radioheadfan42
Well-Known Member
YES MACRO TECHNIQUES ALL THE WAY!! This is what i always use for evidence, its super flexible. Both in my essays and in creatives i will always choose a macro technique, its a lot more straightforward to talk about, and it helps your analysis feel much more "rounded"...in the sense that its connecting to the entire text. Its easier to talk about it as a whole, like, as a whole piece for lack of any better term.
This reminds me a little of how i do unseens. When looking at a unseen text i always look for macro first. Like how long the sentences are, weather they are super long and flowy or if theyre quick, snappy and straight to the point. How its sectioned, or how its structured, or if theres any consistencies in the metaphors they use...
ie, if a text is criticising, lets say industrialisation...they may imbue a whole lot of references to things like smoke, or soot, or metal, Plasticine...often they may physically decribe something in a way thats super hyper-specifc to this theme, even if its an object or thing you wouldnt at all associate it with. Ie, lets say a pair of black boots. An author COULD say they are "midnight black", or just "black", but if they say - for instance - "tar-coloured" boots that IMMEDIATELY gives me at least a really icky sensation. You wouldnt ever associate those two together, and it makes for a really powerful image.
Of course, only use evidence like this if its relevant to the question but what im saying is...look for things which SOUND really unique too, because theres probably a reason why. Go with your gut! A text is supposed to be read after all
