Essay-Writing WorkshopsTrinity Term 2017

Nicola Thomasnicola.thomas@st-hildas.ox.ac.uk

This pack is designed to help you further understand and practise the skills of essay-writing, which are tested in Paper IV at Prelims and are also essential for your entire university career. It attempts to answer some of these questions:

1. What is an essay for?2. How are essays marked? 3. What does a good essay look like?4. What should I avoid doing in an essay?5. How should I structure my essay?6. How should I use secondary literature in my essay?7. What should I write in my introduction and conclusion?8. How should I tackle the comparative essay?9. Where can I find more information?

Are there other questions about essay-writing you would like answered?

1. What is an essay for?

Commenters often point to the etymology of the word ‘essay’ as meaning ‘attempt, try’ – but you may not necessarily find this helpful. An essay can be used in different ways in different contexts: the only features most people agree on is that it is (a) fairly short; (b) non-fiction; and (c) has some form of point or argument to make.

A better question, perhaps, is to examine what kind of essay you are being asked to write in your exam and why.

List some of the features of the prelims exam essay before you turn over the page.

What differentiates it from other types of essay you may have written before (tutorial essays, school coursework essays, journalistic essays, personal essays, academic articles) and so on?

The prelims exam essay…

is fairly short. is written under time pressure and in exam conditions. answers a specific, set question. deals with specific set texts (albeit combined in ways which enable you a

degree of personal freedom). should make a clear argument. should be grounded in close reading of textual detail. needs to show a full understanding of the text(s). needs to show a good understanding of context.

It’s different from tutorial essays in various ways:

it’s far shorter and written under greater pressure. there’s no time to construct an elaborate argument. you won’t be able to consult the text. you won’t be able to consult any works of secondary literature. the question you are answering will be less focused on specific texts.

You should remember:

an exam essay needs to be brisk and efficient: it’s a kind of distillation of a tutorial essay.

You should aim to show off the quality of your ideas and your skill in explaining them, and linking them to both text and context.

In the commentary-writing pack, I offered you the full text of what the Prelims Handbook has to say about commentaries (352 words). Here’s what is says about essays:

“You will be encouraged to develop your own ideas and construct a coherent argument in essays[.]

2. How are essays marked?

Elsewhere, examiners note that “An essay which shows knowledge of the text(s), but does not address the question will attract a low mark and in extreme cases a fail mark.”

Examiner’s reports

As usual, the examiners’ reports are instructive in communicating what examiners do and don’t like. Here are some extracts from 2016’s

“the best responses were conscious of the nature of dramatic texts as visual texts for performing and developed careful formal analyses of individual scenes, while – in a second step – introducing symbolic connotations of movement, speech, and visual information that produced interpretative arguments. This was also true of the two other questions on drama in section A, with the formal observations invited in question 3 proving most convincing where candidates argued for a link with arguments pertaining to questions of literary and aesthetic development in the period. Brecht attracted some of the weakest performances in these three questions, with only a few scripts showing understanding of Brecht’s dramatic model or the political function of this. Indeed overall, this text seems to be the one with which students are least comfortable and it is all too often read as being a piece of political doctrine to be didactically swallowed, rather than dealing with the text as a complex, aesthetic object in its own right. (2016)

The best answers were clearly structured, well written and showed good knowledge of texts and contexts, while weaker scripts reconstructed themes and plots rather than engaging critically with the wording and aims of the questions. One general observation that holds true across answers on both prose and drama is that texts are quite often discussed perceptively in isolation but that the ability to develop comparative or contrasting arguments linking two or more texts seems overall to be lacking. This produces answers that show deep knowledge of texts, but this does not translate into a broader argument that shows an ability to contextualize individual texts using the frames of reference offered by the question. Instead candidates seemed to often resort simply to using a form of contextual shorthand, namedropping movements like Realism, Naturalism, Expressionism, Neue Sachlichkeit etc. rather nebulously, and sometimes incorrectly, in the place of proper argument or detailed discussion. Other common issues were using half-remembered ideas from lectures or 24 tutorials without linking them sufficiently to the question at hand, and indeed weaker scripts often tried to shoehorn such information into answers at all costs, often at the expense of the terms of the question. Overall there was an impressive knowledge of the individual texts and their contexts and there was a good level of close attention to detail, but there were the usual errors and misreadings, including character names, plot features, and sometimes even the titles of the plays. There was still some indiscriminate use of quotation, with candidates dropping quotes into texts seemingly just for the sake of it. While carefully chosen and correctly remembered quotes can aid an argument greatly, when these are incorrect, only partial (i.e. individual words), or sometimes completely irrelevant to the argument, this makes very little sense. Finally, while it may seem like a small formal point, only very few candidates actually marked the titles of the works clearly, either through underlining them or by using quotation marks, a standard academic practice that should be observed.” (2016)

“The best answers were clearly structured, well written, and displayed a nuanced understanding of both texts and contexts. Weaker scripts tended to take the titles as an invitation to illustrate a contention, rather than engage with it. In the good-but-not-first-class band, texts were often very perceptively discussed in isolation, but this either did not translate into a true comparison/contrast, or the comparison/contrast was not put into the service of an argument. 25 Characteristic of this is that Q 3, asking in what ways and to what effect the plays engage or disengage the sympathy of the audience, was very often only answered in response to the ‘in what ways’ portion of the question. Even in the weakest scripts, there was evidence of good textual knowledge (though not always good understanding), but the answers suffered from failing to address the question, from being insufficiently supported with close reading, and from a lack of awareness of the formal aspects of the prose texts or of the theatrical qualities of the plays on stage.” (2015)

“Two issues could usefully be addressed in future. First, while the majority of written responses showed a pleasing response to the prose works and plays, candidates should be sure to remember that the texts are just that: literature written and published, read and received. Too many candidates discussed the characters as though they were historical figures and the situations as though they had really happened and been recorded for posterity. A consideration of the literary form and techniques used would have significantly improved several scripts. Second, references to the works’ context (e.g. the status of women, the ‘Ehrenkultus’, European fascism) were almost always overly general and superficial, and sometimes incorrect. This was particularly problematic in essays which addressed whether historical context matters (Q8). It is to be hoped that the work done for Paper I might make its way more productively into Paper IV. (2016)

You can find more of these at https://weblearn.ox.ac.uk/x/J7YJ28.

On the next page, try to break the mark scheme outlined above down into more detailed ‘grade descriptors’ for the appropriate categories.

Coherence of argument

Strength of conclusions

Knowledge of text References to background and

context

Clarity of writing

Other

High Distinction (85-100)

LucidSome sense of style

Excellent awareness of form.

Accurate and well-presented

Low Distinction (70-84)

Sticks to question.

Coherent argument.

Clear, well-defended

Good, detailed knowledge

Good, detailed knowledge

High Pass (55-69) May suffer from lack of focus or organisation.

Addresses title.

Good understanding.

Sound knowledge.

Good understandingSensible references to contexts

Low Pass (40-54) Name-dropping contexts/movements

Fail (0-39) Only superficially addresses the question.

No reference to context/movements

No awareness of form; treats text as historical document.Inaccuracies,Misspellings.

3. What does a good essay look like?

I hope this is beginning to become clear, although it’s somewhat difficult to generalise: every question demands a different answer and the best essays are those which make a coherent, persuasive and interesting argument in response to the question at hand – which means that a good essay in response to one question can be a weak response to another.

In my experience, most of the time an examiner will be expecting (and hoping) to put your essay into the ‘low pass’/2:2 category or the ‘high pass’/2:1 category.

When it comes to differentiating between the high and low pass categories, examiners will consider:

- How convincing your argument is – can you persuade your reader that what you say is a good, useful way of looking at the text(s) in question?

- Whether you overlook key aspects of the text or ‘flatten out’ meanings by making sweeping generalisations.

- Whether you mention details from the text which a casual reader might have overlooked.

- How well you seem to understand the context in which the text was written.

A distinction essay does all that a high pass essay does, confidently and clearly, and in the service of an interesting (rather than merely convincing) argument.

Thinking about the best essay you’ve written in a collection – what did you do well that you can learn from in the future?

Have a look at the sample essays I’ve given you in pairs.

Try to mark them against the marking grid you created above.

Think about the following questions:

- How would you summarise the overall shape of the argument, if there is one?

- Which details of the text(s) do they include, and which do they overlook?

- Do they discuss form in detail?- How well written are they?

Then decide how you would allocate them to a band and, if you like, even a grade. We’ll try to work out which is the best commentary.

A Comments:

Grade:B Comments:

Grade:C Comments:

Grade:

4. What should I avoid doing in an essay?

See above for the distinction between ‘high’ and ‘low’ pass essays, which give some advice about what to avoid. Relatively few essays are marked in the ‘fail’ category, and then only when they display clear weaknesses, for example:

- Inaccuracy, misreadings and carelessness – showing that they haven’t understood the text properly.

o Although you won’t be failed for misspellings, they don’t create the best impression!

- Serious and obvious weaknesses in argument – e.g. talking about the psychology of individual characters in Brecht, or Modernism in Fontane.

- Failure to address the question - Being extremely short or infringement of the rubric (this is probably the

most common reason for a fail grade being awarded – so take care with exam technique).

Spelling errors – use this space to write down words you commonly misspell.

InnstettenLehrstückVon morgens bis mitternachtsIm Westen nichts neuesFontaneEffi Briest...

Think about the exam essay on which you achieved your lowest score. What went wrong and why?

5. How should I structure my essay? What should I write in my introduction and conclusion?

There are as many different structures as there are essay questions. Bear in mind that you have only one hour per essay to plan, write and check your answer, which allows only around 10 minutes for planning, 45 for writing and 5 for checking.

Keep the structure of your essay extremely simple and to the point, and try to cover as much ground as you convincingly can. Point-evidence-explanation-conclusion may be helpful, but it may also be too long winded for this type of exam situation.

It can be useful to start with a hypothesis which you then go on to disprove. Another productive approach can be to spend a paragraph defining the terms in the question before exploring their significance in more detail.

It is crucial that your argument has stages which build on one another. Practice summing up the argument in one short sentence, or writing it as part of your plan. If you feel that the paragraphs could fall in any order, that’s a sign that your essay may be lacking overall direction.

If there is a quote in the question, engage with it! Look at the words used and assess their importance.

Introductions and conclusions:

Keep the introduction extremely brief. There’s no need to offer contextualising dates, give the author’s name, mention any literary movements, etc.

Set out your basic argument in the introduction and say which text (s) you’ll be discussing (but not, for example, in what order or why)

Use your conclusion to conduct that final flourish – what was all this for? What can we say now that we couldn’t say at the start?

If the answer is ‘nothing’ – again, this could be a sign that your argument is weak or has misfired.

Essay planning

You will probably have your own approach to planning essays by this stage, but I like to plan the stages of my argument in full or part sentences, and note which evidence I intend to use where. An example – planned authentically in <10 minutes and thus containing both gaps and abbreviations.

Q. Does historical context matter? Discuss with reference to ANY of the prescribed texts

Overall argument – of course it matters, but it’s not the be-all and end all, and can be misleading – this is especially true in IWNN which might be mistaken for a historical document

Intro: Hist. context important – context of IWNN’s production and subsequent story (Remarque’s sister). Narrator = Bäumer? (mention home leave scene with bookcase). However, mistake to read text only in this way – it has wider significance.

P1: Why we might be tempted to read text in this way – simple language, imagery, proximity to experience (use example of ..?)

P2: Why we can’t read the text in this way pt 1 – narrative as constructed/crafted (Säugkraft der Front – set of oppositions, lyrical description)

P3: Why we can’t read the text in this way pt 2 – final scene – Paul’s death (obvious reasons)

P4: How we might read it instead – in its literary context – between Realism (‘authentic’ voice?) and Modernism (‘subjective’ experience). As a literary engagement with ideas of Pacifism/anti-war more broadly (i.e. not just WW2 – mention epigram)

Conclusion: literature can balance conflicting arguments/experiences (e.g. pro-/anti-war) without having to ‘pick a side’ – reducing Remarque’s novel to hist. doc. of his experiences in war overlooks (a) that these are unknowable and (b) what transforming them into literary lang./form does to them.

Plan an answer to one of the following questions, using single texts in your answer.

Does historical context matter? Discuss with reference to ANY of the prescribed texts (NB: except IWNN)

‘Women are victims, men are perpetrators’. Discuss with reference to ANY of the prescribed texts.

With reference to ONE OR MORE of the prescribed prose texts, discuss the view that we have to read against, rather than with, the narrator.

6. How should I tackle the comparative essay?

As above, this will depend on the essay question: there are no absolute answers.

Examiners’ reports

The examiners have, in recent years, noted that not all candidates are very good at comparing different texts:

“One general observation that holds true across answers on both prose and drama is that texts are quite often discussed perceptively in isolation but that the ability to develop comparative or contrasting arguments linking two or more texts seems overall to be lacking.”

“In the good-but-not-first-class band, texts were often very perceptively discussed in isolation, but this either did not translate into a true comparison/contrast, or the comparison/contrast was not put into the service of an argument.”

You should try to see the idea of comparison as a challenge, and an opportunity to bring texts together in an unusual way. This is, of course, something you can think about before going into the exam itself.

All the texts can be compared with each other in some way or other – they have been carefully chosen to crystallise around certain themes, ideas and formal concerns. Try to put text together in unusual pairings and see what results: what links Kafka and Wedekind? Is it the idea of the grotesque (especially sexually) and a sense of the pressures of modernity? On the other hand, how are they dissimilar? Kafka’s text is rather later than Wedekind’s, and deals with the existence of a modernity that might only be emerging in Wedekind; one is prose and one is drama, and so their formal devices for handling this differ considerably; Wedekind’s engagement with sexuality is quite overt, whereas Kafka’s is more latent; Kafka is generally thought of as a Modernist, whereas Wedekind occupies a more ambiguous position.

This type of construction – which starts with observations of similarity and then highlights some areas of difference – can also be an effective approach to comparative essay writing. Or in reverse – start by making the texts sound completely different, and then (cleverly) show that they have more in common than one might initially anticipate.

Make sure that your comparison also serves the goal of answering the question.

Pick a pair of texts at random which might seem difficult to compare (some ideas: Mann and Schnitzler; Fontane and Wedekind; Wedekind and Remarque; Kaiser and Fontane; Schnitzler and Remarque; Kafka and Remarque; Brecht and Fontane;). Consider what they have in common and how they differ.

Now use your ideas to plan an answer to one of the questions in section 5, above.

7. How should I use secondary literature in my essay? How should I use quotes from the text in my essay?

In both cases, sparing and judicious use is key. You should memorise key quotes, both from the source text and the secondary literature. How many you chose is up to you; of course, you should aim to select quotations which illustrate various different points and can thus be used in a variety of different situations.

You are not expected to:

quote at length memorise whole passages know all of the secondary literature in detail back up every point with a direct quote

You are expected to: know the text in a good level of detail support your arguments with references to the text, including

less obvious scenes and sections show understanding of critical contexts

Single-word quotes from the text can be helpful if they illustrate a point, but not simply for the sake of replacing a perfectly good English word. The examiners are unimpressed by bad grammar or the pointless use of fragments: make sure you integrate your quote into the sentence in a grammatically coherent way.

It is possible to refer in detail to the text (via paraphrase) without quoting it directly: e.g. ‘Effi’s mother tells her she looks pretty as she is and does not need to change’. It’s also possible to refer to a passage in general terms (‘When Innstetten discusses the duel with Wüllersdorf…’) as supporting evidence for a point, without quoting directly.

Formulations such as ‘critics argue’, ‘a critic has suggested’ are helpful in a pinch (to avoid accusations of plagiarism, which are, in any case, vanishingly rare in exam situations – we understand that you are under pressure) but it is far, far better if you can name the critic by his/her last name.

A salient quote (either from the primary or a secondary text) can make a very impressive opening or concluding line in an exam answer, and can even help you structure a response if you use it as a kind of hypothesis for the text at large.

8. Where can I find more information?

By far the best source of information about how to approach the exam essay at Prelims is the examiners’ reports at https://weblearn.ox.ac.uk/x/J7YJ28. Read them carefully, as far back as you can, and take note of the patterns which emerge.

There is also some useful information produced by the University of Manchester here http://www.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/studyskills/assessment_evaluation/assessment/in_exam.html and by the University of Exeter here https://www.essex.ac.uk/sociology/documents/essays-in-exams.pdf, although read carefully to ensure the material on each page is relevant.

The majority of general ‘essay writing’ guides and books are unlikely to be helpful at this stage, since the conditions are rather different to coursework/tutorial essays and there is limited time. However, for future reference, if you struggle to formulate essay arguments, you may wish to look at some of the following books in the college library.

Derek Soles, The academic essay: how to plan, draft, write and revise (2005)

Peter Levin, Write great essays!: reading and essay writing for undergraduates and taught postgraduates (2004)