How to finish introduction without it being weird
In my revision I wanted to do some planning, I tried to write an essay introduction but weirdly I dont know how to word it so I get my 2 main points in without it feeling like a big change (?) in a way. Probably almost definitely overthinking it, but if there are any tips for how to approach it that would be lovely
‘Gothic fiction suggests that very primitive forces lie beneath civilised life.
I got this idea because whenever I think of “primitive” being a word that describes humans I immediately think of the way many people viewed colonised people in comparison with the supposed “civilised” people of Britain and continental Europe in the 17-19th centuries. This angers me as it makes no sense how the people who kill and enslave for imaginary money can be seen as civilised? By that measure, if we have defined "civilised" against this ideal of the austere wealthy British aristocrat, does it hold any weight? Is civilised really the anti thesis of primitive?
- The primitive desire for power -> men are given a monopoly on “power” in “civilised life” due to patriarchy (civilised), but 1. they abuse their power beyond the confines of what “civilised society” dictates and 2. Women also have his desire for power -> goes against how “civilised society” has distributed power, despite this “civilised” power it is not a match for primitive human desires
- The desire for companionship (and sex) -> the social construct of family (civilised) but 1. The social construct of a traditional family is commonly usurped in favour of other modes of companionship
What is deemed as “civilised” is highly flexible and responsive to changing standards -> not fixed -> not clear -> not real
Both Shelley and Carter depict that as primitive forces “peek through” supposed “civilised life” -> we must not have a true civilised life/state. Is it worth making the distinction between “forces” and “life”, I noticed it but I do not know how to phrase it.
Both Mary Shelley’s "Frankenstein" and Angla Carter’s “The Bloody Chamber” challenge the notion that primitive forces lie beneath civilised life. Instead both Shelley and Carter suggest that the distinction between supposed ‘civility’ and ‘primitivism’ is imagined as civilised life only exists though actions and forces hypocritically condemned by society as primal and base. The sheer prevalence of these primitive forces within society contest the notion that they lie beneath or apart from civilisation, instead these primitive forces can be seen as indistinguishable from civilised life. ...
I LOVE your two points! I think you're missing some 'connective tissue' that would tie your two arguments together, though. To be honest, I believe that it's a whole point you're missing that connects those two points together: comparing masculinity vs feminity and how patriarchy can put extra value on men as 'civilised' to the same behaviour in the colonised/coloniser attitide. Split up your two arguments in point 1 more so it would look something like this:
-
Primitive desire for power.
-
The glorification of primitive behaviour in two ways (it's important for connection that you do them this way)
- The glorification of civilising narratives over 'primitive' peoples ultimately hiding a deeper, more insidious violence (e.g. Victor's destruction of the female creature; the surprising sexual violence at the end of Snow Child).
- How this has parallels with the glorification of masculinity, which itself is defined by very 'primitive' gender roles, such as power.
-
Making an interesting connection then to primitive behaviour in relationship dynamics. You can tie this back to biblical ideology (the purpose of marriage) as well as how the supposed 'civilised sex' is more likely to engage in extra-marital sexual relationships and non-civilised sexual interactions!
In terms of how you finish your paragraph, a final sentence of a paragraph always sounds the best when it is tied back to context!