Content
We are looking for a synthesis of three things:
- Your own opinions/argument
- Knowledge of the primary text(s) you've been asked to write about
- Critical reading and independent research
It is crucially important that you do all three e.g. it's not enough to include your own opinions if you can't back them up with reference to good, solid analysis of the primary text. Equally, it doesn't help to simply quote from other critics if you can't show that you've thought about what they're written, how it fits in to the point you are arguing and how it relates to your own opinions.
Structure
See tips in the blue Study Skills Handbook. Some other notes:
- There should be some sense of a coherent line of argument overall: if your essay reads just as a succession of interesting points without real attempts to draw connections between them, your mark will suffer.
- Anticipate your argument in the introduction. Don't launch straight into analysis: explain what you are going to argue in the essay and how you are going to argue it. The reader shouldn't have to wait until the conclusion to discover what your argument is!
- Make sure your essay is structured consistently and that you indicate this structure explicitly: have a clear idea of what your argument is and don't let it get confused in the middle. When you proofread, keep an eye out for material that doesn't contribute to the argument: if it's not relevant to the points your making or doesn't move your argument along, get rid of it.
Style
Avoid woolly, muddled phrasing and 'information overload': make sure you have made each point clearly before moving onto the next.
Avoid making unsupported points: make sure you root your analysis firmly with reference to the source text. You will need to quote from the text to back up your points:
- Bad: 'The website is targeted primarily at Mexicans.'
- Good: 'The website is targeted primarily at Mexicans: it is written in Spanish and the subject matter of its pages of news and opinions relate principally to Mexican affairs.'
You don't always have to waste space backing up and justifying everything you say, though: particularly for contextual material you can simply provide a reference (see ‘Referencing’ below) that covers the material you do not include:
- Bad: 'Indigenous Mexicans do not have access to the Internet.'
- Good: 'Many indigenous Mexicans do not have access to the Internet (Smith 2002: 14).'
N.B. When writing about film there is no need to recount the plot of the film: you can assume that your reader has at least seen it! Also, take care not to structure your essay around the film plot: i.e try to avoid working through the film scene by scene highlighting points that are relevant to the question. This tends to produce a banal and simplistic essay.)
When you plan and when you proofread, make sure that you have explored your argument in sufficient detail. The best analysis is nuanced and demonstrates an awareness of the implications raised by the points you are making. Frequently students make illustrative points in their essays, but fail to step back and make it clear why these points are important to their line of argument. Step back from your work and ask yourself literally, what is at stake in each point that you make in order to show that you have critical distance from your material.
- Bad: 'Indigenous Mexicans themselves are unlikely to access the site: many do not speak Spanish or have access to the Internet at all (Smith 2002: 14).'
- Good: 'Indigenous Mexicans themselves are unlikely to access the site: many do not speak Spanish or have access to the Internet at all (Smith 2002: 14). In this way the site is disconnected from the very people it claims to represent and another paradox becomes apparent: the FZLN has chosen to put forward its message of indigenous rights using a medium whose inequalities of access separate the underpriveleged even more from the political process.'
Introduce theoretical material and reference to external sources where appropriate to support your argument: this shows awareness of the critical environment surrounding the issues you are discussing and demonstrates evidence of independent study (which lets me tick another box on the marking form: yay!):
- OK: '[...] separate the underpriveleged even more from the political process.'
- Better: '[...] separate the underpriveleged even more from the political process. Indeed, the site could be characterised as fitting into a 'dystopian narrative' (Sturken & Cartwright 1998: 102) about technology: a narrative that is all the more sinister because it is presented as such a positive force.'
There is sometimes a fine line between overgeneralisation on the one hand and excessive qualification on the other:
- Overgeneralisation: 'The site cannot be understood by indigenous Mexicans as they do not speak Spanish.'
- Excessive qualification: 'It could be suggested that indigenous Mexicans may be prevented from accessing the site because some do not speak Spanish.'
Be careful in using 'might', 'should', 'often', 'would seem', 'perhaps', 'quite', 'possibly' etc. Excessive qualification makes you look timid and your argument half-hearted. Get your nuance in via the lucidity and sophistication of the points you are making and not via your adjectives. Equally, avoid hyperbole. Cut out 'extremely', 'tremendously', 'hugely', etc from your essays.
Proofread! You don't lose marks directly for poor spelling and punctuation, but every time a reader is distracted by a glaring error, or has to stop and think about what you mean because of sloppy phrasing, the effectiveness of your argument is lessened.
Referencing
Referencing can seem like a complicated nightmare because there are so many ways of doing it and every lecturer has their own pet scheme. The best thing to do is to pick one recognised method and stick to it.
As far as I'm concerned the easiest thing to do is author-date: this is also the method recommended by the School's Study Skills Handbook. For each quotation or reference to a source, put a citation in the text with the author's surname, the year of publication and a page reference (you can do it either in brackets in the text or as a footnote):
Neighbours, when initially broadcast in Australia in 1986 on Network Ten, attracted low ratings (Mercado 2004: 208).
And then in your bibliography at the end of the essay provide full details of the source including the name of the author, the year of publication, the place of publication and the name of the publisher:
Mercado, Andrew, 2004. Super Aussie Soaps (Melbourne, Pluto Press)
N.B. only use your bibliography for works you have directly cited in your essay: no-one's fooled by bibliographies padded out with lots of extra texts.
Do be aware that there are different conventions when writing bibliography entries for books, journal articles, and so on. See the School's Study Skills Handbook (or, for the seriously masochistic, the MHRA Style Guide) for full advice on this, but here is a quick list of examples:
- Book
Aaltonen, Sirkku, 2000. Time-Sharing on Stage: Drama Translation in Theatre & Society (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters) - Chapter in a book edited by someone else
Bassnett, Susan, 1985. 'Ways Through the Labyrinth: Strategies and Methods for Translating Theatre Texts' in Hermans, Theo (ed.), The Manipulation of Literature (London: Croon Helm) - Article in a journal
Bennett, Karen, 2002. 'The "Duende" in England: Lorca's Blood Wedding in Translation', Translation and Literature, 11.1, 24-44 - Edited book
Johnston, David (ed.), 1996. Stages of Translation: Essays and Interviews on Translating for the Stage (Bath: Absolute Classics) - Website
Mateo, Marta, 1995. 'Constraints and Possibilities of Performance Elements in Drama Translation' <http://www.ub.es/~mm/drama/> [accessed 28 January 2000]
Finally...
Remember the School's marking criteria (laid out in glorious technicolour in the red Undergraduate Handbook). They set out what each mark classification requires quite clearly. Here's what you need to get a first-class mark:
Excellent work, showing detailed knowledge of primary and secondary sources, historical context, and very good understanding of subject. Excellent expression, argument and analysis, with some original insight.
So, in short: show your knowledge of the subject you're writing about. Do it by demonstrating that you know the primary source text(s) well, that you can choose appropriate examples and fit them into their contexts. Do it by showing that you can analyse those examples clearly and coherently. Do it by integrating this analysis with the opinions of other critics.