mod a structure (1 Viewer)

[mvrcuriee]

i was finalising my structure for my tempest/hagseed essay and im in a bit of a pickle

i wanted to discuss resonances & dissonance as seperate paragraphs via integrating 2 shakespeare & 2 atwood quotes to obv prove but idk how effective this is.. or if i should do one para for each book ???? but that seems so BAD LOL
i didnt have english trials so.. im a bit COOKED
any advice would be nice...

 

[Masaken]

i was finalising my structure for my tempest/hagseed essay and im in a bit of a pickle

i wanted to discuss resonances & dissonance as seperate paragraphs via integrating 2 shakespeare & 2 atwood quotes to obv prove but idk how effective this is.. or if i should do one para for each book ???? but that seems so BAD LOL
i didnt have english trials so.. im a bit COOKED
any advice would be nice...

why didn't you have english trials?

also i did a 4 paragraph structure, it's more effective if you want to discuss the textual conversation on a broader scale (integrated is more for side-to-side details imo) and easier to set up than integrated one. my first two paragraphs were about a resonance (paragraph 1 is about text 1, para 2 about text 2) and the second two were about a dissonance (same structure). granted they have to be a bit shorter to make up for it but the tempest paras have to be short anyway as ur just establishing the idea that is being engaged with by hag-seed

2 chunky paragraphs is fine if ur pressed for time but i would recommend an integrated or a 4-para structure, 2 chunky paras feels like more chance for u to lose marks

 

[mvrcuriee]

why didn't you have english trials?

also i did a 4 paragraph structure, it's more effective if you want to discuss the textual conversation on a broader scale (integrated is more for side-to-side details imo) and easier to set up than integrated one. my first two paragraphs were about a resonance (paragraph 1 is about text 1, para 2 about text 2) and the second two were about a dissonance (same structure). granted they have to be a bit shorter to make up for it but the tempest paras have to be short anyway as ur just establishing the idea that is being engaged with by hag-seed

2 chunky paragraphs is fine if ur pressed for time but i would recommend an integrated or a 4-para structure, 2 chunky paras feels like more chance for u to lose marks

Thank you Masaken!! Yeah I had good quotes gathered but I felt like I couldn’t touch my bases with just 2
My school is weird… hasn’t done them in a while but conveniently they’re thinking of doing it with the 25s now..

 

[HazzRat]

i was finalising my structure for my tempest/hagseed essay and im in a bit of a pickle

i wanted to discuss resonances & dissonance as seperate paragraphs via integrating 2 shakespeare & 2 atwood quotes to obv prove but idk how effective this is.. or if i should do one para for each book ???? but that seems so BAD LOL
i didnt have english trials so.. im a bit COOKED
any advice would be nice...

Mod A was the essay I did worst in cause I've been thinking about it the wrong way. In the test I essentially treated it like a Mod B essay, with a deep individual analysis of each text. However, I now realise the whole 'textual conversation' bit about the texts is the most important part, and the connections between the texts are the most salient.

So I've now structured each of my three paragraphs like this: (using the Richards as an example)

1. Sub thesis - focusing on either a resonance or a dissonance between the texts.
2. Context sentence - focusing specifically on the contextual change between Pacino's time and Shakespeare's time to result in the disparity between the new text and the old text.
3. Start with a concept from the old text, doing a full QAT (quote, analysis, technique). This can be 2-3 sentences. Specifically highlight the thing that made the old text original compared to the new one, whether it's context (chain of being, religious influence, Elizabethian stuff), ideas (Machiavelli, patriarchy, free will), or even characters (Shakespeare's lady Anne vs Pacino's younger lady Anne, Shakespeare's Richard vs Pacino's Richard).
4. Then pick a world like 'contrastingly' or 'however', and do a QAT of how and why the new text is different regarding this concept. Even if this paragraph is about a resonance, you should say it's similar in some ways but different in others. This can be 2-3 sentences.
5. Then, using a word like 'furthermore' or 'moreover', you repeat steps 3 and 4, but build from the textual conversation you have just presented. What is the next part of the textual conversation? How does one composer then respond to the other? (which is a bit silly cause one text was literally written centuries ago, but you have to go along with it) These are questions that need to be answered. Should be 3-5 sentences.
6. And then a nice little conclusion to wrap it up, focusing on the cause and effect between the old text and new text

That is my guide. I'm complaining about my Mod A even though I got 18/20 in it, but it still needs some work.

 

[mvrcuriee]

Mod A was the essay I did worst in cause I've been thinking about it the wrong way. In the test I essentially treated it like a Mod B essay, with a deep individual analysis of each text. However, I now realise the whole 'textual conversation' bit about the texts is the most important part, and the connections between the texts are the most salient.

So I've now structured each of my three paragraphs like this: (using the Richards as an example)

1. Sub thesis - focusing on either a resonance or a dissonance between the texts.
2. Context sentence - focusing specifically on the contextual change between Pacino's time and Shakespeare's time to result in the disparity between the new text and the old text.
3. Start with a concept from the old text, doing a full QAT (quote, analysis, technique). This can be 2-3 sentences. Specifically highlight the thing that made the old text original compared to the new one, whether it's context (chain of being, religious influence, Elizabethian stuff), ideas (Machiavelli, patriarchy, free will), or even characters (Shakespeare's lady Anne vs Pacino's younger lady Anne, Shakespeare's Richard vs Pacino's Richard).
4. Then pick a world like 'contrastingly' or 'however', and do a QAT of how and why the new text is different regarding this concept. Even if this paragraph is about a resonance, you should say it's similar in some ways but different in others. This can be 2-3 sentences.
5. Then, using a word like 'furthermore' or 'moreover', you repeat steps 3 and 4, but build from the textual conversation you have just presented. What is the next part of the textual conversation? How does one composer then respond to the other? (which is a bit silly cause one text was literally written centuries ago, but you have to go along with it) These are questions that need to be answered. Should be 3-5 sentences.
6. And then a nice little conclusion to wrap it up, focusing on the cause and effect between the old text and new text

That is my guide. I'm complaining about my Mod A even though I got 18/20 in it, but it still needs some work.

Holy shit this is amazing, definitely gonna reference this as ur marks truly reflect it damn🥹🥹 Thanks HazzRat!

 

[mvrcuriee]

Mod A was the essay I did worst in cause I've been thinking about it the wrong way. In the test I essentially treated it like a Mod B essay, with a deep individual analysis of each text. However, I now realise the whole 'textual conversation' bit about the texts is the most important part, and the connections between the texts are the most salient.

So I've now structured each of my three paragraphs like this: (using the Richards as an example)

1. Sub thesis - focusing on either a resonance or a dissonance between the texts.
2. Context sentence - focusing specifically on the contextual change between Pacino's time and Shakespeare's time to result in the disparity between the new text and the old text.
3. Start with a concept from the old text, doing a full QAT (quote, analysis, technique). This can be 2-3 sentences. Specifically highlight the thing that made the old text original compared to the new one, whether it's context (chain of being, religious influence, Elizabethian stuff), ideas (Machiavelli, patriarchy, free will), or even characters (Shakespeare's lady Anne vs Pacino's younger lady Anne, Shakespeare's Richard vs Pacino's Richard).
4. Then pick a world like 'contrastingly' or 'however', and do a QAT of how and why the new text is different regarding this concept. Even if this paragraph is about a resonance, you should say it's similar in some ways but different in others. This can be 2-3 sentences.
5. Then, using a word like 'furthermore' or 'moreover', you repeat steps 3 and 4, but build from the textual conversation you have just presented. What is the next part of the textual conversation? How does one composer then respond to the other? (which is a bit silly cause one text was literally written centuries ago, but you have to go along with it) These are questions that need to be answered. Should be 3-5 sentences.
6. And then a nice little conclusion to wrap it up, focusing on the cause and effect between the old text and new text

That is my guide. I'm complaining about my Mod A even though I got 18/20 in it, but it still needs some work.

Did you do 2 or 4 para for ur essay?

 

[Legendary16]

Mod A was the essay I did worst in cause I've been thinking about it the wrong way. In the test I essentially treated it like a Mod B essay, with a deep individual analysis of each text. However, I now realise the whole 'textual conversation' bit about the texts is the most important part, and the connections between the texts are the most salient.

So I've now structured each of my three paragraphs like this: (using the Richards as an example)

1. Sub thesis - focusing on either a resonance or a dissonance between the texts.
2. Context sentence - focusing specifically on the contextual change between Pacino's time and Shakespeare's time to result in the disparity between the new text and the old text.
3. Start with a concept from the old text, doing a full QAT (quote, analysis, technique). This can be 2-3 sentences. Specifically highlight the thing that made the old text original compared to the new one, whether it's context (chain of being, religious influence, Elizabethian stuff), ideas (Machiavelli, patriarchy, free will), or even characters (Shakespeare's lady Anne vs Pacino's younger lady Anne, Shakespeare's Richard vs Pacino's Richard).
4. Then pick a world like 'contrastingly' or 'however', and do a QAT of how and why the new text is different regarding this concept. Even if this paragraph is about a resonance, you should say it's similar in some ways but different in others. This can be 2-3 sentences.
5. Then, using a word like 'furthermore' or 'moreover', you repeat steps 3 and 4, but build from the textual conversation you have just presented. What is the next part of the textual conversation? How does one composer then respond to the other? (which is a bit silly cause one text was literally written centuries ago, but you have to go along with it) These are questions that need to be answered. Should be 3-5 sentences.
6. And then a nice little conclusion to wrap it up, focusing on the cause and effect between the old text and new text

That is my guide. I'm complaining about my Mod A even though I got 18/20 in it, but it still needs some work.

You really nailed the structure here, I'm glad that my structure is nearly identical to yours. One key consideration with mod a in particular is the changing values between the different contexts, because in the case of tempest/hagseed, the values of the Jacobean vs modern era are what differentiate the perspectives on imprisonment, treatment of women and revenge vs forgiveness. Every quote must be contextualised as well.

 

[HazzRat]

Did you do 2 or 4 para for ur essay?

3

 

[mvrcuriee]

You really nailed the structure here, I'm glad that my structure is nearly identical to yours. One key consideration with mod a in particular is the changing values between the different contexts, because in the case of tempest/hagseed, the values of the Jacobean vs modern era are what differentiate the perspectives on imprisonment, treatment of women and revenge vs forgiveness. Every quote must be contextualised as well.

I love how we did the same topics to discuss as well I’ve been rinsing my women arguments since term 1

 

[funny123]

You really nailed the structure here, I'm glad that my structure is nearly identical to yours. One key consideration with mod a in particular is the changing values between the different contexts, because in the case of tempest/hagseed, the values of the Jacobean vs modern era are what differentiate the perspectives on imprisonment, treatment of women and revenge vs forgiveness. Every quote must be contextualised as well.

sorry but wdym by contextualising the quotes? i assume you mean saying where it came from in both texts and the broader context of the scene/situation. my teacher told me to contextualise my quotes asw.

 

[Legendary16]

sorry but wdym by contextualising the quotes? i assume you mean saying where it came from in both texts and the broader context of the scene/situation. my teacher told me to contextualise my quotes asw.

yeah that's what I meant. thank you for clarifying that in here.