Compare and Contrast

The two basketball poems can be effectively split up into a variety of ways that will each lead to clear effective writtting but also structural issues.  The first way to split the poems up is to have separate paragraphs on each poem.  Have one paragraph on the slam dunk and have one paragrph on the fast break.  Within that you can first write about the first poem and really get a full sense of the poem and the mysticity behind the poem and then write a second paragraph on the fast break and really foucus on the overal meaning and implication of the poem.  Then in the second paragraph you can compare the two poems based on not only the plot but also the diction, the time of the poems and the smoothness of the poem.  You can compare that the time of the first poem is on a longer more general story of playing basketball while in the fast break poem the description of one play of the game.  Also the choppiness of the poem the slam dunk poem makes it seem that basketball is not smooth and it is not flowing.  This is a big distinction and maybe the reason why you have the mysticism of the poem and the choppiness of the poem because the story is a story of the boy who has to overcome adversity and uses basketball as a realease.  It demonstrates the fact that he had a choppy life and it wasnt smooth.  Compared to the fast break poem where for the most part the team had a smooth and easy lane to the basket.  This way can be effective but i belive that you lose the over arching theme of the question.  When you write essay's it has to be specific and it has to answer the question.  It has to be on topic and specific, go more in depth on one topic rather than broad on mulitple topics.  Sure you want to use those examples that you find but it is not necessary appropriate for the prompt.  Thats why i belive that if you split it up and focus on the tone of the poems, and the time of the poems because you can focus on two specific ideas and develop it fully.  Although it might be harder to acomplish, due to the indepth and the complexity of the format, it is much more succint and too the point.  It doesnt go off on tandems that dont relate to the topic.