Warming up my essay writing for the coming year

[EvangelionZeta]

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.

[brightsky]

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.

[EvangelionZeta]

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).

[Akirus]

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.

[EvangelionZeta]

@ 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.

[brightsky]

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.

[Akirus]

@ 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.."?

[EvangelionZeta]

@ 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

[brightsky]

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?

[brightsky]

//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.

[Akirus]

Isn't the meaning essentially the same?

[brightsky]

Yeah the meaning is the same. It's probably splitting hairs a bit, but it looks better.

[lakersfan_10]

Can any1 give me any advice regarding language analysis, it seems everything i try i still only manage B's.

[Akirus]

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.

[brightsky]

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.