What does "to what effect" actually MEAN?

[Guest ASDFASDFASDFADFASF]

This is a Paper 2 question. I just want to know what exactly the question means when it says "to/with what effect". For example:

- Compare how writers in your study have explored the themes of judgment and punishment, or disguise and deceit, or love and friendship, and with what effect.

- In what ways and to what effect have your writers focused on either the darker or lighter side of life in two or three works you have studied?

I understand the "how", but when they asked "to/with what effect", what exactly are they trying to ask for? Are they asking for what effect these things have had on the reader? Or what effect these things have had on the plot? Or even how effective they were in advancing the story?

I've always found myself hung up over this phrase because it's so dang ambiguous. And with Paper 2 in a week's time... Argh.. I'm getting really jittery..

[Sandwich]

They're asking for all of those things. All and any effects Generally effects within the text more than outside it, so the effect on the reader is less of an emphasis, but it is also relevant to the literature.

Historical effects of the book, critical acclaim etc. however are not relevant

[julie-h]

According to what we were taught, 'to what effect' could be rephrased as what were the outcomes/consequences caused by whatever they're asking about. For example, we were looking at a question about obsessions and fixations. Don't know if you're familiar with The Glass Menagerie, but I'll take it as an example - Amanda (the mother of Tom and Laura) is obsessed with their lives and tries to control them. This ends up destroying/complicating her relationships with them. So that would be the answer to the 'to what effect' part of the question.

[Guest ASDFASDFASDFADFASF]

They're asking for all of those things. All and any effects Generally effects within the text more than outside it, so the effect on the reader is less of an emphasis, but it is also relevant to the literature.

Historical effects of the book, critical acclaim etc. however are not relevant

According to what we were taught, 'to what effect' could be rephrased as what were the outcomes/consequences caused by whatever they're asking about. For example, we were looking at a question about obsessions and fixations. Don't know if you're familiar with The Glass Menagerie, but I'll take it as an example - Amanda (the mother of Tom and Laura) is obsessed with their lives and tries to control them. This ends up destroying/complicating her relationships with them. So that would be the answer to the 'to what effect' part of the question.

Alright, this makes sense. But you definitely don't have to cover all of the effects I listed out right, else there wouldn't be enough time? Also, are you sure that weighing how effective these things were in advancing the plot is answering the question? I'm just afraid that I might've confused "effect" with "effectiveness".

ACK. I just realised that in my essay plan for "In what ways and to what effect have your writers focused on either the darker or lighter side of life in two or three works you have studied?" I kinda structured my paragraphs in the reverse order. Instead of saying "in what ways" first, I instead planned to state for example, "These works are dark in the sense that they show how we are controlled by forces far beyond our control, despite our struggles", which is more of the "to what effect" isn't it? After putting that header I would then show how the different plays resulted in this.

No wonder why I was getting so hung up. I was thinking that this paragraph structure of mine was only the "in what way", and so when I tried to rack my brains to give a "to what effect" I just couldn't!

Or am I making no sense here?

[Guest Red XII]

Basically, they're looking at you to identify things that these writers do in the first question, but take it beyond that (as simple statements of what writers do are uninteresting and just point out the obvious). They want you to take it further by discussing the effects (any type of effect, but they usually prefer internal effects rather than effects on the reader, which are speculative) of those things that the writers do. You don't have to discuss all of them, just the ones you feel are most worth discussing. If you make a claim that a writer does something, you should always take it further to discuss the effect of that writer doing it. Otherwise, your claim begs the question, "So what?" or "Why should I care?"