Hi there. It is always better to "integrate" your response through looking at what is similar between your presribed text and your related texts. That's not to say you can't treat each text in turn (as long as you're comparing them as you go), but markers are looking for essays that bring all the texts together - that means comparing them (Venn diagram anyone?) and finding links between them: links in ideas, what they say, techniques, form, etc.
Basically, to have a well structured essay you need a good thesis. The writing of the essay isn't that hard - once you know what you want to say. Time spent planning your argument (say in an argument map) will help.
"Conflicting perspectives on a personality, event or situation conveys much more than a simple knowledge of the truth"
This essay statement needs to be reworded/processed to make your thesis.
Your JC text will probably focus on conflicting perspectives about the person Caesar. Who are the differing sides in this? Brutus on the conspirators side who see JC as a threat to the Republic, and Antony who has relied on Caesar as friend and his superior - everything he has he owes to Caesar. The best scene for the two perspectives on Caesar: Act 3 Sc1. The rhetoric that Shakespeare has both characters use is masterful!
ALways keep in mind: the composer has the characters do things/say things. Bad essays talk lots about "Antony does this" or "Cassius says that", without acknowledging the composer's part in things. Remember, the composer has shaped the texts (including characters, dialogue, etc) in order to potray conflicting perspectives - you've got to ask the question WHY? Why portray two sides of the argument about Caesar? In Shakespeare's case, he shows how both sides of the argument about Caesar (and why he had to die) are, in a way, right. Shakespeare has Brutus present his reasons in a logical way (btw - in prose rather than verse), whereas Shakes has Antony use emotive language, rhetorical questions, visual props (the cloak) to sway the crowd. The fact that Shakes has Antony more successful could be taken as a critical comment by Shakes on how easily crowds in his time (and in any time) are convinced.
How does this link with the ""Conflicting perspectives on a personality, event or situation conveys much more than a simple knowledge of the truth" statement?
Simply put, Shakes shows how "truth" is a matter of perspective. Each man is right, but what decides "the truth" is who believes it. So, yes, the text JC is not just about simply knowing the truth (it shows truth as problematic), its effectiveness is in the way Shakes raises questions about how 'a truth' is constructed and how it is conveyed to others. The "more than" bit of the statement is the clue: a great text like JC will force us to question what we perceive as "the truth" and how we are convinced of that truth.
Now think about yr related texts: do they portray differing perspectives about a person, an event or a situation? You should have related texts that contain both perspectives or you could have one related text with one view and the other with the conflicting view. Whatever works for you. Again, keep in mind the purpose of the composer: why are they presenting these perspectives? And what about form: what effect does a visual text such as a cartoon have that makes it more effective than say a newspaper article about the same issue? There are lots of things to consider - time is the big factor.
Back to the statement: you've got all yr texts, now do they convey more than a SIMPLE knowledge of the truth? What do they have to SAY about conflicting perspectives? This is important as your response is going to need to contain this.
- Assess the validity of this statement against your understanding of your prescribed text and two other related text
So the question asks you to validate this statement (that texts with conflicting perspectives convey more than just a simple knowledge of what is "true") and chances are you have thought about this by now: make sure you have related texts that demonstrate that knowledge/truth is up for question. If there aren't two perspectives in the one text, get two texts that look at different sides of the one issue. With this second option, as each composer is trying to convince you of their perspective, it's in your mind whether more than just "truth" is being conveyed, whereas in JC, Shakes he has the two perspectives.
Hope this helps somewhat. Just remember, as with essay to all your modules, address the module, the elective and then the question. Always keep in mind that your need to discuss 'representation' (you do this by keeping firmly in mind that the composer is constructing the text), then 'conflicting perspectives', then the question. Anyhoo, the question (if it's a good question) will force this anyway.
