The core of the feedback our class has discussed on improving our English practice essays is to find a sort of golden mean between various extremes; for instance, minding our word-count, we need to strike a balance between having enough points to provide a lengthy and varied essay, analysing a range of aspects of the question, and having few enough points to fully explore and deeply analyse, without including an excessive amount of bare-bones points. Additionally, whilst including external, well-researched sources supporting your argument or offering a different perspective on your essay question can be a great asset, it is also beneficial to improving the depth of your essay to question and deeper explore the sources; are there any parts of the work that they neglect to mention? Do you agree or disagree, and why? This running theme of finding a “golden mean” between the various extremes of essay-writing is one that I need to get to terms with, seeing as there are many aspects that need to be perfectly balanced to deliver an appropriately balanced essay (e.g giving adequate context for the work you are exploring whilst not drowning the reader in obsolete or excessive information that is irrelevant to the text).
Personally speaking, what I need to work most on is to focus on a greater degree of three-dimensionality within my essay; I did not include adequate foreground (background information) on Burgess, the author of the work, in my introduction, and, additionally, I did not continue to cite the author throughout the text, not “grounding” it by constantly looping it back to the author and the question. Additionally, I should have focused more on the “time and space” aspect of Nadsat as an argot; why did Burgess create it, but also how did he create it, and in what context did it exist. Doing so would show a greater degree of understanding and confidence in the text. Additionally, whilst I did cite a secondary source (an analysis), I should have explored it or questioned it further, instead of using it as a support for my preexisting argument.