KEY ESSAY WRITING SKILLS
Analysing language, form and structure (part 3)
how to be precise but concise
This is part 3 of our 4-part series on how to analyse the language, form and structure methods that writers use. As with the previous guides in the series, we will use the term ‘methods’ to refer to all the different methods that writers use, be they language, form or structure methods. This guide will explain one of the key aspects of mastering this skill - being concise and precise. It will also provide a list of the general effects that different methods tend to have. There is a quiz at the end that you can use to test yourself on the first 3 guides to this skill.
Contents of this guide
There is one further guide in the series, which is an advanced version of the skill for GCSE students — you can ignore this if you’re not yet a GCSE student.
Quick links for this skill
Other guides in the series
Part 1 - The basics of methods analysis
Part 2 - Where to include it and what methods to choose
Part 4 - Creating a quotation explosion
[GCSE only]
How to be precise and concise - clarity vs. waffle
Once you get your head around the idea of methods analysis and the idea of being clear, the next problem you face is how to be precise but also concise. This means explaining clearly what the effect of a method is and how it creates that effect (being precise) while avoiding being waffly and stating the obvious when you try to explain the ‘how’ part (being concise). This can be a tricky balance to strike, but it’s an important one if you want to really master this skill.
Let’s look at some examples to make this clearer.
The first example is some precise but waffly (e.g. not concise) analysis of the novel Purple Hibiscus (part of the Year 9 curriculum) in which domestic violence features. In this part of the novel, the narrator’s father (Papa) has beaten the narrator’s mother (Mama) unconscious and is carrying her out to the car to take her to the hospital. In the novel, the writer describes how Mama is “slung” over Papa’s shoulder. Here is the analysis of that verb:
The writer uses the verb ‘slung’ to show how weak Mama was. It displays how powerless and drained the state Mama was in while she was ‘slung’ over Papa’s shoulder. The author uses this specific verb to articulate how powerless Mama was, in comparison to Papa. The word ‘slung’ creates a weak and limp image which was the perfect way to describe Mama’s condition. It also shows how uncaring Papa was of her; instead of gently carrying Mama he had ‘slung’ her over his shoulder like an object. This further dehumanises her.
The basic content of this analysis is sound – this is the meaning that the verb conveys. In that sense it is good analysis. However, it is full of waffle. There are several different, worthwhile ideas here that should feature in the analysis, but we don’t need nearly as many words as this. Here is the waffly analysis again with the key ideas we want to keep in bold:
The writer uses the verb ‘slung’ to show how weak Mama was. It displays how powerless and drained the state Mama was in while she was ‘slung’ over Papa’s shoulder. The author uses this specific verb to articulate how powerless Mama was, in comparison to Papa. The word ‘slung’ creates a weak and limp image which was the perfect way to describe Mama’s condition. It also shows how uncaring Papa was of her; instead of gently carrying Mama he had ‘slung’ her over his shoulder like an object. This further dehumanises her.
Highlighted we have the techniques being used (the verb, the imagery) and the effect of each of those techniques (weakness, powerlessness, uncaring, an object, dehumanising).
The trick with doing this kind of analysis well is being able to isolate these ideas and convey just them, without all the waffle. Here’s how this analysis could look if it were more concise, while being just as precise:
The writer uses the verb ‘slung’ to describe the way Mama is carried over Papa’s shoulder. This creates a limp, weak image, which conveys both Mama’s powerlessness and Papa’s uncaring attitude; this verb dehumanises Mama, suggesting that she’s treated like an object.
Notice how we have all the same key ideas here (in bold) as in the first example, but expressed in less than half the words (42 words compared to 92 words). Using lots of words is not the trick for writing good analysis. The trick is explaining how the method creates meaning in as few words as possible, while capturing as much of the added meaning as possible.
Let’s look at one more example. This analysis is of a simile used to describe a hyena. It should speak for itself.
The writer uses the simile “like the symptoms of a skin disease” to describe the hyena’s spots. This suggests the hyena is ugly and unpleasant to look at. The simile creates the impression that the spots appear as though they are unnatural looking and as though they are not meant to be amongst the coat, like spots and marks may appear when they appear on a human who has contracted a skin disease, as though they damage the skin. Also, the image the simile creates suggests how awful and almost disgusting the spots seem, like spots, boils or marks, which might even be contagious, suggesting that even touching the hyena should be avoided.
As with the previous example, there is a lot of good stuff in this analysis. It’s just that it’s much longer than it needs to be. It needs to be condensed to contain just the key things – the techniques and their effect (including how they create that effect), as concisely as possible. Here’s the analysis again with the key ideas highlighted:
The writer uses the simile “like the symptoms of a skin disease” to describe the hyena’s spots. This suggests the hyena is ugly and unpleasant to look at. The simile creates the impression that the spots appear as though they are unnatural looking and as though they are not meant to be amongst the coat, like spots and marks may appear when they appear on a human who has contracted a skin disease, as though they disrupt the skin. Also, the image the simile creates suggests how awful and almost disgusting the spots seem, like spots, boils or marks, which might even be contagious, suggesting that touching or even being near the hyena should be avoided.
Notice how each of the highlighted words and phrases are distinct from one another. They all mean something slightly different. This is what makes them the key ideas - they are the things a marker might want to tick as they mark the analysis. Correct [tick], correct [tick], correct [tick], etc.
With this in mind, we could rewrite this analysis in the following way, which is much more concise but still contains all those same tickable ideas. It would get the same number of ticks, but they’d all just be closer together. This is what you want to aim for.
The writer uses the simile “like the symptoms of a skin disease” to describe the hyena’s spots. This suggests the hyena is ugly and unpleasant to look at. The disease image makes the spots seem unnatural, as if they disrupt the skin, provoking disgust in the reader, even suggesting that they might be contagious, as if touching or even being near the hyena should be avoided.
This is much shorter than the original example (66 words compared to 116 words), whilst containing exactly the same ideas. This is what you need to be aiming for when analysing language, form and structure.
Writing good analysis is not about writing as much as possible - it’s about explaining the extra meaning created by the method in as precise but concise a way as possible.
A list of methods with an idea of the general effect each method might have
First, a caveat. It’s impossible to analyse a method out of context - the exact effect of any method will depend almost entirely on the specific way it is being used in the text you’re analysing. However, below are some methods which often have similar general effects. Familiarising yourself with this information might help you to figure out the specific effect of one of these methods in a text.
Metaphors and similes — These figurative language methods compare two things and use the comparison to convey subtle and interesting meaning about the thing being compared in the metaphor/simile. The way to analyse these is to work out what the similarity is between the literal thing in the text and the figurative thing that it’s being compared to in the metaphor or simile (e.g. the imagery in the figurative language). Just make sure you talk about the imagery in your analysis.
Personification — Here writers generally suggest that inanimate things (trees, the weather, the sea, etc) are in some sense human and so have wishes, desires and feelings. This often suggests that the inanimate thing (e.g. the weather) wants to do the thing it is doing; it intends it; it desires it. (You can see an example of this kind of analysis in the previous guide with a discussion of the adverb ‘brutally’.) Personification can also be used to suggest that inanimate things like the weather are in some way affected by the things the people are doing in the story - that those things matter so much that they affect the non-human world.
Symbolism — This method is very easy to analyse. Simply look at what the text is saying about the symbol and then translate that into what it is telling us about the thing it symbolises. So, if the symbolic thing (e.g. the conch shell in Lord of the Flies) is described as fragile then the thing it symbolises (e.g. civilisation) is being symbolically described as fragile. Or, if the symbol is a flower and the flower gets trampled on and destroyed, then the text will be saying that the thing the flower symbolises (e.g. freedom) is getting trampled on and destroyed. Seasonal symbolism is also very easy to analyse, generally speaking: spring = hope; summer = good times; autumn = decline; winter = misery, death. The same can be said for time-of-day symbolism (morning = hope; midday = good times; afternoon = decline; night = misery) and weather symbolism (sunny = happy; rainy = sad; etc). This is, more often than not, the general effect of this kind of symbolism (generally called ‘the pathetic fallacy’). Be warned: it is not always the meaning of this kind of symbolism, but it’s not a bad place to start, especially if it works with the meaning of the text you’re studying.
Repetition — This method will generally be used for emphasis. If something is repeated then it is being emphasised, though you will also need to explain why the writer would want to emphasise the thing that’s being repeated. There could also be more subtle things going on with repetition, such as suggesting a character is not thinking clearly, so keeps repeating himself, for example. There is an example of analysis of repetition earlier in the previous guide.
Juxtaposition — This method will be used to draw the reader’s attention to a contrast between two things and thus to emphasise it. It might emphasise how much something has changed, if the juxtaposition is between how it was and how it is now, or it might emphasise how different two people or two situations are. Ultimately, though, no matter the specific context, it will be used to highlight some kind of important difference — just make sure you write about what that difference is and why the writer would want to emphasise it.
Patterns of imagery — The effect here will depend very much on what imagery is being used, but generally it will be to draw the reader’s attention to a particular thing (e.g. that the character is in a beautiful place, or that the character is in an ugly place, or that the character is surrounded by death, or whatever, depending on the specific type of imagery). A pattern of imagery could also help to create a particular mood or atmosphere. This might be the case with natural imagery (trees, flowers, bees, etc) but a different mood would be created by violent imagery or grimy, urban imagery or whatever. Writers might also use surprising imagery — imagery that seems out of place, like urban imagery to describe nature — or they might use contrasting patterns of imagery to highlight that something is not right. This one is hard to generalise.
Short sentences / paragraphs — These are generally used for emphasis. If you want something to stand out to the reader, then put it in its own sentence or, better still, its own paragraph. Short sentences also create a sense of certainty and definitiveness. This is it. End of story. Fact. You can see an example of this kind of analysis in the previous guide.
Characters being used to represent ideas — This method is closely linked to symbolism, and as such the effect is the same. If a writer uses a character to represent a particular type or set of people, for instance, then what the writer says about that character is also being said about those people in general. So, if the writer is using a character to represent greedy rich people, like Scrooge in A Christmas Carol, then by showing that Scrooge can change, the writer is using that character to say that all greedy rich people can change. This is pretty straightforward.
Enjambment in poetry or other verse — This is often used to either emphasise the final word in the line (before the enjambment) or to create surprise by ending a line with one word and starting the next line with an unexpected following word/phrase (e.g. “… screaming / with laughter”). Essentially, with enjambment you get two sentences for the price of one - you get the sentence that ends the line and then the full sentence when that line is combined with the line that follows it. Consider this example: “while you grew / smaller.” Here you get “while you grew” as an idea (a person growing up) and then “while you grew smaller” (a person moving further away, becoming more distant) when you take in the next line. Here’s another example: “He is not here; but far away / The noise of life begins again.” Again, you get two meanings for the price of one here. First, you get he is “far away” as an idea (“He is not here; but far away”); then, when you read the next line you get the idea that “far away the noise of life begins again.” The poem is, in fact, saying both things at the same time, and the enjambment is used to communicate both of them at once. Enjambment often works this way.
Caesura in poetry or other verse — This creates a pause in the middle of a line — that’s the basic effect. You’ll then need to say why the poet wants to create a pause there. This is hard to generalise — it will depend on what is happening in the poem at the point the caesura is used — but if you can say why there’s a pause you’ll be onto something.
Rhyme and rhythm in poetry or other verse — Roughly speaking, a regular rhyme scheme or a regular rhythm (or both) creates a sense of harmony and order in a poem, and an irregular rhythm or an inconsistent rhyme scheme creates a sense of disharmony and disorder. This is not always the case — free verse (when there is no rhyme or rhythm) can be used to create a relaxed, conversational tone in a poem — but if there are purposeful problems with the rhyme or rhythm (e.g. it starts regular but becomes irregular, or vice versa) then this may be because the poet wants to create a sense of disorder/disharmony or order/harmony, depending on which way round it goes.
Sibilance — This is one of the few sound-techniques that can be easily analysed. When writers repeat /s/ and /sh/ sounds in a text it oftens has one of the following effects, though it will depend on the context in which the sounds are repeated: (1) it might help to create a calm and peaceful mood, like the sound of waves on a shore; (2) it might add to the impression that something is sinister or evil, like the hiss of a snake. Obviously both of these things can’t be happening at the same time, so it will depend where the sibilance is used, but these two basic senses are fairly common.
Summing up parts 1-3 of this guide – key things to remember when analysing methods
Make sure you separate [1] what happens in the text from [2] the language used to express it – your analysis must be based on [2]
Explaining the effect of a method means explaining the effect it has on the meaning of the text
You need to explain what the effect is and how the language creates that effect
You need to put the method in context – say what it is being used to describe
Your analysis needs to be specific – write about specific words or images in the method
You need to be precise and concise in your analysis - this means saying what the effect is and why it has that effect without unnecessary waffle, which is not easy
Some methods are easier to analyse than others, and some have general effects that can help you to pick out the specific effect in the example you’re analysing.