SO LOST PLEASE HELP- How to plan?

[One Step at a Time]

Hi guys!

So so confused about how to go about planning an essay...

When you are given a topic, what's the first thing you do?

e.g. ‘The characters in _____ overcome their losses.’ Do you agree?

Is there a different between do you agree, discuss and to what extent questions? Do you answer them in the same way?

So far, I've thought of the following as my topic sentences but I'm struggling to write the contention:
1. Author's name crafts certain characters prevail over their losses of identity.
2. Whilst some characters surmount being deprived from their identity, others possess inherent qualities to overcome their separation from their families.
3. However, as the intricacies of the play unfold, characters who succumb to the consequences stemming from loss are also explored. 

Would appreciate all feedback, whether it be about how I wrote my topic sentences, what to do when given the topic ... just anything 

[lazydreamer]

if you can tell us what module and text you're doing, we could be of more help

[One Step at a Time]

Hey there 

Doing No Sugar by Jack Davis and stuck on text response 

[literally lauren]

if you can tell us what module and text you're doing, we could be of more help

All good - this is the VCE bit of the forums, so we don't do 'modules,' just texts. It's marginally better, but the other parts of the VCE course are way worse than the HSC ones, so tit for tat I guess

When you are given a topic, what's the first thing you do?

Read it. Them read it again. Then keep reading it over and over and over until you're completely sure that you have understood every single word, as well as the overall meaning of the prompt. Unless you've got that covered, everything else is compromised.

After that is when you start conceiving of a contention. A potentially useful flowchart for you:
1. Do I mostly agree or mostly disagree with this core idea?
2. If: 'mostly agree' --> why is this mostly true, and what stops it from being completely true?
3. If: 'mostly disagree' --> why is this mostly false, and how might it have some truth to it?
4. Fit this information into an 'ALTHOUGH... ULTIMATELY...' type of sentence. <-- there's your contention.

e.g. ‘The characters in _____ overcome their losses.’ Do you agree?

So if I'm mostly agreeing, I might say:
- this is mostly true because the characters are in a better place by the end of the text and they've dealt with their issues.
- but by way of a challenge: they all overcome their losses in different ways and to different extents!
--> Although the characters deal with loss in different ways and don't all find the same kind of closure, ultimately, the text shows them coming to terms with their grief and rebuilding their lives with a renewed sense of optimism.

Or, if I'm mostly disagreeing:
- the characters don't really properly 'overcome' things; their loss is too great and things still weigh on their minds by the end.
- but by way of challenge: they are at least trying to overcome things, which is quite important too.
--> Although the characters do make some attempt to overcome their grief throughout the text, ultimately the author suggests that they are unable to truly move on due to the lingering effects of the horror and loss they experienced.

Is there a different between do you agree, discuss and to what extent questions? Do you answer them in the same way?

Nope. You're always discussing the extent to which you agree, so your approach shouldn't really change from the above. It's just a shift in terminology, and sometimes the 'discuss' questions will be a bit more open ended whereas the 'agree' ones will have more of a right/wrong split, but there are heaps of exceptions to this, so it's best to just treat them the same to prevent confusion.

So far, I've thought of the following as my topic sentences but I'm struggling to write the contention:
1. Author's name crafts certain characters prevail over their losses of identity.
2. Whilst some characters surmount being deprived from their identity, others possess inherent qualities to overcome their separation from their families.
3. However, as the intricacies of the play unfold, characters who succumb to the consequences stemming from loss are also explored.

Okay, your first sentence isn't quite grammatical, and it's kind of just isolating a type of loss that's overcome. There's not much happening here in terms of your argument because you're basically just saying 'yes, they overcome loss, and this is a type of loss that they overcome.' Perhaps say something about this kind of identity, or relate it back to a core idea in your contention, if possible.

Similarly, your next point seems to boil down to 'some characters overcome the loss of identity, while others can overcome the loss of their family.' Your argument can't just be proving the prompt right in different ways - try and say something about these kinds of loss.

The third paragraph strikes me as a challenge/rebuttal paragraph (not sure if your teacher/school uses this terminology) but instead of having a sub-discussion where you say 'here's some evidence that disproves my previous point,' instead aim to have three body paragraphs which all support your overall argument, and just have bits of challenges scattered throughout your essay.

Let me know if any of that doesn't make sense

[One Step at a Time]

Thank you so so much literally lauren, actually can't thank you enough  Feeling just a tad more at ease with my SAC after reading your response hahah 

I was following and perhaps more importantly, understanding everything that you had written up until the point where topic sentences came in!

I've only been exposed such kind of topic sentences e.g. referring to the type of loss.
How do I create topic sentences from the contention? I thought that splitting it into types of loss e.g. emotional, identity was the way to go since they support the contention (?)... woops 

What do you mean by "say something about this kind of identity, or relate it back to a core idea in your contention"? How do I "say something about these kinds of losses"?

To be honest, I've always been taught to have a challenge/ rebuttal paragraph so I'm not too sure what you mean by scattering bits of challenges throughout the essay 

Thanks again for your help! Even though I have so many questions, I feel as though it's better than having none because it means I'm on my way hehe 

[lazydreamer]

All good - this is the VCE bit of the forums, so we don't do 'modules,' just texts. It's marginally better, but the other parts of the VCE course are way worse than the HSC ones, so tit for tat I guess
Read it. Them read it again. Then keep reading it over and over and over until you're completely sure that you have understood every single word, as well as the overall meaning of the prompt. Unless you've got that covered, everything else is compromised.

After that is when you start conceiving of a contention. A potentially useful flowchart for you:
1. Do I mostly agree or mostly disagree with this core idea?
2. If: 'mostly agree' --> why is this mostly true, and what stops it from being completely true?
3. If: 'mostly disagree' --> why is this mostly false, and how might it have some truth to it?
4. Fit this information into an 'ALTHOUGH... ULTIMATELY...' type of sentence. <-- there's your contention.
So if I'm mostly agreeing, I might say:
- this is mostly true because the characters are in a better place by the end of the text and they've dealt with their issues.
- but by way of a challenge: they all overcome their losses in different ways and to different extents!
--> Although the characters deal with loss in different ways and don't all find the same kind of closure, ultimately, the text shows them coming to terms with their grief and rebuilding their lives with a renewed sense of optimism.

Or, if I'm mostly disagreeing:
- the characters don't really properly 'overcome' things; their loss is too great and things still weigh on their minds by the end.
- but by way of challenge: they are at least trying to overcome things, which is quite important too.
--> Although the characters do make some attempt to overcome their grief throughout the text, ultimately the author suggests that they are unable to truly move on due to the lingering effects of the horror and loss they experienced.
Nope. You're always discussing the extent to which you agree, so your approach shouldn't really change from the above. It's just a shift in terminology, and sometimes the 'discuss' questions will be a bit more open ended whereas the 'agree' ones will have more of a right/wrong split, but there are heaps of exceptions to this, so it's best to just treat them the same to prevent confusion.
Okay, your first sentence isn't quite grammatical, and it's kind of just isolating a type of loss that's overcome. There's not much happening here in terms of your argument because you're basically just saying 'yes, they overcome loss, and this is a type of loss that they overcome.' Perhaps say something about this kind of identity, or relate it back to a core idea in your contention, if possible.

Similarly, your next point seems to boil down to 'some characters overcome the loss of identity, while others can overcome the loss of their family.' Your argument can't just be proving the prompt right in different ways - try and say something about these kinds of loss.

The third paragraph strikes me as a challenge/rebuttal paragraph (not sure if your teacher/school uses this terminology) but instead of having a sub-discussion where you say 'here's some evidence that disproves my previous point,' instead aim to have three body paragraphs which all support your overall argument, and just have bits of challenges scattered throughout your essay.

Let me know if any of that doesn't make sense

OOPS i didn't read which forum this was on haha~ well i also get confused with SACs and everything lel, SAC is a hsc subject soo..

[literally lauren]

I was following and perhaps more importantly, understanding everything that you had written up until the point where topic sentences came in!

I've only been exposed such kind of topic sentences e.g. referring to the type of loss.
How do I create topic sentences from the contention? I thought that splitting it into types of loss e.g. emotional, identity was the way to go since they support the contention (?)... woops 

Here's the trouble with that:

Let's say I wanted to convince you that Broadmeadows was a lovely suburb to live in.
If I was like:
- Broadmeadows is lovely.
1. There is a nice house on this street which is lovely.
2. There is a convenient train station, which is lovely.
3. But some of the parts aren't lovely.

... I probably won't have convinced you of anything because I'm not fleshing out the idea of what 'lovely' is, I'm just piling on examples of loveliness instead of actually presenting you with ideas.

So to take the following example:
Prompt: The characters in the play undergo extreme suffering. Discuss.
1. They undergo emotional and psychological suffering.
2. They undergo physical suffering.
3. But some of them don't undergo suffering.

...see how that's kind of a weak/non-existent argument?

Instead, consider the following:
Prompt: The characters in the play undergo extreme suffering. Discuss.
1. The play shows how suffering has profound and lingering effects on its characters.
2. Throughout the text, the characters have to come to terms with their suffering.
3. Ultimately, the characters who learn to manage their suffering and harness it to fuel their aspirations are rewarded, even though they must struggle to achieve this.

... now we've got a much clearer argumentative drive behind our essay, and it's much clearer what we're dealing with.

In short, don't just prove the prompt right in different ways so that your contention can be boiled down to 'yes.'

To be honest, I've always been taught to have a challenge/ rebuttal paragraph so I'm not too sure what you mean by scattering bits of challenges throughout the essay 

That's alright, I was taught the exact same thing. And then when I started Year 12 I was like, hang on, this makes no sense... why am I rebutting myself? And I've been raging against the machine ever since.

Think of it this way:

METHOD 1 (the mediocre method)
Take the prompt.
Come up with two arguments that support it.
Come up with one argument that goes against it.
Stick it all together, and you've got yourself an essay.

METHOD 2 (the super-awesome-mega-method)
Take the prompt.
Turn that prompt into a statement that mostly agrees or mostly disagrees (ie. 'Although... ultimately...' or something similar)
Come up with three body paragraphs that support this statement (so within each paragraph, you have your 'ultimately...' point that's your main contention, but you also have the odd sentence or two that acknowledges the complexity of the text by saying things like 'Whilst the audience may interpret X as Y, ultimately Davis implies...' or 'Though this may seem like an action motivated by X, the audience may also infer that it is in fact Y')

Method 2 > Method 1 QED

Thanks again for your help! Even though I have so many questions, I feel as though it's better than having none because it means I'm on my way hehe 

No worries! And you're totally right - better to ask and have your questions answered now than to get all the way to the exam and then realise you need to have things clarified Again, let me know if any of the above didn't make sense or you want to run some ideas by me

OOPS i didn't read which forum this was on haha~ well i also get confused with SACs and everything lel, SAC is a hsc subject soo..

Man, the state education departments really needs to sort out their acronyms before we expand to South Australia or Western Australia, huh?

[One Step at a Time]

Wow, can't thank you enough literally lauren  definitely a lifesaver 

How did you arrive at the following 3 points from the contention?
1. The play shows how suffering has profound and lingering effects on its characters.
2. Throughout the text, the characters have to come to terms with their suffering.
3. Ultimately, the characters who learn to manage their suffering and harness it to fuel their aspirations are rewarded, even though they must struggle to achieve this.

They're absolutely fantastic, but I think I would have a few problems: a) What questions were you asking yourself to create those topic sentences? Or even better, what were you thinking about? b) I think I would struggle creating a link between my evidence and the topic sentences. Having the example e.g. emotional loss as the topic sentence, I found, was far easier to find evidence for because the examples themselves were evidence (hopefully that made sense!) 

About the sentences that acknowledge the complexity of the text e.g. 'Whilst the audience may interpret X as Y, ultimately Davis implies...' or 'Though this may seem like an action motivated by X, the audience may also infer that it is in fact Y'), I'm a bit scared that it'll seem to my teacher as though they are wishy-washy and I am not certain of my point! How do I make sure that I don't come across that why? (I know that complexity is incredibly important- writing without simplification my teacher calls it hahah  )

Once I understand the reasoning behind the answers to my questions above, I think I'll be good to go for planning woo  Definitely will post my plans to some topics here on AN, if that's alright 

[One Step at a Time]

Hi everyone!

I'm struggling quite a lot with English (that's why I'm starting with how to plan  ), so I would love anyone's help... anything would be great! SAC is on Thurs and I'd love to know how to plan before then hahah 

[literally lauren]

Wow, can't thank you enough literally lauren  definitely a lifesaver 

How did you arrive at the following 3 points from the contention?
1. The play shows how suffering has profound and lingering effects on its characters.
2. Throughout the text, the characters have to come to terms with their suffering.
3. Ultimately, the characters who learn to manage their suffering and harness it to fuel their aspirations are rewarded, even though they must struggle to achieve this.

They're absolutely fantastic, but I think I would have a few problems: a) What questions were you asking yourself to create those topic sentences? Or even better, what were you thinking about?

Full disclosure, I've been doing Year 12 English for four years now, so this process is kind of automatic for me, but the more you practise, the easier this gets.

As a good practice exercise, just list all the valid questions you can think of. If you can think of twenty different avenues of discussion, you'll be in a better position than someone who can only think of three anyway, even if you have to cut your ideas down.

Questioning definitions is a good option, so if there's a word like 'loss' or 'suffering' or 'strength' - or some broad theme that you think warrants unpacking, you can use questions to explore them. And I don't mean just saying 'what does loss mean?' since that won't get you very far. It's more like: 'what kind of loss occurs in the text AND why is this important for the prompt?' If all you say is 'loss occurs in the form of characters losing touch with their culture' ...that's not really an argument, but if you were to say 'the loss of culture has a profound effect on the characters because they derive so much of their identity from their background and their families,' then there's a much clearer impression being established.

I'm sure I've typed up a list of generalisable questions in the past, but I can't find it at the moment so I'll try and hunt around. There are a few that work for every prompt (eg. 'So what?' 'What does this say about XYZ?' 'In what ways could this be true/false?' 'Why does the author do this?') but if you're able to ask questions in general, you will get to a stage where you can quickly and accurately tease out some threads you can cover.

If you want to have a go at listing a bunch of questions, I'm happy to help you refine your method if you need

b) I think I would struggle creating a link between my evidence and the topic sentences. Having the example e.g. emotional loss as the topic sentence, I found, was far easier to find evidence for because the examples themselves were evidence (hopefully that made sense!) 

You don't have to jump from your T.S. straight into evidence if you don't want to. It's perfectly fine to have a few sentences at the start of each paragraph that flesh out your ideas until you're confident you can then zoom in and start providing examples. Make your T.S. more general, and then you can isolate a broad area of evidence to unpack (eg. emotional loss as one of the kinds of loss you want to discuss) and then start analysing and unpacking specific examples. But remember that the advantage of this method is that you shouldn't have to divide your discussion via 'types of X' where X is some theme or key word in the prompt. Strong essays will be able to make connections between emotional loss and the loss of familial connections, for instance, so aim for a more holistic approach if possible.

About the sentences that acknowledge the complexity of the text e.g. 'Whilst the audience may interpret X as Y, ultimately Davis implies...' or 'Though this may seem like an action motivated by X, the audience may also infer that it is in fact Y'), I'm a bit scared that it'll seem to my teacher as though they are wishy-washy and I am not certain of my point! How do I make sure that I don't come across that why? (I know that complexity is incredibly important- writing without simplification my teacher calls it hahah  )

If your teacher's not a fan, then don't bother you don't have to do it very often - twice or thrice an essay would probably be fine - and if you're exploring your contention well, you may not need to at all. Though unless your teacher has a bias against these alternate views statements, I doubt they'd come across as wishy-washy or fence-sitting because of that '...ultimately...' phrasing. If you just said 'some people could argue A whilst others may interpret B instead' then I could definitely see why an assessor would penalise you for having no conviction. But because the majority of your piece will be supporting your 'ultimately' kinds of statements, it should be clear to your reader what your main points are.

Once I understand the reasoning behind the answers to my questions above, I think I'll be good to go for planning woo  Definitely will post my plans to some topics here on AN, if that's alright 

Possibly too late for your actual SAC assuming you have to finish it on Thursday, but posting plans etc. is an awesome idea, and doing those for practice is a way more efficient way to learn how to articulate ideas and cover more ground than full essays ever could

[Callum@1373]

2. There is a convenient train station, which is lovely.

*ahem*