How to tackle any English essay question

--UPDATE-- 
I've made a new site dedicated solely to teaching academic writing! Click here to check it out! Every week you'll find a new tutorial, and every tutorial will be easy to read and easy to learn. I'm also writing an ebook that I'll give away free to anyone who subscribes. I hope the site proves useful!
Sadly, I will probably no longer be updating this site. But the new site is better. In every way. 

In my template for how to write an English essay, I used a rather straight forward essay question, i.e. 'Show how a character in a text presents a main theme'. This is a rather basic essay question, perhaps too basic; and while the structure of an essay may be easy for you, the essay questions you're told to answer might not be. In fact, if you read that last post, you were probably sitting there screaming, "But my essay question has nothing to do with character! And worse, it has nothing to do with theme! GIVE ME WHAT I WANT!"

So I wrote this post as well. It's really long.

Important: main theme, main idea, central idea, author's purpose, and all other such phrases mean the same thing. Feel free to put them into the 'theme' box.

To start, you should know that one of the most important rules for writing an English essay is that you should connect your essay question with a main theme, even if your essay question doesn't contain the words 'main theme'.

Why:

1. The goal in any essay is to show how something in the text conveys something relevant to society.
2. Themes are relevant to society.
3. Use a theme.

Q: What's a theme?
A: A theme is a recurring idea in a text, such as courage, discrimination, or something a little more specific, like kingship vs tyranny. (Hint: if you aren't sure what themes are present in your text, google them.)

In short, no matter your question, always talk about theme (with tight reference to the text) for the sake of making your text relevant. Make sense?

Let's pretend you've been given the following question:

First things first: substitute specific details for the general ones in your essay question.

The tricky part about this question lies in those last two words: 'surprised you'. Ugh.

Don't worry. It's easy. All you have to do is replace those dumb words with the reason that Lennie's death surprised you (even if, in truth, you weren't all that surprised).

Not all reasons are useful. Here are some examples:

GOOD reasons:
1. Lennie's death surprised me because it exposed the predatory nature of mankind.
2. Lennie's death surprised me because it reinforced the punishing nature of life on earth.

BAD reasons:
1. Lennie's death surprised me because it was unexpected.
2. Lennie's death surprised me because he killed Curly's wife by accident, and the others should forgive him.
2. Lennie's death surprised me because he was my favourite character. Sniffle.

There's a very important difference between a good reason and a bad reason. Good reasons, you'll notice, are themes! Bad reasons are not themes, and they trap you into talking about something that nobody cares about. Pick a GOOD reason, and you'll see that the words 'surprised you' have been conveniently substituted for a theme. Magic!

Note: even though the essay question doesn't contain the words 'main theme' or 'main idea' or whatever, that doesn't mean you can't discuss a theme. And if you can discuss a theme (which is always), you should discuss a theme. Why? Because a theme makes your essay, and the text, relevant to society. It answers a sort of "Why does this essay matter?"-type question, which is a very important question to answer.

You might be thinking, "But my teacher said to 'stick to the essay question'. Isn't talking about theme, when 'theme' wasn't specifically mentioned, bad?"

Nope! By talking about theme, you're simply answering the essay question - whatever it is - in the way it was designed to be answered. It's an essay, remember, not a plot summary.

Think about it. If your essay question didn't state the words, "With reference to a text you've studied..." would that mean "don't reference a text you've studied"? Of course not. You'd fail every time - EVERY TIME - if you avoided referencing a text.

"Yeah, all right," you say, "so that question wasn't so bad. But there are worse ones!"
And you're right; there are worse ones. Let's take a look at one of them.

Such a stupid question, right? Who cares? (The person who hands out grades, that's who.)

It's difficult even to substitute stuff; but don't worry, you don't need to. All you have to do is describe a main incident and how that incident shaped future events. Then, explain what that shaping of events meant for the text as a whole (but secretly with reference to a theme).

To do this, it's important to remember why you're writing this essay. You're writing this essay to make a point that readers should care about. In this sense, it's kind of like writing a persuasive speech, or having an argument with your mum. You're right, they're wrong. Prove it.

So, for an essay to work, you need to have something that the marker should care about, and you need to know why they should care about it. In the first essay question (above), the marker isn't going to care that Lennie is your favourite character, but they are going to care that John Steinbeck used Lennie's death to convey a theme. This theme is a much better foundation for your essay, rather than, "Uh, he was my favourite character."

It works the same for the second question. With regards to the shaping of future events, the marker isn't going to care that the death of a mouse led to the death of a man, but they are going to care if John Steinbeck used this death of mouse/man to show something, like, I don't know, a theme.

Look at the question again. It's an annoying question because it doesn't look theme-able. But to make it theme-able, all you need to do is apply that unspoken question I revealed earlier. "Why does it matter?" This is the underlying question that any essay question is and isn't asking you. You need to answer it because it makes your essay relevant to society. I keep saying that.

Anyway, the answer to the question "why does it matter?" is this:
It (the shaping of future events) matters because it presents a theme (or themes). It impacts the text as a whole because it helps the text present the theme. And it's this theme which you can use to relate the text to society.

In other words, what the essay question is really saying is this:

Admittedly, this is a trickier essay question to manage than one of those 'character to theme' or 'setting to theme' or 'relationship to theme' ones. So, below you'll find an essay I prepared earlier (It will help if you've read the book, Of Mice and Men). In it, I chose to a) describe the incident that changed the course of future events first, and then b) explain the themes presented from the impact that this change had on the text as a whole.

Note: This (a) then (b) process is recommended when answering two-part questions such as this one. It's also recommended that you answer the essay question in the order that it's given. Do the describing, then do the explaining. (If your essay question just says 'explain' or 'analyse' or 'discuss', then don't worry about describing anything.)

Here's the essay:

(Unsure about how to structure an English essay? Click here)

At the heart of every essay is a message to society. In other words, you get marks for making the text relevant to today. The easiest way to make a strong case for why your text is relevant to today is through theme. Therefore, theme-ify your essay question. Next, find proof from your text (examples - ideally with quotes and/or techniques). Finally, explain how your proof is evidence of your theme.

© Matthew Ferri 2014 (no plagiarising)

Read More

The be-all rule for using apostrophes

Correct usage of the apostrophe is a lot more straight forward than most people think, despite all the evidence otherwise (see: internet). In fact, one friendly rule can be used to solve every apostrophe crisis, and that rule is:

**Apostrophes are tags**

Seriously. That’s all they are. If you think of apostrophes as tags, you'll never be confused again.

Basically, when you’re tagging (attaching) a word to another word, add an apostrophe. When you aren’t, don’t.

Here’s how it works:

Tagging to indicate possession
Rule: When tagging to indicate possession, put the apostrophe on the end of that word. If there isn't an 's', add one of those, too.

Case 1:
Kirin the Enquirer: “Hi there. So, I have this sentence. It goes, ‘The laptop belongs to Matt.’ I want to attach the word ‘belongs’ to the word ‘Matt’ in order to make them one word.”

Hello, friend, and how very resourceful of you. Sure thing; simply tag the words ‘belongs to’ to the word ‘Matt’ using an apostrophe and adding an ‘s’.

Case 1b:
Kirin: “Sweet rolls. Thanks! What about this one? The food belonging to the cat has gone stale.”

Same thing, partner. Merge’n’tag!

Case 2:
Kirin: “Right, but what if there are two or more cats, and the food belongs to all of them?”

Ah, a tricky question – not! Just go right on ahead and tag’em!

Kirin: “Whoa! You put the apostrophe after the ‘s’. What’s up with that??”

Nothing, squire. It’s the same idea as before. We took the word you wanted to use – cats – and tagged it with an apostrophe on the end of the word. But because 'cats' already has an 's', we didn't need to add one. Here’s a breakdown for you:

Word: Cat (without s)
Tagged form: Cat’s

Word: Cats (with s)
Tagged form: Cats’

Word: People (without s)
Tagged form: People’s

Word: Peoples (with s)
Tagged form: Peoples’


Case 3
Kirin: “Okay, got it, but what about possessive pronouns? Words like its, yours, his, hers. Why don’t they get apostrophes?”

Haven’t you been paying attention? You only add an apostrophe when you want to tag words together. However, possessive pronouns are words on their own. None of them consists of two words being joined together (tagged), so the apostrophe is unneeded.

Think about it. You wouldn’t write, “I think this laptop is your’s” because that expands to: “I think this laptop belongs to your.”
Yours, by itself, has already done the work of combining ‘belongs to’ and ‘you’.

Also, the opposite of yours is mine. If yours had an apostrophe, mine would need an apostrophe as well. Mine’. Min’e. Mine’s. You see my point.

In other words, because possessive pronouns are words on their own and not tagged words, and because they already do the apostrophe’s job by themselves, possessive pronouns don’t need an apostrophe – ever!
(Possessive pronouns include: yours, mine, his, her, theirs, ours, its*, whose*.)

*Examples in which you would use 'its' and 'whose':
"Shae, whose car was written off last week due to its engine disintegrating into dust, is going to the auction today."
"Whose car did you say it was?"
"Shae's; it's the car with its engine missing."

Kirin: “Yeah, yeah, that makes sense. But aren’t there, like, other itses and whoses, which are tags?”

Yes, there certainly are other itses and whoses, which are tags, but they're different. They come under contractions.


Tagging to indicate a contraction
Case 4
A contraction is an informal word that results from meshing two separate words together. An example of a contraction is the word doesn’t. It’s the contracted - and tagged - form of does and not.

Similarly, the word it’s is the tagged form of it and is or it and has. It’s (with the apostrophe) always means either 'it is' or 'it has', as in, “It’s really unfortunate that your car engine disintegrated into dust.”
So, if you put an apostrophe onto its in the *examples above, then you're indicating that the word has been tagged - that it is a combination of two or more words. That sentence will no longer make sense, and it will be in some serious need of proofreading.
Its = possession (belongs to it)
It’s = contraction (it is/it has)

The only other contraction worth noting is the word who’s – the tagged form of 'who is', or 'who has'.
Ask yourself, "Which two words am I tagging?" If the answer is you aren't, then use whose (see the *example above).
Whose = possession (belongs to someone)
Who’s = contraction (who is/who has)

Kirin (drunk): "Choice, thanks! One more thing. Can apostrophes be used to make singular words plu--"

No! Apostrophes cannot be used to make singular words plural. That’s what the letter 's' does. Apostrophes are, however, used to tag - either for possession, or for a contraction. That's all they're used for. That's all they will ever be used for. In other words, when you aren’t tagging, you shouldn’t be apostropheeing.

Read More

Matt defies standardised grammar and teaches a new grammar - part two

If the whole thing about split infinitives wasn't convincing enough that adherence to strict rules can be stupid, here's another:

Which of these sentences is correct?

1. The pack of wolves is hunting the chickens.
2. The pack of wolves are hunting the chickens.

Answer: both. You can decide. The rule is that there is no rule! (But there should be.)

Part two: group nouns are fiddly
What's a group noun?
Words like 'pack' are called group nouns. 'Faculty' is a group noun; 'group' is a group noun. There are thousands of group nouns.

British English tends towards treating group nouns as being plural, and therefore using 'are' in the case above rather than 'is'. Americans favour the opposite. In either dialect, no firm rule has been decided on. While one may be preferred, either is correct.

Personally, I favour logic, and therefore I think that there should be a rule for all cases in which group nouns are used. For the example above, I think Americans have it down pat, but their reasoning (none) is stupid.

Logic begins here.

Like everything in grammar, it's not the exact word choice (is or are) that makes you correct; and it's not really to do with what sounds right, either. Instead, it's what you mean by your word choice - what you're really trying to convey - that determines which word, which rule, you should use. Remember, language is a road, not a destination; so, when you're trying to get somewhere smartly, it's always right to take the smoothest road.

With that said, here is the rule that should exist for the above example:

The phrase 'of wolves' is prepositional; it describes the word 'pack'.
"The pack [of wolves, not potatoes, or fun-size Snickers] is/are hunting the chickens."

Prepositional phrases can be removed without harming the grammatical integrity of the sentence. So, which word would you prefer if we were to remove the prepositional phrase?

"The pack is hunting the chickens," or, "The pack are hunting the chickens?"

An interesting example: "Leonard's family is very big; Leonard's family are very big."
Different meanings entirely, no?

Still unsure about the is/are conundrum? Don't worry; it's less unreasonable than it looks.

Aside from omitting the prepositional phrase 'of wolves', we can also replace the first word of the sentence, 'the', with another, more convenient-for-Matt's-argument, word.

FOR INSTANCE, say we chose to use 'are' rather than 'is'.
"A pack of wolves are hunting the chickens."
"This pack of wolves are hunting the chickens, but that pack are not."
"One pack of wolves are hunting the chickens."

One pack are hunting the chickens.
'One pack are'
ONE, AND ONLY ONE, ARE!

Hmm.

Here's a helpful illustration:

Straight forward, right?

Now, please understand that, while I believe that the 'is' rule applies to this example, it only applies because the intended meaning of the sentence is better conveyed with the word 'is'. The 'is' road is far smoother than the 'are' road for this one.

Now, here are some exceptions that give the 'are' argument, or are-gument, some dignity:

"Leonard's family are real-estate agents," sounds better than, "Leonard's family is real-estate agents."

"The team are conversing amongst themselves," sounds better than, "The team is conversing amongst itself."

But there's a subtle difference between these examples and the one with the wolves. The 'are' works better here because we aren't really talking about the family or the team as a unit; we're talking about the members within the family and the team.

We're really saying: "Leonard's family [members] are real-estate agents," and, "The team [members] are conversing amongst themselves."

So, the rule should be that, when you're talking about members, you should count the number of members to figure out if it's better to use 'is' or 'are', but when you're talking about packs or groups, it's better to count the number of packs or groups instead.

In other words, if you're talking about each wolf within the pack, use 'are', but if you're talking about the pack itself, use 'is'. Therefore, the pack of wolves [regarding the pack itself, as in, "Look at that pack go!"] is hunting the chickens.

Sadly, this isn't the rule. There are no rules. But I guess it doesn't matter too much. After all, we still have common sense, right? I mean, there's no law that says, "Slow down when you see flashing lights ahead," but you'd still be the fool if you didn't.

**********

Part One

Read More

Matt defies standardised grammar and teaches a new grammar - part one

Recently, Al Yankovic (Weird Al) published a song called Word Crimes, which immediately became my favourite song ever, because a) it parodied Robin Thicke's misogynistic Blurred Lines, and b) it promoted good grammar.

Al, in a gesture of poetic irony, took a song that bespoke society's decline in love and respect, turned it on its head and suited it in an armour sturdy enough to take on the almost-as-crucial decline of the English language.

Unfortunately, a meddlesome Third Group of people seemed to notice that Al, in his song, made a grammatical mistake of his own. This group singled out the error over and above all of the critical truths he very humorously conveyed.

What was his error? In one of the last lines, he split an infinitive.

Part One: It's quite all right to split an infinitive

Weird Al's sacrilegious line reads, "Try your best to not drool." Are you cringing yet? Because, according to a rule somewhere, you should be.

What's a split infinitive?
You split an infinitive whenever you slot an adverb between the words 'to' and 'be', or 'to' and 'go', or 'to' and whatever.

The line, "To boldly go where no man has gone before," is a famous example.

What's an adverb?
Adverbs describe verbs or adjectives. 'Run' is a verb; 'run slowly' is a verb plus an adverb. 'Go' is a verb, and 'to go' is also a verb, but it's called an infinitive.

'To boldly go' is a half infinitive, then an adverb, and then another half infinitive. Evidently you're not meant to break infinitives in half (split them).

Personally, I, if at all possible, prefer to soundly reason than to blindly follow.

The commandment that "thou'st an infinitive shall 't be split, else thy head," comes from Latin, from which much of English grammar was derived.

In Latin, splitting an infinitive would render the sentence useless. You couldn't do it and still make sense.

But - and here's where the sound reasoning kicks in - we don't speak Latin.

More sound reasoning:
Language is a road, not a destination, and there's no point having roads if you've got nowhere to drive. It's the meaning that's important, not the density of your silly infinitive. Just look at him! (Above)

My understanding is that language is how we communicate, not what we communicate.

Third Group's counterexample to sound reasoning:
Beyond pretending that English is Latin, in most cases, splitting an infinitive will make your sentence sound awkward. There's normally a better way to write the sentence than to split the infinitive. So, basically, the meaning of your sentence is usually conveyed better with the infinitive left whole.

What this is really saying, though, is that rules exist for a reason. Full stops, for one, separate sentences. Stop signs keep people from crashing. Un-split infinitives, well, they help keep things sounding nice.

The Third Group, however, rant about Weird Al's split infinitive with none of this reasoning in mind. Their argument goes as follows:

"He split an infinitive!"
...
...
...
"Burn him!"
...
...
...

Right. Anyway, in the song in question, Weird Al achieves two important things by splitting an infinitive: humour and rhythm. These things are important because Weird Al is trying to a) be funny, and b) write a song.  Funny things need humour and songs need rhythm. What they don't need are roads with dead ends.

The last three lines of the final chorus, with the emphasised words in bold, read like this:

Go back to pre-school

Get out of the gene pool

Try your best to not drool

A little bit rude, right? That was intentional. The joke wouldn't have been effective had the infinitive not been split and the line read instead, "Try your best not to drool," (preserving the sacred infinitive).

This is because the emphasis on 'not' (rather than 'to') is what communicates the idea that not drooling is an exception to the norm. The only other way that the humour would have remained intact would've been to, I guess, rewrite the entire line and break the rhyme, but that would compromise the rhythm, and in turn the humour... so, actually, no.

Splitting the infinitive made that third line incredibly effective because it achieved exactly what Al had intended.

It should be known: grammar rules work most of the time because, most of the time, following them is the best way to achieve the exact form of communication you intend. For instance, I have followed a heck of a load of grammar rules in writing this blog post.

But the rules do not always help. Take the word 'silence', for example. By itself, 'silence' is just a word; yet, you can find it in many a novel, alone, by itself, acting as an entire sentence. Gasp? Not yet.

The word tells you one thing: that there was silence, but the word being by itself can show you other things, like suspense, tension, fear, and uncertainty. Had the sentence read like a sentence, "There was silence," then the emotions might not have been effectively conveyed.

The emotional value of the sentence is strengthened due to its simplicity (one word); and, if this is what the author intended, then writing "silence" as a sentence was entirely justified.

In saying that, a person should understand a rule before he dares to break it. He should know the rules by heart before he toys with them, otherwise it could very well be his head.

In a way, the Third Group is right. They know that you need a rule book before you can drive, but they're forgetting that no one drives without first having somewhere to go. And for that, you need a brain, too.

Read More

How to write an English essay

--UPDATE-- 
I've made a new site dedicated solely to teaching academic writing! Click here to check it out! Every week you'll find a new tutorial, and every tutorial will be easy to read and easy to learn. I'm also writing an ebook that I'll give away free to anyone who subscribes. I hope the site proves useful!
Sadly, I will probably no longer be updating this site. But the new site is better. In every way.

Recently, a friend asked me if I have a template I give to the students I tutor that breaks down essay writing into basic steps. The answer was yes and no. Every student is different; and while I do have a method that I teach them, I also adapt it to the given need of each particular student. What I didn't have was a template that students (and anyone else) could use to teach themselves. After four years, it was about time that I did.

The following template is structured to help high school students understand the steps and processes required to write a logically-structured English essay. If I had to be more specific, I'd say the following guidelines and examples are suited to a Year 12 or Year 13 student preparing for their English exam, though many of the principles apply to any literary or academic essay.

Some fundamental rules for any Literary Essay:

1. A basic Essay consists of an Introduction, three Body Paragraphs, and a Conclusion.
2. Since your Essay seeks to answer a question, every Body Paragraph must answer this question, but each body paragraph discusses a different topic to each other paragraph; it answers the essay question differently. Why? Because answering a question three times rather than once is like surveying a thousand people rather than a hundred. It's more credible.
3. The Body Paragraph structure goes like this: Statement, Example, Explanation, Relevance. Why? Because any logical argument uses this structure, and your Essay is more or less a set of three logical arguments.
4. It's about a million times better if you plan your Paragraph Topics and Examples ahead of writing your Essay.

Essay Structure

(If you already know the structure, but aren't sure how to answer your particular essay question, then click here)

Your Essay essentially consists of three different Sandwiches inside a fourth, all-consuming Burger Bun. Body Paragraph 1 is a Tuna Sandwich; Body Paragraph 2 is a Steak Sandwich; and Body Paragraph 3 is a Ham Sandwich. Holding these Sandwiches together are your Introduction (bottom half of burger bun) and Conclusion (top half of burger bun).

In other words, an Essay is a giant Sandwich Burger, and the best Essays make for the sandwich-iest of Sandwich Burgers.

Essay Topic

When choosing your Essay Topic, pick the topic that you know the most about. For instance, I chose this one.

Discuss how the influence of a character in a film you have studied helped to convey a main idea.

Now, before you do anything else, substitute specific terms for the general terms given in your Essay Topic. It makes it easier for you when you come to writing your Introduction.

Note that 'main idea', 'author's purpose', 'central idea', and other such phrases all mean the same thing as the word 'theme'.

Common question: "The essay topic didn't mention film techniques. Does this mean I can ignore them altogether?"
Answer: No! You might pass without a mention of film techniques, just as you might pass without using any quotes. To get a high mark, however, you will want to write as rich a discussion as possible, which means lots of quotes and lots of techniques!

The Introduction

Your Introduction is called an Introduction for a reason: it introduces the content for the rest of your Essay. In burger terms, it prepares the bottom of the burger bun for the three Sandwiches that you're about to assemble on top of it.

An Introduction must contain the following information: The title of your text; the name of the author/director; the main idea (theme) you've chosen; the three topics you're going to discuss that prove (or justify) your main idea; and why the reader should care.

So, for your Introduction, here is the information you might use:

Title: Equip Your Comma or Die

Director: Conifer Miteroot

Theme: Good grammar prevents chaos

Paragraph topics: 1) Anna's introduction; 2) teenagers' change in perspective; 3) Anna's death.
Message for society: Preservation of language

Assuming that this film actually existed, here's an introduction that you might write based on the above information:

Tips for your Introduction: 

1. If you don't know how to start your Intro, begin with the phrase 'In so and so's text...' and, from there, turn your Essay topic into a declarative sentence, as above.
2. Never use the phrase 'In this essay...'. It's as tacky as a novel beginning with the words 'Once upon a time...'.
3. Don't consider the length of your Intro; it has nothing to do with anything. Instead, focus on the information that your Intro is supposed to provide. As soon as you've covered everything, move on to your Body.
4. Each Sandwich must be its own flavour; every paragraph topic must be different.
5. The message to society part of your Intro simply means stating what the overall message is to us as viewers.

Congratulations! You've now completed the bottom half of your burger bun.

The Body 

The body consists of your three Sandwiches. Each Sandwich must be compiled with the right ingredients for its desired flavour (topic), and these ingredients must also be compiled in the correct order. In case you've forgotten the order, it goes as follows:

Statement - A declarative sentence, or a bold claim that has yet to be proven. (For instance, the first sentence of my Introduction is a Statement.)

Example - Briefly describe the part of a scene from the text that you believe provides proof for your Statement.

Explanation - Explain your Example to show how it connects with your Statement.

Relevance - Show how your proven Statement is evidence of the main idea (theme).

For some people, it's easier to pretend you're answering four questions:

Statement - What is one scene from the text in which the theme was shown?

Example - Where's the proof?

Explanation - What's your point?

Relevance - What has your point got to do with the theme?

Don't move on until you've answered all four questions!

Tips for building your Sandwich (Body Paragraph):

1. Always start with a Statement and always end with your Relevance.
2. In between your Statement and your Relevance, you may have as many Examples and Explanations as you like, so long as you never leave an Example unexplained.

Here's a Body Paragraph you might write for the first Paragraph Topic:

Quotes and Techniques
The use of quotes is expected from you for any English essay, and the use of film techniques is expected from you for any English film essay. Why? Because the theme is always shown through the use of techniques. Anna Postrophe's character introduced order within chaos not because I said so, but because the arguing stopped upon her arrival. This shift in mood was supported through her orderly clothes (costume), the light from the street sign (lighting) and her cane (props). If you point out these details and then explain how they support the theme, you'll get lots of points!

Treat your Examples and Explanations as meat for your Sandwich, and treat quotes and techniques like sauces. Sauces add flavour to the meat you've already added; they show finesse in the art of Sandwichery. But never try to use quotes or techniques to make your points for you. You must have meat in order to add sauce!

Assemble two more Sandwiches, and then you'll be up to...

The Conclusion
My personal formula below makes Conclusions as basic as your Introduction.

Rephrase Intro - Restate the first part of your Intro in different words.
Summarise Body - Write a brief summary of your three Body Paragraph points.
Reflect - State what we as viewers can learn from the film.

Here's an example.

And that's the top of the burger bun!

Conclusion tips:

1. If you're finding it hard to rephrase your Introduction, simply start the sentence with a different word. In the Intro I began with the word "in", while in the conclusion I began with the author's name.
2. The summary in the Conclusion is a rephrased version of the summary in the Intro.
3. The Reflect section is entirely made up. End how you like, so long as it follows from what you've already discussed. This section is also a rephrased and fluffier version of the 'relation to society' sentence that you wrote in your Introduction.

More tips:

1. For the Intro and Conclusion, never write anything you'll have to explain. Remember, the Examples and Explanations form the meat for your Sandwiches, and your Sandwiches form your Body.
2. The content for your Introduction and your Conclusion is based on what you write in your Body. For this reason, many students find it easier to write their Body first before writing their Introduction and Conclusion.
3. Never repeat yourself.
4. The Essay structure above applies to any literary essay, not just film. The only differences are the techniques.
5. For higher marks, strain your vocabulary, apply accurate grammar and punctuation, and vary the structure of your sentences.

How to answer any English essay question

Copyright Matthew Ferri 2014

Read More

The difference between 'a' and 'an'

A lot of us get to thinking that there exists this arbitrary rule within the English language that enforces people to say 'an' when the word following it begins with a vowel.

For instance, we say, "An artichoke" and, "An umbrella", but the gurus of language didn't intend us to do so simply because "we have to use 'an' when the next word starts with a vowel." That would be like saying, "The sun sets because it's night time."

The real reason the 'n' was added was because it can break the flow of a sentence when two vowel or consonant sounds are spoken without something to break them up. It has nothing to do with the letter itself, only the sound it makes within that word.

In most cases, we get it right.

Example 1a: "Next year, I'm going to make an Easter egg out of vegetables because I'm a rebel."

Example 1b: "Will it be a teeny tiny Easter egg, or a massive, fatty Easter egg comparable to the size of a fully grown elephant?"

However, because this rule has nothing to do with the consonant or the vowel itself, there are exceptions. When people misunderstand the rule, they are unable to adapt to these exceptions, and they begin to sound silly.

Example 1c (incorrect): " 'Fatty' was an euphemism, but I wouldn't mind trying a small Easter egg made out of vegetables."

Why is it wrong? Because it sounds silly.

Example 1c' (correct): " 'Fatty' was a euphemism. Having said that, anyone who dares to eat an Easter egg made out of vegetables will be shot and killed."

The word 'euphemism' begins with a consonant sound (you), not a vowel sound. Therefore, use 'a'. The rule was invented to make the flow of words easier, not harder, and that is entirely dependent on how the words sound. Make sense? Moving on.

Example 2: "Janet Bunnyhop's autobiography, Chocolate Heaven, Vegetable Hell, portrays the significance of Easter in an historical setting."

A teacher in high school taught me to write 'an' in a phrase such as the one above because the emphasis on the word 'historical' is placed on the second syllable - that is, historical - which is a vowel sound, and because the first letter - h - is almost silent. In other words, you will only have a case like this when the word begins with an 'h' and the emphasis of the word is placed on the second syllable. You wouldn't say, "I'm quite an happy man."

For a long while I thought it was a stupid exception, because 'a' carries the sentence just as well as 'an' does. So I did some research, and guess what? It doesn't even matter! You can ignore the rule in this case and do whatever you like. Perhaps your accent might dictate which word improves the outpouring of your speech, but feel free to decide which one you prefer.

Remember, it's the sound of the phrase that determines whether 'a' or 'an' is more appropriate. Something to note is that, because most people, such as the man at your next job interview, don't realise that the rule is based on the sound, they'll see 'an historical' (and other such phrases) and think it's wrong. Best to stick with 'a historical', at least in print.

Read More

Simplifying English

Speaking. Using words. Putting. Sentences. Together. It's all so very irksome and tedious, isn't it? We try to lighten the load ourselves - refusing to correctly align subjects and predicates; replacing ‘have’ with ‘of’ (this particular point deserves a post of its own); shortening extensively long words like 'probably' into 'prob', 'sorry' into 'soz', and 'totally' into… you get the idea. But our  noble efforts do little to ease the pain. They barely manage to make our insurmountable loads any less insurmountable. The burden of having to talk incessantly hammers on our weary souls.

The problem is this: we're social creatures; it’s in our nature to keep trying - for the future of mankind or something. But our current methods to suppress our survival requirements are hardly sufficient. Honestly, if you’re going to screw up the English language, then commit, I say. Make it count! Yes, yes, you think I’m all talk; but please, let me finish! My wisdom comes in the form of both critique and gifts: remedies and painkillers for even the most encumbered of language victims. And if you wish to see the light of day again, to experience freedom – not words – emanating from your lips, and to distinguish the beauty and magic of life from the yoke of slavery (known as language), then it is in your best interests to accept my metaphorical wares. They’re free, after all. Allow me to explain.

1. Double or Triple Contractions

In informal circumstances, we like to condense two words into one. I’m doing it right now, even. But this solution doesn’t last. Sooner or later we’re mumbling like a crazy person, or fish, wide-eyed for no other reason than because a fish has no eyelids. It’s only logical that contracted words simply aren’t contracted enough. So instead of merging two words into one, try three, four, or six!

“You shouldn’t’ve scared the cat!”

“Was it scared, or just startled?”

“Well, in any case, ’twould’nt’ve’(nt)² been either if you’dn’t been so careless!”

“Touche, father. Touche.”

2. Verb Nouns!

That’s a command, not a new type of noun - though it may as well be. Like contracting words, we also do this from time to time. Sometimes consciously: "I have not tried googling this blog," or "I really like Matt’s advice. I’ll Facebook a link to it." And other times more naturally: "I’ve been reading Matt’s blog for far too long, and my house still needs painting. Meh, I’ll text Bobette to do it." But there are so many more situations where nouns can verb – like that one there for instance.

See how much more better language can be? Experiment freely with verbs and nouns. Verb away, I say! In no time the two will be one and the same.

3. Advocate non-existent past tense verbs

This one’s easy. Unfortunately it’s also the least productive method by which to, of course, shed some of that lifelong burden we call coherent speaking. But beggars can’t be choosers, am I right? Anyway, this final solution involves taking past tense verbs that aren’t verbs but should be, and using them excessively.

“As I clumb the mountain, I stopped to eat my microwove steak pie. It was raining, but it’s not as if I mound. What I did mind were the bits of fat, which adhore to my horrendous beard. If only I’d shove this morning.”

By way of these amazing non-verbs becoming verbs, we can do away with entire letters and syllables! English is wreck—err, our lives can finally flourish!

These are trying times, my friends. We have to stick together; and to do that, communication is key. Fish can’t survive on land, yet it’s this treacherous terrain upon which we’re cursed to dwell. Language may totes be a means to an end, but your lives are priceless. So please, take my advice, and live.

Read More