<p>I was wondering whats the best way to organize an effective essay when writing a commentary on a passage? Can you guys give me an insight on what you think is best? For example First is thesis second paragraph is plot of the passage.</p>
<p>Pick out one sentence, or a phrase, or an image, and analyze its significance in relation to the whole text. Be methodical - tell a story - use examples. Why is it there? What is the author trying to say? What’s the point?</p>
<p>The OP’s use of the words “commentary on a passage” is making me think of the IB English Paper 1, tomorrow for me. In that case, either a well-thought out discussion or a more organized, five paragraph essay will do. As long as good analysis and literary techniques are covered, it’ll be fine.</p>
<p>If I’m wrong about the IB assumption, well…that’s why I only got waitlisted to Harvard. And I’ve been studying for IB exams way too much.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say I’m a Harvard genius, but I would say there’s no definite, “best way” to structure an essay. People stick to typical essay formats like most people do with math formulas. Easier and more comfortable. But writers can break out of the traditional format creatively as long as they’re coherent.</p>
<ol>
<li>bring up an interesting point other people can’t believe they didn’t notice</li>
<li>bs your way through a couple pages with big words</li>
<li>???</li>
<li>profit!</li>
</ol>
<p>^haha, bingo.</p>
<p>The best way to BS a fluffy essay like “passage commentary” is to redirect the focus of the essay from content to semantics. Take a counterintuitive position, and define the terms so that in your artificially narrow interpretation of the passage, your position is definitely true. </p>
<p>For example, if I were to analyze Uncle Tom’s Cabin, I would argue the position that Uncle Tom was actually “resisting” slavery by defining the term “resistance” as including passive submission. You could legitimately argue that Uncle Tom was inherently “resisting” simply through his existence (acting as a foil for the immorality of slavery). </p>
<p>So what you’re basically doing is you’re taking a counterintuitive argument that wouldn’t work in a broad sense and limiting its scope so it’s bulletproof. You’re basically encasing a narrow argument in a semantic shell. From my experience, this works because what the grader thinks is “Oh hey, this is a very unique argument I haven’t really heard before” and “I can’t find anything that is overtly contradictory or incorrect.”</p>
<p>Structure: Thesis, Textual Analysis, Conclusion. Organize your analysis into logical thematic groupings</p>