Here I have a paragraph from the question 'Explore the necessity of change in' the texts. Keep in mind I'm no A+ student. It needed more analysis of the authorial intent and WHY they did things.
Both texts show the necessity of change as a leader to remain relevant. Ransom shows the longing of both leaders for ‘something new and unimaginable’, as a way to break out of the stalemate they have been forced into. Malouf’s choice to introduce Achilles at his lowest ebb, at which his men are looking at him with mistrust and fear, highlights the idea of the necessity of change, as without ‘something new’ he will remain trapped in the cycle of destruction in which he is introduced. This mirroring of the two leaders further shows how each, for the sake of his own humanity, must change and transform to meet the new expectations and needs. In meeting Priam in an unprecedented occasion, Achilles is shown as redeeming himself and finding his humanity again, which he had lost in the grief following the death of Patroclus. Priam’s redemption occurs during the journey to find Achilles, as Somax shows him the importance of the common things, and that they are not merely a part of the ceremony of life, but everything ‘itself’. By meeting Priam and transforming himself in response, Achilles wins back the respect of his men. Priam, on the other hand, has the trust of his people initially, as shown by their lack of argument when he leaves the city with the treasure, despite their uncertainties. Interestingly, his return to his people is not shown, suggesting that to the eyes of the people, at least, nothing would have changed, although Priam himself had. Similarly, The Queen underlines the importance of change, as both the Queen herself and Blair change in response to Diana’s death. The public’s response to the Queen’s silence initially changes little of the Queen’s actions, further fueling the public’s desire for change. Blair, on the other hand, is initially exasperated by the Queen, but throughout the course of ‘that week’ changes his opinion of her and becomes ‘gaga for the Queen’, according to his wife, as he respects her, to the extent of arguing with his advisors, who want change from the monarchy, and the modernity that he promised. The Queen’s eventual change, most clearly shown in the Queen’s Tribute, placates her people, who no longer so strongly wish for a change from the monarchy, as the monarch showed herself willing to change for them. Thus, both texts show the necessity of change as a leader to remain relevant.
~
So how you write a comparative essay is you can look at the question and find CONCEPTUAL similarities/differences between them - make sure it's balanced - not just looking at specific incidents etc. Will add to this later but computer nearly flat.
EDIT: ALSO:
-You need a contention for your overall thingy, but also for each paragraph, kinda
-You need to talk about WHY the AUTHOR/DIRECTOR uses certain things to show to the audience (I've underlined one place I use it)
-Contention shouldn't restate prompt
-Sims/diffs should be about messages/views/values, NOT about story details (which should come in the paragraph, if you know what I mean)
-Plan beforehand a coherent way of showing your evidence and unpacking it, so that you don't have disconnected sections etc.
-Make sure you have balanced ways of doing things - not JUST sims, not JUST diffs
-Embed quotes, obv.
Hope this helps!
Home
Help
Search
Login
