Ways of Thinking Essay: Deconstructed

The Ways of Thinking Module in the Extension One English course is challenging and exciting.

For my own HSC, I studied the After the Bomb period for the Ways of Thinking module and for my final essay I used Sylvia Plath’s poetry and Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot as the set texts.

I changed the way I set out my ways of thinking essay throughout the year several times. I played with integrated paragraphs, linking the paragraphs with ideas, with periods, with countries, with character qualities, and eventually I realised that the best way to link paragraphs was through the ways of thinking. Duh.

This essay was written about three weeks before the final HSC exams. I had avoided integrated paragraphs all year, they scared me! Then I took a leap and for about three days I played with this over and over and over.

At the end of this post, I’ve reflected on what I would change and I’ve also summarised 5 things that you should take away from this blog. I don’t claim for this essay to be perfect! But, it is an achievable E4 and hopefully you can find something in it that you can adapt for your own work.

Without further adieu, you can download my essay here in its word doc glory (you’ll need to be logged in – making an account is free and super quick).

I will annotate my own essay by pointing out why I did what I did and why I think it works. Please, use this as a guide for your own ways of thinking essays, take from it just one idea or take from it several ideas. This is here to help YOU.

Key: Texts are underlined.  

Introduction:

As a response to the shift in global consciousness that occurred in the wake of the second worldwide war, composers of the after the bomb era grappled with evocative ideas. Conservative morals of political compliance, gender roles and obedience to an omniscient God that characterised common ways of thinking before the atomic bomb are challenged by the texts of the post bomb era. Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot and Stanley Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove reflect incredulity towards conservative ways of thinking and the perceived truths. Similarly, Sylvia Plath’s poetic anthology Ariel and the 1959 Kitchen Debate between Richard Nixon and Nikita Khrushchev represent opposing discourses of social importance. By drawing on common perceptions and social dichotomies, composers seek to challenge ways of thinking.

Deconstruction:

As a response to the shift in global consciousness that occurred in the wake of the second worldwide war, composers of the after the bomb era grappled with evocative ideas.

The first part of the sentence deals with exactly what I understand of the After the Bomb period: A shift in global consciousness. “Consciousness” here works as a sort of synonym to “ways of thinking” just so that I give some variation, because I’m about to smash through “ways of thinking” for the rest of the essay. I’ve set it in the context of the post WW2 period, and I’ve claimed that composers grappled with new ideas.

Conservative morals of political compliance, gender roles and obedience to an omniscient God that characterised common ways of thinking before the atomic bomb are challenged by the texts of the post bomb era.

Cue: Ways of thinking. In my opinion, it isn’t enough to just say “ways of thinking were explored.” Let’s talk about exactly what ways of thinking you will be exploring. Let your marker be impressed by your pinpointing of ideas right from the get-go. Instead of saying what the new ways of thinking were, I instead wrote what the ways of thinking were pre-bomb, and that they were challenged post-bomb.

Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot and Stanley Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove reflect incredulity towards conservative ways of thinking and the perceived truths.

Incredulity: Love that word. Instead of taking all of my texts and naming them in a vacuous list that doesn’t achieve anything except drop the names in, I chose to take a set text and an ORT and explicitly say which ways of thinking I will be dealing with when I discuss these texts. This is a tip for all of your essays, Advanced or Extension: Don’t write all of the texts names in the one sentence in your introduction just for the sake of getting them out in the open. Do something with them, pair them with an idea for example (particularly important for AOS: Discovery!).

Similarly, Sylvia Plath’s poetic anthology Ariel and the 1959 Kitchen Debate between Richard Nixon and Nikita Khrushchev represent opposing discourses of social importance.

Again, as above: Name and pair.

By drawing on common perceptions and social dichotomies, composers seek to challenge ways of thinking.

It has always been in my style of essay to end introductions without explicit mention of a text, and instead referring to the module/essay thesis/essay question. It reminded me to round off the paragraph, not to lose sight of the next step, and to make sure that each idea was concluded.

Paragraph One

The After the Bomb era observed texts challenging the prominent notions of truth in both private and public spheres by sewing uncertainty into previous ways of thinking. Andrew Uduigwomen surmises that “postmodernism rejects most of the fundamental intellectual pillars of modern Western Civilisation.” Such rejection of common ways of thinking is observed in Samuel Beckett’s absurdist play, Waiting for Godot. Particularly, Beckett challenges the notion of the perceived utter truth of an omniscient God in the environment of a wasteland, devoid of forthcoming truthful meaning. The titular imperfect tense in “Waiting for Godot” imbues the ongoing paralysis and enigmatic truth of purpose. To enhance the perspective of futility as a new truthful notion of life, Beckett employs a cylindrical narrative structure and both protagonists Estragon and Vladimir repeat the refrain “nothing to be done.” Beckett’s characters are shaped to be the embodiment of humanity in a condemned struggle to find truth in purpose of existence. Vladimir’s dialogue universalises the existential experience, noting that “all of mankind is us.” The play reduces the omniscient God that encouraged obedience in previous ways of thinking to be a mythical metanarrative, of which Beckett shows incredulity towards. Estragon recalls the Gospels and describes them poetically as “very pretty” and “pale blue.” In Estragon’s recollection, the Bible does not give essence to humankind but rather is the symbol of never-achieved symbolic reminiscence.

Deconstruction:

The After the Bomb era observed texts challenging the prominent notions of truth in both private and public spheres by sewing uncertainty into previous ways of thinking.

Here is my first take on the ways of thinking. As I began doing in the introduction, I’m working with the “previous ways of thinking” and focusing on how composers reacted to them. Notions of truth, in my opinion, are an enormous part of the pre and post bomb era. What was once considered true was now being questioned.

Andrew Uduigwomen surmises that “postmodernism rejects most of the fundamental intellectual pillars of modern Western Civilisation.”

My intention was not to look at my texts through a strictly postmodern lens. However, it was part of my analysis and this scholarly quote seemed to summarise exactly what I wanted to say in a really essay to read way. You may hear mixed opinions on the necessity of scholarly quotes. Definitely, definitely, definitely don’t put them in just for the sake of it. Instead, use them to support your point, use them to show exactly how they informed your own analysis, and show that you’ve read widely on the topic.

Such rejection of common ways of thinking is observed in Samuel Beckett’s absurdist play, Waiting for Godot. Particularly, Beckett challenges the notion of the perceived utter truth of an omniscient God in the environment of a wasteland, devoid of forthcoming truthful meaning.

Of the two italicised sentences above, the first one links to the scholarly reading and recognises it as a kind of preface to what is yet to come. Then I’ve linked into the text, recognising the play’s setting without story retell, and then I’m ready to analyse.

The titular imperfect tense in “Waiting for Godot” imbues the ongoing paralysis and enigmatic truth of purpose.

In Extension you’ve got to use techniques beyond “metaphor.” Don’t get me wrong, metaphors are great. Love a good metaphor. But you need to extend yourself to have a combination of these common literary techniques and a really strong analysis of language. Here I’ve analysed the title (always a good place to start!) and looked at the tense. Then I analysed why the imperfect tense was used and linked it to the notion I’m exploring: truth.

To enhance the perspective of futility as a new truthful notion of life, Beckett employs a cylindrical narrative structure and both protagonists Estragon and Vladimir repeat the refrain “nothing to be done.”

It’s easy to only talk about literary techniques and miss out on the structural techniques all together – in all English courses! Again, I’m exploring the notion of truth as a feature of the challenged ways of thinking and pairing it with a structural technique of the text and a quote. Short quotes are the best quotes. Your memory says thanks.

Beckett’s characters are shaped to be the embodiment of humanity in a condemned struggle to find truth in purpose of existence. Vladimir’s dialogue universalises the existential experience, noting that “all of mankind is us.”

Note: If you are studying this text, I’ve just put two of the easiest and most potent quotes of the text in the one paragraph. Steal these quotes for your own work if they fit!

The play reduces the omniscient God that encouraged obedience in previous ways of thinking to be a mythical metanarrative, of which Beckett shows incredulity towards.

Disclaimer: This is MY reading of the text! Throughout the year I pursued many options of who Godot is (who? or what?). I pursued Godot to be a metaphor for the socialist economic system, as a political leader, and I ended up pursuing Godot to be a deity. And of course, here is another mention of the ways of thinking.

Estragon recalls the Gospels and describes them poetically as “very pretty” and “pale blue.” In Estragon’s recollection, the Bible does not give essence to humankind but rather is the symbol of never-achieved symbolic reminiscence.

Again, this is my reading. I’ve provided quotes and techniques to support my analysis of the text. Make note that at this point of the text, I’ve subtly moved from exploring notions of truths onto exploring notions of truths in to one of the ways of thinking I’m exploring: obedience to an omniscient God.

Paragraph Two:

In the same way that Beckett challenged previous notions of God with uncertain concepts, Stanley Kubrick’s film Dr Strangelove questions the perceived infallibility and truthfulness of the American government in the Cold War. Maxim Pieuchot suggests that the goal of the film “is to make the viewer question the 1960s American society, and the leaders that the public has trusted with nuclear bombs.” The characters of the film represent real life figures of the time to prompt closer analysis of the government which holds such a prominent infallible position. The two heads of state are presented as hysterically weak, or drunken and brutal, yet both equally incompetent. Kubrik’s film suggests that human fallibility, especially at the highest trusted level, can lead to the outbreak of nuclear war. Thus, Kubrik challenges the paradigm of political compliance and trust that pervaded ways of thinking.

Deconstruction:

I went on to continue the first body paragraph with a smaller paragraph that deals with the same ideas, with a different text. Part of the reason for this is that although I wanted an essay integrated by ways of thinking, the reality is that in an exam my handwriting is huge and without a space between the two texts, my paragraph would take over a page. I opted for this kind of split structure purely so that the marker could digest the information presented.

In the same way that Beckett challenged previous notions of God with uncertain concepts, Stanley Kubrick’s film Dr Strangelove questions the perceived infallibility and truthfulness of the American government in the Cold War.

This sentence is very power packed. It introduces a new text, it recognises the ways of thinking, it links it to the previously discussed text, and it provides the context of the text.

Maxim Pieuchot suggests that the goal of the film “is to make the viewer question the 1960s American society, and the leaders that the public has trusted with nuclear bombs.”

I’ve introduced a scholar of the text here with a quote that identifies the aim of the text in relation to the way it challenges the way of thinking. I thought I had struck accent when I found this quote because it put my thoughts into words perfectly.

The characters of the film represent real life figures of the time to prompt closer analysis of the government which holds such a prominent infallible position.The two heads of state are presented as hysterically weak, or drunken and brutal, yet both equally incompetent. Kubrik’s film suggests that human fallibility, especially at the highest trusted level, can lead to the outbreak of nuclear war.

I didn’t go into extreme depth of analysis here because in the paragraphs yet to come, I was going to focus on the same section of the text from a different angle. In hindsight, this section of the essay appears weak in textual analysis, but certainly proves useful to the discussion about the ways of thinking.

Thus, Kubrik challenges the paradigm of political compliance and trust that pervaded ways of thinking.

Rounding up a paragraph with the ways of thinking/essay question as per my preferred style so that I could reallign my essay with my purpose and provide a coherent argument.

Paragraph Three:

The hybrid form of an absurdist critique aids the audience’s examination of the enigmatic nature of truth. The representation of real American figures in the 1960s as characters in the film that have lost all sense of reality is the feature link that grounds the satire in a critical lens. Sexual metaphors “permeate the film, providing one level of the film’s nightmare comedy” (Charles Maland). All of the leader’s names are sexually connoted. Dmitri Kissoff, the Russian Premier, has a surname that is a pun for the end of the world but also an erotic act. This ridicules the leader of the time in a way that satirises the political representation of the people. The sexual metaphors in the film “transforms the nuclear threat into a compensation for the character’s sex drive” (Maxim Pieuchot). Dr Strangelove absurdly suggests the plan of each man having intercourse with at least 10 different women to repopulate the Earth post-bomb. The plan is an absurd response to nuclear annihilation and prioritises the fulfilment of the leaders over the experience of the victims of the bomb and the surviving women. The prominence of the men’s personal sexual gratification as a thematic concern in the text is both satirical and critical of the way that the politics dealt with nuclear capability, which ultimately ended in probable mutual annihilation in the film. Kubrick mocked and satirised the officials in a way that challenged the compliant way of thinking and prompted a questioning of the motives and truths presented by the government.

Deconstruction:

The hybrid form of an absurdist critique aids the audience’s examination of the enigmatic nature of truth.

Again we are following the notion of truth and its importance in the post-bomb era, except this time we are reviewing the same texts from a more structural point of view: absurdist critique.

The representation of real American figures in the 1960s as characters in the film that have lost all sense of reality is the feature link that grounds the satire in a critical lens.

One of the aspects of absurdist texts that I admire the most is the way that they can be grounded in reality, and then completely blown out of proportion to hilarious levels. In this sentence, I grounded the text in context (1960s, America) and made a comment about the effect of satire in such a serious time.

Sexual metaphors “permeate the film, providing one level of the film’s nightmare comedy” (Charles Maland).

Another quotation from a scholar of the text, supporting the textual analysis.

All of the leader’s names are sexually connoted. Dmitri Kissoff, the Russian Premier, has a surname that is a pun for the end of the world but also an erotic act. This ridicules the leader of the time in a way that satirises the political representation of the people.

I’ve spelled out the sexual connotation of one name (carefully chosen to be the most appropriate so I wouldn’t laugh in the exam) to show the marker that I’m not just claiming that the names have a double meaning, but actually I have applied the technique to the text and found what the effect is: satirising the political representation of the people in a time when politics were seen as infallible by so many people. This was one of the ways of thinking at this point.

The sexual metaphors in the film “transforms the nuclear threat into a compensation for the character’s sex drive” (Maxim Pieuchot). Dr Strangelove absurdly suggests the plan of each man having intercourse with at least 10 different women to repopulate the Earth post-bomb. The plan is an absurd response to nuclear annihilation and prioritises the fulfilment of the leaders over the experience of the victims of the bomb and the surviving women.

The purpose of these sentences is to make a clear link to the way that reality was satirised, and the consequence that would have on the general populace and their ways of thinking.

The prominence of the men’s personal sexual gratification as a thematic concern in the text is both satirical and critical of the way that the politics dealt with nuclear capability, which ultimately ended in probable mutual annihilation in the film. Kubrick mocked and satirised the officials in a way that challenged the compliant way of thinking and prompted a questioning of the motives and truths presented by the government.

As has been done when rounding off other paragraphs, I’ve linked it back to the ways of thinking.

Paragraph Four:

Similarly absurd ideas are presented in Waiting for Godot. The entire play is presented in vacuous reduction ad absurdism and non-sequitur in order to theatrically mirror the nauseous conditions of the post-bomb world. Lucky’s speech is the epitome of non-sequitur in the text. Lucky’s dialogue is presented in a jumble of chaotic academia that detracts from the truth of his message and adds comedic value. Tautology shows the absurdity of Lucky’s expression as he repeatedly uses “simultaneously concurrently” futilely. The anacoluthon and sesquipedalian in the monologue heightens the absurdity to add a comical nature to the critical words he speaks, thus making them more accessible to the audience. He notes that “Given the existence of…God…with white beard…it is established beyond all reasonable doubt…that man in short…wastes and pines…abandoned.” Beckett manipulates Lucky to make a very critical statement about the way of thinking towards an omniscient deity and human existence in the cover of an absurd speech that is amusing to an audience of the post-war period. Through an absurd critique, both composers make the unclear notion of truth in an uncertain world accessible.

Deconstruction:

Similarly absurd ideas are presented in Waiting for Godot.

For the same reason I separated the first big paragraph, I have separated here again.

The entire play is presented in vacuous reduction ad absurdism and non-sequitur in order to theatrically mirror the nauseous conditions of the post-bomb world.

An easy way to provide textual analysis through techniques without providing a corresponding quote? Talk about the text as a whole! 😉

Reduction ad absurdism is basically fancy talk for being absurdist in style. Non-sequiter is incredibly important to my analysis here because I link it directly to the after the bomb period.

Lucky’s speech is the epitome of non-sequitur in the text. Lucky’s dialogue is presented in a jumble of chaotic academia that detracts from the truth of his message and adds comedic value. Tautology shows the absurdity of Lucky’s expression as he repeatedly uses “simultaneously concurrently” futilely. The anacoluthon and sesquipedalian in the monologue heightens the absurdity to add a comical nature to the critical words he speaks, thus making them more accessible to the audience.

During my studies, I was fascinated by Lucky’s speech and it fit so well with what I understood to be the purpose of

He notes that “Given the existence of…God…with white beard…it is established beyond all reasonable doubt…that man in short…wastes and pines…abandoned.”

Seriously, not an easy quote to remember.

Beckett manipulates Lucky to make a very critical statement about the way of thinking towards an omniscient deity and human existence in the cover of an absurd speech that is amusing to an audience of the post-war period. Through an absurd critique, both composers make the unclear notion of truth in an uncertain world accessible. 

True to form, I’ve linked the text, with the ways of thinking, to the particular idea I was exploring in the paragraph: absurd forms in dealing with notions of truth.

Paragraph Five: Introduction of new texts!

Dichotomies of social importance were expressed in the After the Bomb era as a result of tensions between ways of thinking. The postmodern paradigm challenges the conservative gender roles of the pre-war period. Sylvia Plath, confessional poet, conveys her experience as a female that characterised her way of thinking in the Ariel anthology. History, religion and social conventions that permeated the ways of thinking before the bomb are challenged in Fever 103, where Plath’s speaker burns the sources of oppression in the process of moving from an “aguey” hell state to “paradise”. The poem opens with a rhetorical question, “Pure, what does that mean?” The question embodies the conflict of the poem, which details a woman’s attempt to remove the stereotypes that have been imposed on her gender. The social dichotomy of the perspectives towards gender is highlighted when the 1959 Kitchen Debate between Khrushchev and Nixon is observed adjacently. Nixon stated, “What we want to do, is to make life easier for our housewives.” Nixon uses the collective possessive “our” to express the shared ownership of women. Implying the stereotype of women further, Nixon’s commoratio as he reiterates his attitude towards women highlights the way he synonymously uses “women” and “housewives” as he repeats his point after Khrushchev’s interjection. Plath’s ironic tone in The Applicant argues that in America, it is a cycle of making “life easier” as Nixon claims, but for the men. In The Applicant, the woman is reduced to the pronoun “it” in an expression of the subjugation that Plath feels as part of her gender’s exploitation. Plath expounds her underlying sense of estrangement from the socially promoted identity as a mother by utilizing the titular homophone of ‘mourning’ in her poem Morning Song, echoing Simone de Beauvoir’s statement that a new baby “is either a hindrance or a jewel.” Plath’s experience of the female struggle is dichotomous to Richard Nixon’s way of thinking as expressed in the Kitchen Debate.

Deconstruction:

The structure here changes. From here on, the paragraphs are structured with an ORT and a set text together, without splitting them as I did in the above paragraphs.

Dichotomies of social importance were expressed in the After the Bomb era as a result of tensions between ways of thinking.

New idea alert! “Dichotomies of social importance” was discussed in the introduction and is being explored again here.

The postmodern paradigm challenges the conservative gender roles of the pre-war period.

Bringing up the postmodern lens that we mentioned in the first body paragraph. And, gender roles – a feature of the ways of thinking before the bomb.

Sylvia Plath, confessional poet, conveys her experience as a female that characterised her way of thinking in the Ariel anthology.

Because the text being studied wasn’t actually a text, but rather, a series of texts, I needed to discuss the anthology as a whole in just one sentence before diving into specific texts and exploring what they offer.

History, religion and social conventions that permeated the ways of thinking before the bomb are challenged in Fever 103, where Plath’s speaker burns the sources of oppression in the process of moving from an “aguey” hell state to “paradise”. The poem opens with a rhetorical question, “Pure, what does that mean?” The question embodies the conflict of the poem, which details a woman’s attempt to remove the stereotypes that have been imposed on her gender.

This is fairly standard, textual reference, technique, analysis. Simple. Sweet.

The social dichotomy of the perspectives towards gender is highlighted when the 1959 Kitchen Debate between Khrushchev and Nixon is observed adjacently.

Segway into the next text – the Kitchen Debate.

Nixon stated, “What we want to do, is to make life easier for our housewives.” Nixon uses the collective possessive “our” to express the shared ownership of women. Implying the stereotype of women further, Nixon’s commoratio as he reiterates his attitude towards women highlights the way he synonymously uses “women” and “housewives” as he repeats his point after Khrushchev’s interjection.

Again, quote, technique, analysis.

Plath’s ironic tone in The Applicant argues that in America, it is a cycle of making “life easier” as Nixon claims, but for the men. In The Applicant, the woman is reduced to the pronoun “it” in an expression of the subjugation that Plath feels as part of her gender’s exploitation.

And then we flick back to the first text to create a highly integrated paragraph. We’ve sandwiched each text with the other.

Plath expounds her underlying sense of estrangement from the socially promoted identity as a mother by utilizing the titular homophone of ‘mourning’ in her poem Morning Song, echoing Simone de Beauvoir’s statement that a new baby “is either a hindrance or a jewel.”

Simone de Beauvoir is important to my essay because her work lays the foundations of many ways of thinking. Different to the other scholars referenced, de Beauvoir lived in the period being discussed. A primary source. Bingo.

Plath’s experience of the female struggle is dichotomous to Richard Nixon’s way of thinking as expressed in the Kitchen Debate.

Concluding the paragraph with the two texts combined seals the deal. ESPECIALLY when you throw in a mention of ways of thinking!

Paragraph Six:

The dichotomous feud between capitalism and communism that fuelled the Cold War incited great social division. The capitalist way of thinking stimulated consumerism and the communist paradigm raised questions of humanist equality. The opposing discourses of government form are represented in the verbal jousting of the Kitchen Debate. The titular symbol of the kitchen is potent in that it is a symbol of the modern advance that both communists and capitalists strived for, but also the representation of opposing visions of social organisation. Khrushchev highlights the irony of the similarities between the two men that causes such social discourse through comparative repetition when stating “You’re a lawyer for capitalism, I’m a lawyer for communism.” Richard Nixon uses generalisations to give weight to his argument against Khrushchev, claiming, “After twenty years, many Americans want a new house” which is how the capitalist system is inclusive of advancing technologies. Khrushchev uses the idiom “this theory does not hold water” because in the Soviet Union, “all you have to do to get a house is to be born.” Sylvia Plath recognises the exploitation of class in capitalist societies that Khrushchev claims to not exist in communism. The man in The Applicant because of his bureaucratic nature of work that requires a “black suit” and his position in regard to the “it” that will “roll away headaches,” is that he is of an exploiting class, rather than an exploited class. The oppressed class is embodied in the dehumanisation of the institution of marriage and the selling of a “commodity” as a consumerist deal. The word choice of “it is guaranteed” that the woman will fulfill the Applicant’s needs supports that consumerism is the central metaphor in the Applicant and closely mirrors the capitalist economic system.

Deconstruction:

The dichotomous feud between capitalism and communism that fuelled the Cold War incited great social division.

This is both grounding the ideas in context but also identifying two conflicting ways of thinking: capitalism and communism.

The capitalist way of thinking stimulated consumerism and the communist paradigm raised questions of humanist equality.

Teasing out the ways of thinking more. It isn’t enough to just identify ways of thinking. Fleshing out your understanding of the ways of thinking proves that you know your stuff!

The opposing discourses of government and economic form are represented in the verbal jousting of the Kitchen Debate. The titular symbol of the kitchen is potent in that it is a symbol of the modern advance that both communists and capitalists strived for, but also the representation of opposing visions of social organisation. Khrushchev highlights the irony of the similarities between the two men that causes such social discourse through comparative repetition when stating “You’re a lawyer for capitalism, I’m a lawyer for communism.” Richard Nixon uses generalisations to give weight to his argument against Khrushchev, claiming, “After twenty years, many Americans want a new house” which is how the capitalist system is inclusive of advancing technologies. Khrushchev uses the idiom “this theory does not hold water” because in the Soviet Union, “all you have to do to get a house is to be born.”

Standard textual reference, technique, analysis. Linking to the ways of thinking wherever possible.

Sylvia Plath recognises the exploitation of class in capitalist societies that Khrushchev claims to not exist in communism.

Fusion of the two texts as an integrated link.

The man in The Applicant because of his bureaucratic nature of work that requires a “black suit” and his position in regard to the “it” that will “roll away headaches,” is that he is of an exploiting class, rather than an exploited class. The oppressed class is embodied in the dehumanisation of the institution of marriage and the selling of a “commodity” as a consumerist deal. The word choice of “it is guaranteed” that the woman will fulfill the Applicant’s needs supports that consumerism is the central metaphor in the Applicant and closely mirrors the capitalist economic system

Conclusion: Yippee!

Reflecting the concerns of the post-bomb age, texts reveal the composers quest to challenge and express ways of thinking. Comparing past, conservative paradigms with postmodern ideas produces a text that grapples with After the Bomb era tensions as did Waiting for Godot and Dr Strangelove. Exploring opposing social discourses amidst a struggle of humanity exposes the tensions of the post war era, as presented in Plath’s poetry and the 1959 Kitchen Debate.

Deconstruction:

Reflecting the concerns of the post-bomb age, texts reveal the composers quest to challenge and express ways of thinking.

This is a rewording of the ideas I expressed in my introduction and aimed to display throughout the body paragraphs.

Comparing past, conservative paradigms with postmodern ideas produces a text that grapples with After the Bomb era tensions as did Waiting for Godot and Dr Strangelove. Exploring opposing social discourses amidst a struggle of humanity exposes the tensions of the post war era, as presented in Plath’s poetry and the 1959 Kitchen Debate.

As I did in the introduction, I avoided listing the texts and instead tried to name them with a purpose.

So basically…

That was not reading for the faint hearted!

If you take away anything from this, let it be:

1. In a ways of thinking essay, it is ridiculously important that you actually talk about the ways of thinking.

2. Don’t just identify the ways of thinking, flesh them out, add your perspective.

3. This is Extension 1 English – look beyond the conventional literary or structural techniques and dig deeper. Prove to the marker that you know your way through this text and back to front.

4. Play with structure! Don’t be afraid to jump outside the box and play with different types of integration.

5. Don’t list your texts like a shopping list. Please! Give each text a purpose.

What would I change?

As I looked through my own work, I realised that the number one thing that I would change is the way I introduced scholars. It isn’t enough to name them by their first and last name. I should have introduced with, “Jane Smith, a scholar of Cold War literature, claims…” Instead, I just dropped a first and last name in there.

If you want to download my essay in its non-fragmented form, you can do so for free right here.

If you’re on struggle street when it comes to Extension 1 English and you’re looking for a bit of Q&A assistance, head over here!