think the major thing you should focus on is just returning to basics. There's no need to try and pull a lot of complex language into your essay if you're not producing strong ideas. Focus on drawing a line from a passage, presenting what it means and the ramifications of this for whatever line of argument you're following. Sections of what you wrote could benefit just from being simpler.

[MBBS]

I see, what should I discuss in the wider context of the book, the impact on characters, the underlying message or what?

[MBBS]

WOW, Russ, I downloaded that document. Thank-you so much. It has helped a fair bit. I'll write up another essay on the book over the weekend probably on the passages where he trades the secret for a Subbuteo team and when he takes the old crock.

Thankyou so much.

[simpak]

Okay sorry, after I finished reading that thing I fell asleep with a huge headache.  I am here now though!

As previously stated, you need to insert more of your interpretation.  At the moment, you're telling me a lot of what happens in the text, rather than looking at why it is done - why has the author chosen to make these decisions, what are they trying to communicate to their reader?
You need more speculation of the views and values of the authors.

[simpak]

Okay that was a bit ambiguous it sounded like I fell asleep with a huge headache after reading your analysis, which isn't true, I fell asleep with a huge headache after reading Culture, Media and Everyday Life readings.
Just to clarify, there.

[MBBS]

When I am making that interpretation though, I should avoid personal comment though. So how do I word this.

(Author) use of imagery suggests the values of (insert community) are lost.


^^ Template wise, is this along the right track?

[Russ]

Doesn't need to sound so formal but yeah, you want to

eg, The constant use of animal imagery, such as the death of Melichetti's dog and the impaling of the chicken, highlights the moral degeneration of the Aqua Traverse community.