OK, i know this sounds really obvious, but *many* people miss it:
1 - look at what both texts say about "the wild". Decide on a definition for "wild" that you're willing to work with. For me, i chose "humanity" in its natural state. Once you have a definition, go through the texts and decide what each text values or doesn't value about the "wild" and find examples/techniques which support this.
2 - Compare and contrast the texts, which values are similar, which are different. For those that are similar, how did the 2 texts show it in different ways and how does this ultimately reflect on the statement being made
3 - How may the contexts in which either text was composed may have informed a) the values depicted and b) how those values were depicted.
E.g BNW shows the suppression and marginalisation of the natural world - reflected in the derogatory language, consumerist nature and derision of the "savage" whom most reflects humanity in its natural state. BR however depicts a destruction of the natural in a bleak, decaying world. Here, that which is synthesised is pradoxically, the most natural (animals, replicants etc...).
BNW is a manifestation of the changing political and social context in which Huxley was writing, by which capitalism was a rising force and that which was natural was being pushed by the wayside. However Scott has seen rapid industrialisation and the destruction of the environment and seeks instead to warn about what may happen if humanity continue to deny the importance of the natural...
Of course, find ur own examples, material and stance to take, but its a good place to start (not that u should be *starting* at this point...)
