so im in year 11 its term 3 and we only just started doing essay writing and we've spent 3 days/lessons on just how to right thesis, and im STILL struggling
so what im asking is for anyone to give me a short lesson on how to effectively write one for good essay marks in trials and hsc with examples/samples if you can. were doing a 'to what extent' question in regards to king lear shifting perspectives.
If I were to boil down in one sentence how to write a good thesis, it would be to answer the question with a unique perspective. And to know what a unique perspective is, it is one which is:
- nuanced,
- interesting,
- and has flair.
Generally, it's easier to start with a bad example and show how it can be improved. In all examples, I'll be using this question:
"To what extent does Shakespeare suggest that power inevitably leads to corruption in King Lear?"
Band 1-3 example:
| In King Lear, Shakespeare suggests that power inevitably leads to corruption. |
This may seem trivial, but it is a common mistake that many people make. Do not repeat the question. This would barely get you a pass.
Band 4 example:
| In King Lear, Shakespeare shows that power often leads to corruption, as characters who gain power usually become selfish and cruel. |
This is slightly better because it has introduced a perspective. Moreover, it also demonstrates a cause and effect relationship, in being characters gain power, causing them to become self and cruel. In other words, it isn't the worst thesis in the world, but it is obvious and lacks any nuance. The perspective you provide needs to be deeper than this.
Band 5 example:
| In King Lear, Shakespeare suggests that while power can lead to corruption, it is the characters’ personal flaws that ultimately drive their moral downfall. |
This is much better because it establishes another layer of nuance. Whilst it agrees that power can lead to corruption, this essay provides a counterargument to that by showing how characters' personal flaws can drive their downfall. In other words, while the previous thesis was one-layered, this is a two-layered thesis and demonstrates depth. However, the reason it is not a band 6 yet is that it is still quite broad. What are the "characters' personal flaws" and what is the "moral downfall"? These are quite broad terms that should be specified more.
Band 6 example:
| King Lear does not assert that all power corrupts, but instead reveals that power functions as a psychological catalyst, exposing latent traumas, repressed desires, and familial tensions that were always present. |
Now that I've shown you what worse theses are, you can properly understand why this thesis is good. First of all, disagreeing with the question is something that always makes you sound sophisticated, particularly if you counterargument with your own unique answer. In this one, the question is going to be explored through a psychological lens. Because of this, it is a nuanced perspective, as it is exploring multiple layers to the question by counterarguing it. It is certainly interesting, as it is a fresh perspective that not many students will explore. Lastly, it shows flair by being a truly perceptive take. And before I finish this paragraph, I also love how you can clearly see the three paragraphs that are going to be presented: 'latent traumas', 'repressed desires', and 'familial tensions'.
So after this, you might be wondering how you can find your own unique perspectives for your texts. I think the best way to do that is to either look at some academic papers on your text, or to explore some philosophies and create your own. You don't have to state the philosophy you are using as a lens; it honestly sounds better when you do so without mentioning the name of the philosophy itself. For example, if you were providing a Marxist perspective on the text, don't use the word 'Marxist', but do use words like 'oppressor' and 'oppressed' to catagorise the text. If you're doing a feminist take, don't use the word 'feminist', but talk about the 'patriarchal norms' explored in the text. If you're doing a psychoanalytical take, don't use the word 'psychoanalytical', but explore the 'subconscious' of the characters. I hope that makes sense, but just use these philosophies to springboard your own unique lens, rather than specifically doing a Marxist, feminist, psychoanalytical reading of your text.
Anyhow, hope that helps.
