Encountering Conflict 2008.

[m@tty]

This one's even smaller than my LA (just intro this time...), but I seriously have to go now, so I can't finish it...

If you don't mind having a quick read of the introduction and commenting on how good you think it is as a base for my expository essay, I will be extremely grateful.

'In times of conflict ordinary people can act in extraordinary ways.'

It is certainly true that seemingly ordinary people can, in times of conflict, exhibit behaviour which would never be seen under normal circumstances. Whether this new behaviour is an improvement, however, is an entirely different question; just as it is possible that the alteration could be 'extraordinary', it could be of an entirely deplorable nature. I believe that there is no guarantee of a persons response to conflict; rather it is dependent on a host of factors, ranging from past encounters with conflict as well as their character and the circumstances from which the conflict arises. The discussion of conflict, its consequences and its implications is a consistent theme throughout literature - Katie Grenville's novel 'The Secret River' and Arthur Miller's 'The Crucible' are  of particular relevance to this discussion. Both Grenville and Miller lace  their work with conflict and thus inevitably also exemplify people's response to it. In addition, recent events reported in the media directly relate to this concept. Specifically, the recent incident at the Darwin detention centre - where 80 Afghani asylum seekers resisted the authority's attempts to down-play Australia's obligation to treat them properly - show how even the powerless in society can rise up and make their presence known.

...

So, how is it?

Also, I am very interested as to how appropriate you think the way I referred to the texts in the intro is.

Thank you all again.

=]

[kenhung123]

I'm curious, are you meant to introduce your evidences in your intro like your text and media stuff?

[Souljette_93]

This one's even smaller than my LA (just intro this time...), but I seriously have to go now, so I can't finish it...

If you don't mind having a quick read of the introduction and commenting on how good you think it is as a base for my expository essay, I will be extremely grateful.

'In times of conflict ordinary people can act in extraordinary ways.'

It is certainly true that seemingly ordinary people can, in times of conflict, exhibit behaviour which would never be seen under normal circumstances. Whether this new behaviour is an improvement, however, is an entirely different question; just as it is possible that the alteration could be 'extraordinary', it could be of an entirely deplorable nature. I believe that there is no guarantee of a persons response to conflict; rather it is dependent on a host of factors, ranging from past encounters with conflict as well as their character and the circumstances from which the conflict arises. The discussion of conflict, its consequences and its implications is a consistent theme throughout literature - Katie Grenville's novel 'The Secret River' and Arthur Miller's 'The Crucible' are  of particular relevance to this discussion. Both Grenville and Miller lace  their work with conflict and thus inevitably also exemplify people's response to it. In addition, recent events reported in the media directly relate to this concept. Specifically, the recent incident at the Darwin detention centre - where 80 Afghani asylum seekers resisted the authority's attempts to down-play Australia's obligation to treat them properly - show how even the powerless in society can rise up and make their presence known.

...

One question, are you planning to write on both text? I had a read on the Examiners report and this is what they said:

....While students writing using an expository approach tended to employ both texts, a
growing number of students explored only a single text. Some students who relied on a single text were able to develop
a more coherent response than those who felt they were required to use both texts and were unable to make the
transition from one text to the other in a coherent, fluent manner....

But if you can do it, go for it. Most of the teachers i met recommended not to, it doesn't give extra marks.

I don't think you should address the books in your intro, just address the "big/main ideas" that you are going to use from the texts and then later in your paragraphs you might want to then name them, otherwise you risk being repetitive and making the expository sound as though it is a text response.

Overall, your piece is quite good and addresses the prompt explicitly.

[m@tty]

One question, are you planning to write on both text? I had a read on the Examiners report and this is what they said:

....While students writing using an expository approach tended to employ both texts, a
growing number of students explored only a single text. Some students who relied on a single text were able to develop
a more coherent response than those who felt they were required to use both texts and were unable to make the
transition from one text to the other in a coherent, fluent manner....

But if you can do it, go for it. Most of the teachers i met recommended not to, it doesn't give extra marks.

Hmm, I just like to take the BEST examples from both texts, I find that easier to write rather than focusing on a single text and using everything that there is, including the somewhat dodgy examples...

I don't think you should address the books in your intro, just address the "big/main ideas" that you are going to use from the texts and then later in your paragraphs you might want to then name them, otherwise you risk being repetitive and making the expository sound as though it is a text response.

Overall, your piece is quite good and addresses the prompt explicitly.

Haha, my teacher says 'you MUST signpost the specific examples from the text you are using.' So I've grown used to this as a compromise...

Do you think it detracts significantly from the intro?



What about the asylum seeker example, introduced well?

[Souljette_93]

Haha, my teacher says 'you MUST signpost the specific examples from the text you are using.' So I've grown used to this as a compromise...

Do you think it detracts significantly from the intro?

What about the asylum seeker example, introduced well?

Okay have not heard that before..might want to add that in VATE Ross Huggard even said you don't even have to mention the name of the text you're using and i'm sticking with that. I remember when i used to do it, my teacher would be NO-makes it sound boring/less interesting.

I reckon you're piece would sound a bit more sophisticated without it, because it shows that you're able to explore the prompt without having the need to directly use your text.  I don't want to read an intro and be like "oh he/she is going to use SC/Crucible " i would rather read a piece that draws on the ideas and be like " this is shown in the crucible..." in the main body paragraph, where you need to go on depth. But then again, that's my view and that's how I like to go on about it.

What about the asylum seeker example, introduced well?

That was my favourite part-oh and the starting of the intro.

All the best for the English exam

[werdna]

I'm not doing Encountering Conflict, but here's my take:

(1) Not so sure about the use of first-person-objective here... it is supposed to be a formal expository essay; an essay in which you are supposed to be discussing ideas and facts, not pushing towards a certain point-of-view. By using the 'I'.. you are implying a point of persuasion - an argument. Hence, you aren't following the pro-forma of an expository essay is what I'm getting at.

(2) I would also question the listing of evidence straight in your introduction. You could have gotten rid of all those sentences and replaced it with "Social parallels enrich our understanding of these ideas, as does literature..." The allusions to your extraneous evidence are superfluous - you simply don't need it all there. Allude to your key ideas only.. not every single part of evidence you intend to use.

(3) And another thing with the hint of persuasion in this introduction - you use the absolute term "certainly" in your opening sentence.. it shows that you are pushing towards a particular side and you are arguing a case. Remember, it is supposed to be an expository essay.. maybe try to use more 'probable' language like "In some cases, it is true that..."

[m@tty]

1) I've heard from examiners and my teacher that you can use 'I' and other personal pronouns. One examiner gave an example of a 10 essay and in the intro it said "I believe...".

2) So context introductions are meant to be purely philosophical and entirely based on your own ideas?

3) I suppose it is actually going to turn out to be a predominantly persuasive essay, rather than expository, though I did plan on using a counter-example paragraph...

And I was saying it is certainly true that it can happen, but there are other possibilities. So it isn't entirely definitive.

[werdna]

Your introduction was fine until you started listing all of that evidence.. Everything before it was really good.