Building Strong Foundations for GCSE: Advanced PETER Paragraphs in Action

This post pairs with our earlier blog on PETER (where we analysed the “baby’s cry” simile from The Temple). There, we showed what a strong PETER paragraph looks like. Here, I’m going one level deeper: the walkthrough of the processitself. I’ll show you what I look for, why I choose certain quotes, and how I build two PETEER paragraphs that complement each other without repeating ideas.

Quick recap: what PETEER adds (vs PETER)

• P — Point: precise claim about the writer’s move and purpose.

• E — Evidence: tiny, surgical micro-quotes (1–6 words).

• T — Technique: accurate labels (e.g., pejorative diction, medical metaphor, cumulative listing, parenthetical aside).

• E — Explain how: the mechanism—connotations, syntax, imagery, rhythm.

• E — Effect: what this achieves in the world of the text (tone, mood, character).

• R — Reader’s response: the position we’re pushed into (recoil? pity? admiration?)—specific, not “it makes the reader feel…”

Why this matters: In your PETER post you practised “naming the move” (e.g., simile → unease). PETEER is the natural upgrade: it slows you down just enough to explain how the language does its job and to end with a clear reader position.

The extract we’ll work with (hyena description)

“…the spotted hyena is not well served by its appearance. It is ugly beyond redemption… a bungled mix of colours… spots like the symptoms of a skin disease… head like that of a bear… ears ridiculously mouse-like, when they haven’t been torn off in battle… mouth forever open and panting… nostrils too big… tail scraggly and unwagging… doglike, but like no dog anyone would want as a pet.”

How I actually approach it (step-by-step thought process)

1) Scan and circle: What am I hunting for?

I want clusters—little families of choices that reinforce one idea.

• Lexis cluster (word choice): “ugly,” “beyond redemption,” “bungled,” “symptoms.”Why interesting: this smells of absolutist judgement and contamination (disease).

• Image/simile cluster: “bear,” “mouse-like,” “doglike.”Why interesting: mismatched animals create a comic, cobbled-together creature.

• Structure/syntax cluster: short, parallel sentences: “The mouth… The nostrils… The tail…”Why interesting: a drum-beat that piles on faults.

• Aside/shock: “when they haven’t been torn off in battle.”Why interesting: an interrupting clause that detonates violence mid-flow.

Examiner lens: Top answers don’t list everything. They choose one lexical idea for Paragraph 1 and one structural idea for Paragraph 2. That variety is what moves you up the mark bands.

2) Shortlist micro-quotes (I’m picky)

I trim to the exact bit that does the work:

• “beyond redemption” (absolutist)

• “bungled mix” (botched workmanship)

• “symptoms of a skin disease” (medical contamination)

• “mouse-like,” “like a bear,” “doglike” (comic mismatch)

• “torn off in battle” (shock)

• “forever open,” “too big,” “scraggly” (undignified list)

What I’m looking for: words that carry built-in attitude (pejorative connotations) or clear mechanics (e.g., an aside interrupts → shifts tone).

3) Pair ideas so my two paragraphs complement (not duplicate)

• Paragraph 1 focus: Lexis + metaphor + contrast. The ugly/illness language creates a degraded image and a beauty hierarchy (leopard vs hyena).

• Paragraph 2 focus: Syntax + similes + aside + clincher. The pile-up structure + cross-animal similes ridicule the hyena, ending in rejection.

Why this pairing? One paragraph is about what the words mean (lexis/metaphor). The other is about howthe sentences move (syntax/listing/aside). Different angles = stronger overall response.

4) Build the PETEER skeletons (mini-plans)

Para 1 (lexis/metaphor/contrast)

• P: Writer vilifies the hyena to render it irredeemable.

• E: “beyond redemption”, “bungled mix”, “symptoms of a skin disease”, leopard’s “classy ostentation”.

• T: Pejorative diction; medical metaphor; contrast.

• E: Absolutist judgement + botched-craft vibe + contamination imagery.

• E: Produces a tone of disgust; sets beauty hierarchy.

• R: Reader is steered to recoil and rank the hyena as inferior.

Para 2 (syntax/similes/aside/clincher)

• P: Cumulative structure and belittling similes ridicule and then disqualify it.

• E: “mouse-like”, “bear… receding”, “torn off in battle”, “forever open… too big… scraggly”, “no dog anyone would want”.

• T: Similes; parenthetical aside; parallel simple sentences; negating clincher.

• E: Comic mismatch + shock + drum-beat listing → expectation flip at “but”.

• E: Builds a grotesque, undignified composite.

• R: Reader laughs, winces, then rejects the animal.

Keep those bones visible while you write; you won’t drift.

Two model PETEER paragraphs (with the thinking baked in)

PETEER Paragraph 1 — Lexis + metaphor + contrast

Point: The writer vilifies the hyena’s appearance to make it feel irredeemably degraded.Evidence: It is “ugly beyond redemption,” its coat a “bungled mix of colours,” and the spots are “like the symptoms of a skin disease,” especially meagre beside a leopard’s “classy ostentation.”Technique: Pejorative diction, medicalised metaphor, and pointed contrast with a more glamorous predator.Explain: The finality of “beyond redemption” closes off improvement; “bungled” personifies creation as a failed craft job; framing the pattern as “symptoms” infects the image with illness, so ugliness feels contaminating, not accidental. Mentioning the leopard installs a beauty benchmark the hyena cannot reach.Effect: Together, these choices create a tone of contempt and fix the hyena at the bottom of a visual hierarchy.Reader’s response: We’re nudged to recoil and accept the writer’s ranking before behaviour or biology even appear.

Why I chose these quotes: they’re compact, high-value words with clear connotations. They also let me talk about purpose (constructing a hierarchy), which examiners love.

PETEER Paragraph 2 — Syntax + similes + aside + clincher

Point: Shifting from condemnation to ridicule, the writer uses sentence pattern and mismatched similes to make the hyena a comic, cobbled-together misfit.Evidence: The ears are “ridiculously mouse-like,” the head “like a bear” yet comically “receding,” with an aside about ears “torn off in battle”; then a drum-beat follows—“The mouth is forever open… The nostrils too big… The tail scraggly and unwagging”—before the reversal: “doglike, but like no dog anyone would want as a pet.”Technique: Cross-animal similes, a parenthetical aside for shock, parallel simple sentences that accumulate faults, and a negating final comparison.Explain: The mouse/bear/dog mix-and-match creates an absurd collage; the violent aside detonates mid-sentence, staining the portrait; the parallel simples form a catalogue rhythm that piles defects until the little “but” flips expectation, cancelling the warmth “doglike” might carry.Effect: The image turns grotesque and undignified, so any sympathy collapses.Reader’s response: We’re pushed to dismiss the animal as unlovable, while noticing how style, not science, has engineered that judgement.

Why this structure focus: it shows I can analyse the movement of sentences (not just pick fancy words), which is a key divider between mid- and top-band answers.

What to copy into your own writing? (mini playbook)

• Split your two paragraphs by angle: 1 × lexis/metaphor, 1 × syntax/structure.

• Go micro with quotes: choose the one word that carries the weight.

• Name exact techniques: “pejorative diction,” “parenthetical aside,” “cumulative listing,” “negating clincher.”

• Explain the mechanism: how the word/image/syntax works (contamination; finality; rhythm; reversal).

• End with a position: “invites ridicule,” “manufactures revulsion,” “installs a hierarchy,” etc.