ATAR Notes: Forum

VCE Stuff => VCE English Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE English Work Submission and Marking => Topic started by: brenden on February 04, 2013, 12:00:32 am

Title: Compilation of Text Response Feedback
Post by: brenden on February 04, 2013, 12:00:32 am
Hey everyone!
I've decided to lock all three stickies and turn them into collations of essays and feedback. I'll be marking a lot less this year, so hopefully this encourages other people to give marking a try! In hindsight, these threads probably would have discouraged other users.
The links will come in pairs, categorised under their texts. One link will be to the unmarked essay, the other to the marked essay. I'll sporadically get links from the English Work Submission and Marking board and put them in here.
Note for any confused users: Definitely put your essays in the English Work Submission and Marking board!!! Just because these stickies are locked doesn't mean the board isn't open :).

Wishing you happy writings and much luck!,
Brenden.










Texts from previous years
Spoiler
I'm Not Scared
Spoiler
http://www.atarnotes.com/forum/index.php?topic=143277.msg655163#msg655163
Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Interpreter of Maladies
On the Waterfront
Ransom
Twelve Angry Men
Year of Wonders
Cosi

Note to self: July 17th.

Mod edit - bangali_lok: updated (somewhat) with various links, 16/05/15.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Daenerys Targaryen on February 10, 2013, 05:50:32 pm
On the Waterfront essay
Terry is the sole hero in ‘On the Waterfront’ Discuss

Every story revolves around a single character that emerges as the hero, however none the less to say there is always only one; this is demonstrated in Elia Kazan’s film ‘On the Waterfront’ where the protagonist Terry Malloy is not the sole hero. Heroism exists within: Edie Doyle whom is the driving force in unveiling the truth of Joey’s death, and Father Barry who indirectly succeeds to break the waterfront culture. In contrast to the heroism displayed by Edie and Father Barry, Johnny Friendly is the antagonist; however he is also a hero in his own story. It is the influences of these other heroes in which embark Terry on his adventure to gain courage and heroism.

From the first scenes in which Edie appears, Kazan utilizes her as the initial stimulus to uncover the truths of the corruption that exists on the waterfront. At first sights of Edie, the audience are persuaded to perceive her as the epitome of goodness and kindness. Kazan achieves this visually through Edie’s fluorescent blonde hair in contrast to the dark backgrounds of the film in which she is present. The director also demonstrates Edie’s innocence verbally when she confirms that she has ‘never had a glass of beer’. Further, Kazan exhibits Edie’s kindness through Edie’s philosophy on life; ‘shouldn’t everyone care about everyone else’ in contrast to the longshoremen’s of ‘it’s every man for himself’. Kazan presents Edie in this particular light in order to encourage the audience to understand why Edie has great influence over Terry’s actions. Edie’s expectation of Terry speaking up and telling the truth lingers in Terry’s “conscience” which becomes a crucial factor in the result of Terry testifying against Johnny Friendly, exposing the corruption on the docks. Her contribution in exposing the truth of the deceptions of the waterfront brands her as one of Kazan’s heroes.

Father Barry is commended as a hero for his determination to eradicate the corrupt mob despite his hesitation at the beginning of the film. In order for Father Barry to begin intervening with the waterfront situation, Edie must accuse him of ‘hiding in his church’ for him to realise he must witness the shape-up for himself. Having observed why some get ‘picked’ and others ‘passed over’, he is forced by his duty as a priest, to foster the proposition to take down the mob alongside the longshoremen. The exchange of cigarettes between Father Barry and Dugan symbolizes the allegiance formed. After Father Barry assures Dugan that if he ‘stands up, [he] will stand up with [him]’, Dugan sacrifices his life to put ‘39 pages’ of Johnny Friendly’s ‘operation’ in the hands of the police. However the death of Dugan is proved to have no practical value once Johnny Friendly obtains possession of the documents, due to the dishonest system that extends further than the waterfront. In addition, Father Barry attempts to dissolve the ‘D and D’ culture on the docks by planting seeds of guilt in the longshoremen’s minds. He contends that ‘Jesus stands alongside [them]’ and that ‘keeping silent’ is a ‘crucifixion’, this speech largely impacts on Terry. Consequently, Terry’s guilt consumes him and imposes him to admit his part in Joey’s death to Edie and Father Barry – a stepping stone in the dethroning of Friendly. Furthermore, the Father convinces Terry to ‘fight [Friendly] in the courtroom’ which, to an extent, defeats Johnny Friendly. Father Barry’s commitment to Dugan and the longshoremen is what deems him to be another hero in Kazan’s ‘On the Waterfront’.

In contrast to the purpose of characters such as Edie and Father Barry, Johnny Friendly adopts the role of the villain in the film; however he displays heroism in an omitted story of ‘On the Waterfront’ involving Friendly’s livelihood. Kazan paints Friendly as evil and aggressive in order to amplify the different values of morals between the mob leader and Terry. The audience is given an insight into Friendly’s past where he of ‘ten kids’ were ‘raised on a watchmen’s pension’ and had to ‘beg for work’ when he was young. Naturally, the audience would sympathise for his past, however because the director has presented him as sinister, the audience forget that he is anything other than wicked. It is evident that Johnny Friendly has worked ‘[his] way up’ to wear ‘$150 suits’ and ‘diamond rings’, but his work was not honest, but laced with corruption. Nevertheless, Friendly’s union is a segment of a fraudulent organisation where he is only an underling. This instils the fear of being cut off by his superior Mr. Upstairs. We acknowledge this fear when Mr. Upstairs calls and is ‘plenty hot’, and as a result Friendly requests to see Terry immediately. This is demonstrative of Friendly’s fear of his boss. When Mr. Upstairs states ‘I’m out’ of Friendly’s operation coupled with Friendly’s deprivation of the control over the longshoremen, the audience acknowledges Friendly’s defeat. Ultimately when the evil façade of Johnny Friendly is removed, the audience is able to perceive him as a hero in his own right.

Kazan, from the beginning of the film, depicts Terry as a man who is kind separating himself from the people he is associated with. This is evident through the close ups of Terry’s face expressing unease after realising he has become an accessory to the murder of Joey Doyle, juxtaposed with Truck and Tullio’s reaction of pure laughter and no remorse. Consequently, the audience is positioned to adopt sympathy for him at times later in the film, which further reminds the audience of his affability. However there are also times where the audience overlooks his kind persona due to his upbringing, nature and remaining ‘deaf and dumb’. Due to the influences of Edie, Terry advances from not having ‘a spark of sentiment or romance’ to being in ‘love’; the presence of Father Barry paired with the consuming guilt, induces Terry to confess his and the mob’s responsibility of Joey and Dugan’s deaths. This shows the metamorphosis within Terry that needed to occur before he was able to testify against ‘people [he] may know’ and cleanse the waterfront of the mob. In addition, the instruction of Johnny Friendly to have Terry’s brother Charley killed is the trigger in which eventually eradicates the mob from the waterfront union. Ultimately Terry deserves the label of hero, but only if the other characters are worthy too due to their immense contribution towards the defeat of Friendly.

In Elia Kazan’s film ‘On the Waterfront’, the director shows that the influences characters have on each other are what deems each of them as heroes. These influences consist of Edie’s perseverance and Father Barry’s commitment to the longshoremen. Kazan also demonstrates how the antagonist Johnny Friendly displays heroism despite his role in the corrupt waterfront. However, Terry’s journey depicts him as the most obvious hero; conversely it is the influences of other characters that reject Terry as the sole hero.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on February 10, 2013, 08:49:02 pm
Terry is the sole hero in ‘On the Waterfront’ Discuss

Every story revolves around a single character that emerges as the hero, however none the lessThis is two of the same thing. "However nevertheless" or ""however despite that". to say there is always only one;Bit of a cool start/haven't seen before. Was confusing. I thought you were agreeing with the prompt until I read your next sentence... I think the part preceding the semi-colon needs revising this is demonstrated in Elia Kazan’s film ‘On the Waterfront’ where the protagonist Terry Malloy is not the sole hero.Really picky here but readers don't want to hear about what isn't. Effective writing will usually convey what is and thus it is known what is not. For example "where the protagonist Terry Mallor is only one of many heroes." I just think the reader would be more satisfied. Heroism exists within: Edie Doyle whom who is the driving force in unveiling the truth of Joey’s death, and Father Barry who indirectly succeeds to break the waterfront culture. I think the colon is superfluous and too strong for the meagre list. I think the sentence would read better without punctuation where the colon is, but with a comma after "Doyle" and "Barry"In contrast to the heroism displayed by Edie and Father Barry, Johnny Friendly is the antagonist This sentence sounds off to me, but I could be imagining things, my initial thought was that it /feels/ unnatural but I didn't know why. BUT, I think it's because you speak of a trait pertaining to Edie and Barry, but then speak of a title pertaining to Johnny, so the 'in contrast' seems awkward because it's like the thoughts are too separate. ; however he is also a hero in his own storySeems like a cool point of view, but I haven't seen the movie.. It is the influences of these other heroes in which embark Terry on his adventure to gain courage and heroism. Nice thesis statement. (if that's what it was intended as and not another point of argument? can't decide lol)

From the first scenes in which Edie appears, Kazan utilizes her as the initial stimulus to uncover the truths of the corruption that exists on the waterfront. At first sights of Edie,Just be wary of sentence starters like these. "From the first" "at first sights", it will shape your writing more towards retelling. Doesn't seem so bad now though. It also seems repetitive when you're talking abotu Edie but sort of introduced her introduction twice. the audience are persuaded to perceive her as the epitome of goodness and kindness.If she's actually good and kind, you could just start the sentence like "Edie is characterised as the epitome of goodness and kindness; Kazan promotes the audience's perception of this visually... Kazan achieves this visually through Edie’s fluorescent blonde hair in contrast to the dark backgrounds of the film in which she is present. The director also demonstrates Edie’s innocence verbally when she confirms that she has ‘never had a glass of beer’. Further, Kazan exhibits Edie’s kindness through Edie’s philosophy on life; ‘shouldn’t everyone care about everyone else’ in contrast to the longshoremen’s of ‘it’s every man for himself’. Kazan presents Edie in this particular light in order to encourage the audience to understand why Edie has great influence over Terry’s actions. Edie’s expectation of Terry speaking up and telling the truth lingers in Terry’s “conscience” which becomes a crucial factor in the result of Terry testifying against Johnny Friendly, exposing the corruption on the docks. Her contribution in exposing the truth of the deceptions of the waterfront brands her as one of Kazan’s heroes. Okay, nice. The red seemed slightly repetitive/choppy/could flow better. It was also a bit unconventional how you essentially went "evidence evidence evidence analllysiiiis". I don't see anything wrong with it, I just felt like pointing it out. Could encourage that chop|chop|chop flow, however.

Father Barry is commended as a hero for his determination to eradicate the corrupt mob despite his hesitation at the beginning of the film. In order for Father Barry to begin intervening with the waterfront situation, Edie must accuse him of ‘hiding in his church’ for him to realise he must witness the shape-up for himself. Having observed why some get ‘picked’ and others ‘passed over’, he is forced by You changed your tense, keep it consistent (must accused)(forced)his duty as a priest, to foster the proposition to take down the mob alongside the longshoremen. The exchange of cigarettes between Father Barry and Dugan symbolizes the allegiance formed.This seems really like an 'oh by the way' statement that you don't really discuss directly again. Just like "HERE'S A THOUGHTandnowitisgone" AfterKeep in mind what I said about sentence starters and retelling Father Barry assures Dugan that if he ‘stands up, [he] will stand up with [him]’, Dugan sacrifices his life to put ‘39 pages’ of Johnny Friendly’s ‘operation’ in the hands of the police. However the death of Dugan is proved to have no practical value once Johnny Friendly obtains possession of the documents, due to the dishonest system that extends further than the waterfrontbit retelly. In addition, Father Barry attempts to dissolve the ‘D and D’ culture on the docks by planting seeds of guilt in the longshoremen’s minds. He contends that ‘Jesus stands alongside [them]’ and that ‘keeping silent’ is a ‘crucifixion’,I reckon a semi-colon would go better this speech largely impacts on Terry. Consequently, Terry’s guilt consumes him and imposes him to admit his part in Joey’s death to Edie and Father Barry – a stepping stone in the dethroning of Friendly. Furthermore, the Father convinces Terry to ‘fight [Friendly] in the courtroom’ which, to an extent, defeats Johnny Friendly. Father Barry’s commitment to Dugan and the longshoremen is what deems him to be another hero in Kazan’s ‘On the Waterfront’.Seemed like there wasn't a high enough analysis to retell ratio. Your writing is nice... That's all I can really correct when I don't know the text. Your writing is nice enough that you should be getting feedback for both writing and content (anyone here a fan of OTW?)

In contrast to the purpose of characters such as Edie and Father Barry, Johnny Friendly adopts the role of the villain in the film; Yeah this is a better sentence than the antagonist referencehowever he displays heroism in an omitted story of ‘On the Waterfront’ involving Friendly’s livelihood. Kazan paints Friendly as evil and aggressive in order to amplify the different values of morals between the mob leader and Terry. The audience is given an insight into Friendly’s past where he of ‘ten kids’ were ‘raised on a watchmen’s pension’ and had to ‘beg for work’ when he was young. Naturally, the audience would sympathise for his past, however because the director has presented him as sinister, the audience forget that he is anything other than wicked. It is evident that Johnny Friendly has worked ‘[his] way up’ to wear ‘$150 suits’ and ‘diamond rings’, but his work was not honest, but laced withbut but corruption. Nevertheless, Friendly’s union is a segment of a fraudulent organisation where he is only an underling. This instils the fear of being cut off by his superior Mr. Upstairs. We acknowledge this fear when Mr. Upstairs calls and is ‘plenty hot’, and as a result Friendly requests to see Terry immediately. This is demonstrative of Friendly’s fear of his boss. When Mr. Upstairs states ‘I’m out’ of Friendly’s operation coupled with Friendly’s deprivation of the control over the longshoremen, the audience acknowledges Friendly’s defeat. Ultimately when the evil façade of Johnny Friendly is removed, the audience is able to perceive him as a hero in his own right.
Yeah I'm struggling to give feedback w/out textual knowledge. I'm tentative to say this but it seems this particular paragraph isn't very strictly discussion the prompt with the exception of the opening and closing lines.
Kazan, from the beginning of the film, depicts Terry as a kind man who is kind separating himself from the people he is associated with. This is evident through the close ups of Terry’s face expressing unease after realising he has become an accessory to the murder of Joey Doyle, juxtaposed with Truck and Tullio’s reaction of pure laughter and no remorse. Consequently, the audience is positioned to adopt sympathy for him at times later in the film, which further reminds the audience of his affability. However there are also times where the audience overlooks his kind persona due to his upbringing, nature and remaining ‘deaf and dumb’. Due to the influences of Edie, Terry advances from not having ‘a spark of sentiment or romance’ to being in ‘love’; the presence of Father Barry paired with the consuming guilt, induces Terry to confess his and the mob’s responsibility of Joey and Dugan’s deaths. This shows the metamorphosis within Terry that needed to occur before he was able to testify against ‘people [he] may know’ and cleanse the waterfront of the mob. In addition, the instruction of Johnny Friendly to have Terry’s brother Charley killed is the trigger in which eventually eradicates the mob from the waterfront union. Ultimately Terry deserves the label of hero, but only if the other characters are worthy too due to their immense contribution towards the defeat of Friendly.
This seems really good.
In Elia Kazan’s film ‘On the Waterfront’, the director shows that the influences characters have on each other are what deems each of them as heroes. These influences consist of Edie’s perseverance and Father Barry’s commitment to the longshoremen. Kazan also demonstrates how the antagonist Johnny Friendly displays heroism despite his role in the corrupt waterfront. However, Terry’s journey depicts him as the most obvious hero; conversely it is the influences of other characters that reject Terry as the sole hero.
Got the feeling this is a pretty good essay haha. I'd really like someone familiar with OTW to give you feedback.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Lolly on February 10, 2013, 09:56:48 pm
Damn, Brenden, you beat me to it :P
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Daenerys Targaryen on February 10, 2013, 10:06:25 pm
Damn, Brenden, you beat me to it :P
No reason why you can't! Would love another opinion on it!
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: abcdqdxD on February 10, 2013, 10:15:47 pm
I'm probably not in a position to correct your essay, but since I'm doing OTW as well I might as well give it a go:

Ignoring grammatical mistakes corrected by Brendinkles



Every story revolves around a single character that emerges as the hero, however none the less to say there is always only one Not really sure what you're trying to say here; this is demonstrated in Elia Kazan’s film ‘On the Waterfront’ where the protagonist Terry Malloy is not the sole hero Your opening sentence sounds a bit clumsy and lengthy. Heroism exists within: unnecessary use of colonEdie Doyle whom is the driving force in unveiling the truth of Joey’s death, and Father Barry who indirectly succeeds to break the waterfront culture. In contrast to the heroism displayed by Edie and Father Barry, Johnny Friendly is the antagonist simply stating Johnny Friendly is the antagonist is too vague and lacks complexity; however he is also a hero in his own story. It is the influences of these other heroes in which embark Terry on his adventureDoesn't really make sense to gain courage and heroism. "gaining" heroism doesn't really make sense.

From the first scenes in which Edie appears, Kazan utilizes her as the initial stimulus to uncover the truths of the corruption that exists on the waterfront. At first sight of Edie, the audience are persuaded to perceive her as the epitome of goodness and kindness. "epitome" is definitely a good word to use, but following it up with basic words such as "kindness" and "goodness" somewhat undermines your good workKazan achieves this visually through Edie’s fluorescent blonde hair in contrast to the dark backgrounds of the film in which she is present. The director also demonstrates Edie’s innocence verbally when she confirms that she has ‘never had a glass of beer’. Further, Kazan exhibits Edie’s kindness through Edie’s philosophy on life; ‘shouldn’t everyone care about everyone else’ in contrast to the longshoremen’s of ‘it’s every man for himself’. Kazan presents Edie in this particular light in order to encourage the audience to understand why Edie has great influence over Terry’s actions. Edie’s expectation of Terry speaking up and telling the truth lingers in Terry’s “conscience” which becomes a crucial factor in the result of Terry testifying against Johnny Friendly, exposing the corruption on the docks. Her contribution in exposing the truth of the deceptions of the waterfront brands her as one of Kazan’s heroes. You've talked about Edie's innocence, but does that really make her a hero? You should focus more on how Edie acts as Terry's moral compass, and how she was able to change Terry as a man

Father Barry is commended as a hero for his determination to eradicate the corrupt mob despite his hesitation at the beginning of the film. In order for Father Barry to begin intervening with the waterfront situation, Edie must accuse him of ‘hiding in his church’ for him to realise he must witness the shape-up for himself. Having observed why some get ‘picked’ and others ‘passed over’, he is forced by his duty as a priest, to foster the proposition to take down the mob alongside the longshoremen. The exchange of cigarettes between Father Barry and Dugan symbolizes the allegiance formed. After Father Barry assures Dugan that if he ‘stands up, [he] will stand up with [him]’, Dugan sacrifices his life to put ‘39 pages’ of Johnny Friendly’s ‘operation’ in the hands of the police. However the death of Dugan is proved to have no practical value once Johnny Friendly obtains possession of the documents, due to the dishonest system that extends further than the waterfron don't retell the story - analyse itt. In addition, Father Barry attempts to dissolve the ‘D and D’ culture on the docks by planting seeds of guilt in the longshoremen’s minds. He contends that ‘Jesus stands alongside [them]’ and that ‘keeping silent’ is a ‘crucifixion’, this speech largely impacts on Terry you need to watch your expression and flow. Consequently, Terry’s guilt consumes him and imposes him to admit his part in Joey’s death to Edie and Father Barry – a stepping stone in the dethroning of Friendly. Furthermore, the Father convinces Terry to ‘fight [Friendly] in the courtroom’ which, to an extent, defeats Johnny Friendly. You need to explain WHY Father Barry convinced Terry to fight Johnny Friendly in the coutroomFather Barry’s commitment to Dugan and the longshoremen is what deems him to be another hero in Kazan’s ‘On the Waterfront’. I just get the impression that you've just crammed everything into this paragraph, there aren't clear links between sentences, disrupting your flow

In contrast to the purpose of characters such as Edie and Father Barry, Johnny Friendly adopts the role of the villain in the film ; however he displays heroism in an omitted story of ‘On the Waterfront’ involving Friendly’s livelihood. Kazan paints Friendly as evil and aggressive in order to amplify the different values of morals moral values between the mob leader and Terry. The audience is given an insight into Friendly’s past where he of ‘ten kids’ were ‘raised on a watchmen’s pension’ and had to ‘beg for work’ when he was young. Naturally, the audience would sympathise for his past, however because the director has presented him as sinister, the audience forget that he is anything other than wicked. It is evident that Johnny Friendly has worked ‘[his] way up’ to wear ‘$150 suits’ and ‘diamond rings’, but his work was not honest, but laced with corruption. Nevertheless, Friendly’s union is a segment of a fraudulent organisation where he is only an underling. This instils the fear of being cut off by his superior Mr. Upstairs. We acknowledge this fear when Mr. Upstairs calls and is ‘plenty hot’, and as a result Friendly requests to see Terry immediately. This is demonstrative of Friendly’s fear of his boss. When Mr. Upstairs states ‘I’m out’ of Friendly’s operation coupled with Friendly’s deprivation of the control over the longshoremen, the audience acknowledges Friendly’s defeat. Ultimately when the evil façade of Johnny Friendly is removed, the audience is able to perceive him as a hero in his own right. Evoking sympathy for Friendly doesn't make him a hero

Kazan, from the beginning of the film, depicts Terry as a man who is kind separating himself from the people he is associated with.  I think you've jumped into the evidence too quickly. Expand a bit on what you mean by your topic sentenceThis is evident through the close ups of Terry’s face expressing unease after realising he has become an accessory to the murder of Joey Doyle, juxtaposed with Truck and Tullio’s reaction of pure laughter and no remorse. Consequently, the audience is positioned to adopt sympathy for him at times later in the film this reads more like a language analysis than a text response, which further reminds the audience of his affability. However there are also times where the audience overlooks his kind persona due to his upbringing, nature and remaining ‘deaf and dumb’. Due to the influences of Edie, Terry advances from not having ‘a spark of sentiment or romance’ to being in ‘love’; the presence of Father Barry paired with the consuming guilt, induces Terry to confess his and the mob’s responsibility of Joey and Dugan’s deaths. This shows the metamorphosis within Terry that needed to occur before he was able to testify against ‘people [he] may know’ and cleanse the waterfront of the mob. In addition, the instruction of Johnny Friendly to have Terry’s brother Charley killed is the trigger in which eventually eradicates the mob from the waterfront union. Ultimately Terry deserves the label of hero, but only if the other characters are worthy too due to their immense contribution towards the defeat of Friendly.  This paragraph sounds more like retelling the story/bibliography of Terry's life. I think you have overlooked the main point here: it's all about how Terry's morals/conscience/ethics drive him to take a stand against Friendly and his oppressive union.

In Elia Kazan’s film ‘On the Waterfront’ fairly cliche start, you need to do something 'different' to stand out, the director shows that the influences characters have on each other are what deems each of them as heroes. These influences consist of Edie’s perseverance and Father Barry’s commitment to the longshoremen. Kazan also demonstrates how the antagonist Johnny Friendly displays heroism despite his role in the corrupt waterfront. However, Terry’s journey depicts him as the most obvious hero you haven't really explained why Terry is the most "obvious" hero in your body paragraphs. You didn't explain to the audience the significance of his actions in the paragraph above.; don't use a semi colon just for the fun of it, I would put a fullstop hereconversely it is the influences of other characters that reject Terry as the sole hero I know what you're trying to say here, but expression needs work.

I find some parts of your essay to be quite hard to follow. You need to work on your expression and make sure your sentences flow. Another issue is the quality of ideas - make sure you cover the critical points. Also, don't just chuck random quotes in for no reason, make sure they're relevant and use them to make connections with your contention. Despite this, I'd say the quality of the essay is well above average.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on February 10, 2013, 10:20:57 pm
Damn, Brenden, you beat me to it :P
Hahaha, I'm quick off the mark! Are you doing OTW? I couldn't give feedback as well as I would have liked due to lack of knowledge.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Lolly on February 10, 2013, 10:32:32 pm
No, I'm not doing OTW but maybe the OP would appreciate additional feedback :P
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Dank_Lmoa on February 11, 2013, 08:32:09 pm
Hey guys, I was wondering if anyone familiar with "Year of Wonders" by Geraldine Brooks is able to help me with my text response. Cheers - A

“Anna’s struggle to find a sense of identity is the real triumph of the novel.” Discuss

Geraldine Brooks’ “Year of Wonders,” is a novel depicting the destruction and degradation of the town of Eaym, through both a brutal disease and a disarray of judgement. Ms Brooks portrays the story and themes through Anna’s eyes, a maiden and servant of Mr Mompellion. The most aggressive of these themes would be change, represented through Anna’s desire and perception of an elusive identity. She, and characters around her, experience her growth from a meek and demure servant, to a character possessing true strength and motivation.

Anna is first described in this novel as a woman experienced in difficult times, whose character has been morphed from soft to hard, accepting to questioning, and obedient to defiant. She first speaks of how she “…used to love this season” and “…used to love to walking in the apple orchard at this time of year,” dictating that her strength of character at one stage eluded her. When initially speaking with her master, Mr Mompellion for example, Anna was in awe and amazement of the man who she described as “… a compassionate and caring leader,” and was more than happy to undertake in any action he desired without defiance. Furthermore, when addressing the rector’s gaze, Anna would often fall short in fear, once again reiterating her demureness. However, later that year, and after a significant amount of work with Elinor Mompellion, Anna gains a level of confidence unbeknown to her previous self. She no longer finds conversing with her rector frightful, but rather enjoyable and interesting. During discussion, there are stages when they speak at a level of almost unrivalled equality, and Anna’s confidence even compels her to speak out against Mr Mompellions stern words to Jane Martin. This is the first time she recognises her change of character, exclaiming she “… could scarce believe she had spoken so.” Another example affirming her change would be her final farewell to the rector. Anna slowly “raised her hand to him,” indicative of her new bravery in possessing the strength to address her former master so unceremoniously.

Another modification within Anna is her reappraisal of religion. Being the rector’s servant, she finds herself compelled to live on the ‘path of God,’ but finds it challenging following the ordeals she encounters during the devastation of England. She is in disbelief at whether the earth is “in the soil beneath us,” or “in His (God’s) word.” This denotes Anna’s love of nature, and resembles a new pragmatic view upon her previously mysterious world, further allowing her to pursue in essential activities surrounding her dwellings. This is particularly prominent in the acquisition of herbs and plant-matter with Elinor, in order to protect the citizens of Eyam to their best ability. Anna ceases to accept ‘God’s judgement,’ but rather attempts to take matters within her own boundaries. She becomes more involved in the translation and interpretation of knowledge and information. Examples of this are prevalent in her decoding of the late Gowdies’ books with Elinor. Anna’s change to a more scientific and technical lifestyle enables her to undertake in tasks that would be seen as excessive for others. She is able to assist in the birthing of young Kate Talbot’s son, and is still in a position to assist in the collection of valuable ores for the young orphaned Quaker, Merry Wickford. This translates directly to a rich experience in life, and acts as the foundation of her identity.

Likened to her attitude toward Mr Mompellion in her metamorphosis, so to does Anteros play an admirable part in denoting it. When, for example, Anna first interacts with Anteros, she is quite timid but compassionate. She offers him an apple, and briefly apologises for his inhumane conditions. Anteros then dismisses her from the stables with a violent gesture, and we are left to acknowledge a resigned Anna. However, only weeks later, and with a far greater level of confidence, she unleashes Anteros and rides him out of town, bareback and “barely decent.” This link with Mompellion’s horse expresses the shift in power within Anna’s internal hierarchical conception. Mr Mompellion is no longer considered a master, but rather a being at a level of equality. Whenever Anna is with Anteros, she displays some sense of courage, mostly prominent in language used during the mounting and departure of Eyam. As Anna rides off, the beating of her heart and hoofs of Anteros scream “We live, we live, we live… I am alive,” also representative of her dismissal of the “shackles” oppressing her free spirit.  Moreover, Anna could be likened to the growth of the sapling from the previously concrete road, with the town’s degradation symbolic of the walnut shell, and Anna the growth and hope, expelled from within.

The altercation Anna undergoes in “Year of Wonders” is both exceptional and extraordinary. Her ability to overcome doubtful scenarios is unparalleled to any other character. Moreover, her relationships within her tale, with both God, and Michael Mompellion, undergo an extensive reappraisal that uncovers her true sense of character and identity. As she transforms through the novel, she gains a sense of confidence, compelling her to leave the city of Eyam and pursue a new life beyond the rector’s servant. This forms the foundation of her identity, and is the most exhilarating obstacle overcame.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on February 11, 2013, 08:38:03 pm
I call shotgun ^.
Will be back soon. I'm marking one now and have another to go, then I'll come do this one.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Daenerys Targaryen on February 11, 2013, 08:45:32 pm
I call shotgun ^.
Will be back soon. I'm marking one now and have another to go, then I'll come do this one.
Out of curiosity, do you take pleasure in marking essays? Like what kind of gain do you achieve?
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Dank_Lmoa on February 11, 2013, 08:51:14 pm
Thanks Brenny
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on February 11, 2013, 09:18:31 pm
Out of curiosity, do you take pleasure in marking essays? Like what kind of gain do you achieve?
Uhm. I get pretty bored sometimes but for the most part it's okay. I dunno if I'd get a "gain" from it. I feel more like I'm fulfilling a responsibility, but I do like teaching (refer to sig). Like... I've got the time, I've got the ability, I don't mind doing it and sometimes I enjoy it (more so when I get bored and start giving my feedback in a hilarious way), it's really good for you guys to get some help, especially if you have a shitty as fuck teacher, so... why not?
I also used these boards once or twice, so I'm paying a debt forward a little bit as well :)

Thanks Brenny
All goodz in da hoodz brah.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on February 12, 2013, 01:06:43 am
“Anna’s struggle to find a sense of identity is the real triumph of the novel.” Discuss

Geraldine Brooks’ “Year of Wonders,” is a novel depicting the destruction and degradation of the town of Eaym, through both a brutal disease and a disarray of judgement. Ms Brooks Interesting. I've never heard someone use a gender title in an essay. It sounds nice, though. If it doesn't remain consistent through the essay however, you should get rid of it. portrays the story and themes through Anna’s eyes, a maiden and servant of Mr Mompellion. The most aggressive of these themes would be change, represented through Anna’s desire and perception of an elusive identity. She, and characters around her, experience her growth from a meek and demure servant, to a character possessing true strength and motivation.
Nice introduction. Writing is good. The structure of this intro is quite contrary to what I use through what I've been taught/what I've read etc. I hesitate to correct the structure because your writing is good enough, so perhaps this is just the way you're taught strictly. I'm not so arrogant as to say that my way is better than your way, but would you like me to outline my way? Perhaps you are hiding some confusion behind eloquent writing.
Anna is first described in this novel as a woman experienced in difficult times, whose character has been morphed from soft to hard, accepting to questioning, and obedient to defiant.The writing is nice but due to the nature of your introduction and the nature of this topic sentence, I still don't know 100% what  you will be discussing this paragraph. This is the aim of your topic sentence; to encompass your argument. You haven't given me an argument here, rather a recap of how Anna is described. She first speaks of how she “…used to love this season” and “…used to love to walking in the apple orchard at this time of year,” dictating that her strength of character at one stage eluded herHm? Interesting interpretation. I wouldn't take loving the season/orchard as a sign of weakness... Rather the memories have been tainted by the plague (and the symbolism of it the apples hold). I think you'd need to justify/explain it further if you wanted to call it weakness. Another option would be to take this evidence and say how the mystery hints at a conflict of identity and the theme therein.  . When initially speaking with her master, Mr Mompellion for exampledon't say for example. Work it into your essay with more sophistication, Anna was in awe and amazement of the man who she described as “… a compassionate and caring leader,” and was more than happy to undertake in any action he desired without defiance.At the moment it seems like you're story telling but I'm assuming you're going to juxtapose evidence and then analyse Furthermore, when addressing the rector’s gaze, Anna would often fall short in fear, once again reiterating her demureness. However, later that year, and after a significant amount of work with Elinor Mompellion, Anna gains a level of confidence unbeknownst to her previous self. She no longer finds conversing with her rector frightful, but rather enjoyable and interesting. During discussion, there are stages when they speak at a level of almost unrivalled equality, and Anna’s confidence even compels her to speak out against Mr Mompellions stern words to Jane Martin. Still story tellingThis is the first time she recognises her change of character, exclaiming she “… could scarce believe she had spoken so.” Another example yucky. This just demonstrates you want to throw evidence at the examiner.affirming her change would be her final farewell to the rector. Anna slowly “raised her hand to him,” indicative of her new bravery in possessing the strength to address her former master so unceremoniously.In this paragraph you essentially give an outline of how once upon a time, Anna was submissive, but now she is dominant. It neglects the second half of the prompt. You don't much discuss how this is the triumph of the novel at all. You've just taken "sense of identity" and written about how Anna has strengthened through the novel, there's not really any nitty gritty analysis here. (I always found it difficult with character prompts) 

Another modification within Anna is her reappraisal of religion This TS reinforces the idea that you haven't fully addressed the prompt. You're discussing how her modifications are a triumph of the novel, now just her modifications. Being the rector’s servant, she finds herself compelled to live on the ‘path of God,’ but finds it challenging following the ordeals she encounters during the devastation of EnglandYou should probably mention the plague at some point lol. She is in disbelief at whether the earth is “in the soil beneath us,” or “in His (God’s)nooopppppe. Never bracket like this. The capital H is plenty. Only use parenthesis > [these]< if you want to substitute a word to better embed it. word.” This denotes Anna’s love of nature, and resembles a new pragmatic view upon her previously mysterious world, further allowing her to pursue in essential activities surrounding her dwellings. This is particularly prominent in the acquisition of herbs and plant-matter with Elinor, in order to protect the citizens of Eyam to their best ability. Anna ceases to accept ‘God’s judgement,’ but rather attempts to take matters within her own boundaries. She becomes more involved in the translation and interpretation of knowledge and information. Examples of this are prevalent in her decoding of the late Gowdies’ books with Elinor. Anna’s change to a more scientific and technical lifestyle enables her to undertake in tasks that would be seen as excessive for others. She is able to assist in the birthing of young Kate Talbot’s son, and is still in a position to assist in the collection of valuable ores for the young orphaned Quaker, Merry Wickford. This translates directly to a rich experience in life, and acts as the foundation of her identity.
I still found this lacking in analysis and not fully addressing the prompt. I think disagreeing with it would've allowed a better scope of discussion.
Likened to her attitude toward Mr Mompellion in her metamorphosis, so too does Anteros play an admirable part in denoting itI needed to read this three times. Probably a sign that you should change something around.. When, for exampleget rid of it., Anna first interacts with Anteros, she is quite timid but compassionate. She offers him an apple, and briefly apologises for his inhumane conditions. Anteros then dismisses her from the stables with a violent gesture, and we are left to acknowledge a resigned Anna.Retelling. However, only weeks later, and with a far greater level of confidence, she unleashes Anteros and rides him out of town, bareback and “barely decent.” This link with Mompellion’s horse expresses the shift in power within Anna’s internal hierarchical conception. Mr Mompellion is no longer considered a master, but rather a being at a level of equality. Whenever Anna is with Anteros, she displays some sense of courage, mostly prominent in language used during the mounting and departure of Eyam.You should google the meaning of Anteros' name. That'd give you some pretty solid analysis. As Anna rides off, the beating of her heart and hoofs of Anteros scream “We live, we live, we live… I am alive,” also representative of her dismissal of the “shackles” oppressing her free spirit.  Moreover, Anna could be likened to the growth of the sapling from the previously concrete road, with the town’s degradation symbolic of the walnut shell, and Anna the growth and hope, expelled from within.That last sentence was irrelevant to the rest of your paragaph/had nothing to do with your topic sentence and seems like a 'throwaway' line.

The altercation Anna undergoes in “Year of Wonders” is both exceptional and extraordinary. Her ability to overcome doubtful scenarios is unparalleled to any other character. Moreover, her relationships within her tale, with both God, and Michael Mompellion, undergo an extensive reappraisal that uncovers her true sense of character and identity. As she transforms through the novel, she gains a sense of confidence, compelling her to leave the city of Eyam and pursue a new life beyond the rector’s servant. This forms the foundation of her identity, and is the most exhilarating obstacle overcame.


You've quite nice writing (as can be seen by the lack of corrections)... However I just straight up don't think this has fully addressed the prompt. I think it lacks analysis. To rectorfy (okay that was terrible I'm so sorry) both of these things, I'd discuss the messages Brooks is trying to convey through Anna's metamorphosis and how having this as the real triumph of the novel serves to endorse/reinforce the messages Brooks is sending through Anna. Fixes both of your problems because a) you'll be discussing the author (which conspicuously wasn't done in your essay) and this will keep your analysis on track because you'll be using 'why' and 'how' automatically instead of just 'what'. Annnnd b) because you can't really go off track of the prompt when you're literally discussing why Brooks has made the prompt so. This is a pretty big call for me to make so I'm going to message VivaT and just give him the chance to disagree just in case I'm fucking you up. I'm entirely happy to be wrong. It'll look pretty funny if he disagrees.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on February 12, 2013, 07:21:39 pm
An anon submission :)

“Anna is not an objective observer, but this is not a problem. Her subjectivity enhances the impact of Stasiland.” Discuss the narrative point of view in Stasiland.

An intriguing introduction to a city where life will always be an emotional cabaret, Stasiland is fundamentally a personal exploration of the Stasi’s legacy. At the broadest level, Funder renders the foreign comprehensible from a fictitious perspective, where it is the subjectivity of the text that distinguishes the genre from historiography. Nevertheless, in order to effectively communicate the text’s central ideas, and explore and elucidate the consequences of events, a combination of fact and fiction is needed.  Funder’s manipulation of metalanguage observed in formatting and structure, tantamount to her unconventional narration enhances the effect of the text. 
It is through the genre of the text that subjectivity is perceived. By appealing to literary journalism, Funder deviates from traditional modes of writing posthumous biographies, as this genre gives her more narrative space, leeway or freedom to stray from objectivity and facts. As a result, Funder is able to incorporate a complex narrative time-frame – depicted in present and past – in her writing. Primarily, this is observed when Funder implies that the ‘present’ is set in 1996 when she visits Berlin to research Miriam’s story, comprising of the concluding chapters set in the spring of 2000; whereas, the string of tales recounted by the interviewees occurred in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Accompanying this delicate oscillation in time, Funder’s distinct division of narration into a first-person active voice and third-person omniscient narration suggests a fiction-writing technique. In particular, Funder’s first-person active voice renders her a foreigner, or someone who is vulnerable in the German Democratic Republic because she is incapable of comprehending it. Such is evident when Funder says, “I want to ask, but I sit tight” or “Sometimes, I wonder what it would be like to be German”. Consequently, this technique enables Funder’s Australian nature, and thus subjectivity, to assert itself sporadically throughout the text. Instances of this include Funder’s sojourn to the local Berlin swimming pool where she internally expresses her disgust for the “bathing” practices of Europe, or when she uses the simile “like a fugitive” to illuminate the obsession with identification papers in East Germany. Additionally, because of first-person active voice, she is given freedom to make overt judgements or assumptions about things, as is evident when Funder asserts that Sigrid Paul “overestimated her own strength”.  This intricate change in narration distinguishes itself from objectivity for the better, since the reader must not endure a constant form of narration throughout the text and experiences differing stylistic features. Simultaneously, the leitmotif that the past is not yet over is also conveyed.
Funder’s implementation of objectivism into her writing is crucial to the balance between fact and fiction in the text. Specifically, the third person omniscient narration enables Funder to solely provide the facts in an impersonal manner, as is observed with her reference to the allies and arrival of Glasnost. By the same token, the precision of Funder’s language is such that her meticulous attention to detail also highlights the objectivity of the text and establishes a conceivable setting, as is noted when she describes the “beautiful cross-eyed mother” with the “pierced nose” aboard the train to Potsdam or focuses on the scarcity of Julia’s apartment in sharing her story. The use of this precise language helps to rebuild the lives of those who were victimised by the Stasi, predominantly because “the Firm” would falsify the lives of these people. The “internal army” did this by recording personal information in their unofficial biographies, putting residents in a very vulnerable position, as this information could be used as blackmail to inflict punitive measures or manipulate people to become informers, leading to the destruction of relationships. A particularly notable example of this was with Hagen Koch, who divorced with his wife on account of her believing the Stasi’s duplicitousness with regard to the “pornography” in which her husband was embroiled. Funder succeeds in replacing these deceitful notions into objectivity due to this precision of detail, such that the reader is able to grasp the true personality of the interviewee.
Arguably the metalanguage primarily underscores the creativity of the text, and thus, enhances the subjectivity of the text. This is firstly observed through the structure, where the anachronous composition of events deviates from the conventions of historiography to show that Funder is concerned with personal histories and the significance of facts instead of the bare facts themselves, catering as an effective and compelling structuring technique. In fact, this structure is underscored through the chapter-by-chapter analysis of characters, where the varying lengths of chapters are devoted to individual anecdotes and each story is self-contained. Such a structure conveys the sheer extent of damage inflicted by the Stasi, portrayed by the fact that the people have so many important and distinct stories to tell. This liberty of narrative space also confers enormous respect upon the story tellers, adopting a humanising strategy to contrast sharply with the degrading and demeaning tactics employed by the Stasi. Ultimately, it is the very vividness of this language that enables the reader to easily imagine the horror of Hohenschönhausen on reading Funder’s description of the smell of “damp and old urine and vomit and earth: the smell of misery”, or to conceive the fanatical celebration of communist heroes with Funder’s description of the “god-like busts” with “flowing hair” and the “long row of clenched plaster fists sticking up for international socialism” on display at Stasi Headquarters. The use of such graphic language is reinforced through Funder’s appeal to figurative language, as is evident in descriptions of Hohenschönhausen’s torture cells that liken contraptions to “an apparatus at a county fair” or “some Pythonesque sideshow of history”. The alien landscape these figurative devices help Funder to communicate is an emotional rather than a physical one. Similarly, by portraying Frau Paul as a “lonely, teary guilt-wracked wreck”, the writer aims to draw vibrant, identifiable and believable characters to communicate the enormity of the pain and loss these people have experienced.
Conversely, Stasiland is a text based on dates and historical evidence; its existence would deem farcical if the construction of the arbitrary Berlin Wall had not occurred.  In essence, such implies that the fiction or narrative viewpoint in Funder’s writing is reliant on the facts or solid evidence, where appeal to a more literary and fantastical means of exploring these facts merely makes for an interesting read. Whilst Funder’s main focus is on extrapolating and investigating the repercussions of actions by the Stasi and interviewees, it should be noted that the existence of bare facts is vital, such that readers are not constantly influenced by the narrator, and instead, can draw their own conclusions. For example, Funder may proclaim that the Wall was designed to “keep people separate from each other”. However, this assumption is contrary to the ideology of the USSR, who found the Wall a necessity to protect its people from the tyranny and corruption of the West. These conflicting ideologies greatly deviate from the real or “Insiderkommitees” reason for the construction of the Wall – to save Stalin’s communist regime from embarrassment, as the exodus into West Berlin from the East demonstrated the political and economic instability of Communism. In like fashion, Funder describes the wall as a “horror-romance”, whereas the perspectives of von-Schnitzler and Herr Winz on the Wall’s existence negate a different contention, which gives readers insight into the fact that individuals harbour differing opinions on undertakings in history. Because of this, the provision of factual evidence becomes obligatory for the reader to consider the historical event impartially.
Even though Funder places greater significance on elaborating the consequences of historical events, thus employing a tacit subjectivity by appealing to opinion, her objectivity is underscored through the rationale she demonstrates in her precise lexicon. This literal technique is further augmented through the detail provided in articulating the wholesomeness of an environment, where the journalistic genre gives her credibility to do so. The compilation of these linguistic elements enhances the narrative viewpoint of the text.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: 507 on February 12, 2013, 09:50:20 pm
“The Plague will make heroes of us all”…and…“these times, they do make monsters of us all.” The Plague brings out the very best and the very worst in people. Is this how you see “Year of Wonders”?

“Year of Wonders”, a novel by Geraldine Brooks, delineates the hardships endured by the citizens of Eyam during the plague epidemic of the 17th century. The Black Death brought about times of extreme pain and turmoil for villagers, resulting in the expression of their true characters and values. Some individuals embraced the tribulations of the plague, dedicating their lives to ensuring the wellbeing of others; while others deteriorated, resorting to cowardice and exploiting vulnerable citizens. Figures such as Anna and the Mompellions emerge as heroes of the story, providing support and salve to those around them, yet figures such as the Bradfords and Josiah Bont do quite the opposite in order to serve their own selfish intentions.  The actions of the villagers of Eyam throughout the plague year, both good and bad, reflect that an individual’s true character is displayed when faced with extreme adversity.

The conditions brought about by the plague were ruthless, proving difficult for even the most resilient of individuals to endure. Despite this, numerous heroes emerged from the situation, rising to the occasion to provide the support and assistance that was desperately needed by the citizens of Eyam. Rector Mompellion proved to be an influential role model throughout the epidemic, choosing to fulfil his duties as a leader of Eyam, rather than ‘follow the physicians’ as many other priests had done. This reflects that not only was Mompellion willing to stand by the ‘lower class’ villagers during this hardship, but also would prefer to suffer the turmoil himself rather than befall it upon others. Mompellion works tirelessly beside victims of the plague, providing them with support and prayers in their final moments, while holding no concern for his own health or wellbeing. This is also supported by Elinor’s concerns that ‘his body is strong, but I fear that the strength of his will far exceed it.’ Mompellion acts as a crucial figure to Eyam, selflessly guiding them through the tribulations of the plague.

Alongside Mompellion, Anna and Elinor dedicated their lives to helping the afflicted and those affected by their deaths. Anna, who had lost everything, could easily have resorted to self-indulgence through the consumption of ‘The Poppies of Lethe’. Instead, she opted to journey with Elinor to assist those in need. Alike Mompellion, the two had no regard for their wellbeing if it meant relieving others of pain. This was signified when Anna jeopardised her life in order to help Merry Wickford, accepting that ‘the rocks would be my cairn and my tombstone’, illustrating the extent the two were willing to go to in order to help others. Other glimpses of heroism were evident among villagers when agreeing to ‘let the boundaries of this village become our whole world.’ This symbolises that despite the fear and suffering they may be experiencing, they would rather do so than place the burden of the plague upon others. The actions of such heroic figures signify that adversity can in fact bring out the very best in people.

Despite the many heroes that emerged during the plague, there were numerous individuals who were quick to abandon Eyam or exploit the situations that arose. The aristocratic rich Bradfords possessed a great deal of power within Eyam, and with such power came responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of society. However, they did not oblige to staying in Eyam with the rest of the villagers, and instead abandoned the individuals for whom they cared for, their faith in the church, and Eyam. The lack of respect they held for ‘commoners’ was made obvious upon Colonel Bradford asking; ‘you think I care for a few sweaty miners and their snotty-nosed brats?’ Such actions on behalf of the Bradfords reflected that they cared only for their own wellbeing, regardless of its expense to others. The rich and powerful were not the only cowards during the epidemic. Figures such as Josiah Bont saw the suffering of others as an opportunity to exploit, which he sought to benefit from.  While most would consider circumstances whereby an orphan had to bury their parents horrendous, Josiah saw it as good business, remarking that he would ‘demand a high fee’ in return for a grave to bury their parents in. Individuals such as Josiah Bont and the Bradfords depict that the struggles of the plague can cause deterioration among people, resulting in them living only to serve their selfish desires.

When faced with adversity, individuals will act in many different ways. Some will embrace the challenge and rise to the occasion. Others will resort to their basic instincts, and will focus solely on fulfilling their own intentions. This is reflected by the actions of the villagers of Eyam; through the heroic figures of the Mompellions and Anna, and through the cowardice and manipulation of the Bradfords and Josiah Bont. When an individual is faced with an adversity such as the plague, their true character is revealed; for better or for worse.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: dilks on February 12, 2013, 10:43:47 pm
Some quick points:

Text responses should be written in the present tense, not the past tense.
There is a lot of retelling going on in the essay.
Use of the word 'symbolises' when the thing in question isn't a symbol.

Use of the obvious examples. No real attempt to demonstrate originality. Futhermore, it is not enough to simply agree with the prompt and provide examples. In order to get high marks you need to explore the complexities and nuances of the topic.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on February 15, 2013, 11:39:51 pm
“Anna is not an objective observer, but this is not a problem. Her subjectivity enhances the impact of Stasiland.” Discuss the narrative point of view in Stasiland.
Alrighty this is the first essay I've read on this text so forgive me if I leave some stupid feedback
An intriguing introduction to a city where life will always be an emotional cabaret, Stasiland is fundamentally a personal exploration of the Stasi’s legacy.Nice first sentence. I liked to offer some historical context as my first line but if that's not your style, cool. This is nice. At the broadest level, Funder renders the foreign comprehensible from a fictitious perspective, where it is the subjectivity of the text that distinguishes the genre from historiography. Nevertheless, in order to effectively communicate the text’s central ideas, and explore and elucidate the consequences of events, a combination of fact and fiction is needed. Too many 'ands' for perfect flow, I think.  Funder’s manipulation of metalanguage observed in formatting and structure, tantamount to her unconventional narration enhances the effect of the text.  We need a thesis statement here! Eseentially something that sums your contention in one line, best to google and research yourself, I think =]. I'm also assuming you've got your three points of topic above but it's hard for me to distinguish because nfi about this text.
It is through the genre of the text that subjectivity is perceived. By appealing to literary journalism, Funder deviates from traditional modes of writing posthumous biographies, as this genre gives her more narrative space, leeway or freedom to stray from objectivity and facts. Great As a result, Funder is able to incorporate a complex narrative time-frame – depicted in present and past – avoid the dash in formal writingin her writing. Primarily, this is observed when Funder implies that the ‘present’ is set in 1996 when she visits Berlin to research Miriam’s story, comprising of the concluding chapters set in the spring of 2000; whereas, the string of tales recounted by the interviewees occurred in the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s. Accompanying this delicate oscillation in time, Funder’s distinct division of narration into a first-person active voice and third-person omniscient narration suggests a fiction-writing technique.this sounds pretty great. (could be standard, though, darned my knowledge) In particular, Funder’s first-person active voice renders her a foreigner, or someone who is vulnerable in the German Democratic Republic because she is incapable of comprehending it. Such is evident when Funder says, “I want to ask, but I sit tight” or “Sometimes, I wonder what it would be like to be German”. Consequently, this technique enables Funder’s Australian nature, and thus subjectivity, to assert itself sporadically throughout the text. Instances of this include Funder’s sojourn to the local Berlin swimming pool where she internally expresses her disgust for the “bathing” practices of Europe, or when she uses the simile “like a fugitive” to illuminate the obsession with identification papers in East Germany. Additionally, because of first-person active voice, she is given freedom to make overt judgements or assumptions about things, as is evident when Funder asserts that Sigrid Paul “overestimated her own strength”.  This intricate change in narration distinguishes itself from objectivity for the better, since the reader must not endure a constant form of narration throughout the text and experiences differing stylistic features. Simultaneously, the leitmotif that the past is not yet over is also conveyed. Great paragraph
Funder’s implementation of objectivism into her writing is crucial to the balance between fact and fiction in the text. Specifically, the third person omniscient narration enables Funder to solely provide the facts in an impersonal manner, as is observed with her reference to the allies and arrival of Glasnost. By the same token, the precision of Funder’s language is such that her meticulous attention to detail also highlights the objectivity of the text and establishes a conceivable setting, as is noted when she describes the “beautiful cross-eyed mother” with the “pierced nose” aboard the train to Potsdam or focuses on the scarcity of Julia’s apartment in sharing her story. The use of this precise language helps to rebuild the lives of those who were victimised by the Stasi, predominantly because “the Firm” would falsify the lives of these people. The “internal army” did this by recording personal information in their unofficial biographies, putting residents in a very vulnerable position, as this information could be used as blackmail to inflict punitive measures or manipulate people to become informers, leading to the destruction of relationships. A particularly notable example of this was with Hagen Koch, who divorced with his wife on account of her believing the Stasi’s duplicitousness with regard to the “pornography” in which her husband was embroiled. Funder succeeds in replacing these deceitful notions into objectivity due to this precision of detail, such that the reader is able to grasp the true personality of the interviewee. This seems like it could be retelling but otherwise, the writing is still strong in this paragraph. I have no idea what's going on in terms of whether this is a story, a historical fiction novel or what! I don't think I'll find much wrong with your writing style, at the moment it's probably best for you to think about the text and know the text inside out. Your writing is very nice to read :)
Arguably the metalanguage primarily underscores the creativity of the text, and thus, enhances the subjectivity of the text. This is firstly observed through the structure, where the anachronous composition of events deviates from the conventions of historiography to show that Funder is concerned with personal histories and the significance of facts instead of the bare facts themselves, catering as an effective and compelling structuring technique. In fact, this structure is underscored through the chapter-by-chapter analysis of characters, where the varying lengths of chapters are devoted to individual anecdotes and each story is self-contained. Such a structure conveys the sheer extent of damage inflicted by the Stasi, portrayed by the fact that the people have so many important and distinct stories to tell. This liberty of narrative space also confers enormous respect upon the story tellers, adopting a humanising strategy to contrast sharply with the degrading and demeaning tactics employed by the Stasi. Ultimately, it is the very vividness of this language that enables the reader to easily imagine the horror of Hohenschönhausen on reading Funder’s description of the smell of “damp and old urine and vomit and earth: the smell of misery”, or to conceive the fanatical celebration of communist heroes with Funder’s description of the “god-like busts” with “flowing hair” and the “long row of clenched plaster fists sticking up for international socialism” on display at Stasi Headquarters. The use of such graphic language is reinforced through Funder’s appeal to figurative language "appeal to figurative language" - appeal seems out of place, as is evident in descriptions of Hohenschönhausen’s torture cells that liken contraptions to “an apparatus at a county fair” or “some Pythonesque sideshow of history”. The alien landscape these figurative devices help Funder to communicate is an emotional rather than a physical one. Similarly, by portraying Frau Paul as a “lonely, teary guilt-wracked wreck”, the writer aims to draw vibrant, identifiable and believable characters to communicate the enormity of the pain and loss these people have experienced.
Conversely, Stasiland is a text based on dates and historical evidence; its existence would deem farcical if the construction of the arbitrary Berlin Wall had not occurred.  In essence, such implies that the fiction or narrative viewpoint in Funder’s writing is reliant on the facts or solid evidence, where appeal to a more literary and fantastical means of exploring these facts merely makes for an interesting read. Whilst Funder’s main focus is on extrapolating and investigating the repercussions of actions by the Stasi and interviewees, it should be noted that the existence of bare facts is vital, such that readers are not constantly influenced by the narrator, and instead, can draw their own conclusions. For example,avoid the use of for example, i think it breaks the flow Funder may proclaim that the Wall was designed to “keep people separate from each other”. However, this assumption is contrary to the ideology of the USSR, who found the Wall a necessity to protect its people from the tyranny and corruption of the West. These conflicting ideologies greatly deviate from the real or “Insiderkommitees” reason for the construction of the Wall – to save Stalin’s communist regime from embarrassment, as the exodus into West Berlin from the East demonstrated the political and economic instability of Communism. In like fashion, Funder describes the wall as a “horror-romance”, whereas the perspectives of von-Schnitzler and Herr Winz on the Wall’s existence negate a different contention, which gives readers insight into the fact that individuals harbour differing opinions on undertakings in history. Subsequently, (beats 'because' after a full syopBecause of this, the provision of factual evidence becomes obligatory for the reader to consider the historical event impartially.
Even though Funder places greater significance on elaborating the consequences of historical events, thus employing a tacit subjectivity by appealing to opinion, her objectivity is underscored through the rationale she demonstrates in her precise lexicon. This literal technique is further augmented through the detail provided in articulating the wholesomeness of an environment, where the journalistic genre gives her credibility to do so. The compilation of these linguistic elements enhances the narrative viewpoint of the text.
Well, I can't really flaw your expression so much (to my frustration), but I can't tell if your ideas are original etc and all of those good things we like about ideas. If the ideas matched your writing this would be an excellent piece.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on February 17, 2013, 01:11:25 am
“The Plague will make heroes of us all”…and…“these times, they do make monsters of us all.” The Plague brings out the very best and the very worst in people. Is this how you see “Year of Wonders”?

Offer some historical context as your opening line. Something to do with social norms of the Restoration Era or how Puritan values were shifting in the 'Age of Enlightenment' or something like that. If you haven't researched the history yet, do it. “Year of Wonders”, a historical fiction novel by Geraldine Brooks, delineates the hardships endured by the citizens of Eyam during the plague epidemic of the 17th century Kewl . The Black Death brought about times of extreme pain and turmoil for villagers, resulting in the expression of their true characters and valueswew. Some individuals embraced the tribulations of the plague, dedicating their lives to ensuring the wellhyphonbeing of others; while others deteriorated, resorting to cowardice and exploiting vulnerable citizens. Figures such as Anna and the Mompellions emerge as heroes of the story, providing support and salve to those around them, yet figures such as the Bradfords and Josiah Bont do quite the opposite in order to serve their own selfish intentions.  The actions of the villagers of Eyam throughout the plague year, both good and bad, reflect that an individual’s true character is displayed when faced with extreme adversity. Well done, nice introduction. Would add a contextual opening sentence.

The conditions brought about by the plague were ruthless, proving avoid 'ing' words. And 'are' ruthless. This is what dilks was saying about your tense. You'd change this sentence to "The conditions brought about the plague are ruthless and difficult even for the most resilient of individuals to endure." Just got rid of proving. If you really wanted it there you'd use 'proves'. Avoid dat 'ing'. difficult for even the most resilient of individuals to endure. Despite this, numerous heroes emergedemerge. This is the last time I'll point out the tense flaws as it will run through the essay, but you now know what to fix. from the situation, risingavoid ing. to the occasion to provide the support and assistance that was desperately needed by the citizens of Eyam. Rector Mompellion proved to be an influential role model throughout the epidemic, choosing to fulfil his duties as a leader of Eyam, rather than ‘follow the physicians’ as many other priests had done. This reflects that not only was Mompellion willing to stand by the ‘lower class’ villagers during this hardship, but also would prefer to suffer the turmoil himself rather than befall it upon others. This is mostly a summary of the story Mompellion works tirelessly beside victims of the plague, providing them with support and prayers in their final moments, while holding no concern for his own health or wellbeing. This is also supported by Elinor’s concerns that ‘his body is strong, but I fear that the strength of his will far exceed it.’ Mompellion acts as a crucial figure to Eyam, selflessly guiding them through the tribulations of the plague. Quite a simple paragraph (please don't take that derisively). Very standard, the expression is nice. Structure could be hidden more but that will come with sophisticated analysis. I mean, you've got a huge opportunity with this prompt. Brings out the best and worst in human nature. You could devote a whole paragraph to Mompellion and address the prompt extremely well here. Obviously we mention what a top bloke he appears to be (and be sure to analyse your evidence!) you could even draw parallels between him and Jesus, analyse the white robes (symbolism/purity ) he wears when Elinor snuffs it, etc etc and then flip and say it also brings out the worst in him - > re: banging Anna and then being a cunt. Could analyse misogyny, what the author is trying to convey about sexual freedoms and women's rights/desires (and still be relevant to the prompt if you're skillful). You could have this big juxtaposition in your paragraph, analyse some good evidence, be less standard/more original (although what I just said isn't hugely groundbreaking at all) and you'd look really good for it. But yeah, watch your tenses, watch your 'ing' to make sure your writing is super punchy.

Alongside Mompellion, Anna and Elinor dedicated their lives to helping the afflicted and those affected by their deaths. Anna, who had lost everything, could easily have resorted to self-indulgence through the consumption of ‘The Poppies of Lethe’. Instead, she opted to journey with Elinor to assist those in need. Alike Mompellion, the two had no regard for their wellbeing if it meant relieving others of pain. This was signified when Anna jeopardised her life in order to help Merry Wickford, accepting that ‘the rocks would be my cairn and my tombstone’, illustrating the extent the two were willing to go to in order to help others. Maaaaaaaaan you could draw on all sort of crazy shit about the mines-> Anna's transition from bravery, her phobia because of Sam etc, defying stereotypical gender roles etc etc. Gotta get some dense analysis in there. Other glimpses of heroism were evident among villagers when agreeing to ‘let the boundaries of this village become our whole world.’ This symbolises that despite the fear and suffering they may be experiencing, they would rather do so than place the burden of the plague upon others. The actions of such heroic figures signify that adversity can in fact bring out the very best in people. You're being too 'pretty'. Yeah, y'know, your writing is nice, you're saying what you 'should' be saying, you're tlaking about the prompt, y'know, tick tick tick. But you're barely scratching the surface! You want to get right down nice and deep like all up in there. More gritty, less pretty.

Despite the many heroes that emerged during the plague, there were numerous individuals who were quick to abandon Eyam or exploit the situations that arose. The aristocratic rich Bradfords possessed a great deal of power within Eyam, and with such power came responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of society. However, they did not oblige to staying in Eyam with the rest of the villagers, and instead abandoned the individuals for whom they cared for, their faith in the church, and Eyam. The lack of respect they held for ‘commoners’ was made obvious upon Colonel Bradford asking; ‘you think I care for a few sweaty miners and their snotty-nosed brats?’ Such actions on behalf of the Bradfords reflected that they cared only for their own wellbeing, regardless of its expense to others. The rich and powerful were not the only cowards during the epidemic. Figures such as Josiah Bont saw the suffering of others as an opportunity to exploit, which he sought to benefit from.  While most would consider circumstances whereby an orphan had to bury their parents horrendous, Josiah saw it as good business, remarking that he would ‘demand a high fee’ in return for a grave to bury their parents in. Individuals such as Josiah Bont and the Bradfords depict that the struggles of the plague can cause deterioration among people, resulting in them living only to serve their selfish desires.Same feedback, really. More grit. "we need to go deeper". Inception your essay.

When faced with adversity, individuals will act in many different ways. Some will embrace the challenge and rise to the occasion. Others will resort to their basic instincts, and will focus solely on fulfilling their own intentions. This is reflected by the actions of the villagers of Eyam; through the heroic figures of the Mompellions and Anna, and through the cowardice and manipulation of the Bradfords and Josiah Bont. When an individual is faced with an adversity such as the plague, their true character is revealed; for better or for worse.Nice conclusion.

Yeah look you may as well just copy/paste what dilks said. Fix your tense. Fix your retelling. Get some analysis in there and some relevant metalanguage along with it. A pretty essay, but it's not doing much for me. GET UP IN THERE NICE AND DEEP LIKE
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: 507 on February 17, 2013, 04:12:17 pm
Cheers Brenden and Dilks  :)

I've tried to address those points, I think the retelling/lack of analysis might still be an issue though. Anyway.

“Anna Frith is a different person after 1665.” In what ways is she changed and what caused the change?

The influences and experiences encountered in life are said to be the foundation of one’s identity. Anna Frith, a young maid in Geraldine Brooks’ “Year of Wonders”, is a testament to this; as she is transformed from a feeble maid, to an independent, altruistic woman “who has faced more terrors than many warriors.”  Various individuals such as Anys Gowdie and Elinor Mompellion play a significant role in influencing such changes, as they provide Anna with an alternate view of the world in times of hardship. The positive changes embodied by Anna Frith reflect the truth in the title of the novel; that the adversity of the plague can in fact give rise to many “wonders.”

Despite the explicit misogyny present in the 17th century, several influential females hold their own values, contrary to the social norm.  Figures such as Elinor Mompellion “could not, or would not, see the distinctions that the world wished to make between weak and strong, between women and men.”  Such perceptions cause Anna to question these values held by society, and consequently, her conformity to such distinctions. Anna’s shift in values is evident through her endeavours with Elinor, where she too, does “not scruple to toil with her hands.” Anna and Elinor proceed to undertake many tasks that are considered to be only conducted by men, including the excavation of Merry Wickford’s mine, again reflecting their lack of concern in performing dangerous, ‘male-only tasks.’ Elinor Mompellion is also a strong, selfless woman, from whom “the whole parish benefits.” Elinor lives to assist others, be it miners or aristocratic rich, not seeing “the distinctions... between labourer and lord.” Anna adopts this lack care for a social hierarchy, helping all those in need, ranging from orphaned children to the damaged Rector Mompellion. Anna’s altruistic character is signified when she delivers and adopts Elizabeth Bradford’s baby, despite the Bradfords’ blatant betrayal of the village. The changes in characteristics displayed by Anna reflect Elinor’s strong influence on her as a young woman.

Alike Elinor, Anys Gowdie also holds social expectations in a low regard, albeit she does so in a more selfish manner. Anys explicitly expresses to Anna that she does not desire to be married, through stating “I’m not made to be any man’s chattel.” Such a concept of freedom of women is almost unheard of in the 17th century, and causes Anna to consider the lives of her and other woman from a different perspective. This perspective leads Anna to perceive other women through the eyes of Anys; “shackled to their menfolk.”  Anys’s influence of freedom and independence upon Anna is signified when Anna elects to start her new life in Oran, rather than follow the guidance of Mompellion in staying with Elinor’s family. Moreover, Anys provides Anna with her perspective of religion, or lack thereof. Anys Gowdie is a blatant heathen, again, something that is unheard of in the 17th century. Anys’s blasphemy causes Anna to constantly question the legitimacy of her religion, prompting questions such as “did I really believe that God put the rock in my path to trip me?”  This doubt in religion is heightened by the seemingly illogical suffering of “good” people such as Maggie Cantwell, considering the plague is supposedly meant to be merely a test for “sinners”.  Anna’s eventual loss of faith is a testament to the heathenish influence bestowed upon her by Anys, as well as the absence of God during the suffering of “good people”.

Conversely to the many positive changes embodied by Anna, there were also negative effects as a result of the plague epidemic. The ruthless conditions of the plague brought about a metamorphosis of even the most resilient of individuals, including Anna. Although Anna is transformed into an independent, altruistic woman through the influence of Elinor and Anys, she is also emotionally damaged by its conditions. This damage is evident upon Anna reflecting that “I, who always prided myself on grace, now allow myself a deliberate clumsiness” and “my body acts despite the firm resolve of my mind. Such statements signify that Anna is a damaged woman, who has indeed “faced more terrors than many warriors.” Regardless of the many changes displayed by Anna, there remains parts of her character that are unchanged. Despite the betrayal and evil expressed by figures such as the Bradfords, Josiah and Aphra, Anna retains her compassion for others that she has before the year of the plague. This is evident through her unparalleled love for her two new children; Aisha and Elinor. Such compassion displayed by Anna reflects that some characteristics of an individual cannot be changed, regardless of the adversities they are faced with.

The year of the plague brought about the metamorphosis of many individuals within Eyam, including Anna Frith. This resulted in the transformation of Anna from an obedient, feeble young maid, to a damaged, yet independent and altruistic woman. Such changes embodied by Anna are direct results of the influences bestowed upon her by figures such as Elinor and Anys, and the plague epidemic itself.


Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: bopbopbop on February 18, 2013, 06:29:37 pm
Under timed conditions and without notes...only my second practice essay for the year, but please destroy it :D (I'd also appreciate if you could possibly give it a mark out of 10? Thanks)

"The Year of Wonders presents Anna, Michael and others in the village with a time of crisis. Are the changes in these characters always positive? Discuss"

Geraldine Brooks' "Year of Wonders" depicts the horrific struggle of the English town of Eyam in the 17th century. The novel is set during the Great Plague of London in 1665 and 1666 and shows the difficult times that the villagers face from the pestilence of the Plague. For most, this is a time of tragedy but for one, namely Josiah Bont, it is an opportunity to feed their own greed. The horrors experienced during this time also have a great effect on the characters in the story, transforming them as people. While characters such as Anna and Elinor grow and prosper in resilience and in knowledge, others deteriorate and become monsters as a result.

The time period between Spring 1665 and "Leaf-fall" 1666 is undoubtedly chaotic, however certain individuals use this as an opportunity to take advantage of others' deaths. Anna's father Joss Bont is a disturbed man, who was physically and sexually abused as a teenager. Due to his past experiences, rather than this time being a time of pain and suffering, Josiah actually hopes more people will pass, allowing him to garner their possessions as a reward for his duties of burying them. Many villagers are particularly disgusted with his actions, however there is little they can do to prevent them. He continues to use the crisis as a shopping spree, stealing prized possessions such as silver from people's homes. But where Joss really "excels in his wretchedness" is when he tries to murder Christoper Unwin in order to gain his belongings. Eventually, he is brought to justice for his actions and perishes after being nailed to the walls of a mine, putting an end to his reign of terror, which only worsened the already dire crisis the village was in.

Anna manages to persevere and prosper as a result of the challenges she deals with during 1665 and 1666. Anna begins the story as a "timid girl", being almost obsequious in her role as a "servant" to Michael Mompellion and also the Bradford family. However, she makes dramatic changes to her character throughout the novel. Her two sons Tom and Jamie are among the first to be taken by the Plague and although she almost gives up, at one point reverting to the "poppies of Lethe" for relief, she perseveres through her pain. Anna becomes integral in the village's well being, gaining vast knowledge in "physick" along with Elinor, so they can help people be "better off on acount of it". During the course of the story Anna develops mentally, into a tenacious and resilient woman who has "faced more terrors than many warriors." She continues to act heroicly, at one point even helping to deliver Mary Daniels' baby, although having little experience. She becomes more knowledgeable about "how things [stand] in the world", leaving behind her previous "light and dark" mentality. She constantly questions God, wondering about why His words were "always so harsh" and ultimately ends up concluding the Plague is a "thing in Nature merely". Anna's metamorphosis as a person shows what positive change can come out of such a terrible time.
The town Vicar Michael Mompellion, also considered a leader by many due to his connection with God and also his status as a strong male, is generally a good force for most of the story until the death of Elinor, after which he deteriorates greatly. Mompellion is an optimistic and confident man and convinces the village that the Plague is simply "sent by God to test and chastise those souls He [will] save.", allowing them to them they will be able to persevere through this test from God. He exclaims that this Plague "will make heroes of us all", constantly uplifiting the spirits of the villagers. At one point he even digs "six graves" in a day in an effort to ensure the mental well being of the villagers after the death of the sexton. Through all his good deeds though, the death of his wife Elinor has a major impact on him, rendering him incapable of assistance, forcing him to sit "all day in the dark, with the shutters closed." Once a firm believer in God, Mompellion now "never opens" his Bible and exclaims that "he was wrong" for believing. He ends up sleeping with Anna to her extreme displeasure, after he reveals he never gave Elinor the same. Michael Mompellion's loss of faith and of moral character is an extremely negative change that results in the loss of ultimately, himself.

Other characters in the noval also undergo significant negative transformations due to the Plague. The Bradford family is the wealthy influence of the town and in in a position to satisfy the needs of people in the village during the "Plague season". However they show great cowardice when the Plague hits Eyam and leave the villagers on their own, stranded in their "wide green prison". The family is so abhorently unfair to the village that they leave even their most senior mades such as Maggie Cantwell, with nothing. Maggie ends up dying of a stroke. John Gordon is another character who becomes a monster out of desperation to avoid the Plague. He first takes part in the attempted murder of Mem Gowdie and the subsequent murder of Anys Gowdie, assuming them to be witches. So futile does he feel his situation is, that he actually resorted to killing one of the town's most knowledgeable physicians in order to scave off the "Plague seeds". Later, John becomes a flagellant, mutilating himself to appeal to God, having become totally insane as a result of the pain and suffering the Plague has caused. Ann's stepmother Aphra Bont follows a similar path after the death of her husband Josiah. The stress and mental strain proves too much for this "shrewd" woman, leading to an exaggerated mental deterioration into a "lunatic". She eventually goes so far as to commit a treacherous filicide of her own daughter Faith, burning her and hanging her from the roof of her home. Soon after she also stabs Elinor in the neck, killing her. Over the course of the novel, many characters like these are similarly transformed for the worst.

During this incessantly tough time, many people must face incalculable hardships and suffering. Joss Bont actually uses this to his advantage and decides to feed his greed. The characters of Anna and Elinor are able to improve themselves as people, becoming resilient and tenacious women in the face of inimitable adversity. Others struggle through this crisis, becoming intoxicated in the pain and tragedy that envelopes the village. The Great Plague of London from 1665 to 1666 certainly has a dramatic effect on the villagers of Eyam, whether they change for the best or the worst.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Splash8 on February 19, 2013, 11:38:14 am
My second essay for the year. Could someone possibly read over/correct it for me/ give feedback. Thanks.

'Father Barry is the real hero in 'On the Waterfront'. Discuss.'

In the film, 'On the Waterfront', the director Elia Kazan explores the corruption surrounding the docks of Hoboken and relates it to the influences of power in the 1950's. Through the film, Kazan exposes what life was like and focuses on what it takes to stand up and be a 'hero'. Father Barry is used as one of the main influential characters in the film, and exhibits a heroic figure. Through his stature, the concept of religion and manipulation is explored relative to various characters; and in comparison to the effect it had on Kazan in the 1950s.  However, Father Barry isn't considered to be the 'real' hero, as other characters contribute to the overall development and conclusion of the film, and also affect his decisions. Kazan demonstrates this through character interactions and speech, as well as presenting other characters with heroic qualities, such as Terry's strength and determination to be a 'contender', and stand up to Johnny Friendly and the mob. These events are designed to mimic Kazan's story, to rationalise and justify the unpopular choice he made to testify at the HUAC trials.

Throughout the film, Elia Kazan uses religion as a basis to show the effect it has on the characters, in order to demonstrate the power behind it.  Kazan shows us the influence religion has on Father Barry and his desire to do 'God's will', following Joey Doyle's death. This is primarily shown after Edie asks him, 'Have you ever heard of a saint hiding in a church?'. This prompts him to venture out to the docks the next morning and observe the harsh working lifestyle himself. His observations result in him realising that not all is perfect in the world, and in order to do 'God's will' he needs to try to fix the problem. This motivates Father Barry to take action, and try to encourage Dugan and Terry Malloy to stand up against the mob and do what's right. Kazan demonstrates this through Father Barry's interactions with these characters. Father Barry encourages Dugan to take action by promising him that if  'you stand up...I'll stand up with you', to make him feel that he isn't alone in this 'war'.
To encourage Terry to take action, Kazan initially shows Terry's reluctance and uncertainty towards Father Barry's plan through the use of his jacket. By showing Terry's jacket zipped up, Kazan is able to hint at his feelings of uncertainty. However, as Terry gains more knowledge about the mob, his jacket slowly unzips, which signifys Terry's growing ease, and his alignment with 'good'. Kazan also demonstrates the effect of religion on Father Barry by always showing his face in a light, to show that he is aligned with good, and he isn't corrupted by the mob.  Kazan uses this to show that Father Barry is a hero, as he offers support to those that need extra guidance to take action. These examples are used to also show that with guidance and support, an individual is more likely to come forward and do what is 'right' or expected, as Kazan did at the HUAC trials, despite the repercussions. However, the desire to do what is religiously 'right' can also drive an individual towards using manipulation in order to achieve their goal.

Through the film, Kazan is able to explore the effects of manipulation, through Father Barry's ability to convince Terry that the right thing to do is stand up to the mob. Kazan uses Father Barry to demonstrate manipulation, in order to show that it isn't always a negative thing. Father Barry's manipulation is shown to be more subtle than the mobs, and is based on planting ideas in Terry's head, and overseeing his actions in order to encourage him to speak out. Kazan shows this by constantly having Terry meet Father Barry in times of conflict and struggle. These meetings are essential in Terry's discovery of what is right, as well as his growing motivation to stand up to the mob and 'get [his] rights'. Kazan relates these events to McCarthy and HUAC in the way that they both use manipulation in order to encourage speaking out, or naming names. In his autobiography, Kazan describes the growing influence of McCarthy and HUAC in Hollywood as 'A terrible threat was in the air and moving closer...the clouds not grey but black, lightning bolts thrust through the heavy overcast and no on can be sure where they would strike next'.
Kazan also portrays Father Barry as a puppet master, or a 'Mr Upstairs' of the good. This is shown by having Father Barry overlook Terry's confession to Edie from the fence. It is also demonstrated at the end of the film when Father Barry says to Terry, 'Johnny Friendly's laying odds that you won't get up', which prompts Terry to get up and go to work despite having been beaten and in pain.  Kazan uses Father Barry's manipulative acts as a puppet master, to relate to the communists using manipulation in the 1950s.  The communists were using manipulation similar to 'Mr Upstairs', with a single leader calling the shots and overseeing progress. Kazan deliberately uses  both of these types of manipulation to show the audience that everyone was using manipulation.
Although Father Barry is using manipulation, he is still trying to do what is right, and is still a heroic figure in the film, because he is encouraging Terry to change and do the right thing. It is because of this heroic action that Father Barry isn't the real hero, as he encourages Terry to make sacrifices and become a hero himself.

Within the film, Kazan investigates what it takes to be a hero. Father Barry is considered a hero throughout the film, as he exhibits heroic qualities. However, he isn't the real hero as other characters affect his decisions and contribute to the outcome of the film.  Kazan demonstrates  other characters exhibiting heroic qualities through Terry Malloy and his decision to stand up to the mob. Kazan shows Terry's strength and determination mainly at the end of the film, after he has been beaten up by Johnny Friendly, and still makes the decision to take the 'chance to win the war' and go to work, despite being in pain. This strength and courage is a true heroic quality and it is what makes a real hero. This development in the film relates to Kazan's story and the difficult decision he made to testify at the HUAC trials. It is also used as a reflection of Kazan's journey and a way for him to justify his informing.
Kazan also presents a heroic quality in Edie's character, after her brother Joey's death at the beginning of the film. Edie displays a heroic quality by initially motivating Father Barry to do the right thing and take action against the mob, by questioning the way he conducts himself and his religious beliefs, by asking him 'Did you ever heard of a saint hiding in a church?'. This prompts Father Barry to go down to the docks and 'take a good look for [himself]'. Kazan uses this event in the film to set the story in motion.
Although Father Barry provided Terry with guidance and encouragement, he isn't the real hero, as he didn't stand up himself and make a change, instead he recruited others to do the work for him, such as Terry and Dugan. However, the closing shot of the film, with only Edie and Father Barry, indicates that Father Barry is a hero in the film, because he was the one with the power to guide the other characters towards taking down the mob. Kazan ends the film like this to show that although Father Barry isn't the real hero in the film, he is a very influential character with a heroic nature.

­Kazan represents Father Barry as a main influential character and a heroic figure in the film 'On the Waterfront'. However he isn't considered to be the real hero, as other characters contribute to the overall development of the film and the outcome. Kazan explores the influence of religion on various characters, including Father Barry, and manipulation, to demonstrate how it can be used to bring out heroic qualities in an individual, and encourage them to do the right thing. Kazan also  reviews what it takes to be a real hero. By examining these points, Kazan is able to relate these events to his story and justify the decision he made to testify at the HUAC trials. He is also able to prove that although Father Barry is a heroic figure and exhibits a heroic nature, he isn't the real hero.
 
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on February 21, 2013, 12:16:34 am
“Anna Frith is a different person after 1665.” In what ways is she changed and what caused the change?

The influences and experiences encountered in life are said to be the foundation of one’s identity Sounds more like the start of an expository essay haha. But cool cool. My suggestion is the same as last time; try out contextualising. . Anna Frith, a young maid in Geraldine Brooks’ “Year of Wonders”, is a testament to this; as she is transformed from a feeble maid,needs no comma because next word is 'to' so it's joining x and y to an independent, altruistic woman “who has faced more terrors than many warriors.”  Various individuals such as Anys Gowdie and Elinor Mompellion play a significant role in influencing such changes, as they provide Anna with an alternate view of the world in times of hardship. The positive changes embodied by Anna Frith reflect the truth in the title of the novel; that the adversity of the plague can in fact give rise to many “wonders.” Thesis statement. I also can't identify your three main points which should be the bulk of your intro. Writing is solid

Despite the explicit misogyny present in the 17th century, several influential females hold their own values, contrary to the social norm.  Figures such as Elinor Mompellion “could not, or would not, see the distinctions that the world wished to make between weak and strong, between women and men.”  Such perceptions cause Anna to question these values held by society, and consequently, her conformity to such distinctions. Sounding promisingAnna’s shift in values is evident through her endeavours with Elinor, where she too, does “not scruple to toil with her hands.”Yeah but where's the shift? What values is this challenging? Why is this significant? Anna and Elinor proceed to undertake many tasks that are considered to be only conducted by men, including the excavation of Merry Wickford’s mine, again reflecting their lack of concern in performing dangerous, ‘male-only tasks.’ That answers some of my questions. Symbolism of the mine? What's the chapter title and the significance? You can discuss a lot here and you're selling yourself short by moving on. Elinor Mompellion is also a strong, selfless woman, from whom “the whole parish benefits.” Elinor lives to assist others, be it miners or aristocratic rich, not seeing “the distinctions... between labourer and lord.” Anna adopts this lack care for a social hierarchy, helping all those in need, ranging from orphaned children to the damaged Rector Mompellion. Anna’s altruistic character is signified when she delivers and adorapts Elizabeth Bdford’s baby, despite the Bradfords’ blatant betrayal of the village. The changes in characteristics displayed by Anna reflect Elinor’s strong influence on her as a young woman. Too shallow. The start seemed looking good. You need more depth (and subsequently more length). Answer those questions ^. If you mention the mine, talk symbolism. Talk how she had to change from phobia, Sam etc. Body of the mine. Towards the end was a bit more shallow/retelly again.

Alike Elinor,This is just a yucky sentence starter imo. Alike seems so out of place. I'd use 'Similarly to' Anys Gowdie also holds social expectations in a low regard could have just said "defies social expectations" , albeit although I think sounds more natural than albeitshe does so in a more selfish manner. Anys explicitly expresses to Anna that she does not desire to be married, through stating “I’m not made to be any man’s chattel.” Such a concept of freedom of women is almost unheard of in the 17th century, and causes Anna to consider the lives of her and other woman from a different perspective. This perspective leads Anna to perceive other women through the eyes of Anys; “shackled to their menfolk.”  Anys’s influence of freedom and independence upon Anna is signified when Anna elects to start her new life in Oran, rather than follow the guidance of Mompellion in staying with Elinor’s family.retelly but at least it's strong on the prompt Moreover, Anys provides Anna with her perspective of religion, or lack thereof. Anys Gowdie is a blatant heathen, again, something that is unheard of in the 17th century. Anys’s blasphemy causes Anna to constantly question the legitimacy of her religion, prompting questions such as “did I really believe that God put the rock in my path to trip me?”  This doubt in religion is heightened by the seemingly illogical suffering of “good” people such as Maggie Cantwell, considering the plague is supposedly meant to be merely a test for “sinners”.  Anna’s eventual loss of faith is a testament to the heathenish influence bestowed upon her by Anys, as well as the absence of God during the suffering of “good people”.I think you've a habit of like.. Thinking you need to talk about something else and slipping it in as the last line. In the first para it was something about the baby, and here you've just slipped in Maggie Cantwell. If you're going to mention something. Explore it. You also didn't do it this paragraph. Nice writing, but I feel like I would read this essay before sitting my school's verification test (they test you on knowledge of the text) rather than read it if I wanted your opinion/analysis on the text.

Conversely to the many positive changes embodied by Anna, there were also negative effects as a result of the plague epidemic.This is great!! The ruthless conditions of the plague brought about a metamorphosis of even the most resilient of individuals, including Anna. Although Anna is transformed into an independent, altruistic woman through the influence of Elinor and Anys, she is also emotionally damaged by its conditions. This damage is evident upon Anna reflecting that “I, who always prided myself on grace, now allow myself a deliberate clumsiness” and “my body acts despite the firm resolve of my mind. Such statements signify that Anna is a damaged woman, who has indeed “faced more terrors than many warriors.” Regardless of the many changes displayed by Anna, there remains parts of her character that are unchanged. Despite the betrayal and evil expressed by figures such as the Bradfords, Josiah and Aphra, Anna retains her compassion for others that she has before the year of the plague. This is evident through her unparalleled love for her two new children; Aisha and Elinor. Such compassion displayed by Anna reflects that some characteristics of an individual cannot be changed, regardless of the adversities they are faced with.Not much to say other than more depth. Seems so short/lacking. I want analysis. Good idea though. Nice writing. Lack of metalanguage that will come naturally when you're analysing. This is an awesome prompt to talk about what values (feminism? skeptical?) the author is conveying through her embodiments in Anna etc etc etc. 

The year of the plague brought about the metamorphosis of many individuals within Eyam, including Anna Frith. This resulted in the transformation of Anna from an obedient, feeble young maid,feel like I've read this before? to a damaged, yet independent and altruistic woman. Such changes embodied by Anna are direct results of the influences bestowed upon her by figures such as Elinor and Anys, and the plague epidemic itself. Not a bad conc.

Really, just, most depth/analysis.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on February 21, 2013, 01:34:15 am
"The Year of Wonders presents Anna, Michael and others in the village with a time of crisis. Are the changes in these characters always positive? Discuss"
Hm. An interesting prompt. Obviously positive is a key word here but it's interesting that the other half essentially specifies what you need to talk about and leaves you one idea open. Interested to see how you tackle this :)
Geraldine Brooks' "Year of Wonders" depicts the horrific struggle of the English town of Eyam in the 17th century.Quite a short sentence for an opening line. It's very matter-of-fact. I say contextualise (scroll up page 2 to see 507's first submission, I explain there) The novel is set during the Great Plague of London in 1665 and 1666 and shows the difficult times that the villagers face from the pestilence of the PlagueMy first suggestion would also serve you very well here, this sentence isn't doing much. For most, this is a time of tragedy but for one, bit weird here. "one, namely".. sort of makes each other redundant. Could even cut them both out, if you only mention JB, it's "one" or "namely" by default, isn't it?namely Josiah Bont, it is an opportunity to feed their own greed. Their is a plural but we're talking 'one'. The horrors experienced during this time also have a great effect on the characters in the story, transforming them as people. While characters such as Anna and Elinor grow and prosper in resilience and in knowledge, others deteriorate and become monsters as a result. Thesis statement. A line that sums your contention in its entirety. I often starts it with "Hence," but there are better ways. I googled it a lot and clarified with werdna after my own learning. Do the same imo.

The time period between Spring 1665 and "Leaf-fall" 1666 is undoubtedly chaotic, however certain individuals use this as an opportunity to take advantage of others' deaths.I'm not sure I like this sort of reference as a topic sentence. I think it's the matter-of-fact statement and then a follow up Anna's father Joss Bont is a disturbed man, who was physically and sexually abused as a teenager. Due to his past experiences, rather than this time being a time of pain and suffering, Josiah actually hopes more people will pass, allowing him to garner their possessions as a reward for his duties of burying them. Many villagers are particularly disgusted with his actions, however there is little they can do to prevent them. He continues to use the crisis as a shopping spreemuch too informal. You're retelling the story a bit at the moment., stealing prized possessions such as silver from people's homes. But where JossDon't call him Joss. really "excels in his wretchedness" is when he tries to murder Christoper Unwin in order to gain his belongings. Eventually, he is brought to justice for his actions and perishes after being nailed to the walls of a mine, putting an end to his reign of terror, which only worsened the already dire crisis the village was in. More analysis, and this will also bring in more quotes (shows a good textual knowledge without retelling)..bit short[depth]

Anna manages to persevere and prosper as a result of the challenges she deals with during 1665 and 1666. Anna beginsuh oh. seems like a retell is coming the story as a "timid girl", being almost be definitiveobsequious in her role as a "servant" to Michael Mompellion and also the Bradford family. However, she makes dramatic changes to her character throughout the novel. Her two sons Tom and Jamie are among the first to be taken by the Plague and although she almost gives up, at one point reverting to the "poppies of Lethe" for relief, she perseveres through her pain. Anna becomes integral in the village's well being, gaining vast knowledge in "physick" along with Elinor, so they can help people be "better off on acount of it". During the course of the story Anna develops mentally, into a tenacious and resilient woman who has "faced more terrors than many warriors." She continues to act heroicly, at one point even helping to deliver Mary Daniels' baby, although having little experience. She becomes more knowledgeable about "how things [stand] in the world", leaving behind her previous "light and dark" mentality. She constantly questions God, wondering about why His words were "always so harsh" and ultimately ends up concluding the Plague is a "thing in Nature merely". Anna's metamorphosis as a person shows what positive change can come out of such a terrible time.Not bad character descriptions, writing is nice, no huge flaws but lacking analaysis. (I know I'm suggesting this left right adn centre, it's one of the things I remember better about YoW)... you could talk about the body of the mine and the symbolism therein. what's the author trying to onvey through Anna's subversion of traditional gender roles? What's significant about the mine in terms of society and Anna's inner-self? I want more discussion and less summation.
The town Vicar Vicar? dafuq? Michael Mompellion, also considered a leader by many due to his connection with God and also his status as a strong male, Double also? No. "also considered a leader" is just, ankaeu, because his position IS the leader. Except for the quakers, he is literally the town leader. Status as a strong male? What do you mean? Becaues he is physically strong he has status or what? that's too ambiguousis generally a good force for most of the story until the death of Elinor, after which he deteriorates greatly. Mompellion is an optimistic and confident man and convinces the village that the Plague is simply "sent by God to test and chastise those souls He [will] save.", allowing them to them they will be able to persevere through this test from God. RetellingHe exclaims that this Plague "will make heroes of us all", constantly uplifiting the spirits of the villagers. At one point he even digs "six graves" in a day in an effort to ensure the mental well being of the villagers after the death of the sexton. Through all his good deeds thoughinformal,, you'd hear this in conversation, the death of his wife Elinor has a major impact on him, rendering him incapable of assistance, forcing him to sit "all day in the dark, with the shutters closed."smashing out the commas here. Could use less for more flow Once a firm believer in God, Mompellion now "never opens" his Bible and exclaims that "he was wrong" for believing. He ends up sleeping with Anna to her extreme displeasure?? makes it sounds like rape, really. She defs wanted the D, just was disgusted afterwards when he started talking. , after he reveals he never gave Elinor the sameokay my feedback is evidence that this sentence is a bit confusing. You're  writing things backwards, you should write that his revelation causes the displeasure, becaues that's how it happens in the story, make that happen in your sentence.. Michael Mompellion's loss of faith and of moral character is an extremely negative change that results in the loss of ultimately, himself.I think it's easier to retell with a prompt like this. You're essentially outlining what someone was prior to a change and then after the change to address the prompt but you're losing potential for analysis in doing so.

Other characters in the noval also undergo significant negative transformations due to the Plague. The Bradford family is the wealthy influence of the town and in in a position to satisfy the needs of people in the village during the "Plague season". However they show great cowardice when the Plague hits Eyam and leave the villagers on their own, stranded in their "wide green prison"You can get soooooooooooooo much analysis out of this quote. Wide. Green. Prison. Look at that. The juxtaposition of these words... . The family is so abhorently unfair to the village that they leave even their most senior mades such as Maggie Cantwell, with nothing. Maggie ends up dying of a stroke. hugely informal. You've really got to fix this problem. John Gordon is another character who becomes a monster out of desperation to avoid the Plague. He first takes part in the attempted murder of Mem Gowdie and the subsequent murder of Anys Gowdie, assuming them to be witches. So futile does he feel his situation is, that he actually resorted to killing one of the town's most knowledgeable physicians in order to scave off the "Plague seeds". Later, John becomes a flagellant, mutilating himself to appeal to God, having become totally insane as a result of the pain and suffering the Plague has caused. Ann's stepmother Aphra Bont follows a similar path after the death of her husband Josiah. The stress and mental strain proves too much for this "shrewd" woman, leading to an exaggerated mental deterioration into a "lunatic". She eventually goes so far as to commit a treacherous filicide of her own daughter Faith, burning her and hanging her from the roof of her home. Soon after she also stabs Elinor in the neck, killing her. Over the course of the novel, many characters like these are similarly transformed for the worst.
This paragraph is essentially summarising the stories of many characters and their changes.
During this incessantly tough timetough time, informal., many people must face incalculable hardships and suffering. Joss His name isn't Joss. Unless you're a sailing buddy, don't call him that, it's informalBont actually uses this to his advantage and decides to feed his greed. The characters of Anna and Elinor are able to improve themselves as people, becoming resilient and tenacious women in the face of inimitable adversity. Others struggle through this crisis, becoming intoxicated in the pain and tragedy that envelopes the village. The Great Plague of London from 1665 to 1666 certainly has a dramatic effect on the villagers of Eyam, whether they change for the best or the worst.Nice conclusion.


Alrighty you definitely have to work on your informality that crops up from time to time. (I really had to do this as well, as one of my biggest battles). You definitely need some more analysis in there, btu this is to be expected for your second practice essay, especially without notes. Try to actively involve yourself in class discussion and pay keen attention. When you offer the quotes you do, analyse them. Don't just slip them in as if an essay were a checklist and you needed to tick the 'evidence' square. Your writing is not bad... you have a tendency to overuse commas and this can damage your flow. This is actually a rather fair effort under time at this point in the year. Keep generating practice pieces/redrafting according to your teacher's feedback. You could also add some flair but this is a couple of stepping stones over, I wouldn't worry about it right now, I'm just pointing out everything that's wrong so if I mark an essay of yours in three months and I say "add flair" you don't think "why didn't he tell me last time". Well done :)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: bopbopbop on February 21, 2013, 07:38:25 pm
Okay, I'll try and rewrite this now. Tried to up the analysis, improve fluency and general language control as a whole, embed more quotes and use symbolism as well. Hope it's better :D

"The Year of Wonders presents Anna, Michael and others in the village with a time of crisis. Are the changes in these characters always positive? Discuss."

Following the restoration of the English monarchy and the end of the Puritan era, England is ravaged by the pestilence of the Great Plague of London. Geraldine Brooks explores the differences in how people deal with the hardships they are faced with during the "Plague season" in her historical fiction novel "Year of Wonders". The characters of a country town are exposed to the pain and suffering brought by the Plague in 1665, with many being driven insane from the fear with which they constantly live. For these people, their lack of mental strength causes them great anguish and prevents them from persevering through the challenges before them. Conversely, a minority of characters exhibit remarkable tenacity in the face of crisis and this allows them to evolve, gaining knowledge about the world and moving away from death and "towards life".

Fear is the main catalyst for the loss of many people's sanity and humanity. The village's decision to seclude themselves from the rest of the world to prevent the spread of "Plague seeds" confines them within a "wide green prison". The villagers are essentially trapped, forced to attempt to live through a vicious season of death. This decision is met with at least some worry by everyone in the village, especially the wealthy Bradford family, who actually decide to flee the village, leaving the rest of the village to "satisfy [their] needs" by themselves. The fact people are confined causes great unrest within the village and also outside it, as when Maggie Cantwell and the pantry boy Brand encounter people from other villages, they are met with utter contempt. This all goes to cause fear within the minds of the villagers, as no matter how "wide" they venture, they will be unable to escape the effects of the Plague, whether they be literal or consequential. Brooks also makes use of pathetic fallacy when Anna describes an impending storm as "marching" towards her in "advancing columns", as if an army is marching towards her, preparing for war. This can be linked to the same ominous and sickening feeling the villagers experience when they are faced with impending and inevitable death. This feeling drives several people insane, as it did with John Gordon, whose desperation to stave off the plague results in him becoming a murderer and later a flagellant. The image of him mutilating himself for God's mercy is an extreme one and depicts just how profound the changes in certain characters are as a result of being faced with the depressing banality of crisis.

The transformation of Michael Mompellion is a testament to what effect loss and grief can have on even the most strong-willed of individuals. Michael Mompellion is the town leader, having a strong connection with God and can be likened to Jesus with his white robe. Mompellion's will far exceeds "his body" motivating him to dig "six graves" in a single day to ensure the well being of the villagers. He is a determined and resilient man and excels in his moral and ethical attitude. However, with the death of his wife Elinor, Mompellion deteriorates to the point where he is reduced to sitting "all day in the dark, with the shutters closed." His dehumanisation is similar to the decline of Elinor's garden, as no matter whose "hands" tend to it, "yet it will not be her garden", just as he will no longer be "Elinor Mompellion's Michael". Without Elinor, Michael becomes unhinged. He admits "he was wrong" for believing in God, having lost all faith as a result of Elinor's death, "never open[ing]" his Bible following it. Michael is a changed individual, stripped of his once God-like character he now acts immorally and unjustly, not informing Anna that he "never lay" with Elinor until he had already bedded her. This was to her extreme displeasure and subsequently resulted in Anna leaving town. For grief to change a man so drastically shows just how powerful it can be in transforming an individual. Michael Mompellion's loss of faith, character and morals is an extremely negative change that can only be caused by crisis and its effects.

But unlike Michael Mompellion and others that have similarly fallen victim to the strain of the Plague, Anna Frith's transformation shows what positives can arise from even the most dire of situations. Anna is unlike other weaker characters in the village and evolves from a "timid girl" to an anachronistic woman who has "faced more terrors than many warriors." Through Anna's defiance of traditional gender roles and Michael Mompellion's deterioration, Brooks conveys that women are capable of vastly more than they are generally thought to be in the 17th century. This idea is furthered through Anna's willingness to explore the world of "physick", leaving behind her previous "dark and light" mentality to see how "things stood in the world". Her garnering of knowledge and her forward-thinking attitude shows Anna to have changed dramatically for the best. Anna constantly confronts her most poignant fears, venturing into a mine to perform the same maneuver that killed her husband Sam. When she is covered by the "ore" on the walls of the mine, it is as if the physical and mental struggles of the months before have finally taken their toll on her, burying her under what she has been dealing with. However when she is rescued by Elinor, she effectively rises from the ashes, having succeeded in her goal to secure the financial situation of young Merry Wickford and also in conquering one of her greatest phobias. Anna's metamorphosis into a resilient, tenacious and optimistic individual is finalised with the naming of her adopted daughter Aisha, meaning life. She has persevered through the deaths of her two sons and learnt to love, care and live again, even through a "season of death".

Year of Wonders displays how dystopian the world can be in a time of crisis and how fear can affect the lives of so many. Pain and suffering are abundant in the novel, as evidenced by the reactions of villagers such as John Gordon in response to being isolated in a "prison" filled with rampant death. The novel shows how strong individuals can succumb to the power of grief and anguish, losing themselves in the pain and suffering they have endured. However, Anna's perseverance and growth as a person highlights that not everything in this pessimistic time period is negative, as she changes for the better, defying gender generalisations and prospering. It is clear, that whether the pestilence of the Plague results in positive or negative transformations, crisis can cause alterations in everyone.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on February 24, 2013, 05:48:50 pm
'Father Barry is the real hero in 'On the Waterfront'. Discuss.'
I'll give it a shot but I've never seen OTW or analysed a film before... Just keep that in mind.
In the film, 'On the Waterfront', the director Elia Kazan explores the corruption surrounding the docks of Hoboken and relates it to the influences of power in the 1950's.I'd contextualise the first sentence (refer to 507's at the top of this page)... Influences of power in the 1950 would make for an excellent contextualising line in reference to the govt=>society (American?) =>xenophobia/racism/discrimination/conservatism.. Yours is also good. Through the film, Kazan exposes what life was like and focuses on what it takes to stand up and be a 'hero'.Good Father Barry is used as one of the main influential characters in the film, and exhibits a heroic figure. Through his stature, the concept of religion and manipulation is explored relative to various characters; and in comparison to the effect it had on Kazan in the 1950s.  However, Father Barry isn't considered to be the 'real' hero, as other characters contribute to the overall development and conclusion of the film, and also affect his decisions. Kazan demonstrates this through character interactions and speech, as well as presenting other characters with heroic qualities, such as Terry's strength and determination to be a 'contender', and stand up to Johnny Friendly and the mob. These events are designed to mimic Kazan's story, to rationalise and justify the unpopular choice he made to testify at the HUAC trials.Sounds quite great. Nice.

Throughout the film, Elia Kazan uses utilises religion as a basis to show the effect it has on the characters, in order to demonstrate the power behind it.  Kazan shows us the influence religion has on Father Barry and his desire to do 'God's will', following Joey Doyle's death. This is primarily shown after Edie asks him, 'Have you ever heard of a saint hiding in a church?'. This prompts him to venture out to the docks the next morning and observe the harsh working lifestyle himself. So far your sentences are quite the same length so the flow is 'bang bang bang'. Try to vary your sentence length. His observations result in him realising that not all is perfect in the world, and in order to do 'God's will' he needs to try to fix the problem. This motivates Father Barry to take action, and try to encourage Dugan and Terry Malloy to stand up against the mob and do what's right. Kazan demonstrates this through Father Barry's interactions with these characters. Father Barry encourages Dugan to take action by promising him that if  'you stand up...I'll stand up with you', to make him feel that he isn't alone in this 'war'. Yep the whole paragraph uses sentences of the same lengt to each other, with one thought per sentence. Doesn't seem to be directly addressing the prompt as strongly as it could be. Also seems like there's a bit of retelling. -wishes he had seen the movie-
To encourage Terry to take action, Kazan initially shows Terry's reluctance and uncertainty towards Father Barry's plan through the use of his jacket. By showing Terry's jacket zipped up, Kazan is able to hint at his feelings of uncertainty. However, as Terry gains more knowledge about the mob, his jacket slowly unzips, which signifys Terry's growing ease, and his alignment with 'good'. Kazan also demonstrates the effect of religion on Father Barry by always showing his face in a light, to show that he is aligned with good, and he isn't corrupted by the mob.  Kazan uses this to show that Father Barry is a hero, as he offers support to those that need extra guidance to take action. These examples are used to also show that with guidance and support, an individual is more likely to come forward and do what is 'right' or expected, as Kazan did at the HUAC trials, despite the repercussions. However, the desire to do what is religiously 'right' can also drive an individual towards using manipulation in order to achieve their goal. There's a bit more sentence variance here but it still is very 'thought. thought. thought."... i feel like there could be more depth/complexity of discussion. Also, prompt?

Through the film, Kazan is able to explore the effects of manipulation, throughdouble use of through makes this sentence funny Father Barry's ability to convince Terry that the right thing to do is stand up to the mob. Kazan uses Father Barry to demonstrate manipulation, in order to show that it isn't always a negative thing. Father Barry's manipulation is shown to be more subtle than the mobs, and is based on planting ideas in Terry's head, and overseeing his actions in order to encourage him to speak out. Sort of reversed problem. Instead of having bangbangbang sentences you've got one sentence that needs the words within to work together better. Double use of 'and' really messes it up Kazan shows this by constantly having Terry meet Father Barry in times of conflict and struggle. These meetings are essential in Terry's discovery of what is right, as well as his growing motivation to stand up to the mob and 'get [his] rights'. Kazan relates these events to McCarthy and HUAC in the way that they both use manipulation in order to encourage speaking out, or naming names. In his autobiography, Kazan describes the growing influence of McCarthy and HUAC in Hollywood as 'A terrible threat was in the air and moving closer...the clouds not grey but black, lightning bolts thrust through the heavy overcast and no on can be sure where they would strike next'. Does your teacher encourage the use of discussing things such as his autobiography? I'm not sure if I would do that or not. I really would have more of a strict discussion of heroism etc.       
Kazan also portrays Father Barry as a puppet master, or a 'Mr Upstairs' of the good. This is shown by having Father Barry overlook Terry's confession to Edie from the fence. It is also demonstrated Sentence starters like this are also encouraging the formulaic nature of your writing. "This is shown." "It is also". "Thought. thought. thought." - y'know? at the end of the film when Father Barry says to Terry, 'Johnny Friendly's laying odds that you won't get up', which prompts Terry to get up and go to work despite having been beaten and in pain.  Kazan uses Father Barry's manipulative acts as a puppet master, to relate to the communists using manipulation in the 1950s.  The communists were using manipulation similar to 'Mr Upstairs', with a single leader calling the shots and overseeing progress. Kazan deliberately uses  both of these types of manipulation to show the audience that everyone was using manipulation.
Although Father Barry is using manipulation, he is still trying to do what is right, and is still a heroic figure in the film, because he is encouraging Terry to change and do the right thing. It is because of this heroic action that Father Barry isn't the real hero, as he encourages Terry to make sacrifices and become a hero himself. Is this intended as a separate para?
Actually I only just looked at your post without reading it.. structurally strange? I'm unsure about how many body paragraphs you were intending to have or why you've split them
Within the film, Kazan investigates what it takes to be a hero. Father Barry is considered a hero throughout the film, as he exhibits heroic qualities. However, he isn't the real hero as other characters affect his decisions and contribute to the outcome of the film.  Kazan demonstrates  other characters exhibiting heroic qualities through Terry Malloy and his decision to stand up to the mob. Kazan shows Terry's strength and determination mainly at the end of the film, after he has been beaten up by Johnny Friendly, and still makes the decision to take the 'chance to win the war' and go to work, despite being in pain. This strength and courage is a true heroic quality and it is what makes a real hero. This development in the film relates to Kazan's story and the difficult decision he made to testify at the HUAC trials. It is also used as a reflection of Kazan's journey and a way for him to justify his informing.This seems like better analysis!
Kazan also presents a heroic quality in Edie's character, after her brother Joey's death at the beginning of the film. Edie displays a heroic quality by initially motivating Father Barry to do the right thing and take action against the mob, by questioning the way he conducts himself and his religious beliefs, by asking him 'Did you ever heard of a saint hiding in a church?'. This prompts Father Barry to go down to the docks and 'take a good look for [himself]'. Kazan uses this event in the film to set the story in motion. Does a heroic quality make a hero?
Although Father Barry provided Terry with guidance and encouragement, he isn't the real hero, as he didn't stand up himself and make a change, instead he recruited others to do the work for him, such as Terry and Dugan. However, the closing shot of the film, with only Edie and Father Barry, indicates that Father Barry is a hero in the film, because he was the one with the power to guide the other characters towards taking down the mob. Kazan ends the film like this to show that although Father Barry isn't the real hero in the film, he is a very influential character with a heroic nature.Good. Nothing has really related to the prompt as much as this.

Kazan represents Father Barry as a main influential character and a heroic figure in the film 'On the Waterfront'. However he isn't considered dont' talk about consideration because you aren't talking about what he is considered as, only what he is. Who knows what other people consider him as?to be the real hero, as other characters contribute to the overall development of the film and the outcome. Kazan explores the influence of religion on various characters, including Father Barry, and manipulation, to demonstrate how it can be used to bring out heroic qualities in an individual, and encourage them to do the right thing. Kazan also  reviews what it takes to be a real hero. By examining these points, Kazan is able to relate these events to his story and justify the decision he made to testify at the HUAC trials. He is also able to prove that although Father Barry is a heroic figure and exhibits a heroic nature, he isn't the real hero.
I think you need to be stronger on the prompt, sort out some strange structural things, sort out the formulaic sentences, analyse more deeply, and perhaps consider revising discussion of things outside of the text (director's life?).. do keep in mind I haven't seen the film, though.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Jeggz on February 24, 2013, 09:05:42 pm
Hey guys  :) I would really appreciate it if someone could check through this essay and could please give me feedback on my writing.This is my first essay for the year, but go ahead and destroy it :) Thanks in advance!

At the heart of On the Waterfront is an exploration of how individuals are products of their environment.
Set to the background of the corrupt and bleak docks of New Jersey, the 1954 film On the Waterfront elucidates the effects of the environment on the individual. Kazan explores the notion, of how one’s environment influences and thus contributes significantly towards the development of individual traits and characteristics. Despite a shared upbringing, Terry is able to branch out as he is exposed to external influences which steer him in a different direction to that of his brother. Edie is another, whose purity and angelic soul are reflective of her upbringing in the convent, where corruption and injustice are inexistent. Finally, Johnny Friendly’s harsh upbringing has also harboured his ruthless and power-drive disposition, thus proving how he too is a product of his own environment.

The disparities between the Malloy brothers that is seen later on in their lives despite their initial upbringing together, is a result of the different influences that they are each exposed to. Bernstein’s ominous sound track in the opening scene itself illustrates the corruption which is inherent on the waterfront. It is evident that both Charley and Terry have grown up in this world of Johnny Friendly’s amidst the injustice. Terry’s disposition however is different to that of Charley’s as is seen through his care for the pigeons and his fear of them “catching cold.” It is this gentle side of his, which is further developed upon Terry’s encounter with Edie who is “the first nice thing that has happened to (him).”As Terry continues to nurture his relationship with Edie, his moral conscience begins to evolve as well. Nevertheless there are still contradictions present in Terry, which is depicted through the smoke permeating the background of the glove scene, representing Terry’s ambiguous state of mind. Although Terry wishes to remain “DnD”, abiding by his motto of “I don’t know nothing, I haven’t seen nothing, I’m not saying nothing,” a small part of him is drawn towards Edie’s moral goodness, provoking him to stand up for “(his) rights.”Terry’s realisation as a result of his association with Edie, makes it clear that unlike himself Charley has not had the opportunity to evolve but rather has remained to be nothing more than a puppet in Johnny Friendly’s hand. His realisation is complete following Charley’s “crucifixion,” in which he is found to be dead on a hook. It is this tragedy which drives Terry into full action, and although his outer physical self suffers his spiritual and moral identity wins, thus completing his transformation.

Edie’s purity and goodwill is reflective of her upbringing in the convent where she is shielded from corruption and injustice. Right from her introduction into the film, the background lighting upon Edie portrays her in an angelic light, representing how she is shown in all her purity, without even a scruple of evil. It is indisputable that her upbringing in the convent has influenced her to such an extent where she feels that “everybody (should) care about everybody else.”The symbolism which lies behind her white gloves and her brightly-lit scenes alludes to this recurring theme of Edie’s innocence and purity, which even inspires Father Barry himself. Edie is courageous to venture into the harsh male domain of the docks where her presence is looked down upon, as is proven through the overshot of Edie kneeling down over her brother’s dead body. Despite her fragile, weak and vulnerable position in society, it is her moral upbringing which provokes her to confront Terry as to, “how (he can) just sit there and say nothing.” The depth of Edie’s involvement with Terry is illustrated in her desperate words, “Let’s get away...some place we can live in peace.”Edie fears the impact of the corruption upon Terry; despite this however she remains stoic and steadfast by Terry’s side. Thus Edie’s resolve and her moral code of conduct elicit justice for her brother Joey but also transform the lives of Father Barry and Terry Malloy. Her faith in “patience and kindness,” can definitely be attributed to her upbringing in St Anne’s.

Johnny Friendly’s harsh upbringing has also played an instrumental role in moulding him into a power and authority drive man. Right from the onset of the film the viewers are exposed to the smoke and haze which permeates Friendly’s bar, illustrating how his authority is indeed commanding. Bernstein’s ominous score which plays just prior to Joey Doyle’s death alludes to the fact that danger lies ahead. This is further enhanced through the low-angle shot illustrating Johnny’s henchmen upon the rooftop and enunciating the impact of Friendly’s authority on the waterfront. This callous nature of Friendly’s however, can be accounted for by his harsh upbringing as he “begs for work” as a sheer sixteen year old. He carries the large scar on his neck as a constant reminder to how he had to fight some “tough fellas,” to gain control. Friendly’s only opportunity for advancement was through the union and he constantly asserts how he “didn’t work (his) way up from that for nothing.”The symbolism of the hawks resembling Friendly’s henchmen, further pronounces the ultimate power which lies in his hands and how Friendly is prepared to rule with fear and intimidation to keep a stranglehold on the lucrative docks. Although Johnny Friendly is a bully, “a cheap, busy, dirty, stinkin mug, “this is a result of his upbringing which has been anything but smooth sailing. The final scene in which Terry successfully defeats Friendly, gives the impression that Johnny is just another pawn in this cycle of corruption which will forever be a part of the Hoboken docks.

In conclusion, the individuals from the film On the Waterfront all substantiate the notion of being a product of one’s environment. Terry is able to escape the world of corruption through his connection with Edie, unlike Charley who remains under the command of Friendly. Edie’s upbringing in a world away from the docks has also contributed to her strong moral conduct in contrast to the longshoremen. Finally Johnny Friendly’s difficult circumstances in his childhood have also chiselled him into a heartless man, with no affinity for the longshoremen.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on February 26, 2013, 07:41:31 pm
"The Year of Wonders presents Anna, Michael and others in the village with a time of crisis. Are the changes in these characters always positive? Discuss."
Okay I have no memory of your last essay so I'm marking this as I normally would.
Following the restoration of the English monarchy and the end of the Puritan era, England is ravaged by the pestilence of the Great Plague of London.Woo! Geraldine Brooks explores the differences in how people deal with the hardships they are faced with during the "Plague season" is this a quote from the novel? ifin her historical fiction novel "Year of Wonders". The characters of a country town are exposed to the pain and suffering brought by the Plague in 1665, with many being driven insane from the fear with which they constantly live. For these people, their lack of mental strength causes them great anguish and prevents them from persevering through the challenges before them. Conversely, a minority of characters exhibit remarkable tenacity in the face of crisis and this allows them to evolve, gaining knowledge about the world and moving away from death and "towards life". Great, but this intro is lacking a thesis statement!

Fear is the main catalyst for the loss of many people's sanity and humanity.Good The village's decision to seclude themselves from the rest of the world to prevent the spread of "Plague seeds" confines them within a "wide green prison". The villagers are essentially trapped, forced to attempt to live through a vicious season of death. This decision is met with at least some be definitive worry by everyone in the village, especially the wealthy Bradford family, who actually decide to flee the village, leaving the rest of the village to and leave the rest of the villagers to "satisfy [their] needs" by themselves. Try to stray away from '-ing' words except for when they can't be avoided without sounding oafish... Still lacking analysis so farThe fact people are confined causes great unrest within the village and also outside it, as when Maggie Cantwell and the pantry boy Brand encounter people from other villages, they are met with utter contempt.Still retelly This all goes to cause fear within the minds of the villagers, as no matter how "wide" they venture, they will be unable to escape the effects of the Plague, whether they be literal or consequential. Brooks also makes use of pathetic fallacy when Anna describes an impending storm as "marching" towards her in "advancing columns", as if an army is marching towards her, preparing for war. This can be linked to the same ominous and sickening feeling the villagers experience when they are faced with impending and inevitable death. This feeling drives several people insane, as it did with John Gordon, whose desperation to stave off the plague results in him becoming a murderer and later a flagellant. The image of him mutilating himself for God's mercy is an extreme one and depicts just how profound the changes in certain characters are as a result of being faced with the depressing banality of crisis.What is underlined is much closer to what you want to be. However the constant use of 'this' is killing your flow.

The transformation of Michael Mompellion is a testament to what effect loss and grief can have on even the most strong-willed of individuals.Good topic sentence. Michael Mompellion is the town leader, having a strong connection with God and can be likened to Jesus with his white robe.This is good! but too quick if you get what I mean. You could even discuss similarities between Jesus dying for our sins and Mompellion quarantining the town/ driving himself into the ground for the villagers Mompellion's will far exceeds "his body" motivating him to dig you need some punctuation somewhere in there to convey your meaning better. "six graves" in a single day to ensure the well being of the villagers. He is a determined and resilient man and excels in his moral and ethical attitude. However, with the death of his wife Elinor, Mompellion deteriorates to the point where he is reduced to sitting "all day in the dark, with the shutters closed." His dehumanisation is similar to the decline of Elinor's garden, as no matter whose "hands" tend to it, "yet it will not be her garden", just as he will no longer be "Elinor Mompellion's Michael". Very cool. I wish I were better at YoW myself so I could be more objective.Without Elinor, Michael becomes unhinged. He admits "he was wrong" for believing in God, having lost all faith as a result of Elinor's death, "never open[ing]" his Bible following itit. yucky word. It can leave the reader asking questions and your goal as a writer is to leave the reader with no questions. be more specific so they know entirely you're referring to the death. Michael is a changed individual, stripped of his once God-like character punctuation. Gotta watch that punctuation!he now acts immorally and unjustly, not informing Anna that he "never lay" with Elinor until he had already bedded her. This was to her extreme displeasure and subsequently resulted in Anna leaving town. Needs more analysis for you to be retelling like this. Gotta keep the ratio up to justify any retelling as evidenceFor grief to change a man so drastically shows just how powerful it can be in transforming an individual. Michael Mompellion's loss of faith, character and morals is an extremely negative change that can only be caused by crisis and its effects. The last two sentences are more analytic.

But unlike Nope. Not only are you starting a separate sentence with a conjunction, you're starting a whole paragraph with one! NEVER! Even when you just take out the 'but' this whole sentence sounds better.Michael Mompellion and others that have similarly fallen victim to the strain of the Plague, Much of a redundant sentence, that previous one. You could have just said "Contrary to many, -->" and that's it.Anna Frith's transformation shows what positives can arise from even the most dire of situations. Anna is unlike other weaker characters in the village and evolves from a "timid girl" to an anachronistic woman who has "faced more terrors than many warriors." Through Anna's defiance of traditional gender roles and Michael Mompellion's deterioration, Brooks conveys that women are capable of vastly more than they are generally thought to be in the 17th century. and in the 21st! good. This idea is furthered through Anna's willingness to explore the world of "physick", leaving behind her previous "dark and light" mentality to see how "things stood in the world". Her garnering of knowledge and her forward-thinking attitude shows Anna to have changed dramatically for the bestGood. Anna constantly confronts her most poignant fears, venturing into a mine to perform the same maneuver that killed her husband Sam. When she is covered by the "ore" on the walls of the mine, it is as if the physical and mental struggles of the months before have finally taken their toll on her, burying her under what she has been dealing with. However when she is rescued by Elinor, she effectively rises from the ashes, having succeeded in her goal to secure the financial situation of young Merry Wickford and also in conquering one of her greatest phobias.Also stereotypical gender roles Anna's metamorphosis into a resilient, tenacious and optimistic individual is finalised with the naming of her adopted daughter Aisha, meaning life. She has persevered through the deaths of her two sons and learnt to love, care and live again, even through a "season of death". Omg so much better yayayayayaya weeee :): :)

Year of Wonders displays how dystopian the world can be in a time of crisis and how fear can affect the lives of so many. Pain and suffering are abundant in the novel, as evidenced by the reactions of villagers such as John Gordon in response to being isolated in a "prison" filled with rampant death. The novel shows how strong individuals can succumb to the power of grief and anguish, losing themselves in the pain and suffering they have endured. However, Anna's perseverance and growth as a person highlights that not everything in this pessimistic time period is negative, as she changes for the better, defying gender generalisations and prospering. It is clear, that whether the pestilence of the Plague results in positive or negative transformations, crisis can cause alterations in everyone. Excellent :)

Still a bit of retelling, you need to be meticulous in your punctuation because this could really fuck you over in assessments. Your anlaysis could also be more congruent with your paragraphs. At the moment (in the first two especially) There's a bit of "oh, what's this writing? oheeeyoooo there's some analysis! oh some more writing on something". You want it to be seamless. Your expression and flow can always be improved, as well as the sophistication of your language. Try to manipulate your sentence starters into making your look good (stop saying 'this')
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Romaboy on February 26, 2013, 11:46:19 pm
English SAC on Friday, haha. This is my piece that I'll hopefully memorise. It still needs a bit of tweaking. Would really appreciate it if someone could give me some tips and let me know what I should change, thanks :)

“If asked, I will tell her that it was never a conscious wish of mine to become a criminal. It was an apocalyptic choice.”
‘Amsterdam utilises grim scenarios in an attempt to illustrate the lack of control for the individual within his dystopian world.’ Do you agree?



Steven Amsterdam’s novel, ‘Things We Didn’t See Coming’ tells a pessimistic tale of humanity’s capacity for immorality and self-delusion in a speculative dystopian world. As Amsterdam exemplifies throughout the various vignettes, the characters are placed in grim scenarios where they have to step out of their moral compass just to survive. Amsterdam uses the protagonist’s actions to display a lack of control in the dystopian world. Similarly, Amsterdam employs the use of the grandparents to illustrate the severity of the situation as the grandparents are the only people that the protagonist encounters with ‘good’ morals. Furthermore, the relationship between Margo and the protagonist also depicts the lack of control the protagonist has as he is dependent on Margo. Likewise, Amsterdam uses Otis’ sanctuary to show how characters try and escape the dystopian world by creating a superficial coping mechanism. Hence, Amsterdam explores humanity’s lack of control within a possible dystopian world.

In tandem with this interpretation, Amsterdam demonstrates ones inability to define and abide by their own moral standards through the protagonist’s actions throughout the various vignettes. In the very first vignette, Otis instils a thought within the protagonist to avoid the norms of everyday life, to cope with the future of tomorrow, therefor setting the protagonist up for a life of a wanderer and criminal who ‘’feeds off the edges’’. It is this belief that life will be impermanent, unsafe and void of trust that then influences the protagonist to refrain from forming his own morals, which is shown when the protagonist is unable to give in to his own emotions about wanting to ‘marry Margo the traditional way’, due to the beliefs that Otis instilled. However, the protagonist in not completely amoral; as he still has a conscience which is show when the protagonist says he is ‘done with stealing’ It shows that the protagonist wants to have his own boundaries of right and wrong but is unable to due to his situation. Likewise, Otis also implies that the protagonist will have no control over his future when he says ‘’there’ll be breakdowns that can’t be fixed…more diseases that can’t be fixed… water will be as valuable as oil… that’s the future’’.  The protagonist is unable to abide by his own moral standards, which Amsterdam shows through the first person narration of the text ‘’It was an apocalyptic choice of mine’’. Hence, this demonstrates the lack of control the protagonist has due to the grim scenarios that he has experienced.

Amsterdam employs the dependent relationship between Margo and the protagonist to demonstrate the lack of control that those that exist in this flawed world have over their relationships, life and happiness. This is because relationships are based on need and security rather than trust and love. Margo is the protagonist’s chief source of temptation, dragging him back to the dishonest life he tried to leave behind. For example, the protagonist’s desire to become honest is short-lived. She soon causes him to ‘feel fallen’ from having lived a life of theft. Amsterdam employs an allusion to Macbeth as it not the protagonist’s choice to become a criminal, but a consequence; ‘things got worse when I met Margo’. Margo brings out the worst in the protagonist and stirs turmoil within his conscience which is shown when the protagonist says ‘’as long as I’ve known her, I’ve never known peace’’. Furthermore, the unions in the novel dehumanise the notion of marriage and love. Margo manipulates the protagonist’s idea to extend their union to include Juliet for mutual gains, ‘’ Margo exploited it to expand our world.’ Amsterdam uses the dependent relationship to show the lack of control the protagonist has in this dystopian world.

Amsterdam describes the grandparents as anachronistic in order to demonstrate the inability of those in this dystopian world to abide by their morals and virtues. Throughout the various vignettes, the grandparents are described as being anachronistic, hence when they become corrupt, Amsterdam is eluding to humanity have no control due to the grim scenarios that they are placed in. The grandparents are the only characters that the protagonist interacts with that have ‘good’ morals, hence, when they have no choice but to eat stolen food in the rural zone, ‘’they know it’s stolen’’, but they still eat it due to the pressures to survive in the dystopian. Likewise, the grandparents also steal a car, despite ‘’never having felt the thrill of larceny before’’ eventually becoming ‘’hooked’’. By Amsterdam representing the grandparents as, the last symbols of morality and by them needing to steal to survive, suggests that humanity has no control and that the ‘older order’ has collapsed. The grandparents are essentially forced to sacrifice the demands of their moral compass in order to become part of system they previously despised, which in turn show that the last symbols of morality are eternally lost. By the anachronistic grandparents becoming morally corrupt, Amsterdam suggests that humanity has no control in this dystopian world.

Amsterdam implies that Otis’ garden is a type of superficial coping mechanism and hence, demonstrates humanity’s lack of control over (……?). Otis is unable to cope with reality as he is aware of the imminent disasters and he knows that solving them is beyond humanity’s control. Hence, he resorts to building his ‘fort’ as a superficial coping mechanism. At the beginning, he says to ‘think defensively’ and in the last vignette, that sanctuary is described as a ‘fort. Otis’ attempt to live in a ‘fort’ is futile as there is no control or barrier against the environment. Amsterdam uses the presence of Liz and Jenna to foreshadow Otis’ fate. This is because even they were ‘’once rich’’ and now reduced to poverty by the disasters. People try to delude themselves about the undeniable truth and lying to themselves to cope.

Amsterdam explores humanity’s lack of control within a possible dystopian world. The protagonist had no control over his relationship with Margo and his own morals. The grandparents were unable to control the situation that they were placed in so they had resorted to becoming a part of the system they previously despised. Otis’ uses his sanctuary to try and escape the dystopian world. Amsterdam illustrates the lack of control that the characters have and how in turn, it leads continuous suffering.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on February 26, 2013, 11:56:31 pm
Is that your SAC prompt, Romaboy?
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Romaboy on February 27, 2013, 07:41:58 am
Is that your SAC prompt, Romaboy?

It's the question I chose for the SAC. We got to choose one out of three a week before the SAC.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on February 27, 2013, 10:46:08 am
Sorry man, but I would feel uncomfortable giving feedback for an assessment task to be memorised. Anyone else is absolutely free to mark it if they please.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: akeergar on March 02, 2013, 07:31:43 pm
Hey guys,
If anyone could mark this for me. It's my first essay for the year so any feedback is welcome

'Somax is used in Ransom merely to provide entertainment and humour'. Do you agree?
 
David Malouf’s incandescent reworking of a classic Greek epic in his fable prose, Ransom, is evident in his addition of Somax’s character to guide Priam on his journey towards the Greek camp. Somax, playing a multimodal role in Ransom, is characterised by Malouf to symbolise the “simple folk” – pragmatic, content and humble. In this way, Somax’s tranquil character naturally casts some earthy humour to the often disturbing novel, yet there is an evident underlying complexity to his character that is initially dissembled by this common exterior. Malouf’s deliberate juxtaposing of Somax’s character to the “world of ceremony” that is central to Priam in his “realm of the royal”, is important in facilitating the pivotal development of Priam’s character throughout the novel.

Somax’s dominate voice as storyteller, companied with his strange traits, act as a source of entertainment, engaging some delight in the reader and thus briefly removing us from the otherwise depressing themes of Malouf’s prose. In Somax’s unexceptional introduction – a “man the whole town recognises as a simple carter” – the reader is given a small insight into his relationship with “the mule that has brought him” into Priam’s royal realm, Beauty. The unaccustomed love story between Somax and Beauty coaxes an immediate interest in the reading while the neglected Shock, Somax ‘other’ mule, receives our amused sympathy.  His “coaxing and sweet-talking” of Beauty and the “small secrets” they share add to the flashes of humour in Malouf prose, while softening our impression of Somax. As he and Priam make their way to the Greek camps, Somax tendency to let “his tongue run on, with no fear at all, it seemed, of being taken for a mere rattle or chatterer” becomes our second source of entertainment. The stories of his daughter-in-law and her pikelets, “or griddlecakes as some people call them”, are seemingly irrelevant tales that become a “pleasant way of filling the time” as they strangely capture our interest. Contrastingly, Somax recounting of his children, the “poor things” that “died too early”, strikes sympathy in the reader however also revealing the inner complexity of feeling unexpected from this deceptively simple character. 

As the complexity of Somax’s character is revealed through his act of storytelling, these tales also serve to remind Priam of the universal aspects of the human condition — loss, regret, grief —  as the two men, who are otherwise separated by the unbridgeable gulf of social rank, forge a common understanding. Somax’s story of the death of his children, especially the “older child, a boy” who would “take the milk” of his sister as she was “so sickly she couldn’t feed”, revealed the underlying grief and loss that grips Somax. As he recounts the fatal day his son died, “sweating”, even then, “just at the memory of it”, the reader begins to get a sense of the past pain and loss that has contributed to Somax’s unique view of the world, making him a much more well-rounded character. Juxtaposed with Somax evident grief, Priam’s detached relationship with his many son’s had left him with “much to take in”. He could share in no memory of the intimate moments Somax had with his children, all “he recalls is a series of small squalling bundles, each one presented to him like a bloodied human offering on the outstretched palms of an attendant”. The psychological abjection he had so obliviously been suffering became evident to Priam as he listened to “the lively manner, so full of emotion” in which Somax spoke of his children. With this Somax becomes the driving force that unintentionally facilitates Priam’s development as a character.

Somax embodies Priam’s vision of unadorned simplicity and authenticity and through him Priam is thus able to learn to appreciate the unadorned beauty of a world outside his “royal realm”.  The fertile natural world between encampment and city reflect Somax’s raw and earthy character. In this way, Malouf not only explores Somax inner-working but the contents of his realm. It is the natural world that Somax is custom with, yet juxtaposed with the private and enclosed spaces of bedchambers and inner courts that dominate Priam’s realm; it is a foreign land for Priam. For this reason, Malouf deliberately pays close attention to the settings that surround the men. Evident in the close descriptions of the ancient name for a river – Menderes, that the men cross, “the bone-white gravel of its bed”, the “glossy-leafed rosebay bushes” that grow in “flowering clumps on the island between” and all the other very detailed intimate workings of this river and its wildlife, invites the reader to begin to appreciate that “everything was just itself”, to be “bewildering”, while also foreshadowing Priam’s own journey in learning to appreciate the simplicities of life himself. In this same way, Somax amused familiarity to the “fingerlings” that “nosed in and nudged and nibbled at him” compared to Priam’s “uncertain” and anxious reaction, demonstrates Somax intrinsic connection with the natural world around him. His belief that we are “children of nature” and of “the earth” helps Priam, not necessarily have the same connection, but gain a sense of awareness of things, outside his realm, that he had once allowed to be so ignorantly foreign to him. 

Undoubtedly it is Somax vernacular character, the attributes of colloquial human nature, which lends itself to his general likability and humour, yet it would be remiss to neglect Malouf’s core intentions for creating his character. Instead, Malouf demonstrates the complexity of even the most simplistic beings. By juxtaposing the unembellished life of Somax to the “royal realm” of Priam, Malouf is able to demonstrate the similarities even the most socially unequal individuals can share. Moreover, by making this distinction apparent, Malouf extols the power of the common man in instigating change, ultimately demonstrating to the reader that the power to influence change in others does not lie exclusively in the glorified or the powerful individual, but that the power often lies in the unexceptional beings – the “simple folk”.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: MonsieurHulot on March 13, 2013, 07:54:48 pm
I wrote this in a little over an hour, so the word count is a bit low; but I would appreciate any feedback, specifically regarding any overall issues with my writing.

"The ignorance of the villagers is more powerful than Anna's growing knowledge." Discuss

In the mid-1660s, the burgeoning Age of Enlightenment was beginning to influence societal views of knowledge and personal liberty. Year of Wonders, a historical fiction novel by Geraldine Brooks, presents an exploration of the dichotomy between new, enlightened views and those that are detritus of the Dark Ages. The villagers of the town are ignorant, and this has an immediately noticeable, destructive effect. Anna's blossoming knowledge liberates her, but it cannot save the people she loves from the powerful destruction of the ignorant villagers.

The murder of Mem and Anys Gowdie is an exemplar of the blind anger brought about the villagers' benightedness. They know that the Gowdies are "well skilled in physic" and that they are "all the better off on account of it". Yet their incomprehension and mistrust of the Gowdies' skills makes them the targets of the villagers fury. The image of Mem lying on the earth as "dark water spewed from her mouth", and later, Anys "unrecognisable, purple and bloated" arrestingly illuminates the sheer destructive power of the villagers' ignorance.

Also portrayed in the scene of the Gowdies' lynching is Anna's impotence. She attempts to help Mem but is not match for the mob's rage. Her efforts to stop John Gordon are feeble compared to his power. She "knew [her] strength was insufficient to his frenzy". In this case, her encyclopaedic knowledge of the scripture is of no use, nor is her experience with birthing lambs. Her knowledge fails her, having no power against that of the villagers'; "distorted by drink and grief". Anna is later powerless again to prevent the murder of her closest friend, Elinor. Anna, along with the rest of the parishioners, is paralysed, unable to help as Aphra cuts Elinor's throat. Aphra, driven insane by loss, turns to dark sources for belief, and Anna is too afraid to confront her after seeing the rituals in her stepmother's house. This portrayal of the ineffectuality of Anna's knowledge highlights the fact that, more often than not throughout the novel, blind ignorance has greater power than Anna's enlightenment.

However, Anna's erudition and understanding of life does have powerful effects. Her gentle and compassionate delivery of Mary Daniel's baby is in stark contrast to the savage, unenlightened practices of the barber-surgeon that led to the death of Anna's mother and baby sister. Her first-hand knowledge of midwifery allows her to save potentially two lives in the Daniels household. This has a great effect on Mary, who otherwise would have had to suffer through childbirth alone.This proves that Anna can have a powerful effect, although not on the scale of that of the villagers'.

Anna's knowledge brings her freedom, and the means by which to save her life. Threatened by the Bradfords, she flees; first to Plymouth, then Venice and finally Oran. Here, her knowledge allows her to work as a midwife for Ahmed Bey, who is stymied by the strict gender roles of Muslim North Africa. Anna continues her study as Bey's wife. Her flourished knowledge allows her this escape, as she would not be as useful were she merely an ignorant villager.

The ignorance of the villagers has an effect to which they are blind. Their ignorance allows them to be influenced, even exploited. As soon as Michael Mompellion sees George Viccars' sores, he suspects the Plague. Using his contacts, he sends away for more information from the doctors at Cambridge. The villagers do not have this luxury. Mompellion withholds his more advanced knowledge, instead appealing to the villagers' faith to convince them to stay. Knowledge is power, and had the villagers had the same knowledge as Mompellion, their choice may have been very different. The educated Bradfords choose to flee, the ignorant have little choice but to stay.

Despite the disturbing destruction of arising from the villagers, their ignorance ultimately traps them in the "wide, green prison". Anna's knowledge is ineffectual against physical power, but she fortifies the town and helps deliver babies safely, perhaps saving many more lives than were taken by the hateful villagers. Brooks portrays the 1660s as a time of struggle, with enlightenment ultimately triumphing over blind ignorance.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Lolly on March 16, 2013, 05:05:57 pm
So here's just one paragraph for Interpreter of Maladies text response ( the teacher doesn't have time to mark a whole essay....) Feedback definitely appreciated. It feels like an age since I last did text response and I'm quite out of practice.  Thanks. :) ( edit: This is now two paragraphs, because 400 words is too long for one paragraph :P )


“Lahiri demonstrates that even within marriage, individuals can experience isolation”

Throughout the anthology, Lahiri explores human alienation, revealing how personal vulnerability lies hidden at the core of our closest relationships. Her characters are often ensconced behind facades of stability and security in marriage, yet the narrative reveals the depth of isolation felt within these relationships.  This notion is prominent within the title story “ Interpreter of Maladies” through the depiction of Mrs Das, a woman who has experienced  her marriage in seclusion, “ left at home all day with the baby, surrounded by toys that made her trip when she walked”. Her life has been compromised by her relationship “as a result of spending all her time in college with Raj... she did not make many close friends”. Here, Lahiri reveals how relationships can paradoxically cause isolation.  This idea is reinforced by Mr Kapasi’s reflection that he and his wife,“…had little in common apart from three children and a decade of their lives”, this expressing how marriage is not always conducive to love or intimacy.  Mr Kapasi’s loneliness is evident as he attempts to make a connection with Mrs Das. He relates to her feelings of  being trapped in a relationship that has long since deteriorated. “ the signs…from his own marriage  were there – the bickering, the indifference, the protracted silence.” In this way, Lahiri illustrates the secluding effect of dysfunctional marriage.

 Furthermore,  Lahiri demonstrates how the protective forces of marriage are eroded by personal tragedy.Such estrangement  is explored through Shoba and Shukumar in “ A Temporary Matter”, as Shoba’s miscarriage causes both she and Shukumar to withdraw into their own worlds, rather than turning to each other for comfort. This is emphasised through Shukumar's observation "of how he and Shoba had become experts at avoiding each other”, portraying  Shoba and Shukumar’s relationship as a mere semblance what it was before. Their isolation is exacerbated by their lack of communication “ He thought of how long it had been since she…had smiled, or whispered his name”.  In this way, Lahiri communicates how marriage does not always grant immunity against personal desolation, instead highlighting how individuals feel constrained under the weight of its implications.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: werdna on March 18, 2013, 01:07:22 am
So here's just one paragraph for Interpreter of Maladies text response ( the teacher doesn't have time to mark a whole essay....) Feedback definitely appreciated. It feels like an age since I last did text response and I'm quite out of practice.  Thanks. :) ( edit: This is now two paragraphs, because 400 words is too long for one paragraph :P )


“Lahiri demonstrates that even within marriage, individuals can experience isolation”

Throughout the anthology, Lahiri explores human alienation, revealing how personal vulnerability lies hidden at the core of our closest relationships. Her characters are often ensconced behind facades of stability and security in marriage, yet the narrative reveals the depth of isolation felt within these relationships.  This notion is prominent within the title story “ Interpreter of Maladies” through the depiction of Mrs Das, a woman who has experienced  her marriage in seclusion, “ left at home all day with the baby, surrounded by toys that made her trip when she walked”. Her life has been compromised by her relationship “as a result of spending all her time in college with Raj... she did not make many close friends”. Here, Lahiri reveals how relationships can paradoxically cause isolation.  This idea is reinforced by Mr Kapasi’s reflection that he and his wife,“…had little in common apart from three children and a decade of their lives”, this expressing how marriage is not always conducive to love or intimacy.  Mr Kapasi’s loneliness is evident as he attempts to make a connection with Mrs Das. He relates to her feelings of  being trapped in a relationship that has long since deteriorated. “ the signs…from his own marriage  were there – the bickering, the indifference, the protracted silence.” In this way, Lahiri illustrates the secluding effect of dysfunctional marriage.

 Furthermore,  Lahiri demonstrates how the protective forces of marriage are eroded by personal tragedy.Such estrangement  is explored through Shoba and Shukumar in “ A Temporary Matter”, as Shoba’s miscarriage causes both she and Shukumar to withdraw into their own worlds, rather than turning to each other for comfort. This is emphasised through Shukumar's observation "of how he and Shoba had become experts at avoiding each other”, portraying  Shoba and Shukumar’s relationship as a mere semblance what it was before. Their isolation is exacerbated by their lack of communication “ He thought of how long it had been since she…had smiled, or whispered his name”.  In this way, Lahiri communicates how marriage does not always grant immunity against personal desolation, instead highlighting how individuals feel constrained under the weight of its implications.

Intro should be broader in scope. Body paragraph is way too short. Watch your tenses, use metalanguage to discuss, more quoting etc.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: jeanweasley on March 18, 2013, 11:47:18 am
Hi all! I need feedback for my essay.
Did this in 58 min but may not be fully indicative of my performance as I typed it


“Year of Wonders” demonstrates the sinister side of religious fervour. Discuss.

Geraldine Brooks’ “Year of Wonders” explores not only the sinister side of religious fervour but also the humanistic ideals which evolve from it. The restrictive mindsets of most of the people in Eyam drive people to use others as scapegoats as a result of their fear from the Plague. It is also through religous fervour, however, which helps shape Eyam through the compassionate actions emulated by Anna, Elinor and Mompellion in their daily toil with Plague sufferers.

The villagers’ restrictive minds and ignorance from pursuing knowledge lead them to use others as scapegoats to satisfy their desire to explain the occurrence of the Plague. From the Puritan beliefs of Mr Stanley, a previous town pastor who believed that God’s actions were to “punish or chastise” and that actions were ever only “godly and right or Satanic or evil”, it is evident that this belief forms as a basis for most of the townspeople’s motivations in finding the reason for Plague’s occurrence. As they are fearful of the emergence of new knowledge found in science or the herbs and cures which Anys and Mem develop, the villagers, such as Lib Hancock condemn Anys and Mem as they are social outcasts and can easily be blamed as they had no husbands and were therefore thought to be witches. This belief leads the villagers to use Mem and Anys as scapegoats to give reason for the Plague. In fact, Anys’ mocking revelation is indicative of the townspeople’s ignorance as they believed that she had “lain with the devil”. Brooks utilises the red dress to display Anys’s fieriness and her sexual independence as a woman as she was able to choose her fate and the men she slept with. This contrasts with the many women’s restrictive thinking, especially Ahpra who was jealous with Anys because she was free from the burden of following a man’s orders as she was unmarried, unlike Ahpra. Brooks demonises the villagers for the death of Mem and Anys as they are scapegoats who have paid for the ignorance of mankind and their reluctance of accepting new knowledge because of their fear.

Religous extremists such as Mompellion are condemned as Brooks believe that total emulation of God can prove to be fatal and will only lead to questioning the purpose of one’s religion. Mompellion’s belief that he knows God’s words is a foundation to his downfall. He believes that his wife must atone for her past sins as he as a “scale of justice” must weigh her sins with her atonement. This belief that Mompellion alone can decide what must happen to his wife gives him dominance over her as he is the “image of God” on Earth. Mompellion’s act of emulation in being the all-knowing God has its consequences as he blames God for the death of his beloved wife and for the many deaths that the Plague brings. He attributes these to God and finds him a “poor listener” as many have died. This leads him to a sexual encounter with Anna arguing that because he no longer believes in God, he is “free to do whatever I please”. On the other hand, John Gordon becomes a flagellant and “scourge[  s]” himself because he believes that the Plague occurred because of human sins and in order to atone for it, flagellates himself. In the end, he dies by the river. Brooks does not support the idea that no one can possibly interpret God’s words because he is an omnipotent authority and that total emulation of him or religious extremism can cause dire consequences.

However, compassion arises from religous fervour through the works of Anna, Elinor and Mompellion who make it their duty to care for the Plague sufferers and to raise their morale through the whole encounter with the Plague. Mompellion proposes for quarantine and convinces the villagers that the Plague is a “casket of gold” and a gift from God that must be faced. The act of quarantine itself is considerate of other villagers as the Plague was contagious and could have affected other cities. Anna and Elinor also help the villagers through their knowledge of medicine and through the symbolism of Anna being the shepherd; she becomes one of the leaders who tend to their needs and to look after them. This is evident in Anna retrieving Merry Wickford’s mine although she was fearful because her husband had died in mine. However, she overcomes her fear and is able to help. Elinor also provides Anna knowledge and in her knowledge groom her to become the town healer and midwife. Brooks portrays that hope in the time of adversity will overcome it as people like Anna, Elinor and Mompellion help the villagers to remain strong and withstand the damages of the Plague.

Brooks examines religious fervour and contrasts its sinister and amiable side arguing that ignorance and limited knowledge lead people into using others as scapegoats. Total emulation of God and religious extremism is proven to be dangerous as Brooks believes it is destructive the faith that they believe in. In contrast, Brooks shapes certain characters to show compassion in times of adversity and uses this to affirm that it is through knowledge of the world that one better understands the purpose of it.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Lolly on March 18, 2013, 06:50:54 pm
Intro should be broader in scope. Body paragraph is way too short. Watch your tenses, use metalanguage to discuss, more quoting etc.

 Thanks for the feedback. :)
These are both meant to be body paragraphs but I split them in two. Fair comment though -  I should add more depth and analysis to the second paragraph.

 Feel free to prove me wrong, but I just read it over and the tenses look fine to me....? I mean, yes, I change tenses - eg "
this notion is prominent" as opposed to "Mrs Das, a woman who has experienced her marriage in seclusion"  - but we're talking about her past and the quote is from her anecdote to Mr Kapasi, so in this case, isn't the change in tense appropriate....? Again please let me know if I've missed an error.


And thanks,  I will defs use more metalanguage. I think I'm just confusing myself between Lit analysis and text response. I actually rewrote it and removed some of the analytical stuff to make it flow better and embedded quotes instead of using metalanguage gdkjhouehifeshdskjh I'm overthinking but thanks for pointing that out. 

Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on April 01, 2013, 02:51:44 pm
Okay I'm going on an essay marking spree. All in this post. Before each essay I mark I'll include a hyperlink so you know which is the unmarked version. Regular disclaimers apply to all essays: I haven't read all these texts, I am not experts in these texts, the things you should pay most attention to is what I'm telling you could be improved with your language, and you're really better off with someone expert at your texts giving you feedback. I will also be indecisive occasionally with my feedback because I'm not sure if I want to criticise it or whether it would work well specifically for the text.[/b]



Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
'Somax is used in Ransom merely to provide entertainment and humour'. Do you agree?
 
David Malouf’s incandescent reworking of a classic Greek epic in his fable prose, Ransom, is evident in his addition of Somax’s character to guide Priam on his journey towards the Greek camp. Okay there is quite a lot going on in this sentence-I feel like it could be simplified (and thus better expressed). You've used "his addition" of Somax... when shouldn't it be inclusion, in the fable, rather than an addition? And what is evident? His incandescent reworking? I don't like addition/inclusion, should just be like "Somax is characterised/utilised as/etc." - But I guess you're disagreeing with the prompt. Good move. Somax, playing a multimodal role in Ransom, is characterised by Malouf to symbolise I feel like 'embody' would be more appropriate than 'symbolise' here. the “simple folk” – pragmatic, content and humble. In this way, Somax’s tranquil character naturally casts some earthy humour to the often disturbing novel, yet there is an evident underlying complexity to his character that is initially dissembled by this common exterior.Good. Malouf’s deliberate avoid this please god.juxtaposing Tip for punchy writing: Avoid words ending with 'ing' unless it would be silly to avoid it. 'deliberate juxtaposing' is just a huge flow-killing phrase. BustaRhymes would cry. "Somax's juxtaposition with the 'world of ceremony', central to Priam...., is important...." even "The juxtaposition between..." or "Malouf juxtaposes..." of Somax’s character to the “world of ceremony” that is central to Priam in his “realm of the royal”, is important in facilitating the pivotal development of Priam’s character throughout the novel. Get a thesis statement. You could also offer a little bit more complexity. Some people I guess might keep it short, but your intro is your first impression, so I always spent a while making mine excellent. (but it is your first essay). Job well done, I say.

Okay, so you've  gone for "Somax still entertains!" even though your contention (I think) is "That's not all he does, guys"... Right after you've said your contention is "that's not all he does" you start talking about how he's funny. See how that could mess with the reader's mind? Keep this paragraph til your third, I reckon.Somax’s dominate voice as storyteller, companied with his strange traits, act as a source of entertainment, engaging some delight in the reader and thus briefly removing us from the otherwise depressing themes of Malouf’s prose. In Somax’s unexceptional introduction – a “man the whole town recognises as a simple carter” is this the title? It doesn't gel with the sentence. Quote could be better incorporated – the reader is given a small insight into his relationship with “the mule that has brought him” into Priam’s royal realm, Beauty. The unaccustomed love story between Somax and Beauty coaxes an immediate interest in the reading while the neglected Shock, Somax's ‘other’ mule, receives our I don't like the 'our'amused sympathy.  His “coaxing and sweet-talking” of Beauty and the “small secrets” they share add to the flashes of humour in Malouf's prose, while softening our impression of Somax. As he and Priam make their way to the Greek camps, Somax tendency to let “his tongue run on, with no fear at all, it seemed, of being taken for a mere rattle or chatterer” becomes our second source of entertainment. The stories of his daughter-in-law and her pikelets, “or griddlecakes as some people call them”, are seemingly irrelevant tales that become a “pleasant way of filling the time” as they strangely capture our interest. Contrastingly, Somax recounting of his children, the “poor things” that “died too early”, strikes sympathy in the reader however also revealing the inner complexity of feeling unexpected from this deceptively simple character.  This is much a retelling of the story. What you've done here I'd pretty much concentrate into the first part of your paragraph and then analyse some more complex evidence later on so it's less retelly. Definitely wouldn't use it as a first paragraph. Part of the retellyness is that it sort of seems to lack an argument--and what about his dominant voice of storyteller? This would be great to analyse, how the narrator is used, that's complex as fuck, but here you've mentioned it and then left it deader than disco.

As the complexity of Somax’s character is revealed through his act of storytellingagain! Are you just wanting to tell us that you know he is the storyteller? I hope you analyse this!, these tales also serve to remind Priam of the universal aspects of the human condition — loss, regret, grief — Something tells me you really like to use the dash in your writing. This is okay, but too much is too much, it can look novice. I think a good writer won't need the dash as much as a lesser writer by way of his use of grammar and other punctuation. Too many dashes can kill an essay imo. (That being said, I still used like, two dashes in my English exam because I was pressed for time)Are these the human condition or the universal aspects? You shouldn't use the dashes here. You need to concentrate on articulating your thoughts in a clear way, you've used the dash because you want to fit more thought than the sentence can handle...I also just realised Somax might not be the narrator, but a guy who tell stories. Wow. *punches myself in the face*. as the two men, who are otherwise separated by the unbridgeable gulf of social rank, forge a common understanding. Somax’s story of the death of  double of, could be avoided for better expressionhis children, especially the “older child, a boy” who would “take the milk” of his sister as she was “so sickly she couldn’t feed”, revealed the underlying grief and loss that grips Somax. As he recounts the fatal day his son died, “sweating”, even then, “just at the memory of it”, the reader begins to get a sense of the past pain and loss that has contributed to Somax’s unique view of the world, making him a much more well-rounded character. Good!Juxtaposed with Somax's... You've left our a possessive apostrophe a lot in this essay... Stop it! haha evident grief, Priam’s detached relationship with his many son’sused apostrophe to denote plurality. no. had left him with “much to take in”. He could share in no memory of the intimate moments Somax had with his children, all “he recalls is a series of small squalling bundles, each one presented to him like a bloodied human offering on the outstretched palms of an attendant”. The psychological abjection he had so obliviously been suffering became evident to Priam as he listened to “the lively manner, so full of emotion” in which Somax spoke of his children. With this Somax becomes the driving force that unintentionally facilitates Priam’s development as a character. I feel like you need to link it back to the prompt in a stronger way (i was always very rigid with this)

Somax embodies Priam’s vision of unadorned simplicity and authenticity and through him Priam learns is thus able to learn to appreciate the unadorned beauty of a world outside his “royal realm”. Good t.s  The fertile natural world between encampment and city reflect Somax’s raw and earthy character. In this way, Malouf not only explores Somaxpossessive!!!!!!!!!!!!!! inner-working but the contents of his realm. It is the natural world that Somax is custom with, yet juxtaposed with the private and enclosed spaces of bedchambers and inner courts that dominate Priam’s realm; it is a foreign land for Priam. this is unfinished. Yet leaves room for more than just 'juxtaposed with x' For this reason, Malouf deliberately pays close attention to the settings that surround the men. Evident in the close descriptions of the ancient name for a river – Menderes, that the men cross, “the bone-white gravel of its bed”, the “glossy-leafed rosebay bushes” that grow in “flowering clumps on the island between” and all the other very detailed intimate workings of this river and its wildlife, invites the reader to begin to appreciate that “everything was just itself”, to be “bewildering”, while also foreshadowing Priam’s own journey in learning to appreciate the simplicities of life himself. In this same way, Somax amused familiarity to the “fingerlings” that “nosed in and nudged and nibbled at him” compared to Priam’s “uncertain” and anxious reaction, demonstrates Somax intrinsic connection with the natural world around him. His belief that we are “children of nature” and of “the earth” helps Priam, not necessarily have the same connection, but gain a sense of awareness of things, outside his realm, that he had once allowed to be so ignorantly foreign to him.  Again I tyhink you need a sentence here that strongly ties it back to the prompt. This paragraph I think is more standout than the rest

Undoubtedly it is Somaxppppppppppppppppooooosssssssessssive vernacular character, the attributes of colloquial human nature, which lends itself to his general likability and humour, yet it would be remiss to neglect Malouf’s core intentions for creating his character. Instead, Malouf demonstrates the complexity of even the most simplistic beings. By juxtaposing the unembellished life of Somax to the “royal realm” of Priam, Malouf is able to demonstrate the similarities even the most socially unequal individuals can share. Moreover, by making this distinction apparent, Malouf extols the power of the common man in instigating change, ultimately demonstrating to the reader that the power to influence change in others does not lie exclusively in the glorified or the powerful individual, but that the power often lies in the unexceptional beings – the “simple folk”.Great conclusion. Some sentences here should have made their way into your essay sooner :P





Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]

"The ignorance of the villagers is more powerful than Anna's growing knowledge." Discuss
Even though this is written in an hour, you should have more. I know it's early in the year but I'm not going to pull punches. You'd want a more in depth conclusion, and in my own style I would blend your paragraphs together to have 3 or 4 big main paragraphs. The splits, they will promote shallow writing imo. Also an interesting prompt. Ignorance, powerful, growing knowledge. I'm keen to see how you tackle this.

In the mid-1660s,There's nothing inherently wrong with this. It just sounds funny imo "mid-1660s". Could say "Following the Restoration. the burgeoning inverted commas for age of enlightenmentAge of Enlightenmentinvert was beginning to influence societal views of knowledge and personal liberty. I like your opening.Year of Wonders, a historical fiction novel by Geraldine Brooks Could also use "Geralidine Brooks' historical fiction novel, Year of Wonders, (sounds better in my head), presents an exploration of the dichotomy between new, enlightened views and those that are detritus of the Dark Ages. GREAT The villagers of the town are ignorant, and this has an immediately noticeable, destructive effect. Anna's blossoming knowledge liberates her, but it cannot save the people she loves from the powerful destruction of the ignorant villagers.Hmm. I can't distinguish your main arguments. Imo the idea of an intro is to a) show off how awesome you are, and b) introduce your essay. That means contention, main ideas, thesis statement, clarification of the prompt(optional). I appreciate this is made difficult by the way you've structured (not like you can fit in 5 or 6 main ideas lol). I'd personally recommend restructuring, but for the way you've written the rest of the essay, solid intro. However, you need a thesis statement at the end.

The murder of Mem and Anys Gowdie is an exemplar not sure on this word in this sentence. of the blind anger brought about the villagers' benightedness. Great They know that the Gowdies are "well skilled in physic" and that they are "all the better off on account of it". Yet their incomprehension and mistrust of the Gowdies' skills makes them the targets of the villagerspossessive? fury. The image of Mem lying on the earth as "dark water spewed from her mouth", and later, Anys "unrecognisable, purple and bloated" arrestingly illuminates the sheer destructive power of the villagers' ignorance. Yeah, man, way too shallow/short as a stand alone paragraph. What you've got there is great but there's so much more to be said. Perhaps you have structured in a way that makes up for this or used this as a skillful set-up... I will read on.

Also portrayed in the scene of the Gowdies' lynching is Anna's impotence. She attempts to help Mem but is not match for the mob's rage. Her efforts to stop John Gordon are feeble compared to his powerHmmm. Straying from the prompt? Power related to ignorance, not power. . She "knew [her] strength was insufficient to his frenzy". In this case, her encyclopaedic knowledge of the scripture is of no use, nor is her experience with birthing lambs. Her knowledge fails her, having no power against that of the villagers'; "distorted by drink and grief" (?) Could get right of the possessive and the semi-colon. Just "villagers 'distorted by drink and grief'". Anna is later powerless again to prevent the murder of her closest friend, Elinor. Anna, along with the rest of the parishioners, is paralysed, unable to help as Aphra cuts Elinor's throat. Aphra, driven insane by loss, turns to dark sources for belief, and Anna is too afraid to confront her after seeing the rituals in her stepmother's house. This portrayal of the ineffectuality of Anna's knowledge highlights the fact that, more often than not throughout the novel, blind ignorance has greater power than Anna's enlightenment. Okay, not bad. Good finishing sentence. Seems like you're backing yourself up with a sort of "common sense" approach that promotes retelling. I mean, 'of course the ignorance is more powerful! All you have to do to recognise that is remember this time, and this time!. Just be careful that you analyse deeply instead of taking the easy route. No overall writing issues so far

However, Anna's erudition and understanding of life does have powerful effects. Her gentle and compassionate delivery of Mary Daniel's baby is in stark contrast to the savage, unenlightened practices of the barber-surgeon that led to the death of Anna's mother and baby sister. Her first-hand knowledge of midwifery allows her to save potentially two lives in the Daniels household. This has a great effect on Mary, who otherwise would have had to suffer through childbirth alone.This proves that Anna can have a powerful effect, although not on the scale of that of the villagers'. You use this possessive apostrophe. The plural is fine, you don't need to imply the "villagers' ignorance". Just saying the "villagers" is fine.

Anna's knowledge brings her freedom, and the means by which to save her life. Threatened by the Bradfords, she flees; first to Plymouth, then Venice and finally Oran. Here, her knowledge allows her to work as a midwife for Ahmed Bey, who is stymied by the strict gender roles of Muslim North Africa. Anna continues her study as Bey's wife. Her flourished knowledge allows her this escape, as she would not be as useful were she merely an ignorant villager. I just think this is doing nothing for you other than showing you've read the text.

The ignorance of the villagers has an effect to which they are blind. Their ignorance allows them to be influenced, even exploited. As soon as Michael Mompellion sees George Viccars' sores, he suspects the Plague. Using his contacts, he sends away for more information from the doctors at Cambridge. The villagers do not have this luxury. Mompellion withholds his more advanced knowledge, instead appealing to the villagers' faith to convince them to stay. Knowledge is power, and had the villagers had the same knowledge as Mompellion, their choice may have been very different. The educated Bradfords choose to flee, the ignorant have little choice but to stay.||prompt||--- ||->you||

Despite the disturbing destruction of arising from the villagers, their ignorance ultimately traps them in the "wide, green prison". Anna's knowledge is ineffectual against physical power, but she fortifies the town and helps deliver babies safely, perhaps saving many more lives than were taken by the hateful villagers. Brooks portrays the 1660s as a time of struggle, with enlightenment ultimately triumphing over blind ignorance.

Well, for overall writing, this is nice. You have a good sense of the language, good vocab, good use of punctuation (except that pesky possessive) and your sentence structure is sound. That's just your writting, as in, the way you use words. The essay in itself... I think it could be much deeper, certainly have more metalanguage by proxy of the deep analysis (you sort of miss out on it through this essay), and in general it feels as if it's a skim retell that backs up the point. You want to back up the point and analyse it/the text. I think this is exacerbated by the way you've structured but I understand different people have different way of doing things. Personally, I dislike your structure, however, VCAA knows there are many different ways to write an essay. If your teacher is relaxed, I'd consider revising your style so you can better hit the criteria. I can go through this in more depth if you'd actually like to make the change. I see lots and lots of potential in you from this, but, yeah, the style. (imo)

Loz I have nothing to add to your paragraph except for what werdna and yourself have already noticed.


Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
58 minute, eh? Alright, cool :D
“Year of Wonders” demonstrates the sinister side of religious fervour. Discuss.

Geraldine Brooks’ “Year of Wonders” explores not only the sinister side of religious fervour but also the humanistic ideals which evolve from it. The restrictive mindsets of most of the people in Eyamseems too casual. Could also say "Eyam's villagers" drive people to use others as scapegoats as a result of their fear from the Plague. It is also through religous fervour, however, which helps shape Eyam through the compassionate actions emulated by Anna, Elinor and Mompellion in their daily toil with Plague sufferers. Alright cool. I guess your teacher pushes smaller introductions? As aforementioned, I prefer longer intros, but this is sound if it's what you've been told to do.

The villagers’ restrictive minds and ignorance from pursuing knowledge this has the potential to be very unclear. It sounds like they're ignorant because of their knowledge pursuits, not that they're ignorant regarding knowledge pursuit. would revise.lead them to use others as scapegoats to satisfy their desire to explain the occurrence of the Plague. From the Puritan beliefs of Mr Stanley, a previous town pastor who believed that God’s actions were to “punish or chastise” and that actions were ever only “godly and right or Satanic or evil”, it is evident that this belief forms as a basis for most of the townspeople’s motivations in finding the reason for Plague’s occurrence. As they are fearful of the emergence of new knowledge found in science or the herbs and cures which Anys and Mem develop, the villagers, such as Lib Hancock condemn Anys and Mem as they are social outcasts and can easily be blamed as they had no husbands and were therefore thought to be witches. There's a lot going on in this sentence, it think it could be better expressed. This belief leads the villagers to use Mem and Anys as scapegoats to give reason for the Plague. In fact, Anys’ mocking revelation is indicative of the townspeople’s ignorance as they believed that she had “lain with the devil”. Brooks utilises the red dress to display Anys’s fieriness and her sexual independence as a woman as she was able to choose her fate and the men she slept with. This contrasts with the many women’s restrictive thinking, especially Ahpra who was jealous with Anys because she was free from the burden of following a man’s orders as she was unmarried, unlike Ahpra. Sentence structure could be grammatically improved Brooks demonises the villagers for the death of Mem and Anyscomma here. as they are scapegoats who have paid for the ignorance of mankind and their reluctance of accepting new knowledge because of their fear. I feel like 'fear' should be changed to something more synonymous with the prompt's keywords. Good paragraph.

Religous extremists such as Mompellion are condemned as Brooks believe that total emulation of God can prove to be fatal and will only lead to questioning the purpose of one’s religion.You could be more direct with your language here. "Brooks condemns religious extremists such as Michael Mompellion, conveying the ways in which total emulation..." Mompellion’s belief that he knows God’s words is a foundation to his downfall. He believes that his wife must atone for her past sins as he as a “??scale of justice” must weigh her sins with her atonement. This belief that Mompellion alone can decide what must happen to his wife gives him dominance over her as he is the “image of God” on Earth.This would also be a great opportunity to discuss the condemnation of any patriarchal system from Brook's perspective and how religious fervour has oppressed and [insert really bad words] genders and classes etc. This would also be more analytic than your next sesntence --> Mompellion’s act of emulation in being the all-knowing God has its consequences as he blames God for the death of his beloved wife and for the many deaths that the Plague brings. He attributes these to God and finds him a “poor listener” as many have died. This leads him to a sexual encounter with Anna arguing that because he no longer believes in God, he is “free to do whatever I please”. On the other hand, John Gordon becomes a flagellant and “scourge[  s]” himself because he believes that the Plague occurred because of human sins and in order to atone for it, flagellates himself. In the end, he dies by the river. Brooks does not support the idea that no one can possibly interpret God’s words because he is an omnipotent authority and that total emulation of him or religious extremism can cause dire consequences. I think you need to be really strong on the prompt. I mean, "sinister" - you can tear this word apart but you've sort of glossed over it. Especially after he bangs Anna - he's a cunt!!!! It's creepy and fucked up - put that in your essay! (not in those words :| :|)  and say how his religious fervour has caused this etc. Go deeper. Nice writing. Good knowledge and interpretation but really stick strongly to the prompt as a basis for your analysis.

However, compassion arises from religous fervour through the works of Anna, Elinor and Mompellion who make it their duty to care for the Plague sufferers and to raise their morale through the whole encounter with the Plague. I love the concept of this paragraph, but I would argue with you over Anna's compassion being driven by religious fervour. Possibly Elinor as well. But anyway, this is about what I think :P (but that might give you something to think about!)Mompellion proposes for quarantine and convinces the villagers that the Plague is a “casket of gold” and a gift from God that must be faced. The act of quarantine itself is considerateHAHA! Considerate. "Oh, sacrificing themselves was nice of them". Altruistic, maybe? Heroic?  I think considerate is underdone. of other villagers as the Plague was contagious and could have affected other cities. Anna and Elinor also help the villagers through their knowledge of medicine and through the symbolism of Anna being the shepherd; she becomes one of the leaders who tend to their needs and to look after them. This is evident in Anna retrieving Merry Wickford’s mine although she was fearful because her husband had died in mine. However, she overcomes her fear and is able to help. Elinor also provides Anna knowledge and in her knowledge groom her to become the town healer and midwife. Brooks portrays that hope in the time of adversity will overcome it as people like Anna, Elinor and Mompellion help the villagers to remain strong and withstand the damages of the Plague. Stick heavier to how their religious fervour drives their good deed so it isn't all sinister. You write well.

Brooks examines religious fervour and contrasts its sinister and amiable side lack of a comma here. This is one thing I'd say to you  - make sure you don't skip commas, you did it more acceptably in the bodies, but you'd really want a comma here.arguing that ignorance and limited knowledge lead people into using others as scapegoats. Total emulation of God and religious extremism is proven to be dangerous as Brooks believes it's proven by what Brooks believes?  it is destructive the faith that they believe in. In contrast, Brooks shapes certain characters to show compassion driven by religion in times of adversity and uses this to affirm that it is through knowledge of the world that one better understands the purpose of it. this is a great little philosophical ending, but isn't it sort of contradictory to what you've argued - religious fervour drives goodness as well... what does this have to do with world knowledge?

Strong writing, good knowledge, good analysis but I think could go deeper, think could stick more strongly to the prompt (or more obviously) and more strongly to the arguments held in the topic sentence. Big potential :)





SORRY IT TOOK SO LONG GUYS
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on April 01, 2013, 03:58:48 pm
At the heart of On the Waterfront is an exploration of how individuals are products of their environment.

Set to the background of the corrupt and bleak docks of New Jersey, the 1954 film On the Waterfront underline text titles elucidates the effects of the environment on the individual. Kazan explores the notion, of how one’s environment influences and thus contributes significantly towards the development of individual traits and characteristics. Despite a shared upbringing, Terry is able to branch out as he is exposed to external influences which steer him in a different direction to that of his brother. Edie is another, whose purity and angelic soul are reflective of her upbringing in the convent, where corruption and injustice are inexistent. Finally, Johnny Friendly’s harsh upbringing has also harboured his ruthless and power-drive disposition, thus proving how he too is a product of his own environment. Good! [Thesis Statement]

The disparities between the Malloy brothers that is seen later on in their lives despite their initial upbringing together, is a result of the different influences that they are each exposed to.That comma is redundant the grammar of the sentence could be improved. "Despite their similar  upbringing, there is much disparity between the Malloy brothers due to the later influences they are each exposed to." Bernstein’s ominous sound track in the opening scene itself illustrates the corruption which is inherent on the waterfront. It is evident that both Charley and Terry have grown up in this world of Johnny Friendly’s amidst the injustice. Terry’s disposition however is different to that of Charley’s as is seen through his care for the pigeons and his fear of them “catching cold.” It is this gentle side of his, which is further developed upon Terry’s encounter with Edie who is “the first nice thing that has happened to (him)use square brackets, not round brackets..”As Terry continues to nurture his relationship with Edie, his moral conscience begins to evolve as well. Nevertheless there are still contradictions present in Terry, which is depicted through the smoke permeating the background of the glove scene, representing Terry’s ambiguous state of mind. Although Terry wishes to remain “DnD”, abiding by his motto of “I don’t know nothing, I haven’t seen nothing, I’m not saying nothing,” a small part of him is drawn towards Edie’s moral goodness, provoking him to stand up for “(his) rights.”Terry’s realisation as a result of his association with Edie, makes it clear that unlike himself Charley has not had the opportunity to evolve but rather has remained to be nothing more than a puppet in Johnny Friendly’s hand. His realisation is complete following Charley’s “crucifixion,” in which he is found to be dead on a hook. It is this tragedy which drives Terry into full action, and although his outer physical self suffers his spiritual and moral identity wins, thus completing his transformation.Link back to the prompt. Your writing is strong. I'm hesitant to comment further than that because I've never anlaysed a movie before lol.

Edie’s purity and goodwill is reflective of her upbringing in the convent where she is shielded from corruption and injustice. Right from her introduction into the film, sounds more casual than it could be. the background lighting upon Edie portrays her in an angelic light, representing how she is shown in all her purity, without even a scruple of evil. GoodIt is indisputable that her upbringing in the convent has influenced her to such an extent where she feels that “everybody (should) care about everybody else.”The symbolism which lies behind her white gloves and her brightly-lit scenes alludes to this recurring theme of Edie’s innocence and purity, which even inspires Father Barry himself. GreatEdie is courageous to venture into the harsh male domain of the docks where her presence is looked down upon, as is proven through the overshot of Edie kneeling down over her brother’s dead body. Despite her fragile, weak and vulnerable position in society, it is her moral upbringing which provokes her to confront Terry as to, “how (he can) just sit there and say nothing.” The depth of Edie’s involvement with Terry is illustrated in her desperate words, “Let’s get away...some place we can live in peace.”Edie fears the impact of the corruption upon Terry; despite this however she remains stoic and steadfast by Terry’s side. Thus Edie’s resolve and her moral code of conduct elicit justice for her brother Joey but also transform the lives of Father Barry and Terry Malloy. Her faith in “patience and kindness,” can definitely be attributed to her upbringing in St Anne’s. Looks like a great paragraph to me.

Johnny Friendly’s harsh upbringing has also played an instrumental role in moulding him into a power and authority drive man. ?? Right from the onset of the film drop this expressionthe viewers are exposed to the smoke and haze which permeates Friendly’s bar, illustrating how his authority is indeed commandinghow?. Bernstein’s ominous score which plays just prior to Joey Doyle’s death alludes to the fact that danger lies ahead. This is further enhanced through the low-angle shot illustrating Johnny’s henchmen upon the rooftop and enunciating the impact of Friendly’s authority on the waterfront. This callous nature of Friendly’s however, can be accounted for by his harsh upbringing as he “begs for work” as a sheer sixteen year old. He carries the large scar on his neck as a constant reminder to how he had to fight some “tough fellas,” to gain control. Friendly’s only opportunity for advancement was through the union and he constantly asserts how he “didn’t work (his) way up from that for nothing.”The symbolism of the hawks resembling Friendly’s henchmen, further pronounces the ultimate power which lies in his hands and how Friendly is prepared to rule with fear and intimidation to keep a stranglehold on the lucrative docks. GreatAlthough Johnny Friendly is a bully, “a cheap, busy, dirty, stinkin mug, “this is a result of his upbringing which has been anything but smooth sailing. The final scene in which Terry successfully defeats Friendly, gives the impression that Johnny is just another pawn in this cycle of corruption which will forever be a part of the Hoboken docks.

In conclusion, NOthe individuals from the film On the Waterfront all substantiate the notion of being a product of one’s environment. Terry is able to escape the world of corruption through his connection with Edie, unlike Charley who remains under the command of Friendly. Edie’s upbringing in a world away from the docks has also contributed to her strong moral conduct in contrast to the longshoremen. Finally Johnny Friendly’s difficult circumstances in his childhood have also chiselled him into a heartless man, with no affinity for the longshoremen.

Your writing is nice, with the odd phrase to be improved (or ditched). Use square brackets in quotes. I couldn't offer much more feedback without having studied the text deeply myself.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: jeanweasley on April 06, 2013, 09:38:50 am
Thanks for the feedback Brenden, I'll see if I can work it again.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Stick on April 09, 2013, 01:18:32 pm
To be quite blunt, I'm really distraught over my first text response. It's just terrible. It's as if I've forgotten how to even write an essay. I'm hoping to turn this negative into a positive, however, so any feedback you could provide would be really appreciated.

Text: Interpreter of Maladies
Topic: What are the maladies that affect so many of the characters?

The characters in Jhumpa Lahiri’s Interpreter of Maladies are confronted with a variety of challenges that powerfully alter the course of their lives. Throughout her collection of short stories, the author riddles similar plagues of maladies upon all her characters to highlight the key elements of each issue, explaining the consequences they cause for themselves. The complexity of marriage and other interpersonal relationships is extensively explored, emphasising the significant threats that exist to demonstrate how they can adversely affect the personal development of some characters. Striving to make headway in a changing and unfamiliar world, they are vulnerable to the various potential dangers of alienation that arise from the struggle of successfully balancing and developing two distinct cultures. Particularly focusing on the social structure and expectations in the Indian community, the author also exemplifies the difficulties of suppressing traditional values when changing roles and discovering empowerment and freedom is necessary for survival their society. Both successes and failures are encapsulated as Lahiri’s characters collectively combat their quests for true assimilation.

Due to the numerous factors that sustain or threaten social interactions, many personal issues leak into the interpersonal sphere and afflict damage upon intimate relationships. Many of Lahiri’s characters inadvertently alienate themselves during times of adversity – their failure to open up with their loved ones often heralds the disintegration of their bond. In ‘A Temporary Matter’, it is Shoba and Shukumar’s reluctance to properly acknowledge the stillbirth of their baby son that ultimately leads to the demise of their three-year marriage. However, Lahiri alludes that this tragedy has merely intensified an already existing communication issue in their marriage. Through his admission of welcoming “the image” of raising a family “for the first time” only a few weeks prior to the birth of their first child, Shukumar’s inability to express his true thoughts and feelings to Shoba is strongly highlighted and doubt is immediately cast upon the couple’s integrity. Furthermore, Shukumar’s indifference regarding his wife’s decision to keep “the bonuses of her job in a separate bank account in her name” foreshadows the separate lives that they eventually lead and suggests that the deterioration of their marriage may have been inevitable. Throughout the short story, the couple prefers to “seek refuge in” the “mystery” of darkness and secrets when they communicate; their avoidance of the grief they experience only accentuates their malady. Lahiri extends upon this view as she exemplifies that alienation is not only a product of a broken relationship, but can in fact initiate it. In ‘Sexy’, a similar miscommunication disparity occurs in Miranda’s brief relationship. Forging a new life in Boston on her own, Miranda essentially enters the affair with Dev as a result of his deceptive prospect of understanding “what it’s like to be lonely,” underlining that she is coaxed into an inappropriate physical relationship in hope that it provides a cure for her isolation. Moreover, Dev’s persistent desires to enter “her without a word” underscore the incompatibility of their connection. Capitalising on Miranda’s admission that she “hadn’t been listening” to Laxmi’s phone conversations with her cousin, Lahiri demonstrates that Miranda was physically incapable of heeding this eerily appropriate alert, as a result of drowning so deeply in the waters of alienation. However, as the protagonist’s lack of fulfillment accumulates, the author features Miranda’s increasing awareness that these warning signs were “eluding her ear altogether” to exemplify that they were both “loving someone [they didn’t] know.” Revolving around their differing opportunities of personal satisfaction, Lahiri uses Miranda and Dev’s relationship to draw attention to the maladies that arise of manipulating a relationship to solve one’s own personal problems. The author’s bleak portrayal of Miranda’s personal battle for acceptance allows her to carefully transition her view that characters may simultaneously face the struggles of belonging in a foreign environment as they try to move on with their life.

Aiming to achieve cultural and traditional harmony in their lives, many characters endure a constant internal conflict to transform their innate sense of self in their journey of better assimilating into a foreign culture. Lahiri particularly focuses on the challenges that first generation Indian migrants face in trying to forge a new life in America, highlighting the difficulties of suppressing their connection to their homeland. In ‘Mrs Sen’s’, Mrs Sen initially intends to physically adapt to her new life by maintaining an excessively powerful link with her Indian heritage, emphasising her refusal to align her true identity with the American lifestyle. Describing her astonishment at how Eliot “already knew the way things must be,” Lahiri implies that Mrs Sen’s migration to the US was unexpected and unplanned for, revealing the heart of her malady – she is not prepared to face assimilation. Her unusual explanation in context that “Mr Sen teaches Mathematics at the University,” both to the policeman after her car accident and to Eliot’s mother upon meeting her for the first time, supports the belief that it was Mr Sen who had initiated their move to the US, and that he had failed to properly consult his wife in making the decision. Throughout the text, their relationship is tense and Mr Sen’s decision of “not kissing Mrs Sen,” is accounted for by the stark contrast in their ability and willingness to assimilate. While Lahiri alludes that second and third generation migrants do not experience such intense struggles of belonging, she is keen to project the withering link they often foster with their Indian cultural heritage. In ‘When Mr Pirzada Came to Dine’, Lilia’s connection with her Bengali background is similarly sustained by initially drawing parallels to her American life. She likens the conflict in Bengal “as if California and Connecticut constituted a nation apart from the US,” displaying her plagued cultural link and a general disregard for the danger her relatives are in. However, through the introduction of Mr Pirzada to her life, Lahiri sparks the curiosity within Lilia to motivate her better understanding of India, slowly connecting her “to the unruly, sweltering world [she] had viewed” on the news. Her developing relationship to the Bengali region becomes well substantiated when “she could not concentrate” on learning American history at school anymore during the period of conflict. The author further underscores the significance of Lilia’s newfound identity through her decision to undertake daily prayer for the safety and security of Mr Pirzada and his family, noting that “it was something [she] had never done before,” to demonstrate her deep spiritual bond. Exploring the differing systems that compose the Indian and American societies, Lahiri alludes that adapting to new responsibilities and expectations is one of the most difficult aspects of achieving true assimilation.

The complex gender and class roles that constitute the Indian social structure provide Lahiri’s characters with yet another challenge in their voyage for rapport.  The author highlights that many figures are forced to accept or suppress these cultural ideals in order to change and discover a successful life both in India or America. In ‘The Treatment of Bibi Haldar’, Bibi’s physical malady overrides her biological figure as a woman, as it has “left her naïve in” the “practical matters” that are expected from her gender in the Indian community. Haldar, the only male family member in Bibi’s life, emphasises this figurative cultural inadequacy through his view that “she was a bane for business… a liability and a loss.” However, through the female narrators that constitute the community, Lahiri is able to portray the significant struggle for the collective empowerment of women in India. In Bibi’s fight “to be spoken for, protected, placed on her path in life… like the rest of” traditional Indian women, her fellow compatriots “argued in favor of finding a husband” and managed to drive Haldar “more or less out of business.” Without this impending male dominance remaining in Bibi’s life, Lahiri demonstrates the liberation from traditional values and describes how Bibi was able to discover the true cure to her maladies as she “raised the boy and ran a business in the storage room.” Developing the complexity and difficulty of accepting a new role in life, the author describes how this issue can cause even greater troubles than assimilation into a new environment. The narrator in ‘The Third and Final Continent’, whilst successful at weaving himself into Indian, British and American life, is unprepared for and confused by his new role as a husband in his arranged marriage with Mala. Initially displaying a subtle sense of resentment for his overall scenario, Lahiri rapidly ignites a deep sense of concern within the protagonist through the dog’s attack of the Indian woman, forcing him to realise that “it was [his] duty to take care of Mala, to welcome her and protect her.” He initially achieves this by “speaking [to her] in Bengali for the first time in America,” aiming to provide a cultural bridge between India and America to lessen the culture shock on Mala. It is through this act, and the overall success their relationship finally enjoys, that the author implies the necessity of slowly transitioning and growing into new roles and expectations to overcome this challenging and common malady.

For most of Lahiri’s characters, the passage of adaptation over time proves to be the most demanding and painful issue they jointly encounter. Their fate is overall determined by their ability to remain determined and to seek the genuine assistance and support of those who are surrounding them.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: werdna on April 10, 2013, 12:23:52 am
Stick, a decent first attempt at an IOM essay. Sometimes the topics that seem the easiest are the hardest to do. A few things:
- Look closely at your introduction and you'll notice the overuse of -ing words. Watch your wording and concision.
- Stick to a present tense throughout.
- Not a fan of the 2 stories per paragraph structure, you will be way better off focusing on one main story but making subtle/minor links to another story. Not to the extent of 1/2 and 1/2 if you get what I mean.
- Lack of flow and linkages throughout.
- Lack of metalanguage and discussion of authorial devices throughout... language features, symbols etc?
- Lack of discussion regarding collection as a whole - crucial considering this is a collection of short stories, no examiners do not expect students to write on the whole text (which is a great thing for students), but they do expect a compromise & that means discussing short story cycle, order, universal themes!!!
- More discussion of social, cultural values etc is needed.
- Last paragraphs should ALWAYS be strictly a however paragraph. There are many different ways you could've broken down this topic.

Overall a good essay but you need to refine a few things. Well done. :)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: werdna on April 10, 2013, 12:27:12 am
Thanks for the feedback. :)
These are both meant to be body paragraphs but I split them in two. Fair comment though -  I should add more depth and analysis to the second paragraph.

 Feel free to prove me wrong, but I just read it over and the tenses look fine to me....? I mean, yes, I change tenses - eg "
this notion is prominent" as opposed to "Mrs Das, a woman who has experienced her marriage in seclusion"  - but we're talking about her past and the quote is from her anecdote to Mr Kapasi, so in this case, isn't the change in tense appropriate....? Again please let me know if I've missed an error.


And thanks,  I will defs use more metalanguage. I think I'm just confusing myself between Lit analysis and text response. I actually rewrote it and removed some of the analytical stuff to make it flow better and embedded quotes instead of using metalanguage gdkjhouehifeshdskjh I'm overthinking but thanks for pointing that out. 



Sorry about late reply.

No - treat the texts as if they are 'alive'.

Lapses between tenses are no good
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: sin0001 on April 12, 2013, 12:08:08 am
Could someone please point out how I can may improve the following intros:

‘Twelve Angry Men exposes the weaknesses of the jury system as well as its’ strengths.’  Discuss this statement.
Both the fragility and the beauty of the jury system are brought out in Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men.  Rose presents the jurors that allow certain preoccupations to influence their vote in the trial, in a negative light, when juxtaposed against the more open-minded members of the jury, the positive qualities of whom are more prominent.  However, the weakness of the juridical system is shown more through the characters from the jury that refuse to fulfil their legal privileges. More importantly, Rose depicts the strength of this legal system, through the jury’s is ability to deliver a reasonable verdict unanimously, regardless of the disputes that arise between some individual jurors.

‘In Twelve Angry Men, Juror 3 seems at first sight to be a simple character, but is in fact the most complicated.’ Discuss this statement.’
 ‘I’m an excitable person’, Juror three’s justification for starting disputes against other jurors, initially presents his character to be simply aggressive and impatient. But as the intricacies of Reginald Rose’s play, ‘Twelve Angry Men’, unfold, the third juror’s troubled relationship with his son is made known to the jury and hence the ulterior motive behind juror three’s unfaltering vote of ‘guilty’  is slowly derived by the jury, hence hinting the complexities of his character. Rose portrays the third juror to be a broken man, who at first, is able to initially deceive the other jurors into simply viewing him as an ‘excitable person’, but eventually deceives himself as he finally changing his vote and hence closing the jury.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on April 12, 2013, 02:12:06 am
*Will get to the other essays when I have more time/energy. But two 12AM (my text in VCE) is easy to do for me/quick
*Sin, I have been brief with your feedback because I'm just going to write out an example and show you what to do, because I don't sense confidence in your writing.
Could someone please point out how I can may improve the following intros: Don't mind if I do.

‘Twelve Angry Men exposes the weaknesses of the jury system as well as its’ strengths.’  Discuss this statement.
Both the fragility and the beauty of the jury system are brought out in Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men. I will discuss this later., see below. Rose presents the jurors that allow certain preoccupations to influence their vote in the trial, in a negative light, when juxtaposed against the more open-minded members of the jury, the positive qualities of whom are more prominent.  These clauses don't work well together and it breaks your flow. You could also be clearer in your idea and more direct. Again, see below.[color=yellow] However, the weakness of the juridical system is shown more through the characters from the jury that refuse to fulfil their legal privileges legal privileges is an odd term. Also think you could be stronger and clearer. The idea is to give the assessor your 3 ideas in your intro, and then really flesh them out in the paragraphs. [/color]. More importantly, Rose depicts the strength of this legal system, through the jury’s is ability to deliver a reasonable verdict unanimously, regardless of the disputes that arise between some individual jurors. Okay. This is your clearest. Still could be clearer. Will you be talking about the disputes? The characters? The unanimous verdict in itself? You also need a thesis statement here. See below.

‘In Twelve Angry Men, Juror 3 seems at first sight to be a simple character, but is in fact the most complicated.’ Discuss this statement.’
good prompt. I like it.
 ‘I’m an excitable person’, Juror three’s justification for starting disputes against other jurors, initially presents his character to be simply aggressive and impatient. But as the intricacies of Reginald Rose’s play, ‘Twelve Angry Men’, unfold, the third juror’s troubled relationship with his son is made known to the jury and hence the ulterior motive behind juror three’s unfaltering vote of ‘guilty’  is slowly derived by the jury, hence hinting the complexities of his character. Way too much going on. Some punctuation slips Rose portrays the third juror to be a broken man, who at first, is able to initially deceive the other jurors into simply viewing him as an ‘excitable person’, but eventually deceives himself as he finally changing his vote and hence closing the jury Thesis statement here..


A good introduction is like good foreplay. Literally. I'm not kidding. Think of an essay like sex. If you just dive the fuck in, it's just not going to go down well. You need to be sensual. Beautiful. You need to caress the mind of the reader in a way that leaves them wanting to read essays over and over again. It should be an emotional journey with many skilful variations. (Okay I have no fucking idea what I just said but you get the point. The intro warms stuff up and provides and excellent base for the essay.) At the same time, it gives the first impression of your essay. For this reason, my intros are often long. I heard a lot of people say they wrote their intros in five minutes, but I wrote my intro in around twelve minutes, because I wanted to make sure it was a) beautiful writing b) beautiful ideas c) excellent foreplay for the assessor's mind.

-Contextualising sentence. 12AM has a rich history. You need to discuss this for full marks. (I'm really against saying 'you NEED to do this for full marks'... but really... if you ignored the history/society/values... well... it would be extremely, extremely difficult.)
-Clarifications on anything you want. You have a free second sentence here. Clarify the prompt, clarify the history, do what you want.
-Overall message Rose provides/contention of your essay.
-Second paragraph's idea
-Third Paragraph's idea
-First paragraph's idea
Thesis statement.

I do the first paragraph's idea last because it will flow well into P1. Third para second because this should be a 'however' paragraph, and introducing the 'however' as the first idea in the intro will flow funny, thus, put it second.

My recommendation to you is that you identify your ideas in your mind, clearly. Then think of them in terms of what paragraphs they will be.Then, articulate exactly what was in your head onto the paper (gosh, I make it sound so easy!)
Let's go through the process.
I was going to do it with your ideas, but I'll do it with mine just so you get some added benefits. MAKE SURE YOU ARE A FILTER OF MY IDEAS AND NOT A SPONGE. BE CRITICAL. DON'T ACCEPT EVERYTHING I SAY JUST BECAUSE I'M A 12AM MONSTER, QUESTION EVERYTHING!

‘Twelve Angry Men exposes the weaknesses of the jury system as well as its’ strengths.’  Discuss this statement.

This is quite similar to my prompt last year (concerned with abuse of power, so I largely discussed the jury system). (You will be able to see my laziness where I regurgitate some of what I wrote)
So. The ideas in my head are
-Rose condemns the adversary system of trial
-Rose uses 8th Juror to highlight strengths of justice system
-Rose uses the characterisation of some jurors to highlight further weaknesses of the jury system through weaknesses in society (10th, 3rd, 7th, more(?) )

Preceding the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the McCarthyist paranoia provoked much fallacious propaganda from the American Government. Subsequently, much of the Government's power was abused to promote xenophobia and prejudicial attitudes. Thus, as Twelve Angry Men acts as a social commentary, playwright Reginald Rose condemns the jury system, both as a cross-section of society and as a corrupted government structure. Rose utilises the dialogue of his characters to expose the ways in which features of the adversary system of trial can exacerbate injustices.  However, as the play's protagonist is used as an embodiment for Rose's idealistic view of an American man, Twelve Angry Men also features the strengths of the American justice system. Conversely, Rose characterises the antagonist and antagonistic jurors in a way that exposes the gross flaws of the jury system and society therein. Hence, Rose presents a dichotomous view of the jury system, illuminating both its weaknesses and its strengths.

Preceding the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the McCarthyist paranoia provoked much fallacious propaganda from the American Government. Subsequently, much of the Government's power was abused to promote xenophobia and prejudicial attitudes. Thus, as Twelve Angry Men acts as a social commentary, playwright Reginald Rose condemns the jury system, both as a cross-section of society and as a corrupted government structure. So there's my contextualisation and my 'extra' bit. The extra bit has also formed my contention. Hm. I didn't think this out well. Rose utilises the dialogue of his characters to expose the ways in which features of the adversary system of trial can exacerbate injustices. So there's my second paragraph. See the specification? I will be talking about the dialogue of the characters and how these highlight the weaknesses of the adversary system of trial. (I'm being cheeky here - I'm specific and direct, so you can see my main idea, however, when I get to this paragraph, I can literally talk about anything, because most of the play is dialogue. I could also work in stage directions as complex evidence and still have it relevant to my topic sentence if I were crafty enough. However, as the play's protagonist is used as an embodiment for Rose's idealistic view of an American man, Twelve Angry Men also features the strengths of the American justice system. Specific again. You know I'll be talking about 8th Juror, and you know I'll be saying the strengths are shown through him. There's stilll a whole bunch of shit to discuss in my paragraph though (objectivity, compassion, morality, whatever) - but you know exactly what my idea is. Conversely, Rose characterises the antagonist and antagonistic jurors in a way that exposes the gross flaws of the jury system and society therein. This third sentence could be better and I'd like to give it a semi-colon and another clause but we aren't aiming for perfection here, just a strong example). Hence, Rose presents a dichotomous view of the jury system, illuminating both its weaknesses and its strengths. Thesis statement sums your whole contention with some 'oomph'... In this case, my contention is exactly the prompt, so my thesis statement is quite similar to that prompt.

So I think you should be stronger in the structuring of your introduction and articulate your ideas with strength. Despite it not being mindblowing, the above is still a good example of a stronger intro, so you should be able to see the benefits. For the intros you already have, I think you should read them to yourself aloud, paying strict attention to the punctuation. It should sound strange to you. You know you have perfect expression if you can read your essay aloud and it will sound like you  are having a formal discussion with someone else and they do not need to ask questions because you've articulated so well. This is the difference between an essay and conversation... In a conversation, we can be like --
"Yeah but you know how 8th Juror is sort of good but he does bad stuff at the same time??"
"How do you mean?"
"Like when he gets the knife illegally?"
"Ohhhh yeah I getchya. Yeah, that sort of shows the difference between legality and morality."

Speakers can question, can start and stop their sentences, can jump from idea to idea. But in an essay, the reader does not get a chance to ask questions, so you need to leave everything confidently expressed so the reader has no questions. You'll get this from good punctuation and clear language.


Please ask questions - hahaha - one of the benefits of my readers not reading a formal essay ;). Nah serious though, ask questions, because otherwise I can't help you fully.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on April 15, 2013, 08:34:24 pm
‘Quit worrying about the truth all the time. Worry about yourself.’ To what extent is this the point of view of the film?

On the Waterfront depicts the development of the protagonist, Terry Molloy, from someone who is a selfish member of the mob and who lacks the strength to oppose their deceit, to a truly honest and considerate individual This seems like it jumped straight into the deep end. Warm it up with a contextualising sentence (refer to earlier essay's feedback on this thread). This change is perhaps mostly due to the influence of Edie Doyle, who is herself a likewise compassionate person. Through Elia Kazan’s endorsement of these two major characters, then, in addition to his disdain for the antagonist Johnny Friendly, the film presents how a commitment to consideration and to the ‘truth’ are crucial to a moral person. Refer to the post above this where I go through introductions, I think you could benefit. Nice writing, but I'd change the structure [see above]
Conversely, there are many more immoral characters in the film, most prominently those members of the Mob who maintain the ‘deaf and dumb’ principle. Conversely, there are many immoral characters in the film; specifically, the members of the Mob who maintain the 'deaf and dumb' principle. I really need to watch this movie, so many people write on it. "Maintain" the principle sounds off, also. Sounds like it should be 'practice', but it's hard to say when I don't know the principle lol. I also removed "more" from 'more immoral' because the 'more' could have been 'the quantity of immoral characters is great' or 'the immorality of some characters is greater than that of other characters' (it pays to be specific)Their absence of ethics an ethical code is portrayed from the very first scene evident from the film's onset, where two members are able to joke about Joey Doyle’s death without feeling guilty; ‘he was a canary, but he couldn’t fly’. The Mob’s overall selfish mentality is epitomised by Charley’s comment, ‘if we can get it, we’re entitled to it’, which Kazan undermines through the suffering the Mob causes. The director moreover lambastes Johnny Friendly, who ‘did it to Joey, did it to Dugan, and did it to Charley, who was one of [his] own’, as the leader of the Mob is therefore seen as lacking loyalty. Similarly, in the opening scene, the member of the Mob who is $50 short is immediately assaulted by Johnny Friendly, indicating his harsh, unforgiving nature. This is in stark contrast to even the initially flawed Terry of the early stages of the film – much less the mature, resilient Terry of the closing stages – as the protagonist only feels as though he should support the Mob because of his loyalty to his ‘Uncle Johnny’ and to his brother Charley. Indeed, Terry’s comment that Edie should ‘worry about [her]self’ has two dimensions, incorporating not only the surface view that Terry here lacks the moral strength to oppose the Mob’s corruption, but furthermore that he cares about Edie.  As Terry is the eventual hero of the film towards whom the audience is always sympathetic, in contrast to the villainous Mob who are seen as the villains, Kazan promotes the quality of selfless loyalty whilst undercutting the opposing fault of only ‘worry[ing] about [one]self’. Fantastic - specifically the last half. Well done
The epitome of these virtues is Edie Doyle, as exemplified by her belief ‘shouldn’t everybody [should care about everybody else?’ She is initially the only character who sees the positive side of Terry Molloy whereas others think him a ‘bum’. Edie is also initially the only person who is willing to investigate her brother’s death, whilst even her father believes that Joey should have merely remained silent. Another who is likewise able to worry about the welfare of others is Father Barry as he condemns those who ‘make the love of a buck more important than the love of your fellow man’. In addition, his willingness to be resilient in the face of the Mob’s oppression, convincing both Kayo Dugan and Terry Molloy to confess to the authorities, allows Kazan to highlight the importance of honesty. Without successfully informing the public of the Mob’s corruption, the workers would be subject to the unfairness of those who ‘do none of the work and take all of the gravy’, which is indeed the setting for the majority of the text. The willingness of Edie and Father Barry to be honest, moral people also sparks the change in Terry Molloy, exemplified in the scene involving the Father’s sermon where Terry hits a member of the Mob for throwing bananas at the priest. What is hence suggested by Kazan, then, is that one’s purity can not only directly benefit the community, but moreover inspire others to become likewise righteous. Again, nice writing. This paragraph felt a bit shallower... like there could have been some gold midway but lost it on the finish (keep in mind I don't know the text at all :/)
Terry’s improvement over the course of the film thus sees Kazan emphasise endorse those vital qualities of honesty and empathy that constitutes the perspective of the film.constitute a perspective sounds strange The question of honesty versus deceit, of who is ‘ratting’ on who, is answered by Terry’s exchange with the priest: ‘If I spill, my life won’t be worth a nickel’ versus ‘How much is your soul worth if you don’t?’ This leads Terry to the realisation that ‘I’ve been ratting on myself all these years’, with the general duplicity pervading the film reflected in the fog that permeates all of the scenes except the final one. Here Terry’s willingness to suffer the assault of the Mob so that he can demonstrate their relative lack of power for his ‘fellow man’ also indicates Terry’s newfound consideration. The height of his self-sacrifice occurs when the lurching camera follows his staggering walk so that the other workers can go to work, as Terry’s moral fortitude allows him to overcome both his physical pain and the symbolic power of the Mob. However, Terry’s empathy is in addition seen in even the beginning of the film, as the protagonist is endorsed for his care for his pigeons. This of course foreshadows Terry’s eventual act to reveal the Mob’s ruthless schemes through the metaphor of the Mob to the workers as the hawks to his pigeons. Terry’s development, though, is not the solitary example of how honesty and empathy can spark a change; Charley’s love for his brother sees him sacrifice his own life in order to protect Terry, whilst Pop Doyle’s love for his son and daughter allows him to eventually throw Johnny Friendly into the water in the final scene.
Therefore, Elia Kazan’s On the Waterfront underline the text title. presents a victory for those that worry about the truth and about others, over the disingenuousness and selfishness of the Mob. This is especially apparent as Terry’s comment towards Edie concerning this is partially made in fear for her safety, thus punctuating his own capacity for sympathy which is juxtaposed against his actual words. Indeed, all of the likeable characters of the film – Terry, Edie, Charley, Joey, and more – are willing to sacrifice their own comfort in order to reveal the truth, allowing Kazan to position the audience into believing these values essential to a moral person.

This seems to be a great response :)



Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Iniquity on April 25, 2013, 12:38:45 am
PI_3.14's comments were great, so I'll be focusing on the details of the film. :) Please take my advice (corrections in purple, comments in bold purple) with a grain of salt, since I haven't actually done a SAC for Waterfront yet!

‘Quit worrying about the truth all the time. Worry about yourself.’ To what extent is this the point of view of the film?

On the Waterfront depicts the development of the protagonist, Terry Molloy Malloy, from someone who is a selfish member of the mob and who lacks the strength to oppose their deceit, to a truly honest and considerate individual This seems like it jumped straight into the deep end. Warm it up with a contextualising sentence (refer to earlier essay's feedback on this thread). This change is perhaps mostly due to the influence of Edie Doyle, who is herself a likewise compassionate person. Through Elia Kazan’s endorsement of these two major characters, then, in addition to his disdain for the antagonist Johnny Friendly, the film presents how a commitment to consideration and to the ‘truth’ are crucial to a moral person. Refer to the post above this where I go through introductions, I think you could benefit. Nice writing, but I'd change the structure [see above]
Conversely, there are many more immoral characters in the film, most prominently those members of the Mob who maintain the ‘deaf and dumb’ principle adhere to the tacit and dubious principle of "D and D" (Deaf and Dumb). Conversely, there are many immoral characters in the film; specifically, the members of the Mob who maintain the 'deaf and dumb' principle. I really need to watch this movie, so many people write on it. "Maintain" the principle sounds off, also. Sounds like it should be 'practice', but it's hard to say when I don't know the principle lol. I also removed "more" from 'more immoral' because the 'more' could have been 'the quantity of immoral characters is great' or 'the immorality of some characters is greater than that of other characters' (it pays to be specific)Their absence of ethics an ethical code is portrayed from the very first scene evident from the film's onset, where two members in which the interchangeable Truck and Tillio are able to joke about Joey Doyle’s death without feeling guilty; ‘he was a canary, but he couldn’t fly’. Here, you could also mention something about how the mob's lack of an ethical code is reflected through the way they dehumanise their victims - Joey is objectified by the "canary" remark. The Mob’s overall selfish mentality is epitomised by Charley’s comment, ‘if we can get it, we’re entitled to it’, which Kazan undermines through the suffering the Mob causes. The director moreover lambastes Johnny Friendly, who ‘did it to Joey, did it to Dugan, and did it to Charley, who was one of [his] own’, as the leader of the Mob is therefore seen as lacking loyalty. Similarly, in the opening scene, the member of the Mob (Skins) who is $50 short is immediately assaulted by Johnny Friendly, indicating his harsh, unforgiving nature. This is in stark contrast to even the initially flawed Terry of the early stages of the film – much less the mature, resilient Terry of the closing stages – as the protagonist only feels as though he should support the Mob because of his loyalty to his ‘Uncle Johnny’ and to his brother Charley. Indeed, Terry’s comment that Edie should ‘worry about [her]self’ has two dimensions, incorporating not only the surface view that Terry here lacks the moral strength to oppose the Mob’s corruption, but furthermore that he cares about Edie.  As Terry is the eventual hero of the film towards whom the audience is always sympathetic, in contrast to the villainous Mob who are seen as the villains, Kazan promotes the quality of selfless loyalty whilst undercutting the opposing fault of only ‘worry[ing] about [one]self’. Fantastic - specifically the last half. Well done
The epitome of these virtues is Edie Doyle, as exemplified by her belief ‘shouldn’t everybody [should care about everybody else?’ She is initially the only character who sees the positive side of Terry Malloy whereas others think him a ‘bum’ even Mutt (the homeless guy who approaches Terry and Edie in the park) ironically dismisses Terry as a "bum". So basically, Kazan's asserting that (contrary to Terry's beliefs) being a bum = lacking morals and not worrying about anyone else, rather than lacking money. Edie is also initially the only person who is willing to investigate her brother’s death, whilst even her father believes that Joey should have merely remained silent. Hmm...I'd expand on this a little. Why does Pop believe that Joey should have remained silent? Also, you could maybe add something about how, right after Joey's fatal plunge, not all the lights in his building turn on (signifying that the inhabitants are too afraid to investigate others' problems, or that they've just been desensitised to the horrors on the waterfront. Alternatively, maybe something about how many of the workers don't want to face the harsh realities of life on the docks - note how Pop Doyle turns away from Joey's body.) Another who is likewise able to worry about the welfare of others is Father Barry as he condemns those who ‘make the I don't think that's part of the quote allow their "love of a lousy buck" to become more important than their "love of your fellow Also not part of that quote, if I recall correctly man’. In addition, his willingness to be resilient in the face of the Mob’s oppression, convincing both Kayo Dugan and Terry Molloy to confess to the authorities, allows Kazan to highlight the importance of honesty. Without successfully informing the public of the Mob’s corruption, the workers would be subject to the unfairness of those who ‘do none of the work and take all of the gravy’, which is indeed the setting for the majority of the text. The willingness of Edie and Father Barry to be honest, moral people also sparks the change in Terry Molloy, exemplified in the scene involving the Father’s sermon where Terry hits a member of the Mob his name's Truck for throwing bananas at the priest. What is hence suggested by Kazan, then, is that one’s purity can not only directly benefit the community, but moreover inspire others to become likewise righteous. Again, nice writing. This paragraph felt a bit shallower... like there could have been some gold midway but lost it on the finish (keep in mind I don't know the text at all :/)
Terry’s improvement over the course of the film thus sees Kazan emphasise endorse those vital qualities of honesty and empathy, which are integral to On the Waterfront. Yeah, I'm not too sure about the last bit of that sentence, or how to change it that constitutes the perspective of the film.constitute a perspective sounds strange The question of honesty versus deceit, of who is ‘ratting’ "stooling" (Since you've used a quote which contains "ratting" later on) on who, is answered by Terry’s exchange with the priest: ‘If I spill, my life won’t be ain't worth a nickel’ versus ‘How much is your soul worth if you don’t?’ This leads Terry to the realisation that ‘I’ve been ratting on myself all these years’, with the general duplicity pervading the film reflected in the fog that permeates all of the scenes except the final one. Here Terry’s willingness to suffer the assault of the Mob so that he can demonstrate their relative lack of power for his ‘fellow man’ also indicates Terry’s newfound consideration. The height of his self-sacrifice occurs when the lurching camera follows his staggering walk so that the other workers can go to work, as Terry’s moral fortitude allows him to overcome both his physical pain and the symbolic power of the Mob. However, Terry’s empathy is in addition seen in even the beginning of the film, as the protagonist is endorsed for his care for his pigeons. This of course foreshadows Terry’s eventual act to reveal the Mob’s ruthless schemes through the metaphor of the Mob to the workers as the hawks to his pigeons. Terry’s development, though, is not the solitary example of how honesty and empathy can spark a change; Charley’s love for his brother sees him sacrifice his own life in order to protect Terry, whilst Pop Doyle’s love for his son and daughter allows him to eventually throw Johnny Friendly into the water in the final scene.
Therefore, Elia Kazan’s On the Waterfront underline the text title. presents a victory for those that worry about the truth and about others, over the disingenuousness and selfishness of the Mob. This is especially apparent as Terry’s comment towards Edie concerning this is partially made in fear for her safety, thus punctuating his own capacity for sympathy which is juxtaposed against his actual words. Indeed, all of the likeable characters of the film – Terry, Edie, Charley, Joey, and more – are willing to sacrifice their own comfort in order to reveal the truth, allowing Kazan to position the audience into believing these values essential to a moral person.

This seems to be a great response :)

Nice :D

Some additional things to consider:
- Ensure your quotes are accurate! Don't hesitate to shorten them
- Maybe a bit more on what you see and what you hear; most of your discussion is centred around quotes (esp. towards the start)
- "Indeed, all of the likeable characters of the film – Terry, Edie, Charley, Joey, and more – are willing to sacrifice their own comfort in order to reveal the truth..." I don't know, actually...the others, yes, but towards the end of the film, Edie encourages Terry to run away from the waterfront with her and leave the longshoremen to their fate.
- Be careful with Edie in general. She does represent goodness, but she's also rather naive - especially at the beginning (she thinks that "patience and kindness" solves everything, etc). I think that, through Terry's refusal to accommodate Edie's desperate pleas to leave the waterfront, Kazan ultimately insists that although there are many risks involved with exposing the truth, you should do it anyway because it's the right thing to do.

Hope that helped :)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: vashappenin on April 25, 2013, 04:20:27 pm
Hey this is an intro for a practice that was set.. I haven't written text responses in like 6 months, so be as critical as possible. :)

I'm not gonna post the topic, just incase one of my class members decides to google search it and then copy my intro, but I'll PM anybody who asks.. Hopefully that's okay!

Oh, and this is for Twelve Angry Men' :)

In the 1950’s play, ‘Twelve Angry men’, the playwright Reginald Rose acknowledges that each of the Jurors present their own, often subjective, opinions. The realist nature of the play unveils the personalities of each of the Jurors, which ultimately contributes to the facts that they each present. Jurors such as the 8th Juror and 9th Juror, who are portrayed as open-minded and patient, often present facts which support the defendant as being ‘not guilty’. Other jurors, such as the 7th Juror and 10th Juror, present opinions that reflect their prejudice towards the defendant, which often results in biased judgement. However, not all facts are “coloured by the personalities of the people who present them”; the viewpoints put forth by some jurors, such as the 3rd Juror and 11th Juror are influenced by their past experiences. These experiences influence their opinions to be either against or supportive of the defendant.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Lolly on April 25, 2013, 07:40:02 pm
Just regarding IoM:

...discussion regarding collection as a whole - crucial considering this is a collection of short stories, no examiners do not expect students to write on the whole text (which is a great thing for students), but they do expect a compromise & that means discussing short story cycle, order, universal themes!!!

Could you please elaborate? :)  In particular, how do I incorporate the sequencing of stories, ( ie: mention of narrative structure) into my response? Would you be able to provide an example of this? Thank youuuuu :)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on April 26, 2013, 06:50:59 am
Fantastic, Iniquity! Thank you very much :). People, please, go and shower her with upvotes.

Vas -- You should look a few posts above this one, I go through 12AM intros in detail ;)

In the 1950’s play, ‘Twelve Angry men’, the playwright Reginald Rose acknowledges that each of the Jurors present their own, often subjective, opinions. Contextualising sentence goes first imo. This is an excellent prompt to be talking about McCarthyist propaganda and the twisting of facts (not necessarily in great detail)The realist nature of the play unveils the personalities of each of the Jurors, which ultimately contributes to the facts that they each present. Hmm. It seems you have a narrow interpretation of the prompt here. "conributes to the facts that they each present"... I don't think this is getting to the heart of it. Refer to the fourth word in the quote. "realist nature" -- are you going to be speaking about this heavily in your paragraphs? You just made that one of your main ideas, however, it seems to me as if you're using this as a way to make your sentence sound nice/didn't know what else to say/wouldn't be able to discuss it much further. Happy to be proven wrong, though. Jurors such as the 8th Juror and 9th Juror, who are portrayed as open-minded and patient, often present facts which support the defendant as being ‘not guilty’.  Hm,again, just by the sound of this idea it seems you aren't appreciating the implications of the prompt in its entirety. Other jurors, such as the 7th Juror and 10th Juror, present opinions that reflect their prejudice towards the defendant, which often results in biased judgement Getting warmer. However, not all facts are “coloured by the personalities of the people who present them”; the viewpoints put forth by some jurors, such as the 3rd Juror and 11th Juror are influenced by their past experiences. These experiences influence their opinions to be either against or supportive of the defendant. Include a thesis statement here. Also would recommend contextualising (research the history lots and lots). Your ideas need to be worked on more than the actual writing or structure. Other than the two aforementioned things, the intro is fine as far as the writing goes, however, I think the ideas could be impressing me more than they are. Or perhaps be articulated better within the sentences. For example, I feel as if I know what you mean re: 3rd and 11th, however, it is unclear after you've said "not all facts are x, however, they are a little bit x". I know that's not what you're saying, but the idea of a formal piece of writing is to leave the reader absolutely clear as to what you are saying and have no questions to ask you, for you have already answered them or been clear enough that there are no clarifications to be made.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: sin0001 on April 29, 2013, 09:07:37 pm
Twelve angry men shows that personal experience is the strongest factor influencing the human-decision making process. Discuss

Reginald Rose, in the play Twelve Angry Men, portrays the susceptibility of the judicial system to a variety of factors; in that the ‘decision-making process’ undertaken by the twelve jurors, which is the manner in which jurors deliberate their verdict, is shown to be largely affected by the personal experience- which is their background and the relationships they have formed in their personal lives, giving rise to the prejudices of the jury. While this is the case, the lack of responsibility, a factor that distracts the jury to a lesser extent, of some jurors disallows them to deliberate a reasonable and fair trial and hence, restrict them from fulfilling their legal obligation. In addition, Rose also presents the notion of the jury changing their stance on the case as they are swayed, by the inconsistencies covered in the evidence, to vote ‘not guilty’. Ultimately, the deliberation of the jury is shown to be influenced by elements such as personal investment in the case, the prejudice held against the accused and the lack of responsibility shown by some jurors.

Rose depicts the decision-making of the jury to be largely dominated by the influence of personal lives, of each individual juror. This is evidenced by the third juror’s desire to punish the subject of the trial, who he claims to be ‘a goddamn rotten kid’, as this allows him to relieve his own frustrations that are a result of his personal history with his son. Instead of attempting to attain reasonable doubt for the innocence of the boy, the 3rd juror simply assumes that the accused is at fault’; this is evidenced by juror 3’s claims regarding the accused: ‘I know him. What they’re like. What they do to you,’ leading him to believe that the case is ‘clear-cut’. The 3rd juror’s longing to punish the accused is highlighted when he is asked whether he is ‘the kid’s executioner’, and the man answers- ‘I’m one of em’.’ Moreover, the 10th juror is shown to be strongly affected by his background of living amongst slum-dwellers, and since the accused is from an underprivileged minority, this aspect causes the 10th juror to unfairly generalise that accused as ‘one of them’- that is, part of the group of people who are ‘don’t need any big excuse to kill someone’ and are ‘born to lie’. The bias, against the race of the accused, is uncovered to be the prominent reason behind the 10th juror choosing to initially deliver the verdict of ‘guilty.’ Through jurors three and ten, Rose presents the notion of how the personal lives, hence the developed prejudices, of individual jurors might interfere with the verdict that they deliver.

While the personal background of jurors, hence their formed prejudices, prominently impact the verdict they deliberate, the sense of responsibility of some jurors influences their ability to fairly try the accused. Rose presents the 7th juror as a lazy character who is unwilling to partake in the case or attain reasonable doubt throughout the play, as the ambiguities of the case are unravelled by the jury’s discussion. The traits of the seventh juror’s character are highlighted when he ‘offers chewing gum’ to other jurors, in a manner that typifies his lazy-minded behaviour and he is already shown to be distracted from the case. This is also evidenced in the initial stages of the play, where juror 7 ‘looks at his watch’ wanting to be free of jury obligation in time for a baseball game, as ‘baseball tickets are burning a hole in his pocket’. Even when the baseball game is rained out due to a storm, he still seeks to escape his social responsibility, so much so that he changes his vote to ‘not guilty’ just because he is ‘a little sick of this whole thing’. Therefore, his lack of participation in the case’s discussion can be mainly attributed to his character being void of any sense of responsibility. In contrast, it is through juror eight’s fulfilment of his social responsibility that causes his character to willingly make an effort to deliberate fairly; unlike the 7th juror, this character avidly partakes in the jury’s discussion in exposing the ambiguities of the case. Upon entering the jury room, juror 8 is shown to be in deep thought over the case; staring at the New York Skyline, which serves as a reminder of his responsibilities as a juror and a citizen of the society. Right from the start, juror 8 is shown to be focussed at the task of carrying out a fair trial and can be viewed as the most responsible man on the jury, this is evident as he makes the jurors realise the gravity of their roles as jurors of the law, through his reminder- ‘It’s not easy for me… to send a boy off to die without talking about it first’. The efforts that the eight juror goes to, in order to deliberate as fairly as possible, are highlighted when juror 8 reveals that he ‘paid a visit to the boy’s neighbourhood’ in order to prove that knife used in the murder is accessible; even going to the lengths of ‘[breaking] the law’ through the purchase of a knife that is similar to the weapon of murder.  The fulfilment of his social responsibility further enhances his ability to attain reasonable doubt, therefore ultimately influencing his decision-making regarding the case. Rose correlates the fulfilment or lack of responsibility shown by the jury, with how effectively the twelve jurors are able to carry out the decision-making process and hence fairly try the boy.

Although the personal lives of the jurors may be a strong factor in affecting the manner in which the jury deliberates, the discrepancies in evidence uncovered also persuade the jurors to change their stance on the case. The eight juror critically views the evidence, to which most jurors initially refer to as ‘facts’,  presented in court and highlights the inconsistencies in the testimonies delivered during the trial. This is shown when juror 8 is alleges that colloquialisms such as the ones heard from the fights between the accused  and the murdered, ‘I’ll kill you’, should not be taken literally most of the times, he highlights this idea to the jury through angering the third juror until he reaches his breaking point and exclaims- ‘I’ll kill you’. Furthermore, through the self-reflection of juror 9, the jury is given an insight over what may be psychologically motivating the old witness to falsely-testify against the accused- in that the 9th juror sees a similarity between himself and the witness, who is claimed to be a person who ‘needs to be recognised’. When juror 9’s claims are backed up by juror 8 challenging whether the witness would’ve been able to reach his apartment door in given time, the jury is positioned to discredit the old man’s testimony and hence, the verdict of five other jurors are influenced and changed to ‘not guilty’ during the third vote. Likewise, more jurors are progressively able to attain reasonable doubt as the inconsistencies in the evidence and testimonies are brought to the attention of the jury, hence influencing the verdict of individual jurors and making them collectively deliver a unanimous vote.

Rose presents the decision-making process undertaken by each juror, in order to reach their verdict, to be adjusted according to the factors influencing it. Out of these external influences, the strongest one is shown to be the bigoted views of jurors, arising from their personal lives. Although this might be the case, the varying sense of responsibility in each juror and the inconsistencies uncovered throughout the play, are also prominently shown to contribute to the manner in which the jurors arrive upon their final verdicts. Nonetheless, these influences are eventually negated upon the arrival of a just unanimous vote, highlighting the beauty of the American judicial system in the 1950s.

My first text response piece in a while, mark it as critically as you can, the more feedback the merrier!
Thanks in advance  :)


Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Eugenet17 on May 02, 2013, 02:54:25 pm
I'm Not Scared Text Response

Prompt: Poverty affects many aspects of character's lives in Ammaniti's "I'm Not Scared". Discuss.

Niccolo Ammaniti's text "I'm Not Scared" illustrates the hardships that are endured by the residents of Acqua Traverse which ultimately transpires from the relentless issue of poverty. Through the depiction of the character's lives, Ammaniti explores the ways in which poverty can consequently affect the physical,emotional and moral aspects of the characters. Acqua Traverse is a small remote town in the South; the dichotomy between the underprivileged South and the distinguished North creates a sense of envy and deprivation within the residents of Acqua Traverse. The emotional relationships between characters if tested greatly due to the detrimented circumstances of poverty. As a result of the explicit contrast between the poor and the rich, the morality and conduct of the poor is presented in a negative light. Perceived as the products of an adverse environment, the characters of "I'm Not Scared" encapsulates the physical,emotional and moral ramifications of poverty.

Ammaniti presents the distinct dichotomy between rich and poor through the North and the South in order to explore the constant feeling of envy and detriment that the locals of Acqua Traverse go through. The author depicts Acqua Traverse as a miniscule town that is constrained by the "hottest summer of the century" in order to emphasise the difference between the South and the North, which is a life of comfort. The protagonist describes the extreme heat as a form of restraint "that took everything" and is shown to especially affect the adults who would "shut themselves" indoors with their "blinds down". The lack of comfort is clearly an extreme factor in the passive mentalities revolving around the lifestyles of the adults. Ammaniti exhibits the lack of general knowledge in the children of Acqua Traverse as compared to the wealthier children to highlight the ways in which poverty can cause a suppression in learning. Being the first person narrator, Michele is seen to not comprehend certain things Salvatore and Filippo speak about such as the "flying foxes" and the "wash-bears". Michele's lack of knowledge can be attributed to his state of poverty as he is deprived of suitable learning resources and a reputable form of education. The author uses the financial disadvantages of many families in Acqua Traverse as a primary reason for their appreciation and gratitude towards the simple things in life. Michele and Maria are regularly forced to eat the "tasteless bits of shoe leather", symbolising thier hatred for the cheap meat as they essentially had little choice but to eat it. Ammaniti presents the obvious envy the Acqua Traverse residents feel towards the people of the North in order to indicate that their life's goal was to move to the North. Michele's longing for life in the North is highlighted when he fabricates to Salvatore that he was moving to the North to "live in a Palazzo". The author explores the evident differences between the North and the South in order to prove that it is a fundamental element in the deprivation of many sufferers of poverty, additionally forming a feeling of envy towards the rich.

Ammaniti's outline of Pino's relationship with his family explores the ways in which the closest of bonds can be weakened due to the circumstances of poverty. Pino is described as "never being home" by his son, MIchele who would consider it a celebration if his father wasn't away working. Pino is forced to be isolated from his loved ones in order to make their aspirations of escaping poverty come true. While Michele's understanding is symbolised through him stating that his father was "doing it for us", it is clear that they severely lack time with one another. The author depicts the protagonist's lack of knowledge of the truth behind his father when he considers Pino as the "bogeyman" upon realising Pino's involvement in the kidnappings. Ammaniti exemplifies Pino's self-claimed responsibility to help his family escape the struggles of poverty throughout the text to explicate on why Pino allows the distancing of him and his family. Upon Michele's asks why he kidnapped Pino, PIno tries to reassure him by asking if he wanted to "go away from Acqua Traverse" proving that he simply wants the best for his family. The author uses Pino's self-claimed responsibility and desperation to be released from the confinements of poverty in order to highlight how poverty can extremely harm the emotional relationships between people, even within the family.

The author explores the concept of jealousy and it's effect on morality within the characters of the text, particularly through how the poor conceives the rich. Ammaniti features Michele's clear signs of jealousy towards his wealthy friend Salvatore, to represent the sense of jealousy the poor feels towards the rich. The protagonist is seen to be extremely grudging towards Salvatore after discovering that Salvatore obtained expensive gifts from his father, believing that he never got gifts like Salvatore did because his father "didn't love him". Jealousy within the poor is examined to be amplified towards a sense of despicableness. The author illustrates this through Michele and his family's malice towards Salvatore's parents. Michele describes Salvatore's father as someone who would "hardly come back", though when he did he couldn't wait to "get away again", which signifies Michele's longing to also have the luxury of leaving the difficulties of a life in poverty at will. The protagonist's mother states that he is to never "accept charity" especially from "those two", referring to Salvatore's relatives which signifies her detestfulness of the wealthy, refusing to accept their act of kindness. Through the characters of "I'm Not Scared", Ammaniti demonstrates how poverty can create a form of loathing in the poor towards the rich stemming originally from their jealousy, indicating their lack of morality towards others.

Ammaniti's portrayal of Sergio and his vicious treatment towards others exemplifies that the characters suffering from poverty are overpowered and submissive towards the rich, symbolising the loss of their individual moral values. The author depicts the desperation in his characters to improve their lives by exposing the ways in which the adults are willing to degrade themselves and succumb to Sergio's harsh treatment and diabolical agency over them, as they consider Sergio to be the key to their success. Ammaniti presents Sergio as an incredibly wealthy man with "gold-rimmed glasses" and "golden chains"  who treats the adults like vermin, in order to exert the concept of power in the rich over the poor. Pino, once thought of as "relentless" by the protagonist, disregards Sergio calling him "an imbecile" resulting in the protagonist deeming Sergio as the "emperor" and his father as a "mere servant". The author further demonstrates the power of the rich through Felice who is known as "the devil" amongst many characters when he does nothing about Sergio's humiliation of him when Sergio calls him "a poof" for an extensive period of time, but simply expresses his disdain behind Sergio's back. Ammaniti demonstrates the lack of self moral values in the characters of the text as a result of poverty in order to prove that the poor can be robbed of their individual moral values through succumbing to the agency of the wealthy.

The struggles of life in poverty undoubtedly affects the characters of "I'm Not scared" physically, emotionally and morally. The harsh climate and seclusion of Acqua Traverse is juxtaposed with the prestigious North where the locals of Acqua Traverse find themselves deprived of privileges and envious towards the rich. The emotional bonds between certain characters are confronted with many obstacles originating as a result of poverty. Morality of the lack of morality within the characters is induced due to the distinct contrast between the rich and the poor. Through the characters of "I'm Not Scared", Ammaniti conclusively proves that poverty can affect lives in more ways that one.

Feedback please! :)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on May 06, 2013, 04:15:25 pm
Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]

Twelve angry men shows that personal experience is the strongest factor influencing the human-decision making process. Discuss

Reginald Rose, in the play Twelve Angry Men, portrays the susceptibility of the judicial system to a variety of factors; in that the ‘decision-making process’ undertaken by the twelve jurors, which is the manner in which jurors deliberate their verdict, is shown to be largely affected by the personal experience- which is their background and the relationships they have formed in their personal lives, giving rise to the prejudices of the jury. You could provide your interpretation of the key words in a more sophisticated manner (mostly the second part - thre are better ways to write than through the use of a dash in formal writing).  While this is the case, the lack of responsibility, a factor that distracts the jury to a lesser extent, of some jurors disallows them to deliberate a reasonable and fair trial and hence, restrict them from fulfilling their legal obligation The amount of clauses in this sentence wrecks your flow (and clarity). In addition, Rose also presents the notion of the jury changing their stance on the case as they are swayed, by the inconsistencies covered in the evidence, to vote ‘not guilty’ Same thing for clarity - what are you trying to say?. Ultimately, the deliberation of the jury is shown to be influenced by elements such as personal investment in the case, the prejudice held against the accused and the lack of responsibility shown by some jurors.This is a decent thesis statement, but I think you should try to shift more toward your interpretation of the prompt on a basic level (thus contention in relation to the prompt). That said, I also think your interpretation of the prompt could be a little more broad. I think you've narrowed the human decision making process down to the jury, however, perhaps Rose is commenting on the human decision making process as a whole, using the jury as a tool to inform his comments. Does that make sense?

Rose depicts the decision-making of the jury to be largely dominated by the influence of personal lives, of each individual juror That comma shouldn't be there. Rose depicts the personal lives of the jurors to be highly influential in their decision making process. My sentence <-- is also a bit clearer than your sentence, because mine doesn't refer backwards whereas yours does. (More simply, avoid writing in past tense (dominat-ed). Also see Twelve Angry Men Practice Essays. for the way I liked my topic sentences. . This is evidenced by the third juror’s desire to punish the subject of the trial, who he claims to be ‘a goddamn rotten kid’, as this allows him to relieve his own frustrations that are a result of his personal history with his son I'm not sure if this is an overused thing, but my teacher liked 'vicarious punishment' with 3rdJ. I do, too. So, "This is evidence by the Third Juror's (please God use capital letters at the start of his name) subconscious desire to vicariously punish his son through the defendant because of his personal history". . Instead of attempting to attain reasonable doubt for the innocence of the boy reasonable doubt for the innocence?, the 3rd juror simply assumes that the accused is at fault’; this is evidenced  Find a better way of integrating your evidence into your essays. I guess the simplest way for you to do this would be to copy the way other people have done it. I'll maybe go find an essay and scan it to show you what i mean.by juror 3’s claims regarding the accused: ‘I know him. What they’re like. What they do to you,’ leading him to believe that the case is ‘clear-cut’ This is great use of evidence. The 3rd juror’s longing to punish the accused Phrasing, again. Also. "highlighted" -> shift to highlights, somehow. --- Rose highlights this subconscious desire through Third Juror's assertion that he is "one of [the kid's executioners] --- is highlighted when he is asked whether he is ‘the kid’s executioner’, and the man answers- ‘I’m one of em’.’ Moreover, the 10th juror is shown to be strongly affected by his background of living amongst slum-dwellers, and since the accused is from an underprivileged minority Hmm.. his background of living among slum-dwellers? Could you justify this? My perception of J10 is of a racist (and I think I could make a good case for this), with could be caused by personal experience, but not necessarily dwelling in slums., this aspect causes the 10th juror to unfairly generalise that accused as ‘one of them’-  Again, use of dash. Try to use it sparingly (i know how tempting it is -- I used them in my essays right until the very end, just less and less as I got betterthat is, part of the group of people who are ‘don’t need any big excuse to kill someone’ and are ‘born to lie’. Again, great example of well integrated evidence The bias, against the race of the accused, is uncovered to be the prominent reason behind the 10th juror choosing to initially deliver the verdict of ‘guilty JUSTIFYJUSTIFYFJUSTIFY!!!! -> this also seems to make your previous writing slightly redundant. Why mention slum-dwelling which isn't really explicit in the text at all? (as far as I can remember, anyway, happy to be proven wrong).’ Through jurors three and ten Through Juror Three and Juror Ten - treat them as their names. This is why I referred to them as "Eighth Juror" in the same way I'd write "Harry Potter". , Rose presents the notion of how the personal lives, hence the developed prejudices, of individual jurors might interfere with the verdict that they deliver. "Through the use of" seems a normal discussion statement, you want your last line to be more powerful and say "Because of what I just wrote, the statement I am no making must be true". (which lends itself nicely to 'hence', 'therefore', 'ultimately'. Or you could forego those words and just write a powerful statement.  ", hence the developed prejudices," --> I think you like using commas in this way to provide the clarifications on your writing. But the idea that your writing needs clarification means that something was written unclear in the first place. Try to make everything clear in the first place and only use those 'clarifying' commas stylistically and when necessary, or when it actually IS making your writing clearer, because it sorts of detracts from the clarity in that last sentence. (Don't worry, i really, really, really love using the 'clarifying' commas, too).
You pick some really good evidence and hit the 'textual knowledge' criteria pretty well. The general expression of your writing could be improved. You have a solid grasp of the text but could demonstrate a more complex understanding or anlaysis.

While the personal background of jurors, hence their formed prejudices, hehe  ;) prominently impact the verdict they deliberate, the sense of responsibility of some jurors influences their ability to fairly try the accused Not fully sure what you're saying. If you're saying what I think you're saying, just saying the last clause would be clearer than the sentence you have at the moment. More ideally, including the thing you're distinguishing from in a clearer way.. Rose presents characterises the 7th juror as a lazy character who is unwilling to partake in the case or attain reasonable doubt throughout the play i think this lacks complexity, as the ambiguities of the case are unravelled my google chrome thing tells me there is jut one 'l' in unraveled. by the jury’s discussion. The traits of the seventh juror’s character are highlighted when he ‘offers chewing gum’ to other jurors, in a manner that typifies his lazy-minded behaviour and he is already shown to be distracted from the case. Yeah, shallow analysis again, I think. Check your pm box btw.This is also evidenced in the initial stages of the play, where juror 7 ‘looks at his watch’ wanting to be free of jury obligation in time for a baseball game, as ‘baseball tickets are burning a hole in his pocket’ These stage directions are such great evidence, but I think you've 'missed' juror seven a bit. I think he's more of an embodiment of the obnoxious, selfish person (stereotypical baseball American fan. Could swear he's from Boston).. also "burning a hole in his pocket" --- is this mentioned anywhere in the play?  :S, if it isn't, you would 100% never use cliches or metaphors etc in your writing - it shows you don't have a better way to phrase it.. Even when the baseball game is rained out due to a storm, he still seeks to escape his social responsibility, so much so that he changes his vote to ‘not guilty’ just because he is ‘a little sick of this whole thing’ Yes but this isn't true, is it? Don't cheat the text to suit your argument.. Therefore, his lack of participation in the case’s discussion can be mainly attributed to his character being void of any sense of responsibility. In contrast, it is through  Remain consistent in the way you phrase the jurorsjuror eight’s fulfilment of his social responsibility that causes his character to willingly make an effort to deliberate fairly; unlike the 7th juror, this character avidly partakes in the jury’s discussion in exposing the ambiguities of the case. Upon entering the jury room, juror 8 is shown to be in deep thought over the case; staring at the New York Skyline, which serves as a reminder of his responsibilities as a juror and a citizen of the society. Brilliant! I always thought him looking out the window was a symbol for objectivity, (he can also be seen to be 'standing, looking at the other jurors', which I always attributed to objectivity, but I really love this perception of the skyline! Thank you :)... I think it would also be better to quote the stage direction, though Right from the start, juror 8 The inconsistency is making me what to smash my face with a blunt object is shown to be focussed one 's' in focused. Also, 'right form the start' and 'from the beginning of the play' are really great ways for you to start telling the story instead of analysing it ;) at the task of carrying out a fair trial and can be viewed as the most responsible man on the jury, this is evident as he makes the jurors realise the gravity of their roles as jurors of the law, through his reminder- ‘It’s not easy for me… to send a boy off to die without talking about it first’. Previous sentence sounds pretty sloppy to me. Give it a re-readThe efforts that the eight eighth. Eighth, eighth, eighth juror  goes to, <-- no commain order to deliberate as fairly as possible, are highlighted when juror 8 reveals that he ‘paid a visit to the boy’s neighbourhood’ in order to prove that knife used in the murder is accessible; even going to the lengths of ‘[breaking] the law’ through the purchase of a knife that is similar to the weapon of murder. I love the evidence you used. (probably because it is quite similar to the evidence I used) The fulfilment of his social responsibility further enhances his ability to attain reasonable doubt, therefore ultimately influencing his decision-making regarding the case. Rose correlates the fulfilment or lack of responsibility shown by the jury, with how effectively the twelve jurors are able to carry out the decision-making process and hence fairly try the boy. I think you'd need a stronger signpost to say "Not only personal experience, but sense of responsibility" -> because the way you've gone about this at the moment just looks like you're straying from the prompt. A valiant effort, though.
The 'discussion' feel is really good in this paragraph, not as formulaic or robotic as many text response essays turn out, but the sophistication of the writing itself needs to be jacks up a bit. Pay really close attention to your grammar. Great use of evidence. Great ideas.
Although the personal lives of the jurors may be a strong factor in affecting the manner in which the jury deliberates, the discrepancies in evidence uncovered also persuade the jurors to change their stance on the case. The eight juror critically views the evidence, to which most jurors initially refer to as ‘facts’,  presented in court and highlights the inconsistencies in the testimonies delivered during the trial. This is shown when juror 8 is alleges proof read.that colloquialisms such as the ones heard from the fights between the accused  and the murdered, ‘I’ll kill you’, should not be taken literally most of the times, he highlights this idea to the jury through angering the third juror until he reaches his breaking point and exclaims- ‘I’ll kill you’.  Green could be expressed with more sophisticationFurthermore, through the self-reflection of juror 9, the jury is given an insight over what may be psychologically motivating the old witness to falsely-testify against the accused-turn this dash into a comma. from now on, you try to avoid dashes. in that the 9th juror sees a similarity between himself and the has an empathetic understanding of the witness, who is claimed to be a person who ‘needs to be recognised’. When juror 9’s claims are backed up  way informal, damaging your sophistication again. 'reinforced' 'strengthened' 'validated' by juror 8 challenging try to avoid words ending in 'ing' and structure your sentenced in a way that it would be 'challenges', instead. It makes your writing punchier. whether the witness would’ve would have. sophistication thing, againbeen able to reach his apartment door in given time, the jury is positioned to discredit the old man’s testimony and hence, the verdict of five other jurors are influenced and changed to ‘not guilty’ during the third vote. Likewise, more jurors are progressively able to attain reasonable doubt as the inconsistencies in the evidence and testimonies are brought to the attention of the jury, hence influencing the verdict of individual jurors and making them collectively deliver a unanimous vote. Very nice paragraph except for some sophistication and grammar things.

Rose presents the decision-making process undertaken by each juror, in order to reach their verdict, to be adjusted according to the factors influencing it. Out of these external influences, the strongest one is shown to be the bigoted views of jurors, arising from their personal lives. Although this might be the case, the varying sense of responsibility in each juror and the inconsistencies uncovered throughout the play, are also prominently shown to contribute to the manner in which the jurors arrive upon their final verdicts. Nonetheless, these influences are eventually negated upon the arrival of a just unanimous vote, highlighting the beauty of the American judicial system in the 1950s. Just a sophistication of expression thing in this conc. Decent conc.

Overall, your essay needs 'refining'. This is a better position to be in that to be trying to make formulaic paras sound like they're a discussion etc. You need to refine your grammar, refine your expression/clarity, and continue to delve into deeply analysing 12AM. Your textual knowledge is excellent, and I'd put you in the top range for the evidence that has been used, but you wouldn't make the top range for the way it has been written.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Lolly on May 08, 2013, 05:55:49 pm
Hey there. Here's an IoM essay which I got back from my teacher today.  I didn't get a whole lot of feedback for this one.( I am EXTREMELY SUSPICIOUS. >:D)  I'm just wondering if there is  anything else I could improve on before the SAC next week. Cheers!!!

EDIT: pdf isn't working hooowww whhyyyyy
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on May 09, 2013, 08:36:36 am
Prompt: Poverty affects many aspects of character's lives in Ammaniti's "I'm Not Scared". Discuss.
I've never marked an essay for this text before. I hope you make a crazy twist and start talking about the emotional and psychological poverty of some character. That'd be cool.

Niccolo Ammaniti's text "I'm Not Scared" illustrates the hardships that are endured by the residents of Acqua Traverse which ultimately transpires from the relentless issue of poverty Nice. For another way to open intros, scroll up and see my recommendations (particularly contextualising sentence). Through the depiction of the character's lives, Ammaniti explores the ways in which poverty can consequently affect the physical,emotional and moral aspects of the characters. Acqua Traverse is a small remote town in the South; the dichotomy between the underprivileged South and the distinguished North creates a sense of envy and deprivation within the residents of Acqua Traverse. The emotional relationships between characters if tested greatly due to the detrimented circumstances of poverty. As a result of the explicit contrast between the poor and the rich, the morality and conduct of the poor is presented in a negative light. Perceived as the products of an adverse environment, the characters of "I'm Not Scared" encapsulates the physical,emotional and moral ramifications of poverty. Decent intro, the only thing you could fix here is the slightly stuttered flow between the introduction of each of your key ideas. Integrating them better will result in a really smooth intro :)

Ammaniti presents the distinct dichotomy between rich and poor through the North and the South in order to explore the constant feeling of envy and detriment that the locals of Acqua Traverse go through 'experience'?, perhaps? 'go through' sounds casual. The author depicts Acqua Traverse as a miniscule town that is constrained by the "hottest summer of the century" in order to emphasise the difference between the South and the North, which is a life of comfort. The protagonist describes the extreme heat as a form of restraint "that took everything" and is shown to especially affect the adults who would "shut themselves" indoors with their "blinds down".  The lack of comfort is clearly an extreme factor in the passive mentalities revolving around the lifestyles of the adults. Ammaniti exhibits the lack of general knowledge in the children of Acqua Traverse as compared to the wealthier children to highlight the ways in which poverty can cause a suppression in learning. Being the first person narrator, Michele is seen to not comprehend certain things Salvatore and Filippo speak about such as the "flying foxes" and the "wash-bears". This is good, but you could perhaps switch this sentence tho one that talks about the narrative style as a tool, and you'd get big browny points/marks. I'm thinking instead of something like "Being the first person..." you could say something like "Ammaniti utilises the first person narrative style to demonstrate to the audience through their own experience the ignorance of the novel's protagonist" and so on. (i'm not sure if that makes much sense yet 'cause I just woke up, but  Ithink you get the idea Michele's lack of knowledge can be attributed to his state of poverty as he is deprived of suitable learning resources and a reputable form of education. The author uses the financial disadvantages of many families in Acqua Traverse as a primary reason for their appreciation and gratitude towards the simple things in life. Michele and Maria are regularly forced to eat the "tasteless bits of shoe leather", symbolising thier hatred for the cheap meat as they essentially had little choice but to eat it. Symbolising here I think is a bit out of context. I just shows they hate the shitty meat. It could symbolise the poverty, the characters' hate for poverty, the direness of their situation (as they're eating shoe leather.... figuratively.) If you wanted to hit more metalanague you could start talking about the effect of the metaphor on the symbol. But yeah, I think symbolising their hate uses the word a little too freely. Ammaniti presents the obvious envy the Acqua Traverse residents feel towards the people of the North in order to indicate that their life's goal was to move to the North. Michele's longing for life in the North is highlighted when he fabricates to Salvatore that he was moving to the North to "live in a Palazzo". The author explores the evident differences between the North and the South in order to prove that it is a fundamental element in the deprivation of many sufferers of poverty, additionally forming a feeling of envy towards the rich.
Seems like a pretty good para. Looks like you have good textual knowledge, and your integration of evidence is very good. It also 'feels' a bit like it could flow more. Idk, might be your transition between examples, but it might be because I don't know the text. Good para, either way, i'd need to know the text t give you more feedback on analysis etc etc
Ammaniti's outline of Pino's relationship with his family explores the ways in which the closest of bonds can be weakened due to the circumstances of poverty. Pino is described as "never being home" by his son, MIchele who would consider it a celebration if his father wasn't away working. Pino is forced to be isolated from his loved ones in order to make their aspirations of escaping poverty come true. While Michele's understanding is symbolised through him stating that his father was "doing it for us", it is clear that they severely lack time with one another. The author depicts the protagonist's lack of knowledge of the truth behind his father when he considers Pino as the "bogeyman" upon realising Pino's involvement in the kidnappings. Ammaniti exemplifies Pino's self-claimed responsibility to help his family escape the struggles of poverty throughout the text to explicate on why Pino allows the distancing of him and his family. Upon Michele's asks why he kidnapped Pino, PIno tries to reassure him by asking if he wanted to "go away from Acqua Traverse" proving that he simply wants the best for his family. The author uses Pino's self-claimed responsibility and desperation to be released from the confinements of poverty in order to highlight how poverty can extremely harm the emotional relationships between people, even within the family.
Same as last paragraph, except I have a feeling this one might be a bit standard/generic? It doesn't seem very DEEP on the analysis. But yeah, I would need to read the text.
The author explores the concept of jealousy and it's effect on morality within the characters of the text, particularly through how the poor conceives the rich good. Ammaniti features Michele's clear signs of jealousy towards his wealthy friend Salvatore, to represent this would be a better time to use symbolise the sense of jealousy the poor feels towards the rich. The protagonist is seen to be extremely grudging towards Salvatore after discovering that Salvatore obtained expensive gifts from his father, believing that he never got gifts like Salvatore did because his father "didn't love him". Jealousy within the poor is examined to be amplified towards a sense of despicableness what do you mean? explain this. Also not too sure despicableness is a word hahaha . The author illustrates this through Michele and his family's malice towards Salvatore's parents. Michele describes Salvatore's father as someone who would "hardly come back", though when he did he couldn't wait to "get away again", which signifies Michele's longing to also have the luxury of leaving the difficulties of a life in poverty at will. The protagonist's mother states that he is to never "accept charity" especially from "those two", referring to Salvatore's relatives which signifies her detestfulness of the wealthy, refusing to accept their act of kindness. Through the characters of "I'm Not Scared", Ammaniti demonstrates how poverty can create a form of loathing in the poor towards the rich stemming originally from their jealousy, indicating their lack of morality towards others.
Your grammar and langauge all checks out and stuff like that and you're still relevant on the prompt. That doesn't leave me much feedback to give having not read the text. I'M SORRY D:
Ammaniti's portrayal characterisation? of Sergio and his vicious treatment towards others exemplifies that the characters suffering from poverty are overpowered and submissive towards the rich, symbolising the loss of their individual moral values nice =]. The author depicts the desperation in his characters to improve their lives by exposing the ways in which the adults are willing to degrade themselves and succumb to Sergio's harsh treatment and diabolical agency over them, as they consider Sergio to be the key to their success. Ammaniti presents Sergio as an incredibly wealthy man with "gold-rimmed glasses" and "golden chains"  who treats the adults like vermin, in order to exert the concept of power in the rich over the poor. Pino, once thought of as "relentless" by the protagonist, disregards Sergio calling him "an imbecile" resulting in the protagonist deeming Sergio as the "emperor" and his father as a "mere servant". The author further demonstrates the power of the rich through Felice who is known as "the devil" amongst many characters when he does nothing about Sergio's humiliation of him when Sergio calls him "a poof" for an extensive period of time, but simply expresses his disdain behind Sergio's back. Ammaniti demonstrates the lack of self moral values in the characters of the text as a result of poverty in order to prove that the poor can be robbed of their individual moral values through succumbing to the agency of the wealthy.
This paragraph seems stand out.
The struggles of life in poverty undoubtedly affects the characters of "I'm Not scared" physically, emotionally and morally. The harsh climate and seclusion of Acqua Traverse is juxtaposed with the prestigious North where the locals of Acqua Traverse find themselves deprived of privileges and envious towards the rich. The emotional bonds between certain characters are confronted with many obstacles originating as a result of poverty. Morality of the lack of morality within the characters is induced due to the distinct contrast between the rich and the poor. Through the characters of "I'm Not Scared", Ammaniti conclusively proves that poverty can affect lives in more ways that one.


Seems like a pretty good essay :). I like your topic sentences and integration of evidence. Your writing is also very sound. I have a suspicion you could go deeper or transition more seamlessly between ideas within each paragraph. I can't say much more without having read the text, unfortunately.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Eugenet17 on May 09, 2013, 07:12:22 pm
Prompt: Poverty affects many aspects of character's lives in Ammaniti's "I'm Not Scared". Discuss.
I've never marked an essay for this text before. I hope you make a crazy twist and start talking about the emotional and psychological poverty of some character. That'd be cool.

Niccolo Ammaniti's text "I'm Not Scared" illustrates the hardships that are endured by the residents of Acqua Traverse which ultimately transpires from the relentless issue of poverty Nice. For another way to open intros, scroll up and see my recommendations (particularly contextualising sentence). Through the depiction of the character's lives, Ammaniti explores the ways in which poverty can consequently affect the physical,emotional and moral aspects of the characters. Acqua Traverse is a small remote town in the South; the dichotomy between the underprivileged South and the distinguished North creates a sense of envy and deprivation within the residents of Acqua Traverse. The emotional relationships between characters if tested greatly due to the detrimented circumstances of poverty. As a result of the explicit contrast between the poor and the rich, the morality and conduct of the poor is presented in a negative light. Perceived as the products of an adverse environment, the characters of "I'm Not Scared" encapsulates the physical,emotional and moral ramifications of poverty. Decent intro, the only thing you could fix here is the slightly stuttered flow between the introduction of each of your key ideas. Integrating them better will result in a really smooth intro :)

Ammaniti presents the distinct dichotomy between rich and poor through the North and the South in order to explore the constant feeling of envy and detriment that the locals of Acqua Traverse go through 'experience'?, perhaps? 'go through' sounds casual. The author depicts Acqua Traverse as a miniscule town that is constrained by the "hottest summer of the century" in order to emphasise the difference between the South and the North, which is a life of comfort. The protagonist describes the extreme heat as a form of restraint "that took everything" and is shown to especially affect the adults who would "shut themselves" indoors with their "blinds down".  The lack of comfort is clearly an extreme factor in the passive mentalities revolving around the lifestyles of the adults. Ammaniti exhibits the lack of general knowledge in the children of Acqua Traverse as compared to the wealthier children to highlight the ways in which poverty can cause a suppression in learning. Being the first person narrator, Michele is seen to not comprehend certain things Salvatore and Filippo speak about such as the "flying foxes" and the "wash-bears". This is good, but you could perhaps switch this sentence tho one that talks about the narrative style as a tool, and you'd get big browny points/marks. I'm thinking instead of something like "Being the first person..." you could say something like "Ammaniti utilises the first person narrative style to demonstrate to the audience through their own experience the ignorance of the novel's protagonist" and so on. (i'm not sure if that makes much sense yet 'cause I just woke up, but  Ithink you get the idea Michele's lack of knowledge can be attributed to his state of poverty as he is deprived of suitable learning resources and a reputable form of education. The author uses the financial disadvantages of many families in Acqua Traverse as a primary reason for their appreciation and gratitude towards the simple things in life. Michele and Maria are regularly forced to eat the "tasteless bits of shoe leather", symbolising thier hatred for the cheap meat as they essentially had little choice but to eat it. Symbolising here I think is a bit out of context. I just shows they hate the shitty meat. It could symbolise the poverty, the characters' hate for poverty, the direness of their situation (as they're eating shoe leather.... figuratively.) If you wanted to hit more metalanague you could start talking about the effect of the metaphor on the symbol. But yeah, I think symbolising their hate uses the word a little too freely. Ammaniti presents the obvious envy the Acqua Traverse residents feel towards the people of the North in order to indicate that their life's goal was to move to the North. Michele's longing for life in the North is highlighted when he fabricates to Salvatore that he was moving to the North to "live in a Palazzo". The author explores the evident differences between the North and the South in order to prove that it is a fundamental element in the deprivation of many sufferers of poverty, additionally forming a feeling of envy towards the rich.
Seems like a pretty good para. Looks like you have good textual knowledge, and your integration of evidence is very good. It also 'feels' a bit like it could flow more. Idk, might be your transition between examples, but it might be because I don't know the text. Good para, either way, i'd need to know the text t give you more feedback on analysis etc etc
Ammaniti's outline of Pino's relationship with his family explores the ways in which the closest of bonds can be weakened due to the circumstances of poverty. Pino is described as "never being home" by his son, MIchele who would consider it a celebration if his father wasn't away working. Pino is forced to be isolated from his loved ones in order to make their aspirations of escaping poverty come true. While Michele's understanding is symbolised through him stating that his father was "doing it for us", it is clear that they severely lack time with one another. The author depicts the protagonist's lack of knowledge of the truth behind his father when he considers Pino as the "bogeyman" upon realising Pino's involvement in the kidnappings. Ammaniti exemplifies Pino's self-claimed responsibility to help his family escape the struggles of poverty throughout the text to explicate on why Pino allows the distancing of him and his family. Upon Michele's asks why he kidnapped Pino, PIno tries to reassure him by asking if he wanted to "go away from Acqua Traverse" proving that he simply wants the best for his family. The author uses Pino's self-claimed responsibility and desperation to be released from the confinements of poverty in order to highlight how poverty can extremely harm the emotional relationships between people, even within the family.
Same as last paragraph, except I have a feeling this one might be a bit standard/generic? It doesn't seem very DEEP on the analysis. But yeah, I would need to read the text.
The author explores the concept of jealousy and it's effect on morality within the characters of the text, particularly through how the poor conceives the rich good. Ammaniti features Michele's clear signs of jealousy towards his wealthy friend Salvatore, to represent this would be a better time to use symbolise the sense of jealousy the poor feels towards the rich. The protagonist is seen to be extremely grudging towards Salvatore after discovering that Salvatore obtained expensive gifts from his father, believing that he never got gifts like Salvatore did because his father "didn't love him". Jealousy within the poor is examined to be amplified towards a sense of despicableness what do you mean? explain this. Also not too sure despicableness is a word hahaha . The author illustrates this through Michele and his family's malice towards Salvatore's parents. Michele describes Salvatore's father as someone who would "hardly come back", though when he did he couldn't wait to "get away again", which signifies Michele's longing to also have the luxury of leaving the difficulties of a life in poverty at will. The protagonist's mother states that he is to never "accept charity" especially from "those two", referring to Salvatore's relatives which signifies her detestfulness of the wealthy, refusing to accept their act of kindness. Through the characters of "I'm Not Scared", Ammaniti demonstrates how poverty can create a form of loathing in the poor towards the rich stemming originally from their jealousy, indicating their lack of morality towards others.
Your grammar and langauge all checks out and stuff like that and you're still relevant on the prompt. That doesn't leave me much feedback to give having not read the text. I'M SORRY D:
Ammaniti's portrayal characterisation? of Sergio and his vicious treatment towards others exemplifies that the characters suffering from poverty are overpowered and submissive towards the rich, symbolising the loss of their individual moral values nice =]. The author depicts the desperation in his characters to improve their lives by exposing the ways in which the adults are willing to degrade themselves and succumb to Sergio's harsh treatment and diabolical agency over them, as they consider Sergio to be the key to their success. Ammaniti presents Sergio as an incredibly wealthy man with "gold-rimmed glasses" and "golden chains"  who treats the adults like vermin, in order to exert the concept of power in the rich over the poor. Pino, once thought of as "relentless" by the protagonist, disregards Sergio calling him "an imbecile" resulting in the protagonist deeming Sergio as the "emperor" and his father as a "mere servant". The author further demonstrates the power of the rich through Felice who is known as "the devil" amongst many characters when he does nothing about Sergio's humiliation of him when Sergio calls him "a poof" for an extensive period of time, but simply expresses his disdain behind Sergio's back. Ammaniti demonstrates the lack of self moral values in the characters of the text as a result of poverty in order to prove that the poor can be robbed of their individual moral values through succumbing to the agency of the wealthy.
This paragraph seems stand out.
The struggles of life in poverty undoubtedly affects the characters of "I'm Not scared" physically, emotionally and morally. The harsh climate and seclusion of Acqua Traverse is juxtaposed with the prestigious North where the locals of Acqua Traverse find themselves deprived of privileges and envious towards the rich. The emotional bonds between certain characters are confronted with many obstacles originating as a result of poverty. Morality of the lack of morality within the characters is induced due to the distinct contrast between the rich and the poor. Through the characters of "I'm Not Scared", Ammaniti conclusively proves that poverty can affect lives in more ways that one.


Seems like a pretty good essay :). I like your topic sentences and integration of evidence. Your writing is also very sound. I have a suspicion you could go deeper or transition more seamlessly between ideas within each paragraph. I can't say much more without having read the text, unfortunately.

Thanks :) I feel that my biggest problem with the practice text reponses ive been doing is getting complex/deep arguments/ideas so i've been trying to work on that, maybe it's because the last time i read this book was like november last year and havent read it since, LOL.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Lolly on May 12, 2013, 09:06:27 pm
I wrote another one...go for your life.

“In Interpreter of Maladies, Lahiri explores the impact of acceptance and rejection on people. Discuss.”

Within her anthology, Interpreter of Maladies, Lahiri portrays the lives of Indian diasporic people and interwoven cultures. Throughout these narratives she highlights the importance of social belonging and the implications this has on an individual’s livelihood. Communication appears to be the key to mutual acceptance, with the ability to traverse social boundaries and cultural barriers allowed through human contact. Conversely, Lahiri conveys how people can experience alienation as a result of social rejection, thus revealing the value of community as a key source of human wellbeing.

Acceptance of those around us can result in unexpected connections. These relationships often circumvent traditional social and cultural boundaries as a common ground of humanity is revealed. This is evident within “ The Third and Final Continent” in which a relationship between the narrator and his landlady develops, in spite of a gulf of culture, language, and generations. Mrs Croft’s abrupt style of speech is characterised by imperative commands “Lock up!”, indicative of her rigid nature and social conservatism. The narrator’s associations with Mrs Croft's own era “ filled with...chaste conversations in parlours” further reflects the disparity between them both. Yet Lahiri communicates the inherent value of their unlikely relationship.The simple action of the narrator placing the envelope with the week’s rent directly into Mrs Croft’s hands is conveyed as a gesture of acceptance; indeed, in contrast to her usually lack of niceties, Mrs Croft’s response suggests a mutual appreciation. “ It was very kind of you”. Here Lahiri promulgates the genuine relationship established between the narrator and Mrs Croft, professing to the effect of empathy as a means of human connection.

Furthermore, Lahiri demonstrates the complexities of relationships. Through the interaction of her characters, she portrays the lasting implications of rejection in our closest ties. This is prominent within “A Temporary Matter” in Shoba’s words, “ I’ve been looking for an apartment and I’ve found one.” Laced within this statement of fact is an underlying rejection, allowing Lahiri to unveil the effects of such repudiation. The injury inflicted by such words is evident within the narration, “ It sickened Shukumar, knowing she had [been] preparing for a life without him.” Here Lahiri magnifies the ability of rejection to destroy relationships and change circumstances irrevocably. Moreover, in “ A Real Durwan”, Boori Ma is characterised as a social outcast, with the description of her “ observ[ing] gestures…in the same way a person tends to watch traffic in a foreign city” clearly highlighting her position as an outsider. As the narrative develops, it is made clear that her position is totally dependent on the support of her community, with the description of Mrs Dalal’s “ [giving] the old women ginger paste…to flavour her stews” evidence of Boori Ma’s reliance on collective kindness for her very survival.   Lahiri communicates the precariousness of such a position, “knowing not to sit on the furniture, she crouched instead” illustrating her subservience in a hierarchical caste based culture. Upon the resident’s “ toss[ing] out of Boori Ma , Lahiri communicates her utter destitution as a result, with the final image of her “ [shaking] the free end of her sari” evoking pathos from the audience. Thus, the author reveals the impact of social rejection can have on one’s prospects for security and contentment.

Contrastingly, Lahiri’s anthology also embodies a resonating sense of optimism in accepting unfamiliar circumstances. In “Mrs Sen’s”, Eliot embraces a completely foreign world without trepidation, “ He especially enjoyed watching Mrs Sen as she chopped things”. Eliot does not display apprehension before novelty, as Sanjeev does in “ This Blessed House” in encountering  garish Christian iconography. Rather, the exotic image of” a blade that curved like the prow of a viking ship” displays a sense of Eliot’s boyish fascination with the unknown. Here Lahiri establishes an atmosphere of warmth “ the radiators continuously hissed like a pressure cooker”, an indicator of Eliot’s ensconce into a new and welcoming world.  Similarly, in “The Third and Final Continent” the narrator encounters America with eagerness “ I read every article and advertisement so that I would grow familiar with things”. This leads to his successful integration into American life and culture, “we are now American citizens.” Hence, it seems apparent that those who accept new environments without inhibitions who learn the most from their experiences.

However,  Lahiri suggests that apathetic acceptance of one’s situation can result in unfavourable outcomes. Acquiescing to the desires of another person can degrade one’s personal integrity. This is evident within “ Sexy”, as Miranda’s illicit relationship with Dev is seen as one of subordination. Dev’s demand that Miranda remove her robe because she was “ depriving him of the sight of her long legs” is a clear indicator that the objectification of her body is paramount over any semblance of a mutually respectful relationship. Yet in the narrative description “ she walked across the room to get him a saucer for his cigarette ashes”, Lahiri conveys how Miranda has unwittingly allowed herself to be exploited in a futile relationship. This passive servility is also evident throughout “This Blessed House”, with the final image of Sanjeev holding the statue “ [follow]ing Twinkle", a representation of the nature of their relationship. Here Sanjeev is portrayed as compromised for the sake of his marriage, thus communicating how acceptance of a new social role can result in disempowerment. In this way, the writer is able to express how embracing new scenarios is not always beneficial for an individual’s prospects.

In the collection “ Interpreter of Maladies”, Lahiri examines both the negative and positive ramifications associated with human relationships.  She suggests that in confronting new situations boldly, individuals have potential for success, while implicitly warning against the dangers of subordination and social rejection. Ultimately, Lahiri reveals the enormous implications of one’s interactions with others, and the capability for social influences to completely alter one’s course in life.


Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on May 14, 2013, 09:59:28 pm
“In Interpreter of Maladies, Lahiri explores the impact of acceptance and rejection on people. Discuss.”

Mmk let's be honest guys, Loz is a better writer than I am so be a filter as far as my feedback goes. This is all just my opinion.

Within her anthology, Interpreter of Maladies, Lahiri portrays the lives of Indian diasporic people and interwoven cultures 'interwoven cultures' tacked on at the end here I think damages the sentence just as far as clarity goes. Also, italicise the text title when typing. underline in handwriting. In my essays i'd also focus straight up on the culture/history for the first line... but I think that might be a  thing I only did with 12AM . Throughout these narratives she highlights the importance of social belonging and the implications this has on an individual’s livelihood. Communication appears to be the key to mutual acceptance, with the ability to traverse social boundaries and cultural barriers allowed through human contact. Conversely, Lahiri conveys how people can experience alienation as a result of social rejection, thus revealing the value of community as a key source of human wellbeing.Great

Acceptance of those around us can result in unexpected connections I structure topic sentences differently - one part idea, one part prompt. Your statement seems  to me more of an expository type statement or just a factual statement more than a statement that will be shaping your paragraph. . These relationships often circumvent traditional social and cultural boundaries as a common ground of humanity is revealed. This is evident within “ The Third and Final Continent” in which a relationship between the narrator and his landlady develops, in spite of a gulf of culture, language, and generations. Mrs Croft’s abrupt style of speech is characterised by imperative commands The way that's quoted kills your expression a little bit. adding a "such as" would fix it imo “Lock up!”, indicative of her rigid nature and social conservatism This seems great. The narrator’s associations with Mrs Croft's own era “ filled with...chaste conversations in parlours” further reflects the disparity between them both. Yet Lahiri communicates the inherent value of their unlikely relationship.The simple action of the narrator placing the envelope with the week’s rent directly into Mrs Croft’s hands is conveyed as a gesture of acceptance; indeed, in contrast to her usually usual? lack of niceties, Mrs Croft’s response suggests a mutual appreciation. Reads beautifully “ It was very kind of you”. I try to avoid quoting like this 'cause I think it kills the reader's rhythm. Here Lahiri promulgates the genuine relationship established between the narrator and Mrs Croft, professing to the effect of empathy as a means of human connection.

Furthermore, Lahiri demonstrates the complexities of relationships Again, I'd be more specific to my idea and the prompt in the TS, but you can make that decision. I won't mention it again. Through the interaction of her characters, she portrays the lasting implications of rejection in our closest ties. This is prominent within “A Temporary Matter” in Shoba’s words, “ I’ve been looking for an apartment and I’ve found one.” Laced within this statement of fact is an underlying rejection, allowing Lahiri to unveil the effects of such repudiation. The injury inflicted by such words is evident within the narration, “ It sickened Shukumar, knowing she had [been] preparing for a life without him.” Here Lahiri magnifies the ability of rejection to destroy relationships and change circumstances irrevocably. Moreover, in “ A Real Durwan”, Boori Ma is characterised as a social outcast, with the description of her “ observ[ing] gestures…in the same way a person tends to watch traffic in a foreign city” clearly highlighting her position as an outsider. As the narrative develops, it is made clear that her position is totally dependent on the support of her community, with the description of Mrs Dalal’s “ [giving] the old women ginger paste…to flavour her stews” evidence of Boori Ma’s reliance on collective kindness for her very survival.   Lahiri communicates the precariousness of such a position, “knowing not to sit on the furniture, she crouched instead” illustrating her subservience in a hierarchical caste based culture. Upon the resident’s “ toss[ing] out of Boori Ma , Lahiri communicates her utter destitution as a result, with the final image of her “ [shaking] the free end of her sari” evoking pathos from the audience. Thus, the author reveals the impact of social rejection can have on one’s prospects for security and contentment. I'd mentioned something more like this last line in my first line (as well as the last line). Nice writing but if I were writing the essay I would like to improve this paragraph structurally. It's very QuoteAnalysisQuoteAnalysisQuoteAnalysis and I  think it detracts from the flow a little bit. That's all I'd change. Great writing and seems like great analysis and use of quotes.

Contrastingly, Lahiri’s anthology also embodies a resonating sense of optimism in accepting unfamiliar circumstances This is a better topic sentence imo. In “Mrs Sen’s”, Eliot embraces a completely foreign world without trepidation, what would you think of a colon here instead? “ He especially enjoyed watching Mrs Sen as she chopped things”. Eliot does not display apprehension before novelty, as Sanjeev does in “ This Blessed House” in encountering  garish Christian iconography. Rather, the exotic image of” a blade that curved like the prow of a viking ship” displays a sense of Eliot’s boyish fascination with the unknown. Here "Here" I think is a habitual sentence-analysis starter for you? Lahiri establishes an atmosphere of warmth “ the radiators continuously hissed like a pressure cooker”, an indicator of Eliot’s ensconce into a new and welcoming world.  Similarly, in “The Third and Final Continent” the narrator encounters America with eagerness Again, the quoting sits unwell with me. However, it might be different writing on a collection of short-stories (i've never done it before) “ I read every article and advertisement so that I would grow familiar with things”. This leads to his successful integration into American life and culture, “we are now American citizens.” Hence, it seems apparent that those who accept new environments without inhibitions who learn the most from their experiences.
Good finishing line on that para, too.
You paragraphs feel very 'quick'. I might be bias because I teach and write three larger body paragraphs that are deep into it. I feel as if the speed you discuss each story could be detracting from the depth you lend each story in your analysis (keep in mind I haven't read the text). Potential solution is longer paragraphs (could come at the expense of a fourth paragraph but each to their own), or just less stories per paragraph.

However,  Lahiri suggests that apathetic acceptance of one’s situation can result in unfavourable outcomes Again, I like this topic sentene a bit more. . Acquiescing to the desires of another person can degrade one’s personal integrity. What does your teacher say about fact statements like this? It feels to me an inference of your own opinion (obviously it is), but I normally based all of my opinions strongly on the text and my analysis. Even, "Lahiri demonstrates that acquiescing..." would make me more comfortable with it. Then again, perhaps it's just unfamiliarity making me uncomfortable. This is evident within “ Sexy”, as Miranda’s illicit relationship with Dev lolololol Dev in "Sexy" is seen as one of subordination. Dev’s demand that Miranda remove her robe because she was “ depriving him of the sight of her long legs” is a clear indicator that the objectification of her body is paramount over any semblance of a mutually respectful relationship brill. Yet in the narrative description “ she walked across the room to get him a saucer for his cigarette ashes”, Lahiri conveys how Miranda has unwittingly allowed herself to be exploited in a futile relationship. This passive servility is also evident throughout “This Blessed House”, with the final image of Sanjeev holding the statue “ [follow]ing Twinkle", a representation of the nature of their relationship. Here Sanjeev is portrayed as compromised for the sake of his marriage, thus communicating how acceptance of a new social role can result in disempowerment. In this way, the writer is able to express how embracing new scenarios is not always beneficial for an individual’s prospects. Imo this is your best paragraph. (Or maybe it's just freshest in my mind).

In the collection “ Interpreter of Maladies”, Lahiri examines both the negative and positive ramifications associated with human relationships.  She suggests that in confronting new situations boldly, individuals have potential for success, while implicitly warning against the dangers of subordination and social rejection. Ultimately, Lahiri reveals the enormous implications of one’s interactions with others, and the capability for social influences to completely alter one’s course in life. Great conc.

Yeah, this is probably just a very personal stylistic preferences, but I would like more to read longer paragraphs, because  they feel sort of 'skimmed', even though the lines you have in the paragraph ARE deep, it feels like they're not deep for long enough if that makes any sense. Sometimes your quoting seems to stutter your flow. Brill expression and structural flow.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: memarani on May 22, 2013, 04:56:34 pm
This is only an introduction for a Twelve Angry Men essay, I may post the finished piece later:

'Despite questioning the ultimate fairness and reliability of the jury system, Twelve Angry Men is, at heart, a tribute to this system.’  Discuss.

In Twelve Angry Men, the jurors are all men with different opinions, who have been called together to determine the fate of a young man who has been accused of murdering his father. The playwright, Reginald Rose, recognises that there are flaws in the jury system, as some jurors let emotions cloud their judgement or hinder their ability to express their opinion to the other jurors, which could have resulted in an innocent man being executed. In contrast to the 1953 Rosenberg case, Juror 8 is able to convince all the other jurors to vote "not guilty" by the end of the play. By this, Rose shows that if there is someone who encourages deliberation, the jury system can function as a fair and reliable method of justice.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on May 22, 2013, 05:09:54 pm
This is only an introduction for a Twelve Angry Men essay, I may post the finished piece later:

'Despite questioning the ultimate fairness and reliability of the jury system, Twelve Angry Men is, at heart, a tribute to this system.’  Discuss.

In Twelve Angry Men, the jurors are all men with different opinions, who have been called together to determine the fate of a young man who has been accused of murdering his father. The playwright, Reginald Rose, recognises that there are flaws in the jury system, as some jurors let emotions cloud their judgement or hinder their ability to express their opinion to the other jurors, which could have resulted in an innocent man being executed. In contrast to the 1953 Rosenberg case, Juror 8 is able to convince all the other jurors to vote "not guilty" by the end of the play. By this, Rose shows that if there is someone who encourages deliberation, the jury system can function as a fair and reliable method of justice.
As for your first line, I'd read previous pages of this thread to see how I recommend going about it. Your  first line is relatively bland and it doesn't do much for your essay. It doesn't hit criteria, it doesn't tell the reader anything new. (I notice you're relatively new to the site, please don't think I'm being a prick here by using mean words like 'bland', I'm just trying to give good feedback). "The playwright" is also unnecessary. Use one or the other. That sentence that beings with 'the playwright' is also pretty clunky.. I think you could use a better verb than recognises - what's the message? Does he condemn, endorse? The 1853 case seems very out of place and I'm not sure how much you'd want to discuss the world outside of the text... It makes me uncomfortable however, I'm not an expert so if your teacher is telling you to do it, definitely do it for the SAC. Your ideas could also do with showign a bit more depth. I mean, take "Juror 8 can convince the other jurors" and replace it with something like "Rose's characterisation of the play's protagonist demonstrates that objectivity and a rigid adherence to the principles of the justice system are imperative for a just result." -- see how the second one has a bit more depth? Do this three times over (your intro also seems to not very strongly identify three main/key ideas of your essay. I should know what you're going to talk about by the end of your intro). "By this" - just say, hence, therefore, or even 'due to this' if you want to keep that sort of expression. By this seems quite casual.

I would strongly recommend reading through the past pages of this post for my 12AM feedback and recommendations.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on May 22, 2013, 05:12:40 pm
I'm temporarily locking this topic, guys. There's just four weeks until my last exam, in which case I can come back and mark properly. I just won't be able to continue keeping up with these threads unless I decide I don't want to pass my first semester of Uni... I'm going to try and get the other threads up to date and also lock them. Sorry, but I'll be back in four weeks! (please don't hate me)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on July 17, 2013, 09:58:56 pm
Updated the original thread so sets of essays and feedback are compiled and easily accessible :)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Yacoubb on July 25, 2013, 11:17:53 pm
This is on Gattaca by Andrew Niccol :)  This is my first Gattaca piece


Question: The society of Gattaca works to repress rather than to enhance the potential of human beings. Discuss

Andrew Niccol's controversial film Gattaca demonstrates that in a vain attempt to create a Utopian world ridden of any imperfections, the qualities of individuals and their capabilities are disregarded. Vincent is hindered of his ability to live his dream of becoming an astronaut as a consequence of his genome. Furthermore, Jerome's depression originates from coming second place and the prospect of not being good enough, a sentiment instilled within Gattacians. The overall pall of gloom that hangs over the workers at Gattaca, and the absence of any human qualities, further insinuates that creating such a perfect race is damaging the human persona. The viewer recognises that although the ability to rid the world of diseases through genetic intervention may carry positive significances, the negative repercussions of discrimination against the genetically inferior do exist.

Niccol suggests that a low genetic quotient revealing possible genetic defects plays a paramount role in the decision made at Gattaca regarding employment, substantiating the reality that "discrimination had come down to a science". Vincent, the film's protagonist, is a "faith child" - conceived naturally with no genetic intervention to rid him of any susceptibilities to becoming an alcoholic, or inheriting any illnesses. Upon his birth, it is revealed that there is a 99% chance of him having cardiovascular complications, and genetic sequencing indicates that his life expectancy will be approximately thirty years of age. Antonio's reaction to naming him Vincent, as opposed to the traditional inheritance of the father's name, exemplifies the reality that in the world of Gattaca, a "child conceived in love [does not] have a greater chance of happiness; on the contrary, their prosperity and liberty is supressed by their inferiority. Nevertheless, Vincent's genome prevents him from being able to fulfil his ambition as an astronaut whilst retaining his identity as Vincent Freeman. Instead, he is forced to borrow Jerome Morrow's identity by borrowing urine samples, blood vial samples and other genetic specimens, merely to allow Vincent to fulfil his dream of travelling to Titan, a moon in Saturn. The reader acknowledges the fact that Vincent's determination and human qualities of ambition and perseverance, all facets of his persona completely ignored by Gattacians, have allowed him to survive in a world demanding the eradication of imperfections on the basis of genes.

Moreover, the mentality acquired by Gattacians that anything below perfection, or first place, is enough to tarnish one's superiority proves to be a plausible explanation for Jerome Morrow's prolonged misery. During the film's exposition, Jerome is seen tied to a wheelchair with a drinking problem; Vincent complains that "there is more vodka in this piss [sample], than there is piss" when Vincent must use the urine sample to use Jerome's identity to fulfil his dream. This follows Jerome coming second place in a swimming competition, and his inability to comprehend how his perfect genetic quotient could possibly hinder his capability of obtaining first place. This substantiates the sinister reality that in Gattaca, they "get [the invalids] working so hard for any flaw that after a while that is all[they] see". However, when Jerome and Vincent decide to work together to fulfil their dreams together, Jerome awakes to the realisation that he is able to complete his disrupted journey to success through Vincent, before suiciding by the film's resolution when Vincent and the other astronauts travel to Titan in Saturn, a cathartic moment in the film, that unveils the reality that in Gattaca, individuals are deprived of their happiness and ability to transform dreams into realities, unless their genetic quotient yields excellent sequenced results.

Niccol purposely portrays all the workers in Gattaca segregated from each other and having very little interaction with one another, to expose the Gattacians as being neglectful of nature surrounding them and having one mission in life - to reach perfection that is arguably not able to be reached by humans, irrespective of genetic quotients. Anton, the genetically-engineered brother of Vincent, is "the son [Vincent's] father would have considered worthy of his name". He is portrayed as being hungry for perfection, consistently feeding his ego by observing the inadequacies of Vincent, from the moment they are measured for height and Anton is taller than Vincent, in spite of being two years younger. Additionally, the workers at Gattaca seem to lack individuality and character; they are all just "[other] suits in a world of similarly attired valids", signifying the fact that creating a world where genomics is the most imperative aspect of life will stifle the world of its creativity, prosperity and individuality, that is all withdrawn from Gattacians in a pursuit of being perfect. This supports the fact that rather than enhancing the human race to improve and progress, the Gattacians society is institutionalising injustice on the basis of genes, that have no correspondence to character, persona and psyche.

By the film's resolution, the viewer recognises that although a Utopian world would involve the eradication of diseases and the improvement of the human race medically, several ethical issues lie that could pose to be threatening to the social structure of the human race. The mistreatment of invalids, such as Vincent, on the basis of their genetic quotient, signifies that in such a world, character and an established ethic to persevere are completely irrelevant. Furthermore, the prolonged depression that ultimately consumes Jerome Morrow can be owed to the acquired order of thought that Gattaca cannot cater for those who are not perfect, repressing the human race opposed to enhancing it. The world of Gattaca portrayed as a world involving no creativity and life further indicates that the presumed potential of human beings being enhanced is ultimately being doused by the vision to be perfect, and settle for nothing less. Andrew Niccol's message is quite sinister - the human race will be lead to its destruction if one's genome's significance surpasses the significance of their character, which is one asset that cannot be determined by a molecule of DNA.

 Criticism will be much appreciated!

Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: jeanweasley on August 18, 2013, 09:08:57 pm
This is a Ransom text response responding to the prompt :

"This old fellow, like most storytellers, is a stealer of other men's tales, of other men's lives"
'Malouf uses Ransom to explore the significance of storytelling.


David Malouf explores the power of storytelling through Ransom, a retelling of Homer's Iliad. Malouf proposes that storytelling gives ordinary humans monopoly over their fates and enables them to create their legacy in a world dominated by Gods. It is these simple stories that Malouf suggests fosters the human experience and acts as a way of connecting humanity together. Through the inclusion of Somax, Malouf establishes the importance of ordinary people in literary tradition. Sotires are not told only about heroes of the era and in Ransom, it is the ordinary people like Somax who are real heroes. As a paradigm, Malouf himself is a 'stealer of other men's tales' and he is able to examine the power of storytelling through the inclusion or exclusion of detail. Moreover Malouf acknowledges that sometimes stories can be distorted and identities may be robbed, perhaps alluding to his retelling of Homer's epic. In essence, Malouf is intent on exploring the significance of storytelling not only in literary tradition but in normal human experience.

Humans do not have full control in Ransom, yet Malouf suggests that through storytelling, humans are able to control their fate and choose to live or act in a way that they want to be perceived or remembered. Priam's desire to be perceived as an ordinary man instead of a king propels his doing of 'something new' and 'unheard of' by ransoming his son's body from Achilles. Here, Malouf utilises the imagery of the knot to represent Priam's self-consciousness and his longing to feel like a normal person instead of a 'ceremonial' king whose face is Troy's 'living map'. Malouf also alludes to the fact that when Priam was ransomed, he lost his identity as 'Podarces' and became Priam, the 'price paid'. This transformation from a pampered 'lord of pleasures' to an 'indistinguishable' person is a testament that at any time, Priam could lose everything he has and start all over again. This motivates him to engage in the notion of chance that in a world where Gods interfere, it is also possible for one to alter their fate. This gives Priam the ability to find himself as a normal person, especially a grieving father whose mission it is is to redeem his son.  Thus, the act of ransoming gives Priam the ability to be remembered not for the destruction of Troy and his death but for his simple act, an act that 'any man might do'.

Similarly, Achilles' knowledge knowledge of his 'fated' and 'inevitable death leads him to resist it. He, like Priam suffers from the balance of their dual selves as he represses the one in order to fulfil the other. Achilles becomes liberated by the ransom and is able to let go of the rage that had consumed him to be remembered as a father and son in giving Hector'd body back. However, Malouf suggest that living a life worth telling stories is only a 'provisional triumph' because the Gods still have full control over humans, yet they are offered a role to play in their own lives.

Malouf emphasises the need to connect with humanity through the power of story. Somax, the 'chatterer' epitomises what man's connection with nature and life should be. Somax takes pleasure in doing simple things, eating griddlecakes, taking a rest or dabbling his feet in the water. It is these things that Malouf suggest that humans should place emphasis on. The symbolism of the cakes is a representation of the simple things in life and also Priam's isolation with the world. His role as king has detached him from what should become instinctual to him, yet it takes a common man, a carter to remind him that he is a 'chil[d] or nature...of earth, as well as of the Gods. Achilles' liberation from his grief is successful because of the fatherly appeal between him and Priam. Priam invites Achilles to understand that Achilles should have been thinking of Hector as a worthy competitor and not an 'implacable enemy'. Malouf, as a storyteller invites us to consider the power that stories can have over people as it foster the human connection. Like Achilles who is filled with grief and rage, he is able to feel that 'something in him has feed itself and fallen away'.

Through the inclusion of Somax, Malouf has achieved a new meaning of the Iliad for modern readers. Malouf positions the reader to consider that stories are not told only of about the warriors or kings but also about ordinary people. In Somax, Malouf has given him the courage to face the challenges of life and to go on despite these challenges. For example, Somax does not, unlike Achilles, avenge the death of his son but instead learns to accept it as a fact of life and concludes that 'we go on...[f]or all our losses'. This perception of life and how it functions is epitomised in Somax and as a surrogate of Malouf's authorship, readers are asked to consider the advantages of a simple and ordinary life and how as ordinary people, we can create our own legacy. Here Somax is remembered by readers of Ransom as a hero as he had the power to influence Priam to liberate him from his restrictive life as king. Despite this, Malouf adds that though stories can be told time after time, sometimes meanings can be lost and identities can be robbed. Perhaps, Malouf himself is alluding to the fact that he has, in a sense, stolen Homer's identity in retelling the Iliad and discarding the use of epithets and introducing a post modernist view on writing - a focus on psychology and physical and mental challenges and not on the typical protagonist adventure.

Furthermore, somax is robbed of his identity when he became Idaeus and is reduced to a 'hundred [year] old' man who 'drinks too much'. This, Malouf considers is one of the negative aspects of storytelling as sometimes storytellers are discredited for the stories that they tell. This is also present in Priam's recollection of his childhood as his story is ignored because of the reputation he has to uphold as king.

Ransom is a testament to the power of storytelling as a tool of connecting people together, especially in a society overshadowed by restrictions and responsibilities. Malouf also emphasises the control offered by storytelling to create one's legacy as well as storyteller's monopoly over their stories to create meaning for their readers.

---
Phew. Didn't think it was going to be this long. It was only three pages on paper :P
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Smiley_ on August 25, 2013, 09:08:48 am





On the waterfront is a story about the battle between good and evil. Do you agree?




Through the 1954 film, “On the Waterfront”, Elia Kazan portrays the moral and emotional growth of Terry Malloy as well as presenting characters as good and evil. Kazan presents those who fight against injustices as superior as well as those who give protection and those who are cause of these injustices as corrupt and unjust.

The film implies that honourable men are those who stand up to the injustices that are occurring around them. Joey Doyle is presented as powerful and brave at the beginning of the film, while standing on the top of the building using a low shot. This is juxtaposed with the next scene as he is seen tumbling to his death because of what he has previously done, met with the Crime Commissioners to expose the corrupt dealings of the docklands. The struggle between good and evil is presented as “the best kid in the neighbourhood” who is seen to have done something positive for the longshoremen is murdered without a thought. Joey Doyle was not the only person who decided to stand up and fight for what he believed in. K.O the warm-hearted tough longshoremen also spoke out and “did all the talking” all “39 pages” of the corrupt unions operation. This talking was not rewarded as just like Joey, he was murdered by the people he was trying to stop. Showing how the battle between what is right and what is wrong is ever continuing.

Father Barry and Edie Doyle aim to instil values of goodness and moral judgement into Terry as well as them working together to help rid the docks or corruption. Hoboken is dirty, grimy, cold and arid this provides a contrast with Edie Doyle, with her white hair and neat clothes, she is presented as virtuous with high moral values. When she finds out that he brothers death was not an accident she is determined to find out what happened and not to go back to “things that things that are just in books”. She takes on Terry at the “Shape Up” fighting for a token so that her father can earn some money that day showing that she is brave and not afraid to take on men bigger than her, in order to achieve what she wants. Edie has abiding faith in Terry and his capacity to change. She urges him to “care for everybody else” and do what is right. Stand up against the Mob. Father Barry also is there fore Terry when he needs guidance he tells Terry that “what’s ratting for them is telling the truth for you” even though Terry says that if he spills his “life ain’t worth more than a nickel”. Father Barry realises that just fulfilling his liturgical role in the church is not enough for the people of Hoboken and that he needs to fight against the corruption. He does this by holding  the “sermon in the hold” we the mob pelt him with rubbish just like Jesus was pelted on his way to Calvary. Even while being hit in the face he does not give up his fight against injustice.

The dirty, hazy world of the docks is ruled by corrupt bosses and their unions. Tulio and Truck both appealing together in the film, present a vicious fight against anyone who tries to stand up for themselves or others. Truck has the wit the make a joke that Joey was a canary “who could sing, but he couldn't fly” and Tulio has a personality that is wholly submerged in his role as “muscle”. Johnny Friendly is the physically imposing, moody unpredictable man who controls the waterfront and the lives of thousands of people. He is a ruthless and vicious man who fought his way to the top and will not give it up easily. He is a man who is practiced and skilled in humiliation especially of the weak including Terry during the scene where Friendly and Charlie Berate him for not reporting on Dugan’s decision Johhny mocks him saying that “Your brains must be rattling” showing just how much of “a cheap, lousy  dirty stinkin mug” he truly is. Even once Terry has taken down Johhny the corruption on the Waterfront is still there due to the presence of Mr Upstairs. Mr Upstairs, the audience never sees his face, we only see him from the back. He just watches over everything never getting involved in the waterfront incidents. Through these characters Elia Kazan presents the immoral side to the battle.

Charlie and Terry both begin by just carrying out order from the mob but also are caring towards each other and the people they care about. The film begins with Terry luring Joey to the roof and ultimately to his death. Once he discovers that he was the decoy used, even though he cannot put words to how he feels he is distressed but tied between his natural loyalty to his brother and his fear of the mob, he is unable to articulate how he feels. After the death of K.O Dugan with the help of Edie and Father Barry he is given the impetus to act and to think for himself. He knows that his appearance and testimony at the Crime Commission will cut him off from his friends, the mob even Tommy yet he develops a moral conscience showing that certain characters are not definitively on one side of the battle. Charlie Malloy “the butcher in a camel hair coat” and the man who threatens his brother with a gun is a troubled man. Unlike Tulio and Truck, who brush aside Terry’s feelings at the death of Joey Doyle, Charlie makes a halfhearted attempt to comfort his brother. During the taxi scene he praises Terry saying that he was “beautiful” when he was a boxer. When he realises that his time is up he gives Terry the gun hoping to protect him showing that he was caring and affectionate towards his “kid-brother”

Through “On the Watefront” there are kind people who are willing to stand up against and fight for any injustices just like there are those who are corrupt and cold blooded. The film portrays the ever present battle between these two sides as well as those characters who develop from being driven by these evil sources to them standing up by themselves against exploitation. 


thanks for reading

any feedback would be great :)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: unfamila on August 31, 2013, 01:03:35 pm
Joey and Edie are both catalysts for Terry’s transition.

Preceding corruption on many of the American Docks during the 1950s, Elia Kazan’s film ‘on the waterfront’ created heated propaganda; similar to the attention gained from his testification at the HUAC trials. Silhouetted against the backdrop of New Jersey in 1954, Elia Kazan’s’ film ‘on the waterfront’ depicts the transition of the protagonist, Terry, through the unpopular decision to testify against the oppression of the mob. Terry’s transformative repercussions are encouraged through Edie, who is a true catalyst in the film, her innocence and contradicting perceptions push terry to modify him for the better. Furthermore, Kazan utilises Joey’s death as a starting point to Terry’s transition, however he is only one of the catalysts within the film. Father Barry is influential in altering the longshoremen’s policy to ‘stand up against the mob and do what’s right’. In contrast, Kazan illuminates that others can promote change within an individual, but depicts that the need for redemption and revenge can ultimately determine the action. Thus, there are many catalysts within on the waterfront which transform Terry, as well as his own emotion towards Friendly’s mob.

Joey Doyle’s courage to stand up for what is right, has encouraged Terry to stand up against his fellow union members. In the opening scenes of the film the tyranny of the mob is exemplified through Bernstein’s ominous sound track. This threating ‘jungle like’ music explores the unions control over the longshoreman. The soundtrack is juxtaposed against the singular instrument opening, depicting the need for the individual to stay ‘deaf and dumb’. Kazan sees Joeys act as truly heroic; thus, Kazan selects to take a low long shot looking up at Joey, displaying his supremacy over the mob. Joey’s death creates confusion within Terry as he ‘thought they were only going to lean on him a bit’. The mobs betrayal of Terry leaves him obfuscated, which is conveyed through his facial expressions in the close up shot outside Friendly's bar. Furthermore, in this scene Terry begins to see the ruthless ability of the mob, as they continue to ridicule Joey as a ‘canary that could sing, but not fly’. The mobs betrayal of Terry as well as their unjust actions create confusion and anger which initially comprises his transition, to redeem himself.

Kazan utilizes Edie as the character who truly drives Terry’s transformation. Edie’s innocence from the opening scenes makes Terry question ‘why someone would kill Joey’, as he was a ‘good kid’. Kazan symbolises Edie as an angel to modify the world for the better; he exemplifies this through creating an angelic light when she is initially seen in the darkness. Her white gloves depict her purity without a scruple of evil. In contrast, her innocence and questioning of Father Barry drive him to investigate Joey’s unlawful death. Her question asking Father if he ‘[has] ever heard a saint hiding in the church’ triggered his movement. Additionally, Edie’s contradicting views make Terry realise what the world has become. Edie cannot comprehend the ‘D&D’ policy; why Joey’s best friend and her father won’t talk. Their different environments create a colliding philosophy; Edie believes ‘everyone should care for everyone else’, whereas Terry Believes ‘you should do it to them before they do it to you’. Terry grows upon Edie’s perception by ultimately confessing to Father Barry, herself and the courts. When confessing Kazan uses techniques to convey further meaning and to add suspense. When confessing to father Barry, Kazan metaphorically illuminates that Terry is in the clear. This is explored through the use of the Fog and ash clearing when he confesses. When confessing to Edie Kazan successfully subsumes their voices to intensify the pain in their expression. Subsequently, Edie’s colliding view on the world causes Terry to confess to the commission as well as gaining his dignity in the process.

However these two characters are not the only catalysts in ‘On the Waterfront’, Father Barry is used as a manipulator by Kazan attempting to gain the truth. Moreover, father Barry is relentless in ordering Terry to ‘do what [his] conscious says’, as he manipulates Terry similarly to the mob. Kazan depicts that Barry is not scared of the mob, as he heads to the dock ‘to see for [himself]’. Kazan furthers this notion as Barry holds a meeting in the basement of the church. It is clear that Father Barry has successfully altered Terry’s view on ‘what is right and what is wrong’. This is explored in the scene of K.O Dougan’s death. Where, Terry stands up and displays respect to K.O Dougan during Barry’s eulogy, as he punches one of the mobs ‘goons’. His respect for Father Barry is also evident in one of the final scenes in Friendly’s bar, where Terry listens to Barry so he can ‘really hurt Johnny’. Barry’s perceptions lead Terry in trying to stop the mob, by warning K.O Dougan to ‘watch his back’. Therefore, Father Barry is a catalyst for Terry’s transition as his relentless drive leads terry to stand up, against the tyranny of the mob.   

Although the initial transition comes from others, Kazan depicts that the true drive for change can emerge through pure emotion. What truly pushes terry to testify is his realisation that he has ‘been ratting on [himself] the whole time’. He notices all along he has been a ‘bum’, had no dignity and complied with Johnny. In an attempt to redeem himself he testifies against Friendly, however he was always driven by revenge. Kazan depicts from the opening scenes that Friendly had fixed a fight, preventing Terry a shot at the title. His evocative conscious and emotions build to form revenge against the mob. He carries his emotion throughout and releases his anger in the taxi scene, as he told Charlie he ‘could have been a contender’. Charlie’s death added to the Terry’s anger ultimately wanting to fight Johnny. In these scenes Kazan symbolises Terry defeating the mob, and truly removing himself from their operation, as he throws the hook back at them. The hook symbolises the tyranny of the mob over the longshoremen, as they carry them on their back. Thus, Kazan depicts that the true driving force comes within, from pure emotion through past events.

 Joey and Edie are both catalysts of ‘on the waterfront’, however there are others who influence his transformation. Father Barry is extremely influential in pursing his testification, to help him learn ‘what’s wrong, from what’s right’. As well as these influential individuals, Terry’s evocative conscious and emotions build to form revenge against friendly and are pivotal in his transformation. Thus there are many factors that are involved in terry testifying against the powerful Friendly, however Kazan masterfully includes all these techniques to successfully depict; Terry’s transition from a bum to someone with great dignity.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on August 31, 2013, 03:06:55 pm
This is on Gattaca by Andrew Niccol :)  This is my first Gattaca piece


Question: The society of Gattaca works to repress rather than to enhance the potential of human beings. Discuss

Andrew Niccol's controversialPersonally, I think adjectives of this nature are a waste of words, saying that the film is controversial doesn't really hit any of the criteria, and I think most of the time is used to try and 'spruce' a sentence film Gattaca demonstrates that in a vain attempt to create a Utopian world ridden of any imperfections, the qualities of individuals and their capabilities are disregarded.Decent contention, however, perhaps it's too absolute? I mean, surely the potential of human beings, just generally, has been enhanced by Gattaca? I think that's undeniable. Vincent is hindered of his ability to live his dream of becoming an astronaut as a consequence of his genome. Furthermore, Jerome's depression originates from coming second place and the prospect of not being good enough, a sentiment instilled within Gattacians How does this repress his potential? . The overall pall of gloom that hangs over the workers at Gattaca, and the absence of any human qualities, further insinuates that creating such a perfect race is damaging the human persona So perhaps, damaging our emotional persona? It's okay to be direct.. The viewer recognisesdoes the viewer, though? Have you interviewed all of them? that although the ability to rid the world of diseases through genetic intervention may carry positive significances, the negative repercussions of discrimination against the genetically inferior do exist.  "the negative repercussions of discrimination... do exist" -- this doesn't really follow on from "although the ability to rid the world of diseases..." I mean, that's what happens in the movie, but this sentence is talking about the viewer. Would the view recognise that there are negative repercussions of ridding the world of disease, one of those potentially being the discrimination against the genetically inferior?

Niccol suggests that a low genetic quotient revealing possible genetic defects plays a paramount role in the decision made at Gattaca regarding employment, substantiating the reality that "discrimination had come down to a science". I dislike quotes in the topic sentence. I think it promotes lazy writing when you could better hit hte criteria ny leaving out quotes and just showing your sub-argument in relation to the text and the prompt in your topic sentence instead.Vincent, the film's protagonist, is a "faith child" - conceived naturally with no genetic intervention to rid him of any susceptibilities to becoming an alcoholic, or inheriting any illnesses alcoholism or illness. Upon his birth, it is revealed that there is a 99% chance of him having cardiovascular complications, and genetic sequencing indicates that his life expectancy will be approximately thirty years of age. Antonio's reaction to naming him Vincent, as opposed to the traditional inheritance of the father's name, exemplifies the reality that in the world of Gattaca, a "child conceived in love [does not] have a greater chance of happiness; on the contrary, their prosperity and liberty is supressed by their inferiority. Nice!Nevertheless, Vincent's genome prevents him from being able to fulfil his ambition as an astronaut whilst retaining his identity as Vincent Freeman. Instead, he is forced to borrow Jerome Morrow's identity by borrowing urine samples, blood vial samples and other genetic specimens, merely to allow Vincent to fulfil his dream of travelling to Titan, a moon in Saturn. The reader reader?!acknowledges Drop any type of "the audience now knows x" It's fine to say "the author shows the audience x" or "the audience is positioned x", but it's just logically lazy to assert definitive things about the audiencethe fact that Vincent's determination and human qualities of ambition and perseverance, all facets of his persona completely ignored by Gattacians, have allowed him to survive in a world demanding the eradication of imperfections on the basis of genes. I think this is suitable for Year 11. In Year 12 you'll want more quotes to justify the more analysis that also comes along with Year 12.

Moreover, the mentality acquired by Gattacians that anything below perfection, or first place, is enough to tarnish one's superiority proves to be a plausible explanation for Jerome Morrow's prolonged misery. During the film's exposition, Jerome is seen tied to a wheelchair with a drinking problem; Vincent complains that "there is more vodka in this piss [sample], than there is piss" when Vincent must use the urine sample to use Jerome's identity to fulfil his dream. This follows Jerome coming second place in a swimming competition, and his inability to comprehend how his perfect genetic quotient could possibly hinder his capability of obtaining first place. This substantiates the sinister reality that in Gattaca, they "get [the invalids] working so hard for any flaw that after a while that is all[they] see". However, when Jerome and Vincent decide to work together to fulfil their dreams together, Jerome awakes to the realisation that he is able to complete his disrupted journey to success through Vincent, before suiciding by the film's resolution when Vincent and the other astronauts travel to Titan in Saturn, a cathartic moment in the film, that unveils the reality that in Gattaca, individuals are deprived of their happiness and ability to transform dreams into realities, unless their genetic quotient yields excellent sequenced results. mammoth sentence,

Niccol purposely portrays all the workers in Gattaca segregated from each other and having very little interaction with one another, to expose the Gattacians as being neglectful of nature surrounding them and having one mission in life - to reach perfection that is arguably not able to be reached by humans, irrespective of genetic quotients. Anton, the genetically-engineered brother of Vincent, is "the son [Vincent's] father would have considered worthy of his name". He is portrayed as being hungry for perfection, consistently feeding his ego by observing the inadequacies of Vincent, from the moment they are measured for height and Anton is taller than Vincent, in spite of being two years younger. Additionally, the workers at Gattaca seem to lack individuality and character; they are all just "[other] suits in a world of similarly attired valids", signifying the fact that creating a world where genomics is the most imperative aspect of life will stifle the world of its creativity, prosperity and individuality, that is all withdrawn from Gattacians in a pursuit of being perfect. This supports the fact that rather than enhancing the human race to improve and progress, the Gattacians society is institutionalising injustice on the basis of genes, that have no correspondence to character, persona and psyche.

By the film's resolution, the viewer recognises that although a Utopian world would involve the eradication of diseases and the improvement of the human race medically, several ethical issues lie that could pose to be threatening to the social structure of the human race. The mistreatment of invalids, such as Vincent, on the basis of their genetic quotient, signifies that in such a world, character and an established ethic to persevere are completely irrelevant. Furthermore, the prolonged depression that ultimately consumes Jerome Morrow can be owed to the acquired order of thought that Gattaca cannot cater for those who are not perfect, repressing the human race opposed to enhancing it. The world of Gattaca portrayed as a world involving no creativity and life further indicates that the presumed potential of human beings being enhanced is ultimately being doused by the vision to be perfect, and settle for nothing less. Andrew Niccol's message is quite sinister - the human race will be lead to its destruction if one's genome's significance surpasses the significance of their character, which is one asset that cannot be determined by a molecule of DNA.

 Criticism will be much appreciated!
This is actually really nicely written for the majority of it.
The things you need to do to get marks:
show textual knowledge,
analyse well
write/structure your essay nicely

You've done the third pretty well, but in Year 12 you'll want to quote more to show textual knowledge, but mostly to springboard your analysis of the text in relation to the prompt.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Yacoubb on August 31, 2013, 03:14:05 pm
This is actually really nicely written for the majority of it.
The things you need to do to get marks:
show textual knowledge,
analyse well
write/structure your essay nicely

You've done the third pretty well, but in Year 12 you'll want to quote more to show textual knowledge, but mostly to springboard your analysis of the text in relation to the prompt.


Thanks a lot :) That's really helpful, and I appreciate the time you've taken to do this!

How much would you give out of 10 for this essay? I mean, my knowledge of this text is far from flawless. I know that next year, I'll be using a lot more textual evidence.

What's one way of not making my reference to the viewer being so general?

Thanks
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on August 31, 2013, 04:09:49 pm
You're really welcome :)

Ah, I really don't like giving marks out of 10 haha - at what standard? The end of Year 12?

Well, those things you'd like to say about the viewer recognising and whatever else, just put that into your analysis with metalanguage or authorial verbs (X Author demonstrates, reinforces, illuminates, highlights, asserts, conveys etc etc etc)

By the film's resolution, the viewer <the director's name> recognises demonstrates that although a Utopian world would involve the eradication of diseases and the improvement of the human race medically, several ethical issues lie that could pose to be threatening to the social structure of the human race.

Attributing it to the author evades the type of "how do you know?" thing, because the author can demonstrate things and not do it deliberately. So I'd just say "Author demonstrates that...." or "<image> symbolises that...", does that make sense?
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Yacoubb on August 31, 2013, 05:22:15 pm
You're really welcome :)

Ah, I really don't like giving marks out of 10 haha - at what standard? The end of Year 12?

Well, those things you'd like to say about the viewer recognising and whatever else, just put that into your analysis with metalanguage or authorial verbs (X Author demonstrates, reinforces, illuminates, highlights, asserts, conveys etc etc etc)

By the film's resolution, the viewer <the director's name> recognises demonstrates that although a Utopian world would involve the eradication of diseases and the improvement of the human race medically, several ethical issues lie that could pose to be threatening to the social structure of the human race.

Attributing it to the author evades the type of "how do you know?" thing, because the author can demonstrate things and not do it deliberately. So I'd just say "Author demonstrates that...." or "<image> symbolises that...", does that make sense?

I see :) Thanks

And a mark of standard at the end of yr 11 and then one for the end of year 12 :)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on August 31, 2013, 05:25:11 pm
Hm. Well, at my school I suppose this would get close to full marks in Year 11 lol. For an end of year Year 12 exam, maybe a 4 or 5?
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Yacoubb on August 31, 2013, 05:26:04 pm
Hm. Well, at my school I suppose this would get close to full marks in Year 11 lol. For an end of year Year 12 exam, maybe a 4 or 5?

Oh God that is so bad.... I need to work really hard next year!
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on August 31, 2013, 05:26:55 pm
...If it makes you feel any better, a guy on the forums gave me a 4 for an essay I wrote in a practise SAC halfway through the year :P
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Yacoubb on August 31, 2013, 05:29:25 pm
...If it makes you feel any better, a guy on the forums gave me a 4 for an essay I wrote in a practise SAC halfway through the year :P

Over this summer, I'm going to read A Christmas Carol (our first text) a few times, and write a whole lot of essays, and hopefully get some people on the forum (including you) to read them, correct them. I want a 40+ for English, and I hope I can reach a 8+/10 by mid-year next year.

Thanks a lot :) I appreciate it!
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on August 31, 2013, 05:31:16 pm
Hahahaha, I think that is a very probably outcome. You're very welcome :)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: pi on August 31, 2013, 05:31:59 pm
In year 11 English, my first para of any text response was a summary of the text... So yeah, you guys are MILES ahead of me LOL and I did ok at the end of year 12 :)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: chasej on August 31, 2013, 10:52:28 pm
I would really like some feedback on my essay about Macbeth just to see how I stack up (my teacher marked this one but I would like a second opinion). Thanks so much :) .


It is the ambition of Lady Macbeth that fully drives Macbeth’s actions. To what extent do you agree?



Throughout the story of Macbeth the theme of ambition of the characters, for the most part Macbeth and his partner Lady Macbeth is at the forefront and is a catalyst for all the happenings of the play that ultimately lead to the demise of Macbeth. Macbeth however is not an ambitious man himself, and it is not until he is given a false sense of security by others he possesses enough motivation to follow through with his desire to become king of Scotland. This motivation comes from Lady Macbeth who is a stronger, more ambitious and spontaneous person and to a lesser extent three witches who meddle with Macbeth’s life.

After hearing about the witches prophecies Macbeth is convinced that he will become kind naturally as the two prior prophecies, that he would become Thane of Glamis and Cawdor happen quite naturally with no effort by Macbeth. An issue arises with the third prophecy, King Duncan has to great disappointment of Macbeth, named is song, Prince of Cumberland, his successor the throne. It is at this time Macbeth realises more decisive action needs to be taken if he wishes to become kind as prophesized by the witches as evidenced by this said by Macbeth himself “The Prince of Cumberland! That is a step…On which I must fall down, or else o’er leap….For in my way it lies.” Macbeth however is uncertain about this and it is not until encouragement from Lady Macbeth where she tells him to “Screw…[his]… courage to the sticking-place” does he choose to go ahead with his plans, it is from this we can see that Lady Macbeth is a catalyst to Macbeth’s desires.

In fact Lady Macbeth makes her desires no secret to the audience of the play and the very first time she is introduced, through reading a note from Macbeth regarding the prophecies, she makes her desires clear to herself and immediately begins plotting ways that Macbeth can become king, ultimately by committing the most evil of evils, murder and not just that, treason at the highest level, murder of their own king. All for Lady Macbeth’s own personal gain and constant desire for power. Lady Macbeth at first introduction is truly portrayed as an evil women who does want to comply with societies views of what a women should be at the time, perhaps further demonstrating that she was evil and actually played more of a part to Macbeth’s fate than the witches did after all Lady Macbeth was the women who Macbeth had to of trusted and confided in the most as his wife. It would make sense that the fact Macbeth had involved himself with such an evil person that eventually some of this evilness would rub of onto him.

It however cannot be ignored that Macbeth had other influences which ultimately led to his demise, such as the witches who spurred him on by giving him false sense of securities and providing him with vague predictions of his future which certainly did give Macbeth a skewed view of his circumstances. However all that can be seen and to some extent evidenced as to having had any influence of Macbeth in a physical sense is the words of Lady Macbeth, as after all the witches only provide Macbeth with vague predictions of his future rather than planning for him exactly what to do in order to make these predictions come true, in fact the person who does this is Lady Macbeth.

In conclusion it is my belief that Macbeth was heavily influenced by Lady Macbeth, much more so than the witches or himself, as although the witches and Macbeth himself had a general idea as to what would happen or should happen to Macbeth, it wasn’t until Lady Macbeth came into the equation that an actual plan was able to be put together and executed which ultimately were able to make the predictions of the witches and ambitions of Macbeth come true.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: silverpixeli on September 01, 2013, 10:44:37 pm
Hey guys, see what you think of my first On the Waterfront essay! Didn't manage to get anything about film techniques in but I think the essay question made that a little difficult. Open time, open book (script) and 1010 words all up!

EDIT: SAC is over, I feel I wrote a much better piece than this, I have written a few since and feel I no longer need feedback on this one in particular, but feel free to critique it for the benefit of others

Quote
“It's an unhealthy relationship!” In what ways does this statement suggest the moral problems and conflicts in the film?

   Elia Kazan's On the Waterfront tells the story of the underworld of 1940s Hoboken, New Jersey and the culture of corruption that permeated the city's docks. The film noir centres around Terry Malloy and his ambivalent struggle for freedom from the venal longshoreman's union headed by Johnny Friendly. The mob tries to convince Terry that his relationship with Edie Doyle, an idealistic and innocent young woman, is an 'unhealthy' one, alluding to the dichotomy of perspective that exists between the mobsters and Edie. Initially, Terry and the dockworkers share the point of view held by the mob, but they are challenged to stand up against the corruption by Father Barry and Edie. In the end, Terry chooses his relationship with Edie over his ties to the union and is able to morally redeem himself.

   The moral perspective held by the dock's power brokers presents a stark contrast to that of the idealistic Edie Doyle. Despite being at the head of a major criminal operation, Charley and Friendly are unable to see the wrong in their actions. The mobsters exploit the workers and maintain that '[they're] entitled to it', and Johnny is able to justify his surreptitious actions by explaining how he had to 'work his way up out of [the hole]' as a child. The union members seem to be blind to the immorality of their operation, and are even able to laugh off the death of a worker, Joey Doyle – 'he could sing but he couldn't fly' – just because it put their avaricious scheme at risk. In contrast, Edie is of the firm belief that it can't be okay to just cut people in your way down. She asserts her desire to stay and 'find out who's guilty for Joey', demonstrating that she is unable to see the immoral perspective of the mob. Unlike Edie, the mob's point of view is shared, at least initially, by Terry and the longshoremen.

   The browbeaten and disenfranchised dockworkers share a seemingly unshakeable view, impressed on them by the power brokers, and this perspective causes problems when exposed to Father Barry's just ideology. 'D and D' is the code held strongly by the longshoremen, 'no matter how much we hate the torpedoes, we don't rat'. It is considered dishonourable to even speak to police about the corruption on the docks. This self-destructive paradigm is so entrenched in the workers that Pop Doyle is unwilling to assist an officer immediately after his own son has been cruelly murdered by Friendly's gang. The culture of silence has a similar hold on Terry, who acts disrespectfully to cops, blatantly telling a pair of crime commissioners that he's 'not saying nothing'. Father Barry presents the dockworkers with the seemingly alien idea that they are only hurting themselves by pontificating the aphorism 'what's ratting to them is telling the truth to you!' As a consequence of Father Barry's outspokenness, the church is attacked, evidencing the issues that occur when Terry and the workers are subjected to a new way of thinking that does not favour the mob's culture of subservience.

   The view held by the waterfront is challenged by the arrival and interruption of Father Barry and Edie, leading to further conflict. Father Barry's breaking of the literal silence in the church foreshadows his impact on Kayo Dugan, a dockworker who 'sings to the crime commission', breaking the unspoken code of 'D and D' followed by all the stevedores. This leads to Dugan's murder, clearly demonstrating the consequences of the clash of perspectives between the priest and the mob. In a powerful sermon delivered from the bottom of the cargo hold, Father Barry outlines the importance of standing up and manages to get through to Terry by utilising a boxing metaphor, 'knock em out for good'. Coupled with Terry's nascent feelings for Edie and his desire to help her, this drives Terry to admit his complicity in her brother's murder, leaving Edie distraught and Terry alone on a pile of rubble, symbolising the ruins of his late world of corruption and immorality. The couple's confrontation further evidences the conflict that can arise from differences in moral perspectives.

   Kazan uses the film to demonstrate that through choosing a righteous perspective over one of corruption, one is able to free oneself from guilt. Terry's journey from subservient 'bum' to liberated 'somebody' is galvanised by his change of perspective. Terry was once controlled by Friendly, who 'bought a piece' of him as a child, but ends up  refusing an attractive bribe from his brother, '400 dollars a week ... You don't do nothing and you don't say nothing'. His refusal illustrates his newfound moral strength and desire to help Edie. Terry is also persuaded by Father Barry to 'fight [Johnny Friendly] in the court with the truth' rather than 'like a hoodlum' with his gun, leading to the first step in the unraveling of Friendly's power. Terry's testimony places him in disfavour with the workers, but his declaration that he's 'standing over here now' and his fight with Johnny Friendly are enough to win him back their approval. Terry has gained Edie's forgiveness, Father Barry's approval and the favour of the longshoremen, and has hence redeemed himself from his corrupt past.

   Through On the Waterfront, Kazan demonstrates an extensive disparity of moral perspectives, including that of the mob and that of Edie, but also extending to that of the dockworkers and Father Barry. The dichotomy of morals held by the characters is enough to cause significant conflict, but larger problems arise when perspectives change. Kayo Dugan is killed as a result of Father Barry's breaking of the culture of silence, and Terry's exile from the ranks of the docks occurs when he testifies with the truth. In the end, however, it is only through the adoption of the righteous point of view, the choosing of the “healthy” relationship, that Terry is able to secure his own salvation from guilt and corruption. In doing so, Terry manages to liberate himself and the tainted docks from the now powerless Johnny Friendly.

Edits: Typo and italicised film title
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: tcstudent on September 15, 2013, 10:49:37 am
sorry to go off topic, but the feedback given on 12AM is amazing, yet also really funny in one of the essays when brencookie hates the word ''We''. i just wish i could find this blokes house and demand some tutoring on 12AM
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: jeanweasley on September 16, 2013, 07:48:46 pm
Hi all. I just got back my SAC response (below) and am interested in reworking it. Any tips/suggestions/criticisms? Post them below (:

In Ransom, Malouf reveals the deeper truths that make us fully human.

Silhouetted against the backdrop of war torn Troy, David Malouf highlights the importance of being human. Malouf suggests that to be human is to face the harshness of life and still persevere. This is exhibited through Somax who, despite his losses is still motivated to live his life. Malouf also indicates that it is the ordinary and simply that truly makes us human; Somax’s fascination with the world around him is endorsed by Malouf as an ideal for humanity – that we as ordinary people are connected through experience and the art of storytelling. Malour also indicates through Priam and Achilles’ transformations, that being human, being ordinary and simple is liberating. As a contrast, Malouf also depicts the futility of war and the human cost attributed to it which he suggests is a product of the darkness of human nature.

Malouf endorses that despite the challenges of reality, that humans should still persevere and accept the ordinariness of life. Here, Somax is utilised to depict Malouf’s intent as Somax represents ordinary people who love their families and works hard to give them the best future. Somax, despite the death of his sons and wife still has the courage to move past his grief and continue to live his life. While he does not forget about them, he advises Priam that despite what he has suffered that ‘we go on for all our losses’ because ‘we are mortal’ and that ‘death is in our nature’. Furthermore, Somax replies that even if he felt like punching Beauty that it would not have done any good as it ‘wouldn’t bring [his son] back’. Moreover, Somax through his stories contributes to the human experience which Malouf believes is important. Somax through his stories is able to give insight into the life of a commoner to a king which enables Priam to experience something different. The symbol of griddlecakes is utilised by Malouf to represent Priam’s isolation from a world that is to be appreciated. Somax’s simple stories, whilst not ‘necessary’ or important is ‘full of interest’. Similarly, Malouf uses beauty and the Scamander River to indicate that it is man’s connection with nature that contribute to the human experience. Somax’s affection for Beauty and of nature is symbolic of man’s institution and human nature because it is these things like eating a griddlecake or ‘dabbl[ing] [your] feet in the water’ that is able to connect us from what Malouf endorses we should appreciate.

Priam’s humanity is established when he decides to ransom his son. Hector not as a king but ‘as a father’. This simple act is utilised to show the transformation Priam makes from being a ‘ceremonial figurehead’ who has ‘good Idaeus…find words for [him]’ to a simple and ordinary man dressed in a ‘plain robe’ and without his riches. This transformation is indicative of Priam being unable to express his dual identity because of his role as king and as ‘the living map’ of Troy. However, through Somax, he is able to understand that his relationship with his sons was not at all paternal but ‘formal and symbolic’. Through Somax, Priam is changed, he is in fact ransomed and redeemed frm the burden of being king; and through claiming Hector’s body, Priam has undergone a journey of transformation as he fulfils his wish to be remembered as a man and especially as a father.

Similarly, Achilles is transformed through the ransom between Priam and himself as he is able to let go of the grief that had ‘consumed him’. While he ‘wept…wept with restraint’ for Patroclus’ death, it is not until he accepts Priam’s fatherly appeal that he realises that he should have been viewing Hector not as an ‘implacable enemy’ but as a noble warrior and a great opponent in battle. Malouf demonstrates humanity through Achilles’ realisation and his redemption from grief. Malouf argues that humans should not hold onto grief but should have the ability to, like Somax, accept the difficulty of life and persevere.

Despite Malouf’s positive portrayals of humanity, the presence of war and its effects is indicative of the human cost of war and the destruction it brings to ordinary citizens. Malouf in his post modern view depicts an anti-war sentiment and describes it as futile and irrational through the landscape of ‘utter devastation’ where women ‘scaven[ge] for relics’ and where children are ‘kidnapped as new recruits’. In his retelling, Malouf is able to appeal to modern audience and help to convince them that war through its destruction and devastating effects serves no purpose and that it is in fact the ‘marauders’ that contribute to the destruction of humanity.

Malouf’s Ransom reveals the importance of humanity through Somax’s perseverance in times of difficulty and appreciation for the simple and ordinary. Moreover, through Priam and Achilles’ transformation, humanity is present as it shows that it is impossible to change and be human despite situations. However, Malouf also condemns the destruction that humans create and argues that it is destructive and futile.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on September 20, 2013, 07:16:49 pm
This is a Ransom text response responding to the prompt :

"This old fellow, like most storytellers, is a stealer of other men's tales, of other men's lives"
'Malouf uses Ransom to explore the significance of storytelling.


David Malouf explores the power of storytelling through Ransom, a retelling of Homer's Iliad. Malouf proposes that storytelling gives ordinary humans monopoly over their fates and enables them to create their legacy in a world dominated by Gods. It is these simple stories that Malouf suggests fosters the human experience and acts as a way of connecting humanity together. Through the inclusion of Somax, Malouf establishes the importance of ordinary people in literary tradition. Sotires are not told only about heroes of the era and in Ransom, it is the ordinary people like Somax who are real heroes. As a paradigm, Malouf himself is a 'stealer of other men's tales' and he is able to examine the power of storytelling through the inclusion or exclusion of detail. Moreover Malouf acknowledges that sometimes stories can be distorted and identities may be robbed, perhaps alluding to his retelling of Homer's epic. In essence, Malouf is intent on exploring the significance of storytelling not only in literary tradition but in normal human experience.Nice intro, seems pretty sound, (think this might be the first Ransom essay I've marked, though). The first half of the intro has sentences of pretty similar length that creates a stop-start effect, but it isn't really a big deal (just there if you want to get really perfectionist on it)

Humans do not have full control in Ransom, yet Malouf suggests that through storytelling, humans are able to control their fate and choose to live or act in a way that they want to be perceived or remembered. Strong topic sentencePriam's desire to be perceived as an ordinary man instead of a king propels his doing of 'something new' and 'unheard of' by ransoming his son's body from Achilles. Here, Malouf utilises the imagery of the knot to represent Priam's self-consciousness and his longing to feel like a normal person instead of a 'ceremonial' king whose face is Troy's 'living map'. Malouf also alludes to the fact that when Priam was ransomed, he lost his identity as 'Podarces' and became Priam, the 'price paid'. This transformation from a pampered 'lord of pleasures' to an 'indistinguishable' person is a testament that at any time, Priam could lose everything he has and start all over again. This motivates him to engage in the notion of chance that in a  awkwardworld where Gods interfere, it is also possible for one to alter their fate. This gives Priam the ability to find himself as a normal person, especially a grieving father whose mission it is is to redeem his son.  Thus, the act of ransoming gives Priam the ability to be remembered not for the destruction of Troy and his death but for his simple act, an act that 'any man might do'. Hm, could potentially have linked back stronger to the significance of story telling toward the end of this paragraph (I could be wrong, perhaps there are implicit links that I'm missing without having read the text). Otherwise, your knowledge and analysis seem to be going nicely.

Similarly, Achilles' knowledge knowledge of his 'fated' and 'inevitable death leads him to resist it. He, like Priamneeds another comma here (I think you left one out above, it should have one after "Moreover" - might be a habit of yours to look into? suffers from the balance of their dual selves as he represses the one in order to fulfil the other. Achilles becomes liberated by the ransom and is able to let go of the rage that had consumed him to be remembered as a father and son in giving Hector'd body back. However, Malouf suggest that living a life worth telling stories about?is only a 'provisional triumph' because the Gods still have full control over humans, yet they are offered a role to play in their own lives.

Malouf emphasises the need to connect with humanity through the power of story. Somax, the 'chatterer' epitomises what man's connection with nature and life should be. Somax takes pleasure in doing simple things, eating griddlecakes, taking a rest or dabbling his feet in the water. It is these things that Malouf suggest that humans should place emphasis on. The symbolism of the cakes is a representation of the simple things in life and also Priam's isolation with the world. His role as king has detached him from what should become instinctual to himdetached him implies that he was once attached to something (obvs), however, then you use "become" instinctual, which implies it is yet to happen, so that needs to be sorted. Moreover, the double use of "him" makes it sound awkward - be conscious of that, yet it takes a common man, a cartera comma here, too (which would be slightly stuttery, consider 'common carter'? to remind him that he is a 'chil[d] or nature...of earth, as well as of the Gods. Achilles' liberation from his grief is successful because of the fatherly appeal between him and Priam. Priam invites Achilles to understand that Achilles should have been thinking of Hector as a worthy competitor and not an 'implacable enemy'. Malouf, as a storyteller invites us to consider the power that stories can have over people as it foster the human connection. Like Achilles who is filled with grief and rage, he is able to feel that 'something in him has feed itself and fallen away'.

Through the inclusion of Somax, Malouf has achieved a new meaning of the Iliad for modern readers. Malouf positions the reader to consider that stories are not told only of about the warriors or kings but also about ordinary people. In Somax, Malouf has given him the courage to face the challenges of life and to go on despite these challenges. For example, Somax does not, unlike Achilles, avenge the death of his son but instead learns to accept it as a fact of life and concludes that 'we go on...[f]or all our losses'. This perception of life and how it functions is epitomised in Somax and as a surrogate of Malouf's authorship, readers are asked to consider the advantages of a simple and ordinary life and how as ordinary people, we can create our own legacy. Here Somax is remembered by readers of Ransom as a herocomma as he had has the power - write in present tensethe power to influence Priam to liberate him from his restrictive life as king. Despite this, Malouf adds thatcould also use comma[/b] though stories can be told time after time, sometimes meanings can be lost and identities can be robbed. Perhaps, Malouf himself is alluding to the fact that he has, in a sense, stolen Homer's identity in retelling the Iliad and discarding the use of epithets and introducing a post modernist view on writing - a focus on psychology and physical and mental challenges and not on the typical protagonist adventure. wow

Furthermore, somax is robbed of his identity when he becamebecomes Idaeus and is reduced to a 'hundred [year] old' man who 'drinks too much'. This, Malouf considers is one?? of the negative aspects of storytelling as sometimes storytellers are discredited for the stories that they tell. This is also present in Priam's recollection of his childhood as his story is ignored because of the reputation he has to uphold as king.

Ransom is a testament to the power of storytelling as a tool of connecting people together, especially in a society overshadowed by restrictions and responsibilities. Malouf also emphasises the control offered by storytelling to create one's legacy as well as storyteller's monopoly over their stories to create meaning for their readers.

---
Phew. Didn't think it was going to be this long. It was only three pages on paper :P
This seems like it would be a pretty high-scoring essay. I think from memory, you also write on Year of Wonders? I think either text would be suitable for the exam. I do have pretty positive memories of your YoW essay(s?), though.
Keep your writing in present tense.
You might choose to ignore my comma advice; I'm a big fan of commas. I do think, however, that you should be wary of using one comma where two might improve your writing. (For example, writing something like "I do think, however that you should"). Might be a 'feel' thing, because I can't say in terms of grammar/punctuation rules why you should be using the comma. Personally, I think that your sentences would have been better with an extra comma where indicated.
Seems like you have good knowledge and analysis, however, that's guesswork on my behalf.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: jeanweasley on September 21, 2013, 01:38:44 pm
This seems like it would be a pretty high-scoring essay. I think from memory, you also write on Year of Wonders? I think either text would be suitable for the exam. I do have pretty positive memories of your YoW essay(s?), though.
Keep your writing in present tense.
You might choose to ignore my comma advice; I'm a big fan of commas. I do think, however, that you should be wary of using one comma where two might improve your writing. (For example, writing something like "I do think, however that you should"). Might be a 'feel' thing, because I can't say in terms of grammar/punctuation rules why you should be using the comma. Personally, I think that your sentences would have been better with an extra comma where indicated.
Seems like you have good knowledge and analysis, however, that's guesswork on my behalf.

Thanks Brenden! I can always count on you. About the comma issue, I don't really know how to use them. Haha.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: jeanweasley on September 24, 2013, 09:33:47 am
I would really like some feedback on my essay about Macbeth just to see how I stack up (my teacher marked this one but I would like a second opinion). Thanks so much :) .


It is the ambition of Lady Macbeth that fully drives Macbeth’s actions. To what extent do you agree?


Sorry, it's going to be short and will skim most things as I'm lacking in time but feel free to message me if you're concerned about my feedback. Thank you (:

Throughout the storyEliminate this pedestrian style of writing. Nothing is ever 'throughout' unless it is in every page and 'story' is like a simple word writers use if they don't know what they're actually talking about. Every text is a story and it's pretty obvious so why bother writing the word story? How about 'play' since it is a play and it's more specific? of Macbeth the theme of ambitionThis is a no-no. Never ever use the word 'theme' because it doesn't add complexity to your writing and immediately detracts the assessor from actually giving your response a high score. of the characters, for the most part Macbeth and his partneras denoted by the name Lady Macbeth is the partner and the use of the word partner is awkward, perhaps just leave it. Lady Macbeth is at the forefront and is a catalyst for all the happenings of the play that ultimately lead to the demise of Macbeth. Macbeth however is not an ambitious man himself, and it is not until he is given a false sense of security by others he possesses enough motivation to follow through with his desire to become king of Scotland. This motivation comes from Lady Macbeth who is a stronger, more ambitious and spontaneous person and to a lesser extent three witches who meddle with Macbeth’s life.Great ideas here but I think they need to be stronger. Whilst you say that Lady Macbeth is the catalyst for most events in the play, you need to link it to the fact that she is also influential to Macbeth. Macbeth himself is also responsible so perhaps put that in. Discussion of fate in the intro as well as the society that is based in honour in ranking might also be helpful. Mention of the playwright is also important. Don't forget that Macbeth was written by Shakespeare!

After hearing about the witches prophecies, Macbeth is convinced that he will become kind gnaturally as the two prior prophecies, 'two prior prophecies sound weird when you read the whole sentencethat he would become Thane of Glamis and Cawdor happen quite naturally don't know what quite naturally meanswith no effort by Macbeth. An issue arises with the third prophecy, King Duncan has to great disappointment of Macbeth, named is song, Prince of Cumberland, his successor the throne. It is at this time Macbeth realises more decisive action needs to be taken if he wishes to become kind as prophesized by the witches as evidenced by this said by Macbeth himself “The Prince of Cumberland! That is a step…On which I must fall down, or else o’er leap….For in my way it lies.” Macbeth however is uncertain about this and it is not until encouragement from Lady Macbeth where she tells him to “Screw…[his]… courage to the sticking-place”good use of quote but structure is somewhat lacking in explaining the significance of this evidence. does he choose to go ahead with his plans, it is from this we can see that Lady Macbeth is a catalyst to Macbeth’s desires. A tinge of retelling of the story here and it is not until the last sentence that the idea for the paragraph is introduced. I think that this paragraph should begin discussing Lady Macbeth being the catalyst to Macbeth's desires and explain the significance of Lady Macbeth's position as the wife of Macbeth. Also, you could mention that there is somewhat a role reversal because Macbeth is completely submissive to his wife's whim as compared to LM who just gives orders.

In fact Lady Macbeth makes her desires no secret to the audience of the play and the very first time she is introduced, through reading a note from Macbeth regarding the prophecies, she makes her desires clear to herself and immediately begins plotting ways that Macbeth can become king, ultimately by committing the most evil of evils, murder and not just that, treason at the highest level, murder of their own king. Massive sentence! Shorten it and make it more concise. This topic sentence doesn't really introduce what you're going to say. In fact it is a retelling and a comment about Lady Macbeth's introduction in the play.All for Lady Macbeth’s own personal gain and constant desire for power. This is a fragment - it's not a complete sentence. Lady Macbeth at first introduction is truly portrayed as an evil women who does want to comply with societies views of what a women should be at the time, perhaps further demonstrating that she was evil and actually played more of a part to Macbeth’s fate than the witches did after all Lady Macbeth was the women who Macbeth had to of trusted and confided in the most as his wife. It would make sense that the fact Macbeth had involved himself with such an evil person that eventually some of this evilness would rub of onto him.

What is it?It however cannot be ignored that Macbeth had other influences Since you're introducing the fact that there are other influences in regards to Macbeth's actions, just jump to that idea and don't provide a back up sentence where you introduce everything to the reader. Assume that whoever is reading your piece knows the text but is reading your piece to gain some in depth understanding about the ideas and intentions of the play.which ultimately led to his demise, such as the witches who spurred him on by giving him false sense of securities and providing him with vague predictions of his future which certainly did give Macbeth a skewed view of his circumstances. However all that can be seen and to some extent evidenced as to having had any influence of Macbeth in a physical sense is the words of Lady Macbeth, as after all the witches only provide Macbeth with vague predictions of his future rather than planning for him exactly what to do in order to make these predictions come true, in fact the person who does this is Lady Macbeth.

In conclusion If it's the last paragraph, it's probably a conclusion. This is a no-no. If your chosen words or phrases don't add anything to your piece then leave it out. It's better to have short and concise paragraphs than long ones. it is myNo-no. Assessors don't care about your opinion. Don't write this in. belief that Macbeth was heavily influenced by Lady Macbeth, much more so than the witches or himself, as although the witches and Macbeth himself had a general idea as to what would happen or should happen to Macbeth, it wasn’t until Lady Macbeth came into the equation that an actual plan was able to be put together and executed which ultimately were able to make the predictions of the witches and ambitions of Macbeth come true. This whole sentence is so long. It's basically a paragraph. Lots of run on sentences that need to be cut down here. Essay supports the topic completely but does not explore other reasons such as fate, society's influence, Macbeth's own greed in regards to the topic. Topic sentences need to be clear and discuss the idea for the paragraph. Some retelling is evident in the piece. Shakespeare's intentions also need some exploration. More textual evidence needs to be included and relevant discussion about its significance needs to be clear.

Suggestions for improvement:
* Have clearer topic sentences
* Cut down on 'back up sentences' - get straight to the point
* Avoid just blatantly agreeing with the topic - offer two sides to the story, either you partially agree or you partially disagree
* Include enough evidence to support your contention and discuss the significance of it
* Perhaps re-read the text to understand Shakespeare's intent as this needs to be discussed
* Language used needs to be more complex and avoid using words that basically spell out everything for your reader

Overall, I think you're on the right track.

Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: jeanweasley on September 27, 2013, 07:28:56 pm
For those interested, I have reworked it although the changes aren't exhaustive. If there are anymore possible changes for this essay, please comment below. I'd love to hear from you (:

"This old fellow, like most storytellers, is a stealer of other men's tales, of other men's lives"
'Malouf uses Ransom to explore the significance of storytelling.

David Malouf explores the power of storytelling through Ransom, a retelling of Homer's Iliad. Malouf proposes that storytelling gives ordinary humans monopoly over their fates and enables them to create their legacy in a world dominated by Gods. It is these simple stories, which Malouf suggests fosters the human experience and connects humanity together. Through the inclusion of Somax, Malouf establishes the importance of ordinary people in literary tradition as stories are told not only about heroes of the era but also the ordinary people that truly represent heroism. As a paradigm, Malouf himself is a 'stealer of other men's tales' and he is able to examine the power of storytelling through the inclusion or exclusion of detail. Moreover, Malouf acknowledges that sometimes stories can be distorted and identities may be robbed, perhaps alluding to his retelling of Homer's epic. In essence, Malouf is intent on exploring the significance of storytelling not only in literary tradition but in normal human experience.

Humans do not have full control in Ransom, yet Malouf suggests that through storytelling, humans are able to control their fate and choose to live or act in a way that they want to be perceived or remembered. Priam's desire to be perceived as an ordinary man instead of a king propels his doing of 'something new' and 'unheard of' by ransoming his son's body from Achilles. Here, Malouf utilises the imagery of the knot to represent Priam's self-consciousness and his longing to feel like a normal person, instead of a 'ceremonial' king whose face is Troy's 'living map'. Malouf also alludes to the fact that when Priam was ransomed, he lost his identity as 'Podarces' and became Priam, the 'price paid'. This transformation from a pampered 'lord of pleasures' to an 'indistinguishable' person is a testament that, at any time, Priam could lose everything he has and start all over again. Priam, therefore is motivated to engage in the notion of chance despite social customs of allowing one’s fate to be controlled by the Gods. In turn, he is given the ability to discover his humanity through his redemption of Hector’s body. Thus, the act of ransom gives Priam the capacity to be remembered for future generations not for the foreseeable destruction of Troy but for his simple act that, he ‘as a father’, or ‘any man’ might do to demonstrate their paternal love for their sons.

Similarly, Achilles' knowledge of his 'fated' and 'inevitable’ death leads him to resist it. He, like Priam, suffers from the balance of their dual selves as he represses the one in order to fulfil the other. Achilles becomes liberated by the ransom and is able to let go of the rage that had consumed him to be remembered as a father and son in giving Hector's body back. However, Malouf suggests that living a life worth telling stories about is only a 'provisional triumph' because the Gods still have full control over humans, yet they are offered a role to play in their own lives.

Malouf emphasises the need to connect with humanity through the power of story. Somax, the 'chatterer' epitomises what man's connection with nature and life should be. Somax takes pleasure in doing simple things: eating griddlecakes, taking a rest or dabbling his feet in the water. It is these things that Malouf suggest that humans should place emphasis on. The symbolism of the cakes is a representation of the simple things in life and Priam's isolation with the world. His role as king has isolated him from what should be instinctual to him, yet it takes a common carter to remind Priam that he is a 'chil[d] or nature...of earth, as well as of the Gods. In addition, Achilles' liberation from his grief is successful because of the fatherly appeal between him and Priam. Priam invites Achilles to understand that Achilles should have been thinking of Hector as a worthy competitor and not an 'implacable enemy'. Malouf, as a storyteller, invites us to consider the power that stories can have over people as it fosters the human connection. Like Achilles who is filled with grief and rage, he is able to feel that 'something in him has fe[d] itself and fallen away'.

Through the inclusion of Somax, Malouf has achieved a new meaning of the Iliad for modern readers. Malouf positions the reader to consider that stories are not told only about warriors or kings, but also about ordinary people. Malouf gives Somax the courage to face the challenges of life and to preserve despite these challenges.  For example, Somax does not, unlike Achilles, avenge the death of his son but instead learns to accept it as a fact of life and concludes that 'we go on...[f]or all our losses'. This perception of life and how it functions is epitomised in Somax, and as a surrogate of Malouf's authorship, readers are asked to consider the advantages of a simple and ordinary life and how, as ordinary people, we can create our own legacy. Here, Somax is remembered by readers of Ransom as a hero, as he has  the power to influence Priam to liberate him from his restrictive life as king. Despite this, Malouf adds that, though stories can be told time after time, sometimes meanings can be lost and identities can be robbed. Perhaps, Malouf himself is alluding to the fact that he has, in a sense, stolen Homer's identity in retelling the Iliad and discarding the use of epithets and introducing a post modernist view on writing - a focus on psychology and physical and mental challenges and not on the typical protagonist adventure. 
Furthermore, Somax is robbed of his identity when he becomes Idaeus and is reduced to a 'hundred [year] old' man who 'drinks too much'. This, Malouf considers is the negative aspect of storytelling as storytellers are sometimes discredited for the stories they tell. This is also present in Priam's recollection of his childhood, as his story is ignored because of the reputation he has to uphold as king.

Ransom is a testament to the power of storytelling as a tool of connecting people together, especially in a society overshadowed by restrictions and responsibilities. Malouf also emphasises the control offered by storytelling to create one's legacy as well as storyteller's monopoly over their stories to create meaning for their readers.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Smiley_ on September 28, 2013, 12:14:02 pm
Edited version of my piece

On the waterfront is a story about the battle between good and evil. Do you agree?




In the film “On the Waterfront, the director, Elia Kazan presents the corruption and injustice on the Hoboken docks. The 1954 film portrays the moral and emotional growth of Terry Malloy as well as presenting characters as good and evil. Kazan presents those who fight against injustices as superior as well as those who give protection and those who are cause of these injustices as corrupt and unjust.

The film implies that honourable men are those who stand up to the injustices that are occurring around them. Joey Doyle is presented as powerful and brave at the beginning of the film, while standing on the top of the building using a low shot. This is juxtaposed with the next scene as he is seen tumbling to his death because of what he has previously done, met with the Crime Commissioners to expose the corrupt dealings of the docklands. The struggle between good and evil is presented as “the best kid in the neighbourhood” who is seen to have done something positive for the longshoremen is murdered without a thought. Joey Doyle was not the only person who decided to stand up and fight for what he believed in. K.O the warm-hearted tough longshoremen also spoke out and “did all the talking” all “39 pages” of the corrupt unions operation. This talking was not rewarded as just like Joey, he was murdered by the people he was trying to stop. Showing how the battle between what is right and what is wrong is ever continuing.

Father Barry and Edie Doyle aim to instil values of goodness and moral judgement into Terry as well as them working together to help rid the docks or corruption. Hoboken is dirty, grimy, cold and arid this provides a contrast with Edie Doyle, with her white hair and neat clothes, she is presented as virtuous with high moral values. When she finds out that he brothers death was not an accident she is determined to find out what happened and not to go back to “things that things that are just in books”. She takes on Terry at the “Shape Up” fighting for a token so that her father can earn some money that day showing that she is brave and not afraid to take on men bigger than her, in order to achieve what she wants. Edie has abiding faith in Terry and his capacity to change. She urges him to “care for everybody else” and do what is right. Stand up against the Mob. Father Barry also is there fore Terry when he needs guidance he tells Terry that “what’s ratting for them is telling the truth for you” even though Terry says that if he spills his “life ain’t worth more than a nickel”. Father Barry realises that just fulfilling his liturgical role in the church is not enough for the people of Hoboken and that he needs to fight against the corruption. He does this by holding  the “sermon in the hold” we the mob pelt him with rubbish just like Jesus was pelted on his way to Calvary. Even while being hit in the face he does not give up his fight against injustice.

The dirty, hazy world of the docks is ruled by corrupt bosses and their unions. Tulio and Truck both appealing together in the film, present a vicious fight against anyone who tries to stand up for themselves or others. Truck has the wit the make a joke that Joey was a canary “who could sing, but he couldn't fly” and Tulio has a personality that is wholly submerged in his role as “muscle”. Johnny Friendly is the physically imposing, moody unpredictable man who controls the waterfront and the lives of thousands of people. He is a ruthless and vicious man who fought his way to the top and will not give it up easily. He is a man who is practiced and skilled in humiliation especially of the weak including Terry during the scene where Friendly and Charlie Berate him for not reporting on Dugan’s decision Johhny mocks him saying that “Your brains must be rattling” showing just how much of “a cheap, lousy  dirty stinkin mug” he truly is. Even once Terry has taken down Johhny the corruption on the Waterfront is still there due to the presence of Mr Upstairs. Mr Upstairs, the audience never sees his face, we only see him from the back. He just watches over everything never getting involved in the waterfront incidents. Through these characters Elia Kazan presents the immoral side to the battle.

Charlie and Terry both begin by just carrying out order from the mob but also are caring towards each other and the people they care about. The film begins with Terry luring Joey to the roof and ultimately to his death. Once he discovers that he was the decoy used, even though he cannot put words to how he feels he is distressed but tied between his natural loyalty to his brother and his fear of the mob, he is unable to articulate how he feels. After the death of K.O Dugan with the help of Edie and Father Barry he is given the impetus to act and to think for himself. He knows that his appearance and testimony at the Crime Commission will cut him off from his friends, the mob even Tommy yet he develops a moral conscience showing that certain characters are not definitively on one side of the battle. Charlie Malloy “the butcher in a camel hair coat” and the man who threatens his brother with a gun is a troubled man. Unlike Tulio and Truck, who brush aside Terry’s feelings at the death of Joey Doyle, Charlie makes a halfhearted attempt to comfort his brother. During the taxi scene he praises Terry saying that he was “beautiful” when he was a boxer. When he realises that his time is up he gives Terry the gun hoping to protect him showing that he was caring and affectionate towards his “kid-brother”

Through “On the Watefront” there are kind people who are willing to stand up against and fight for any injustices just like there are those who are corrupt and cold blooded. The film portrays the ever present battle between these two sides as well as those characters who develop from being driven by these evil sources to them standing up by themselves against exploitation. 


Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Smiley_ on September 28, 2013, 12:29:06 pm
Joey and Edie are both catalysts for Terry’s transition.

Preceding corruption on many of the American Docks during the 1950s, Elia Kazan’s film ‘on the waterfront’ created heated propaganda; similar to the attention gained from his testification at the HUAC trials. Silhouetted against the backdrop of New Jersey in 1954, Elia Kazan’s’ film ‘on the waterfront’ depicts the transition of the protagonist, Terry, through the unpopular decision to testify against the oppression of the mob. Terry’s transformative repercussions are encouraged through Edie, who is a true catalyst in the film, her innocence and contradicting perceptions push terry to modify him for the better. Furthermore, Kazan utilises Joey’s death as a starting point to Terry’s transition, however he is only one of the catalysts within the film. Father Barry is influential in altering the longshoremen’s policy to ‘stand up against the mob and do what’s right’. In contrast, Kazan illuminates is this the right word maybe highlights/demonstrates that others can promote change within an individual, but depicts that the need for redemption and revenge can ultimately determine the action. I had to read this a few times to understand what was going onThus, there are many catalysts within on the waterfront which transform Terry, as well as his own emotion towards Friendly’s mob.good

Joey Doyle’s courage to stand up for what is right, has encouraged Terry to stand up against his fellow union members. I think this is a bit to straight forward, it might sound better to get rid of the "has" In the opening scenes of the film the tyranny of the mob is exemplified through Bernstein’s ominous sound track. This threating threatening ‘jungle like’ music explores the unions control over the longshoreman. The soundtrack is juxtaposed against the singular instrument opening, depicting the need for the individual to stay ‘deaf and dumb’. Kazan sees Joeys act as truly heroic; thus, Kazan selects to take a low long shot high angled looking up at Joey, displaying his supremacy over the mob. and that he does have some moralsJoey’s death creates confusion within Terry as he ‘thought they were only going to lean on him a bit’. The mobs betrayal of Terry leaves him obfuscated, which is conveyed through his facial expressions in the close up shot outside Friendly's bar. good Furthermore, in this scene Terry begins to see the ruthless ability of the mob, as they continue to ridicule Joey as a ‘canary that could sing, but not fly’. The mobs betrayal of Terry as well as their unjust actions create confusion and anger which initially comprises his transition, to redeem himself. good

Kazan utilizes Edie as the character who truly drives Terry’s transformation. good but saying the character sounds a bit weird maybe try Terry’s transformation is driven by Edies words and actions Edie’s innocence from the opening scenes makes Terry question ‘why someone would kill Joey’, as he was a ‘good kid’. Kazan symbolises Edie as an angel to modify the world for the better; he exemplifies this through creating an angelic light when she is initially seen in the darkness. Her white gloves depict her purity without a scruple of evil. In contrast, her innocence and questioning of Father Barry drive him to investigate Joey’s unlawful death. Her question asking Father if he ‘[has] ever heard a saint hiding in the church’ triggered his movement. Additionally, Edie’s contradicting views make Terry realise what the world has become. Edie cannot comprehend the ‘D&D’ policy; why Joey’s best friend and her father won’t talk. Their different environments create a colliding philosophy; Edie believes ‘everyone should care for everyone else’, whereas Terry Believes ‘you should do it to them before they do it to you’. Terry grows really, you could just say develops upon Edie’s perception by ultimately confessing to Father Barry, herself and the courts. When confessing Kazan uses techniques to convey further meaning and to add suspense. going a bit of topic When confessing to father Barry, Kazan metaphorically illuminates that Terry is in the clear. This is explored through the use of the Fog and ash clearing when he confesses. When confessing to Edie Kazan successfully subsumes their voices to intensify the pain in their expression. Subsequently, Edie’s colliding view on the world causes Terry to confess to the commission as well as gaining his dignity in the process.good !!!

However these two characters are not the only catalysts in ‘On the Waterfront’, Father Barry is used as a manipulator by Kazan attempting to gain the truth. from?? Terry??Moreover, father Barry is relentless in ordering Terry to ‘do what [his] conscious says’, as he manipulates Terry similarly to the mob. what are you trying to say here?? its a little confusing Kazan depicts that Barry is not scared of the mob, as he heads to the dock ‘to see for [himself]’.showing that  Kazan furthers this notion as Barry holds a meeting in the basement of the church. It is clear that Father Barry has successfully altered Terry’s view on ‘what is right and what is wrong’. This is explored in the scene of K.O Dougan’s death.yep nice  Where, Terry stands up and displays respect to K.O Dougan during Barry’s eulogy, as he punches one of the mobs ‘goons’. His respect for Father Barry is also evident in one of the final scenes in Friendly’s bar, where Terry listens to Barry so he can ‘really hurt Johnny’. Barry’s perceptions lead Terry in trying to stop the mob, by warning K.O Dougan to ‘watch his back’. Therefore, Father Barry is a catalyst for Terry’s transition as his relentless drive leads terry to stand up, against the tyranny of the mob. this is sounding better !   

Although the initial transition comes from others, Kazan depicts that the true drive for change can emerge through pure emotion. yepWhat truly pushes terry to testify is his realisation that he has ‘been ratting on [himself] the whole time’. He notices all along he has been a ‘bum’, had no dignity and complied when complying withwith Johnny. In an attempt to redeem himself he testifies against Friendly, however he was always driven by revenge. Kazan depicts from the opening scenes that Friendly had fixed a fight, preventing Terry a shot at the title. His evocative conscious and emotions build to form revenge against the mob. He carries his emotion throughout and releases his anger in the taxi scene, as he told Charlie he ‘could have been a contender’. Charlie’s death added to the Terry’s anger ultimately wanting to fight Johnny. good, I was hoping you would talk about thisIn these scenes Kazan symbolises Terry defeating the mob, and truly removing himself from their operation, as he throws the hook back at them. you seemed to jump from these to scenes pretty quickly The hook symbolises the tyranny of the mob over the longshoremen, as they carry them on their back. Thus, Kazan depicts that the true driving force comes within, from pure emotion through past events.

 Joey and Edie are both catalysts of ‘on the waterfront’, however there are others who influence his transformation. Father Barry is extremely influential in pursing his testification, what ?to help him learn ‘what’s wrong, from what’s right’. As well as these influential individuals, Terry’s evocative conscious and emotions build to form revenge against friendly and are pivotal in his transformation. Thus there are many factors that are involved in terry testifying against the powerful Friendly, however Kazan masterfully includes all these techniques to successfully depict; Terry’s transition from a bum to someone with great dignity.nice ending!!
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: 09Ti08 on September 28, 2013, 07:53:27 pm
Hello all,
Here is my work for "A Christmas Carol", and please be harsh, I really want to improve. Thank you very much indeed!

Topic: Although Dickens' story is entertaining, even enthralling, it is mainly intended to deliver a moral lesson. Discuss.

Charles Dickens’s novella “A Christmas Carol” is a feel-good narrative which has become the archetypal Christmas tale. In his masterpiece, Dickens’ imagination fires up a dramatic storyline by which the audience is entertained by the mysterious otherworldliness of Scrooge’s encounter and enthralled from beginning to end by the Gothic elements. However, despite their effects, these features act as an essential backdrop against which the moral lessons can be played out. Throughout “A Christmas Carol”, Charles Dickens collates a critical response in regard to the chasm that divides the worlds of the rich and the poor during Victorian era while delivering a message of the true meaning of caring, giving and receiving of the Christmas season.

 “A Christmas Carol” is divided into staves rather than chapters to reflect its musical qualities. In fact, its structure, main events, and the Gothic elements play the key role in entertaining and enthralling the readers. In each stave, by following Scrooge’s journey, we experience many different things. For instance, in stave one, we are horrified by the appearance of Jacob Marley, but at the same time, we are also curious as we know that Scrooge is going to be visited by three spirits. At this stage, we wonder what they are, and we wonder how they are going to transform Scrooge – a mean-spirited, penny-pinching person. Then, in stave two, after being frightened by the Ghost of Christmas Past, we follow him into the past too see a very different Scrooge. We are surprised to learn about his lonely childhood and the fact that he knows what love is by the fact that he has a fiancée. Next, in stave three, we are guided by the Ghost of Christmas Present on a journey where we see many people celebrating Christmas in their own way, regardless of the financial situation. We see Fred’s Christmas party, and the Cratchits’, and the miners of an isolated community. Therefore, we, as readers, also feel the festivities of Christmas as we turn every single page. Lastly, we are taken to the scariest journey into the future. We are afraid for Scrooge as we guess that the dead person is him and feel bitter about how people react to his death. Finally, we are happy to his transformation, we are happy to see how he treats people, and how happy people are when they are treated the way they expect. Thus, by constructing a plot with dramatic events and employing Gothic elements, Dickens is able to attract the readers, and at the same time, entertain and enthral them, with his Christmas tale.

However, as the intricacies of the plot unfold, it is evident that Dickens employed the novella to comment on the vices plaguing Victorian Britain and rally the public into action. As the Industrial Revolution widened the chasm between the rich and the poor, Dickens’ opinion was that those with riches and influence had a duty to take care of those who were less fortunate than themselves, particularly since their wealth was often founded on the labours of a poorly paid workforce. Scrooge is the obvious symbol of the greedy Victorian rich, while the Cratchits represent the working poor. Dickens uses the relationship between the miser and his clerk to draw attention to the enormous gap between the living conditions of masters and their workers. Also through the Cratchits, “A Christmas Carol” exemplifies Dickens's vigorous opposition to those Victorian social reformers and businessmen who believed, like Scrooge, that charity encouraged idleness and that the poor should be left to die and "decrease the surplus population". This Victorian Malthusianism was often accompanied by an individualism that classified all misfortunes as personal failings rather than public problems. However, as we see, all the family members of the Cratchits have jobs, they struggle to make ends meet, and Tiny Tim is a lovely child who does not have a control over the way he was born. Therefore, they do not deserve the ignorance of the rich. Moreover, Dickens uses Ignorance and Want to attack the Utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham, most notably his belief in the “greatest happiness of the greatest number”, a position that was used to justify the centralization of Poor Relief in workhouses. The wild, monstrous appearance of the two emaciated figures suggests dangerous scenario which emerges from people’s “want” of food and shelter. Consequently, the comfortable, complacent reader is terrified into taking action to relieve the plight of the poor. Hence, by employing symbolism, Dickens is able to convey deep messages about social reality.

In essence, while it is evident that Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” is an entertaining and enthralling novella, it would be remiss to neglect his core intentions. Through his careful selection of linguistic features and narrative voice, all strongly linked to the setting of the novel, the author condemns both industrialisation and utilitarianism. Moreover, by making the distinction between the rich and the poor apparent, Dickens extols the virtue of society changing its dismissive and repressive attitudes towards the poor, ultimately enlisting the audience’s sympathies for them.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: unfamila on September 28, 2013, 08:09:54 pm
Thank you fishandchips ;)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: chasej on September 30, 2013, 12:59:59 am


Thanks so much, really insightful. Definitely going to take your advice on.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: jeanweasley on September 30, 2013, 09:13:24 am
Thanks so much, really insightful. Definitely going to take your advice on.

You're welcome (:

--
Topic: Although Dickens' story is entertaining, even enthralling, it is mainly intended to deliver a moral lesson. Discuss.

Charles Dickens’s novella “A Christmas Carol” is a feel-good narrative which has become the archetypal Christmas taleI'm not sure that you should include this, it feels sort of like an opening to a review and may not be necessary. I'm talking about the descriptive words used to describe the novella, by the way.. In his masterpiece, Dickens’ imagination fires upDon't know what this means and this also sounds too colloquial. a dramatic storylineNote that you're not here to present a review so it's no use using positive adjectives to describe Dickens' work. by which the audience is entertained by the mysterious otherworldliness of Scrooge’s encounter and enthralled from beginning to end by the Gothic elements. Reiterating,it's not a review and this sentence here feels like a run on. There are too many ideas into the one. Essentially this topic is asking you to dissect Dicken's authorial constructs and how they create for an enthralling piece, yet at the same time is intended to deliver a moral lesson (authorial intent). This paragraph here does not directly address the topic and begins sort of in a review type introduction that praises Dickens' work more than it does analysing it.However, despite their effects, these features act as an essential backdrop against which the moral lessons can be played out. Find another way of describing the effects of the moral lessons. This is simply too colloquial.Throughout Throughout is like a baby word we have used up until Year 10, now, in senior years we need to drop them because a) nothing is ever throughout unless it's on every page b) this word does not offer any substance to any essay c)it's a back up word that we use to think about what we're going to write next and therefore does not add anything to our essay as it merely stalls it. “A Christmas Carol”, Charles Dickens collates collates?a critical response in regard to the chasm that divides the worlds of the rich and the poor during Victorian era while delivering a message of the true meaning of caring, giving and receiving of the Christmas season.The authorial constructs here are not discussed and this sentence doesn't really make sense. So Dickens' is pretty much criticising the divide between rich and poor but is ultimately talking about the meaning of Christmas? I'm not sure about the text as I've not read it before, but wouldn't it make more sense if Dickens' uses this particular setting and season to highlight the divide between the rich and poor and to question the classism in the Victorian Era? And while we're at it, doesn't he discuss the true reflection of humanity - not being rich but having a sense of giving and sharing?

 “A Christmas Carol” is divided into staves rather than chapters to reflect its musical qualities. Its - which does this refer to? Note that yes, the book is divided into chapters so your first statement is incorrect, but that Dickens uses the word 'stave' to reflect the title of the novel as well as a development of character from stave one to the last. Unclear topic sentence here.In fact, its structure, main events, and the Gothic elements play the key role in entertaining and enthralling the readers. You haven't talked about structure here. Main events as a structure? I don't know what that means. And if you're talking about Gothic elements, explain what this is and provide an example. Again, the last part of this sentence feels like a review and I think stems from the misunderstanding of the topic. The topic is focussing on the elements used by Dickens in presenting an entertaining story so that should definitely be discussed but the moral lesson, whatever it is also needs to be explored.In each stave, by following Scrooge’s journey, we experience many different things.Commas here add a stop-start effect and the last part is what I call a back up sentence, that is, a sentence used by the writer to stall his/her thinking and therefore does not do anything for the essay. For instance, in stave one, we inclusive language is a no-no. Assessors don't care about opinion. It's the analysis that they're looking for.are horrified by the appearance of Jacob Marley, but at the same time, we are also curious as we know that Scrooge is going to be visited by three spirits. At this stage, we wonder what they are, and we wonder how they are going to transform Scrooge – a mean-spirited, penny-pinching person. Then, in stave two, after being frightened by the Ghost of Christmas Past, we follow him into the past too see a very different Scrooge. We are surprised to learn about his lonely childhood and the fact that he knows what love is by the fact that he has a fiancée. Next, in stave three, we are guided by the Ghost of Christmas Present on a journey where we see many people celebrating Christmas in their own way, regardless of the financial situation. We see Fred’s Christmas party, and the Cratchits’, and the miners of an isolated community. Therefore, we, as readers, also feel the festivities of Christmas as we turn every single page. Lastly, we are taken to the scariest journey into the future. We are afraid for Scrooge as we guess that the dead person is him and feel bitter about how people react to his death. Finally, we are happy to his transformation, we are happy to see how he treats people, and how happy people are when they are treated the way they expect. Thus, by constructing a plot with dramatic events and employing Gothic elements, Dickens is able to attract the readers, and at the same time, entertain and enthral them, with his Christmas tale. Aha. What I think you're trying to say is that the narration includes the reader in the story and therefore has the ability to personally affect them because of they are, so to say, in the same journey as Scrooge, and his development as a character is also evident. You mention 'Gothic elements' here but do not provide an example of one and how it creates an 'entertaining' effect for the reader. There is also a lot of retelling here and whilst some of it reflects back to the idea of Dickens' authorial constructs, most of the sentences are too long and feels like a summary to a book. I also think, by the structure, you could talk more about narration and symbolism, motifs etc. Quotations in the first paragraph are also lacking and a lot of these 'examples' need to be concise.

However, as the intricacies of the plot unfold, it is evident that Dickens employed the novella to comment on the vices plaguing Victorian Britain and rally the public into action. Good topic sentence but could be further elaborated and linked to the topic.As the Industrial Revolution widened the chasm between the rich and the poor, Dickens’ opinion was thatverbs that describe authorial intent need to be used such as : asserts, criticises, negates. For example, here, it could be used that: Dickens asserts that the Victorian upper class were responsible .... or Dickens criticises the division between... highlighting that... because... those with riches and influence had a duty to take care of those who were less fortunate than themselves, particularly since their wealth was often founded on the labours of a poorly paid workforce. Good point here but needs to be tightened/ be more concise.Scrooge is the obvious Adjectives in a text response essay needs to be used only when necessary as it sometimes creates a review-type analysis of the text and may potentially sound biased. It also does not analyse the topic.symbol of the greedy Victorian rich, while the Cratchits represent the working poor.Symbolism used here could be more detailed. How and why did Dickens do this? Dickens uses the relationship between the miser and his clerk to draw attention to the enormous gap between the living conditions of masters and their workers.Good sentence. This is what we need to see. Also through the Cratchits, “A Christmas Carol” exemplifies Dickens's vigorousAgain, tone down your adjectives. opposition to those Victorian social reformers and businessmen who believed, like Scrooge, that charity encouraged idleness and that the poor should be left to die and "decrease the surplus population". This Victorian Malthusianism was often accompanied by an individualism that classified all misfortunes as personal failings rather than public problems. However, as we see, all the family members of the Cratchits have jobs, they struggle to make ends meet, and Tiny Tim is a lovely child who does not have a control over the way he was born. Therefore, they do not deserve the ignorance of the rich. Moreover, Dickens uses Ignorance and Want to attack the Utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham, most notably his belief in the “greatest happiness of the greatest number”, a position that was used to justify the centralization of Poor Relief in workhouses. The wild, monstrous appearance of the two emaciated figures suggests dangerous adjective again.scenario which emerges from people’s “want” of food and shelter. Consequently, the comfortable, complacentadjective needs to be cut. Refer to previous coment reader is terrified into taking action to relieve the plight of the poor. Hence, by employing symbolism, Dickens is able to convey deep messages about social reality. Good. But this topic lacks complexity in that whilst ideas and references to symbolism and authorial intent is present, there is lacking of quotes, explanation is too simple and adjectives plague the paragraph, creating a review-like response to the prompt. The first part of the topic is discussed in the first paragraph but is not linked to Dickens' moral lesson. This second paragraph, too whilst there are references to the construction of the novel need to specifically discuss this and provide examples and explanation to support your contention.

In essence, while it is evident that Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” is an entertaining and enthralling novella, it would be remiss to neglect his core intentions. Through his careful selection of linguistic features and narrative voice, all strongly linked to the setting of the novel, the author condemns both industrialisation and utilitarianism. Moreover, by making the distinction between the rich and the poor apparent, Dickens extols the virtue of society changing its dismissive and repressive attitudes towards the poor, ultimately enlisting the audience’s sympathies for them. This is a wonderful conclusion and discusses the aspects of Dickens' intentions, however discussion of core ideas such as industrialisation and utilitarianism needs to be evident in the body paragraphs.

The two paragraphs, whilst seemingly providing quality does not actually do that. Two paragraphs is the danger zone of all essays. It is saying that you pretty much don't know what you're talking about and have resulted in utilising these body paragraphs to distract the assessor. Two paragraph is also an indication that you don't understand the basic of sentence and paragraph structuring. One page paragraphs an eyesore and makes marking a tedious job so it's best to avoid this. It's best to stick to three solid paragraphs but it's even better if it's four. Aiming for four is probably going to position you in already receiving the bulk of your mark.

Adjectives that describe or provide a positive view of the novel needs to be avoided as it detracts from your analysis and presents a review instead. Topic sentences need to be clear and link back to the topic. Examples need to be clearly discussed and quotes need to be employed. This essay lacks both and I think stems from the incomplete understanding of the novella. Symbols, motifs, characterisation, parallels, irony, etc need to be discussed if evident in the text. Retelling of the novel needs to be avoided as this is not an analysis of the prompt. There are some great phrases here that really create complexity and I guess have come from the ATARnotes study guide. ;)

Just suggestions for improvement in a nutshell

* Read the text again and make solid notes on it
* Be careful in exploring the prompt - pay attention to the adjectives/quotes used as this is important and need to be discussed. For example, 'How' prompts pretty much ask the reader the authorial constructs of the novel such as narration, characterisation etc. However since that may only take one paragraph, you can challenge the question and say that the author does more than that, and that's when you can talk about the main ideas of the text and explain it. For example, if you got the prompt 'How does Charles Dickens' construct a compelling story about kindness and compassion?, you would discuss the authorial constructs such as narration and compassion firstly in your paragraph then you can talk about Dickens criticising the era because of its capitalism/industrialisation etc. and bring in all your knowledge of the period and link this to what he intends.
* Clearer topic sentences that directly answer the prompt or show direction to the exploration of ideas in your paragraph
* Write more  - at least 3 solid paragraphs each, 4 is ideal though
* Employ quotes to back up your evidence
* Discuss significance of evidence, link to prompt and author's intention

Overall, it's a great essay but somewhat lacking in direction, however, this can be easily fixed. Well done (:

Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Smiley_ on September 30, 2013, 03:56:55 pm
can someone pls critique this OTW essay , i purposely didnt do a conclusion so be mindfull

It is not only through physical violence in which the mob maintains its power?

Whilst physical violence is clearly the most blatant source of obtaining power on the docks of Hoboken, it is not the only instrument used by the nefarious leader johnny
Friendly to obtain power. Elia Kazan fast paced 1954 drama On the waterfront depicts the various ways  the Union boss Johnny Friendly had sustained power. Kazan exposes
through many stevedores the unwillingness to comply with the crime commission due to the sacred oath of staying 'D n D' which has imbued the insular town of Hoboken.
Kazan also portrays the power of the Mob through the loan sharking business and employment control which the mob maintain . Hence Kazan depicts the numerous ways in which the Mob can accrue power without the use of physical violence.You used Kazan does this and Kazan does this a number of times try to vary it

Initially Kazan depicts the secluded life in which Joey Doyle maintained, this doesn't really flow nicelyKazan presents Joey Doyle as a man seen abominable by his father due to the severing of the sacered sacredoath of staying 'D n D'.  Kazan clearly illustrates the way in which the mob had entrenched the code of staying 'D n D' into stevedores as those who broke the code were not only seen punishable by Friendly's goons but were also punished by the stevedores who then neglected them and didn't want to be associated with them. really long sentence try some punctuation Such is the disassociation by Pop Doyle with his son and Andy towards his best friend. It had 'almost become impossible for an honest man to work the docks'. try and explain this, it looks like an odd sentence eg this demonstrates how it is impossible for an honest....The oath maintained its superior homage even after Terry malloy capital letter !!!pursued testimony at his subpoena. The oath was not only respected by the mob but also by police officers who were to protect Terry after his testimony as  they snickered elements which provocated provoked or try using another word him to feel like a 'canary'. Thus Kazan showed the respect for power that the mob maintained though the moral hatred inflicted upon 'cheese eaters' spaceand 'stool pigeons'. Hence this also placed a mental stigma upon stevedores as they had probably become insecure with the social labeling labellingthe union imposed on them. good

The film also shows that the mob didn't solely depend on physical violence as its sustenance of power as it you tend to repeat your word a bit had also maintained power through its lucrative loan sharking.good ! Kazan shows Friendly's ruthless and viscous nature in which he expects all stevedores to surrender loans given to them by JP.could put in some quotes relating to mac and him putting his wives nephew to work His ability to demand the money loaned to them leads stevedores into insecurity which thus forces them to pay back the money loaned to them . The lust for a 'lousy buck 'displayed by Johnny friendly's corrupt decisions give him power as he allured power from stevedores who he forcibly loaned money to. Thus his ultimate power from loan sharking was experienced when he gave no work to those denied the men work who didn't pay him back as life in Hoboken was only through money entering through the lucrative  again docks and the ramifications meant no work you already said this and possibly more through Mr upstairs connections. ok just add that in ???

Kazan also exemplifies the Mobs power through the employment of stevedores. good sentence tells exactly what you are going to sayThe unruly costumes which the stevedores wear epitomizes the chronic poverty which stevedores experience. yep niceThis is demonstrated through Dugan's Jacket why is there a capital ??in the face of extreme winters in the New York, his jacket is depicted as being 'more full of holes than the Pittsburgh infield'.  This thus what shows the dire situation of stevedores, as well as the mobs ability to supply work gives them even more power as they determine who has enough money to withstand living conditions in Hoboken. Johnny Friendly delegates the role of the employer to Big mac CAPITAL !!!who chooses those fit what I dont know what your saying?to work thus you like your thus , it is not always needed showing desperation is evident among stevedores who see the docks as the only feasible option for work. Kazan highlights Johnny Friendly's sovereign powers as he employs '891 men at 3 bucks a head'. niceThe low pay equates to his power as the use of physical violence is not his only tantalising source of power.

 

Not having a paragraph of physical violence?

anyway


anyone think they could do mine?
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: 09Ti08 on September 30, 2013, 05:26:22 pm
Thank you so much jeanweasley!  Your comments definitely helped me a lot! ;D
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: jeanweasley on September 30, 2013, 05:34:22 pm
Thank you so much jeanweasley!  Your comments definitely helped me a lot! ;D

You're welcome. :D
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: lolipopper on October 02, 2013, 04:31:24 pm
ESSAY MARK /10  please. (written under exam conditions)

Mohsin Hamid actively involves the reader in his novel. How does he do this?

Suspense is a fundamental key to the success of many thriller novels along with an almost necessity of a setting to which the audience may relate to. Mohsin Hamid's, The Reluctant Fundamentalist, is a superbly engaging novel that appeals to the sense of curiosity of the audience through the use of empowering scenes and techniques. With a key character that may become the victim of an assassination or rather the assassin himself and the disappearance of his love that may one day return, the reader feels the drawn into the world of the novel with an urge to continue reading. And although the reader does tend to question the integrity of Changez's recital, this seems to further enhance the concept of suspense within the novel, rendering it highly reflective and influential for the audience.

Throughout the plot of the novel, a line of suspense seems to follow the impending murder of either Changez or the silent American. With continual hints upon the physique of the American's "broad chest" and an alarmingly vibrant phone, the audience is given the impression that the American may in fact be on a "mission". This tends to accommodate the scenario of Changez promoting an anti-American agenda and the recent assassination of an American Official by his students, which leads to Changez being warned, America may be looking to "intimidate me or worse". However, the silent American seems to be in an equivalent amount of danger himself, as he is often suspicious of his surroundings, the waiter and the intentions of Changez. "This tea hasn't been poisoned" and "why do you jump as though you were under the shadow of a hawk" tends remind the audience of a relation between predator and prey, and that one must eventually die. Additionally, as Hamid doesn't provide a suffice ending to the story, the audience is left engaged in a guessing games as to who meets the fate of death.

Similarly, the death of the nostalgia struck Erica also tends to lay itself to the audience as a mystery beyond the conclusion of the novel. Fallen in the love of a "guy with long skinny fingers" leaves Erica in a miserable and fragile state of mind that is in fact catalysed by Changez's expression of love. This in turn tends to send her further into an unforgiving turmoil of "anti-depressents" and "numerous trips to the hospital". Eventually Erica is thought to have committed suicide, however the troubled personality of Changez is not ready to accept this and he waits for her return. This event creates a trail of suspense that lasts till the end of the novel, and suggests a familiar fate of her allegory, America, which after the attack of 9/11, throws itself into a deep alienation from the rest of the international community. By the end, the fate of both is unknown and is a source from which Hamid draws the attention of his readership.

Through the lack of the Silent American's speech, Hamid encounters the audience questioning the integrity of Changez's story. Although this format of a dramatic monologue is essential to developing the ideas of Changez and his thoughts, it often comes at a cost of not being able to reveal critical scenes of the plot. As Changez recites the words of the silent American, who is intended to portray the wider audience, "why shall I believe you", Hamid allows the readers to consider and revaluate their thoughts and belief in Changez's story. Thus although this seems to ward off the sense of trust of the audience in the narrator, it is useful in effectively engaging their thoughts.

Despite resulting in a seemingly deceptive story, Mohsin Hamid uses the character of Changez and the reality of suspense in The Reluctant Fundamentalist to creatively enthral and include the readership within its plot. Through incomplete endings about the fate of Changez, the silent American, Erica and even America itself, Hamid keeps the audience in a loop of suspense and continual guessing as to what may be the eventual outcome.     

CHECK MINE AS WELL!
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: tcstudent on October 02, 2013, 09:31:23 pm
Hi guys, Twleve angry men essay here on last years prompt,

Prompt--Twelve angry men is a play about how power can be misused.

Words-1024

i love the feedback here so i'd much rather post here and give it to my teacher that provides no feedback just changes the words lol,

my writing is shocking never scored above  C  on English ffs so here it is.

Twelve angry men is a play about how power can be misused.

by the way, my teacher always says my topic sentences let me down each essay, is it possible to get some feedback on that too please, thank you very much.


‘Twelve Angry Men’, a two act drama, set in the 1950’s, in a new York jury room, depicts the ‘’grave responsibility given’’ to jurors of a time of mccarthist paranoia, where it was portrayed that those involved in communist activities would face the strongest sort of jury hostility, In the film, Many of the characters illustrate their racism and prejudice towards to boy and thus misuse their power for personal reasons, however, rose counteracts such misuses by implementing various objective characters who use their power wisely to create a fair verdict and highlight a ‘reasonable doubt’, hence rose asserts that justice can prevail those who misuse their power, through the use of various characters that influence many to look beyond the facts.
Through prejudiced opinions of characters, many decision made are based on no evidence.
Throughout society in the 1950’s,  it was evident many suspected of communist activates would face a jury where verdicts made reflected bias and prejudice. In twelve angry men juror ten is perceived to have a strong prejudice to ‘’slum ids’’ describing ‘’them’’ as ‘’real trash’’ and ‘’born liars’’. As such these assumptions made by juror ten highlights his apathetic view towards these ‘’different’’ kids, therefore misusing his power as he ‘’does not care what happens to the boy’’ signifying he supports the view of paranoid Mccarthyists. Similarly rose at first, depicts juror three as a self-made man as he highlights ‘’he started from nothing, I employ thirty now’’ and have ‘’no personal feeling about this case’’ and implies his decision are based on ‘’facts’’, yet rose reveals the dramatic irony of juror three as he claims to be ‘’talking facts’’, however in contrast reveals his prejudice describing it’s the ‘’kids’’, ‘’ the way they are nowadays’’, suggesting to the audience that juror three has already  thrown the accused in the garbage and made this a ‘’personal’’ decision.
Furthermore as deliberations over ‘’reasonable doubt’’ intensify juror three decides to play ‘’tic tac toe’’ as this case is ‘’getting to be a goddamn joke’’, further representing his stance on this case and highlighting the miscarriage of a jury system. Hence rose implies the view that many jury members represented the values of the 1950’s in their verdicts that would dismiss the opinion of minorities.

Many of the characters in the lay utilised their power to benefit the interests of themselves
On the ‘’hottest day of the year’’, the jurors are told to ‘’deliberate honestly and thoughtfully’’, despite this, Juror 7 depicted by rose as a ‘’Milwaukee fan’’ insists on escaping his civic duty as a jury member as he has a ‘’ball game’’ to watch, through this illustration of juror seven who ‘’has a ticket burning a hole in his pocket’’ highlights to the audience the level of subjectivity in a jury room towards ‘’a 16 year old boy’’. More over as the vote is ‘’eleven to one’’ juror seven believes the boy is ‘’guilty and just wants to ‘’go home before we get sort throats’’ highlighting his misuse of power as he further tries to escape his responsibility by superficially looking at the case without any evidence to support his ‘’assumptions’’. In comparison, juror ten is found to be playing ‘’tic tac toe’’ as he does not care ‘’what happens’’ to a ‘’slum like that’’ meanwhile juror 12 is found to be ‘’doodling’’ on his sheet as ‘’it keeps him thinking clearly’’. Such events in a jury room should not occur, especially as the ‘’case is the most serious charge tried criminal court’’, further representing the misuse of power in a society where many where self-interested and not concerned about the ‘’health of others’’. Despite such irresponsibility shown by many jurors, rose propels his belief that many jury members seen this power given, as a weapon and thus used it against the accused in order to reach a ‘’quicker verdict’’.

However, when power is given to liberal members a fair verdict can prevail.
At first instance juror eight is depicted, starring at the ‘’New York skyline’’, suggesting his independence as the rest of the jury members ‘’sit down’’ furthermore it also implies his objectivity as he must represent his community with the power given to him. At first vote juror eight is depicted ‘’standing alone against the ridicule of others’’ as the majority voted guilty, yet juror eight ‘’finds it difficult to send a boy off to die without talking about it first’’ instantly highlights his objectivity within the case, where many simply voted guilty ‘’after five minutes’’ and because ‘’nobody proved otherwise’’, further highlighting the misuse of power in regards to finding a ‘’reasonable doubt’’

Additionally juror eight counteracts the argument by stating ‘’nobody has to prove otherwise, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution’’ implying to the audience that many jury members are unaware of the processes within the adversary system of trial and misusing their power with lazy accusations to support their ‘’vote’’. Moreover juror eights persistence in ‘’questioning the facts’’ creates tension within the jury room as jurors begin to change their vote sparking juror three to be described a ‘’public avenger as he ‘’lunges wildly’’ at juror eight, expressing ‘’I’ll kill him, I’ll kill him’’, this strongly shifts the majority of jurors position on the case as they now have a ‘’doubt’’ that it cannot be taken literally. Therefore through the power juror eight utilised, he created ‘’the competitive type’’ juror three to be made an example of, thus influence others to be believe that ‘’sometimes the facts that are starring you in the face are wrong’’
Overall, It is apparent that in the context of the 1950’s many jury members were callous and used their power for their personal satisfaction as they were controlled by their prejudices, however rose juxtaposes these apathetic attitudes with the objectivity of juror eight by illustrating how power should be used to determine a reasonable doubt, finally rose asserts his view that although many utilised their power for their own benefit, justice has the ability to prevail such cruel behaviours when it is operated as intended.




Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: darvell on October 03, 2013, 01:47:56 am
Ok Im just going to warn you that I'm pretty dodge (I'm not exaggerating here lmao) at TR so 100% double check my feedback if you're a bit like "um, what son???"
I just thought I'd give it a crack anyway hahaha.

Open with a contextualising sentence that doesn't mention the book itself. I think it just sounds a bit nicer. Examples of what I mean are things like "At the height of the McCarthyist paranoia in the 1950's prejudice was prevalent throughout America" (stole this off a random essay in my book, maybe not the best, but you get the idea.(And not necessarily relevant to this essay) Have a read through people on here's essays and get a feel for what works!
‘Twelve Angry Men’, is a two act drama, set in the 1950’s, in a new York jury room,Can I get you to read what you've written out loud for me so you can see what I mean? You have(incorrectly placed) commas every few words or so and it makes your. essay. read. like. this. hahaha, we want to aim for a nice sounding flowy essay so try to avoid this in future! depicts the ‘’grave responsibility given’’ I'd avoid quoting in your intro - might be just a personal preference but I don't think it adds any substance to your essayto jurors of a time of Mccarthyist paranoia, where it was portrayed that those involved in communist activitiesthe whole idea behind that being relevant is also that the whole of america is literally paranoid over anything that comes across as different BECAUSE of the whole McCarthy thing (which is why J10 is all like son he's clearly guilty even though its really just because he's just scared of his own shadow) would face the strongest sort of jury hostility.I'd probably avoid mentioning this outside of the contextualising sentence unless its central to your idea. Your focus for the rest of this needs to be about the prompt and your ideas! In the film,do you mean play? Many of the characters illustrate their racism and prejudice towards to boy and thus misuse their power for personal reasons, however, rose counteracts such misuses by implementing various objective characters who use their power wisely to create a fair verdict and highlight a ‘reasonable doubt’same deal with quoting, hence rose asserts that justice can prevail those who misuse their power, through the use of various characters that influence many to look beyond the facts.
 
Through prejudiced opinions of characters, many decision made are based on no evidence.I'm just going to warn you that I am also kind of dodgy as TS, BUT what I will say is even just looking at your paragraphs I have noticed that they're all really short. Suddenly having a really short sentence interrupts the flow of the essay, that will be part of your problem. Other than this, You want to be talking about your idea as it relates to the prompt (You'll notice in yours above there is no reference to the prompt :P) Other than that I'm a tad rusty right now hahaha sorry
Throughout society in the 1950’s,  it was evident many suspected of communist activates would face a jury where verdicts made reflected bias and prejudice. same deal as with what I said in the introIn Twelve Angry Men juror tenMake sure you're using capital letters when mentioning the jurors, they are their names! Also, Brenden taught me to write them as "Eighth Juror" rather than "Juror 8/Eight" I think it sounds nicer, just a personal prference is perceived to have a strong prejudice to ‘’slum ids’’ describing ‘’them’’ as ‘’real trash’’ and ‘’born liars’’. As such these assumptions made by juror ten highlights his apathetic view towards these ‘’different’’ kids, therefore misusing his power as he ‘’does not care what happens to the boy’’ signifying he supports the view of paranoid Mccarthyists.I notice here that you're sort of letting the quotes do the work for you. You might want to put this into your own words and quote less of what your point of view is - state your point and then back it up (or the other way around if you prefer) Also you want to be strong about what Rose is trying to get across through such a depiction. Is he saying its bad? Be really specific and deep hahaha Similarly rose at first, initiallydepicts juror three as a self-made man as he highlights ‘’he started from nothing, I employ thirty now’’dodgy as quoting! The actual quote is " I employ thirty-seven people... started with nothing" and have his assertion that he has‘’no personal feeling about this case’’ You want to make sure your quotes are part of your sentence so that the sentence continues on as the quote starts and the reader doesn't have to stop - the flow of an essay is really important!and implies his decisions are based on ‘’facts’’, yet rose reveals the dramatic irony of juror three as he claims to be ‘’talking facts’’, however in contrast reveals his prejudice describing it’s the ‘’kids’’, ‘’ the way they are nowadays’’, suggesting to the audience that juror three has already  thrown the accused in the garbage and made this a ‘’personal’’ decision. I think you would benefit from quoting a little bit less. Pick the quotes that best support your arguments rather than quoting so much. Also, you'd benefit from explaining what you mean a bit more indepth I think. And always always focus on what Rose is trying to say by how he has depicted what you're talking about, it's super important!
Furthermore as deliberations over ‘’reasonable doubt’’ intensify juror three decides to play ‘’tic tac toe’’ as this case is ‘’getting to be a goddamn joke’’, further representing his stance on this case and highlighting the miscarriage of a jury system.how is it highlighting the ability for justice to be abused? Explain yourself a little more. Also, why does Rose point this out? Is he critiquing the justice system? Hence rose implies the view that many jury members represented the values of the 1950’s in their verdicts that would dismiss the opinion of minorities. and consequently highlights the flaws of a justice system ... and then link back to how power is being abused! Make sure you're sticking to the prompt!

Many of the characters in the lay utilised their power to benefit the interests of themselves.Yeah same deal with this, it's very short and choppy. You have linked to power but maybe specifically input there that the power is being abused
On the ‘’hottest day of the year’’,why have you quoted this? be careful that you're not quoting things for the sake of it. If it is important, explain why it is important and why Rose is saying whatever he is saying about  it the jurors are told to ‘’deliberate honestly and thoughtfully’’full stop heredespite this, Juror 7 is depicted by rose as a ‘’Milwaukee fan’’who insists on escaping his civic duty as a jury member as he has a ‘’ball game’’ to watch, through this illustration of juror seven who ‘’has a ticket burning a hole in his pocket’’ highlights to the audience the level of subjectivitybut you havent mentioned that he is abusing his power! be careful with the prompt! in a jury room towards ‘’a 16 year old boy’’. This is a really really long sentence maybe cut it down/split itMore over as the vote is ‘’eleven to one’’ juror seven believes the boy is ‘’guilty and just wants to ‘’go home before we get sort throats’’ highlighting his misuse of power as he further tries to escape his responsibility by superficially looking at the case without any evidence to support his ‘’assumptions’’.Why does Rose include this, what is he trying to say? In comparison,contrast juror ten is found to be playing ‘’tic tac toe’’Pretty sure it's actually Juror 12 and juror 3 might wanna check that textual knowledge hahah as he does not care ‘’what happens’’ to a ‘’slum like that’’ meanwhile juror 12 is found to be ‘’doodling’’ on his sheet as ‘’it keeps him thinking clearly’’. Such events in a jury room should not occur, especially as the ‘’case is the most serious charge tried criminal court’’, dont quote just for the sake of it, it detracts from your legit quoting when you do so further representing the misuse of power in a society where many where self-interested and not concerned about the ‘’health of others’’.what does Rose say about this? How exactly is it a misuse of power also? Don't let the quotes do the work for you. Be as clear as you can. Yeah I reckon definitely try quoting less and explaining more, your arguments will come off more clearlyDespite such irresponsibility shown by many jurors, rose propels his belief that many jury members seen this power given, as a weapon and thus used it against the accused Or even that he's highlighting the flaws of apathy in such a justice system?in order to reach a ‘’quicker verdict’’.You can put in views/values throughout the paragraph, it doesn't just have to be at the end of the para

However, when power is given to liberal members a fair verdict can prevail.same deal
At first instance juror eight is depicted, starring at the ‘’New York skyline’’, suggesting his independence as the rest of the jury members ‘’sit down’’ furthermore furthermore makes it sound like you're moving on to a new topic - far too quickly. Choose a different word here :Pit also implies his objectivity as he must represent his communityand maybe also mention that he is not misusing his power (this is your however paragraph, ya?) with the power given to him. At first voteDuring the first vote, juror eight is depicted ‘’standing alone against the ridicule of others’’ as the majority voted guilty, yet juror eight ‘’finds it difficult to send a boy off to die without talking about it first’’ instantly highlights his objectivity within the case, where many simply voted guilty ‘’after five minutes’’ and because ‘’nobody proved otherwise’’, further highlighting the misuse of power in regards to finding a ‘’reasonable doubt’’
It's kind of unclear here what your paragraph is actually about. Be careful that you're not straying off. If it's about J8 and how he HASN'T abused his power, stick to that (at least while you're getting the hang of TR essays :)
Additionally juror eight counteracts the argumentwhat are you talking about, be specific! by stating ‘’nobody has to prove otherwise, the burden of proof lies in the prosecution’’ implying to the audience that many jury members are unaware of the processesthis sounds really Lang Analysis-ish to me, Im not sure if that's just me. Be careful that you're not crossing over your styles within the adversary system of trial and misusing their power with lazy accusations to support their ‘’vote’’. unnecessary quoting!Why has Rose included this?Moreover juror eights persistence in ‘’questioning the facts’’ creates tension within the jury room as jurors begin to change their vote sparking juror three to be described a ‘’public avenger as he ‘’lunges wildly’’ at juror eight, expressing ‘’I’ll kill him, I’ll kill him’’, this strongly shifts the majority of jurors position on the case as they now have a ‘’doubt’’ that it cannot be taken literally. Therefore through the power juror eight utilised, he created ‘’the competitive type’’ juror three to be made an example of, thus influence others to be believe that ‘’sometimes the facts that are starring you in the face are wrong’’I think you need to link this back to the prompt a bit more. Be clearer about what you're talking about and make sure you're always referring back to the idea of your para and the prompt. If you dont you end up straying and whoever reads your essay will get lost!

Overall, It is apparent that in the context of the 1950’s its important that you mention that Rose has depicted them this way. You talk of the jury members as if they are people who control their own actions :Pmany jury members were callous and used their power for their personal satisfaction as they were controlled by their prejudices, however rose juxtaposes these apathetic attitudes with the objectivity of juror eight by illustrating how power should be used to determine a reasonable doubt,This sentence is way too long, break it up! finally rose asserts his view that although many utilised their power for their own benefit, justice has the ability to prevail such cruel behaviours when it is operated as intended.

Sorry for my sort of dodgy feedback, bit rusty hahaha
Good luck with it :)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: ahat on October 03, 2013, 11:10:11 am
I'm not sure how many people have read or are studying Wilfred Owen, but some feedback on this would be appreciated :)

It is those who glorify war, and not the soldiers who fight them, that Owen’s poetry denounces.[/size]

It is hard to say who is the greatest enemy in the poetry of Wilfred Owen, for his bitterness is directed at more than one target. Yet, Owen’s “subject [of] war and the pity of war” reveal his irrefutable animosity towards war’s destruction and those who instigated and propagated it. His hatred was concentrated on those who so readily told “the Old Lie” with “such high zest”; words that were the catalyst for the irreversible “doomed fate” of the youth of the day. Owen’s emotional fervour and rich poetic idiom made it clear that his cause was not the glory of bellicose England; rather, he aimed to combat the rhetoric of his day, to shock the deluded military officials and civilians out of their state of ignorance, so they too could comprehend the attrition of war. Parallel to these themes, Owen vividly describes the validity of the feelings of love and grief that existed sempiternally between the unbreakable bonds of the fighting men. The unequivocal lament of the “doomed youth” was eternalised in Owen’s verse and highlighted that he did not aim to denounce the soldiers who fought the war, but rather those who could so easily, “smiling, write his lie [of age].”

The elegiac quality of Owen’s poetry reveals his pity for the men of war, “those who die[d] as cattle.” Rather than feelings of animosity towards the enemy, camaraderie existed in every tier, on every side of the battle, between the soldiers. The fateful meeting between two soldiers in Hell, told in Strange Meeting, tells this profound ideology. The exchange of words between the soldiers, “I was the enemy you killed, my friend,” engendered a smile rather than animus. The paradox of an enemy being considered a friend exemplified the confusion of the soldier’s situations and conversely, their deep felt empathy. The unbroken iambic pentameter and consistent rhythm of the Strange Meeting resembles a normal conversation, illustrating Owen’s desire to portray the assiduity of fellow feeling under war’s derision.

The real enemies of the young men were not the Germans who were “scarcely thought of,” but in fact the army officials of their own country who were only too willing to help them “throw away their knees.” The manipulative recruitment techniques and misleading propaganda of the army officials exploited the desire of “children ardent for some desperate glory.” Owen bitterly recounts how these naïve young men, aspiring to also adorn the “jewelled hilts,” “plaid socks” and “smart salutes,” of the army officials were left as little more than “queer disease” after the war. The mourning of “undone years” echoes through Owen’s verse, the penitence of lost youth evident in the dissonance of caused by the pararhyme of Owen’s poetry. The regret is heartfelt in the stark contrast between the diction in the stanzas of Owen’s Dulce et decorum est. Stanza four employs evocative language, “obscene”, “froth-corrupted”, “writhing” and “bitter”; all words indicative of a destructive forces. The subsequent juxtaposition of “innocence” and “sin” metaphorically personifies the deceitful “friend” as the one who sinned, the “devil”. It was these men who told the “old Lie” but never the truth of war. This anger is furthered as these were the men who “smiling, wrote his lie,” happy to let the youth’s “veins run dry.” The promise of looking “a god in kilts” was never met, but a life “bent double as beggars and hags,” was the fate that awaited the soldiers.   

Owen himself mocks the audience, citizens of society who are criticized for overlooking returned soldiers, forcing them to “take whatever pity them may dole.” Sincerity of feeling only existed on the battlefield. Owen felt scorn for the idea of memorial services, held in churches at home, with “prayers” and “bells” and “signing choirboys” holding candles, somehow made the deaths acceptable. He felt that it was all hypocrisy, and that the only sincere memorial light was when the eyes of the soldier in the field lit up with the “holy glimmer of goodbyes,”, the quick farewell when they saw a comrade fall in battle. These were men for whom “life became absurd but death became absurder.” They could no longer place faith in those who had led them to the war, generals and imperials who were not subject to the “smothering dreams” the soldier’s suffered. Owen’s denunciation of these men is seen in the soldier’s increasing reliance on nature for comfort. The long, soft vowels and quiet consonants of Futility suggest only a caring concern for death, a refusal to panic, confidence placed in the purity of nature and the curing properties of the sun. These are the emotions presented in Owen’s visceral narrative of the tragic story of the soldiers, that reveal not only his love for them but to contrast these sincere emotions with his hostility towards a government who used the soldiers simply as tools for egocentric and demented desires.

Owen’s use of scrambled rhyming pattern and stanza length echoes the uncertainty and incompleteness of the lives of soldiers. Such a bitter tone and attitude toward the British Army and supporters of the war reiterates the ‘true’ aspects of war that Owen wished to convey.

woahhh, not sure why the end is all crossed out

Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: tcstudent on October 03, 2013, 11:42:21 am
Okay, so took in the feedback and decided to change everything, however there may be small parts that are the same as the previous essay. i hope this one is better.

this one is around 1.300 words

btw took out all that b/s about how the audience and shiz lols, man  i hope these topic sentences are better. everytime i think their killer sentences the corrector makes em sound like a 2 year old made them up hahah.


Twelve angry men is a play about how power can be misused.
In the heights of McCarthy paranoia in the 1950’s, America received an influx of migration, sparking a new prevalent breed of racism and prejudice within society, In the play ‘Twelve Angry Men’, a two act drama set in a jury room of a new York court of law depicts how power can be misused to falsely accuse a 16 year old boy as many characters struggle to present arguments that add to deliberations, however rose also highlights the importance of seeing facts from more than one perspective through the use of Juror Eight as he is able to utilise his given power objectively resulting in a fair verdict, hence rose asserts that power is a responsibility and should be utilised as intended, yet many decide to use the power to limit the development of a society.
A significant responsibility is given to jury members, yet many exploit their power to assist them escape their civic duty. Throughout society in the 1950’s, it was evident many suspected of communist activates would face a jury where verdicts made reflected bias and prejudice. In Twelve Angry Men Juror Ten is perceived to have a strong prejudice to ‘’slum kids’’ describing ‘’them’’ as ‘’real trash’’ and ‘’born liars’’ thus showing Juror Ten is a man who disregards others and is only interested in protecting himself. As such these assumptions made by Juror Ten highlights his apathetic view towards these ‘’different’’ kids, therefore misusing his power as he ‘’does not care what happens to the boy’’ instantly exposing Juror Ten as a prejudice and also signifying he supports the view of paranoid McCarthyists. Similarly, rose initially depicts Juror Three as a self-made man as he highlights ‘’he started from nothing’’ and has ‘’no personal feeling about this case’’ suggesting Juror Three is a fair jury member and bases his decisions on ‘’facts’’, yet rose reveals the dramatic irony of Juror Three as he claims to be ‘’talking facts’’, however in contrast reveals his prejudice describing it’s the ‘’kids’’, thus implying Juror Three aims to punish the accused for the falling out with his  son. Furthermore as deliberations over ‘’reasonable doubt’’ intensify Juror Three decides to play ‘’tic tac toe’’ as this case is ‘’getting to be a goddamn joke’’, highlighting the misuse of power given to jury members as they decide to interest themselves in games while a 16 year old boy ‘’may die’’. Hence Rose shows the possible events that can occur in jury system of the 1950’s where many were opinions were disregarded for supporting communism. And as a consequence rose shows the flaws of a justice system trying to achieve a fair verdict.

The power given to jury members allowed them to reveal their prejudices and racism, therefore showing the misuses of a jury system in the 1950’s. Rose begins the play on the ‘’hottest day of the year’’ to signifying the severity of the case as it infact is the ‘’most serious case tried in our criminal courts’’ therefore Rose highlights the importance of the case and that the jury should effectively utilise their power, yet as jurors are told to ‘’deliberate honestly and thoughtfully’’. Juror Seven depicted by rose as a ‘’Milwaukee fan’’ who insists on escaping his civic duty as a jury member, misuses his power as he has a ‘’ball game’’ to watch. And thus votes guilty as the majority and implies ‘’you couldn’t change my mind if you talked for a hundred years’’ through this illustration of Juror Seven who ‘’has a ticket burning a hole in his pocket’’ highlights the level of subjectivity in a jury room towards ‘’a 16 year old boy’’. More over as the vote is ‘’eleven to one’’ juror Seven believes the boy is ’guilty and just wants to ‘’go home before we get sort throats’’ highlighting his misuse of power as he further tries to escape his responsibility by superficially looking at the case without any evidence to support his ‘’assumptions’’ therefore Rose shows the flaws on a jury system when many characters in the play ineffectively utilise their power to try and hasten the case so they can be escape their duty. In comparison, Juror Twelve is found to be ‘’doodling’’ on his sheet ‘’as it keep him thinking clearly’’ suggests he is interested in conducting other activities and not utilising his power effectively to assist in the process of finding a reasonable doubt. Therefore Rose shows the flaws of a jury system as such events in a jury room should not occur, especially as the ‘’case is the most serious charge tried criminal court’’, further representing the misuse of power in a society where many where individuals were afraid of change and therefore voted with the majority as they did not have the ability to stand up to more dominant figures. Therefore through such irresponsibility shown by many jurors, Rose propels his belief that many jury members seen this power given, as a weapon and thus used it against the accused in order to reach a ‘’quicker verdict’’.

However, power is seen as a strength and therefore if utilised effectively has the ability to prevail others who see it as an excuse to reveal their prejudices. At first instance juror eight is depicted, starring at the ‘’New York skyline’’, suggesting his independence as the rest of the jury members ‘’sit down’’ while also indicating that the discussion within the jury room will have a greater impact on America as a whole, therefore showing that Juror Eight is a character of fairness and objectivity. At first vote juror eight is depicted ‘’standing alone against the ridicule of others’’ as the majority voted guilty this further shows how Juror Eight ‘’finds it difficult to send a boy off to die without talking about it first’’ instantly highlights his objectivity within the case, while many simply voted guilty ‘’after five minutes’’ because ‘’nobody proved otherwise’’, further highlighting the flaws and misuses of power in regards to finding a ‘’reasonable doubt’’
However this perception is challenged by Juror Eight who is a defender of democracy, by stating ‘’nobody has to prove otherwise, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution’’. Rose identifies this as a key feature of a jury system as it allows one to remain innocent until proven guilty. Moreover Juror Eight’s persistence in ‘’questioning the facts’’ creates tension within the jury room as jurors begin to change their vote sparking Juror Three to be described a ‘’public avenger as he ‘’lunges wildly’’ at Juror Eight, expressing ‘’I’ll kill him, I’ll kill him’’, this strongly shifts the majority of Jurors position on the case as they now have a ‘’doubt’’ that it cannot be taken literally. Therefore through the power Juror Eight utilised, he created ‘’the competitive type’’ juror three to be made an example of, thus influence others to be believe that ‘’sometimes the facts that are starring you in the face are wrong’’, Hence Rose shows how power should be used through Juror Eight who in the end convinces the majority of Jurors to believe that ‘’sometimes the facts staring you in the face are wrong’’.

In essence, Rose explores the jury system within the American judicial system as a whole. Through many character backgrounds who reveal their prejudices and racism, Rose shows the potentiality for injustice to prevail as many were incapable of fulfilling their civic duty in an appropriate manner, yet Rose is more focused on the Justice system having the ability to prevail when members of the jury use their power effectively and as intended resulting in a fair verdict.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: duquesne9995 on October 03, 2013, 04:09:58 pm
Hi guys, this is for David Malouf's "Ransom". It was not done to time but it's probably the length I'll be aiming for in the exam so I would like a mark to see where it would get me  :)
Comments and criticism greatly appreciated! Thanks heaps!  :D


“We’re children of nature, my lord. Of earth, as well as of the gods.” Is Somax’s view of humanity important in ‘Ransom’? Explain your view.

Whilst the novel “Ransom” is set in the midst of the ten-year long Trojan War, the author, David Malouf, demonstrates that it is still essential to maintain a sense of one’s place in the world and a connection with others. Malouf’s addition of the character Somax to the legend of Troy presents an everyday man’s ordinary wisdom, contrasting with the royal conventions of noble King Priam and the fierce warrior and hero Achilles. Somax’s delight in simple pleasures such as nourishment of the body and banal small talk serve to remind King Priam of his existence in nature. Achilles echoes Somax’s sentiment as he seeks comfort in a harmonious connection with nature. Ultimately, Achilles overcomes his grief by recognising his shared mortality and shared father-son relationship with Priam, as they are both human, unlike the gods. Priam’s appreciation of this, however, is catalysed by Somax’s storytelling and hence Somax’s simple philosophy is certainly instrumental in allowing the ransom of Hector’s body to be achieved.

Through Somax’s strong sense of place in the natural world, Malouf reveals the humane side of heroes in an epic legend. During the journey, Somax coaxes Priam to take food and drink as nourishment by reminding Priam that “[they’re] children of nature”. While Priam is inclined to abstain from food and drink for “fear” of “compromising the purity of his mission”, he nevertheless accepts Somax’s offer and appreciates the nourishing “effect on the spirit”. In the sharing of a simple meal between an “ordinary carter” and “great Priam”, Malouf suggests that the natural bodily need for nourishment is part of what makes us human, regardless of status. Somax’s delight in small talk and stories further cements his connection to nature in a “prattling world”. As “children of nature”, Somax shows that humans are equally prattling as he relates his personal anecdotes for the “interest” and “curiosity” of Priam. Malouf evokes the power of Somax’s values in his vivid imagery of the “continuous rustling and buzzing and humming” which Priam is exposed to. Priam, in paying “the price of the new”, discovers with childlike amazement that “if you stopped to listen, everything prattled”, reflective of his developing understanding of Somax’s view of himself as part of nature. Without realising it, Somax’s view of himself as part of the world around him indoctrinates Priam into the “new and unimaginable” which Malouf suggests is part of our universal humanity.

Similarly, Achilles reflects the need to be in harmony with oneself, others and the earth, in line with Somax’s earthly delights and rejection of violence. Malouf’s objection to war as a means to resolve problems is conveyed in Achilles’ yearning to be in harmony with the earth as a farmer. He contends that “war should be practised swiftly, decisively” as being caught in the idleness of war is “death to the warrior spirit”. Instead, Achilles pines for the “farmer’s life”, described as “sitting about in the shade doling out the small change of gossip” and “listening while flies buzz”. This strongly echoes Somax’s “prattling” stories and the “continuous rustling” on the banks of the Scamander River. By separating the different points of view of Somax and Achilles into different sections of the novel while still expressing similar sentiments, Malouf asserts that a desire for such simple activities transcends the chasms between humans forged by war and status. In fact, Malouf depicts violence as futile and reveals how it may hamper attainment of a sense of self through Somax’s wisdom. Somax articulates his rage upon discovering his dead son as he “felt like punching [Beauty]”. Despite this, Somax knows the answer to his own question; “what would have been the good of that? That wouldn’t have brought him back”. Almost as an implicit rebuke of Achilles’ desecration of Hector’s body while raging over the loss of his “soulmate”, Malouf’s characterisation of Somax emphasises the intrinsic human requirement to be at peace rather than at war.

Furthermore, Somax’s acceptance of the gods’ control over men’s lives, in line with the Ancient Greek beliefs, allows him to accept and deal with grief which is a concept central to the conflict within and between Achilles and Priam. Somax sees humans as “children” “of earth, as well as of the gods”. IN recognition of the domination the gods may have over mankind, he attributes the “many things we don’t know” to the gods’ actions. While he questions “mightn’t the gods regret it too and think that they acted too hasty?”, he is accepting of the role they have in determining men’s lives. This allows him to deal with the sudden, inexplicable and tragic loss of his sons with the philosophy “we go on, for all our losses”. Malouf highlights the significance of these wise words by subverting the social hierarchy in Somax’s teaching to “King Priam”. Malouf depicts Priam as a “toddler” and “a child with seventy years on his back” in the presence of Somax’s life experience. It is Somax’s storytelling which triggers Priam’s consideration of whether he really knows “what it is to lose a son”. Priam ponders his ignorance of the “human occasions” missed in his sons’ lives which alleviates the pain of having to bury a son “twenty times over”. Through Somax’s education of Priam, Malouf epitomises the importance of engagement with both the “pain and pleasure” of life as well as the need to recognise that loss is an intrinsic part of being human.

Somax’s understanding of shared mortality is ultimately realised in the act of the ransom with the liberation of Achilles from his rage and grief. Somax’s capacity to stoically and courageously soldier on with life is exactly what Achilles lacks in the opening of the novel. Malouf places emphasis on the extent to which Achilles is caught in a cycle of unfulfilling vengeance by the symbolism of the knot. Having tied Hector’s body “knot after knot” to his chariot, Achilles is unable to “break free” of his “maddened grief”. While Priam is similarly attempting “to cut this knot we are all tied in”, he has gained insight from Somax’s storytelling into the mortality and fatherhood which he and Achilles share in as part of the human race. Hence, Priam orchestrates the emancipation of Achilles, enabling him to find the “living man at the centre of…himself”. Additionally, Priam’s “new-found” connection with humanity allows him to connect with Achilles with compassion. Priam falls to his knees “out of instant fellow-feeling” just as previously Somax’s “heart softened” with “fellow-feeling” “since he too was a father” and understood Priam’s grieving state of mind. Through this domino effect of Priam doing to Achilles what Somax had done to him, Malouf reveals how raw human emotions and connections are imperative to helping one another overcome the vagaries of life.

In his retelling of the “Iliad”, Malouf’s introduction of the character Somax allows the human side of the legendary heroes Priam and Achilles to be explored. Somax enables Priam to reconnect with his humanity, reminding the great King of his place in the natural order of things as well as his shared mortality and the necessity to deal with loss. In turn, Priam evokes Somax’s teachings in his appeal to Achilles, catalysing Achilles’ reattachment with his own sense of identity. In evoking the raw human emotions and connections required for a successful ransom, Malouf attests to the necessity of moments of peace and humanity in a world of never-ending war and conflict.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: darvell on October 03, 2013, 10:49:55 pm


In the heights of McCarthyist paranoia in the 1950’s, America received an influx of migration, sparking a new prevalent breed of racism and prejudice within society. In the play ‘Twelve Angry Men’, a two act drama set in a jury room of a new York court of law You sound like you're trying to fit too much in. This doesn't need to be included - it's not necessarily relevant to your essaydepicts how power can be misused to falsely accuse a 16 year old boy the defendantas many characters struggle to present arguments that add to deliberations. however Rosecapital letter - name also highlights the importance of seeing facts from more than one perspective through the use of Juror Eight as he is able to utilise his given power objectively resulting in a fair verdict. Hence rose asserts that power is a responsibility and should be utilised as intended, yet many decide to use the power to limit the development of a society.You need to make sure you sentences aren't super long - too many commas! I think you'll be able to improve this post - reading what I PM'd to you

A significant responsibility is given to jury members, yet many exploit their power to assist them escape their civic duty. this topic sentence is really similar to the one in the second paragraph - make sure that you clearly identify what you're about to talk about in the paragraph AND how it relates to the prompt.Throughout society in the 1950’s, it was evident many suspected of communist activates would face a jury where verdicts made reflected bias and prejudice. I would avoid historical references outside of the first sentence of the essay unless they are central to the prompt/idea In Twelve Angry Men, Juror Ten is perceived to have a strong prejudice to ‘’slum kids’’ describing ‘’them’’ as ‘’real trash’’ and ‘’born liars’’sort of the same problem as with the last essay - I think you quote too often in one sentence and then try to explain 3,4, or even 5 quotes in the next sentence. Instead, pick one quote (that might even be a bit longer) that is the most POWERFUL and supports what you're trying to say, and show how it backs up your arguments and then move on to the next point/quote - at least while you're getting the hang of it.] thus showing Juror Ten is a man who disregards others and is only interested in protecting himself.what is Rose saying about being selfish and disregarding others? How does this also relate to the prompt? As such these assumptions made by Juror Ten highlights his apathetic view towards these ‘’different’’ kids, therefore misusing his power as he ‘’does not care what happens to the boy’’ instantly exposing Juror Ten as a prejudiced and also signifying he supports the view of paranoid McCarthyists.again I'd avoid historical references outside of the beginning Similarly, rose initially depicts Juror Three as a self-made manor even as the epitome of capitalism? as he highlights ‘’he started from nothing’’ and has ‘’no personal feeling about this case’’ suggesting Juror Three is a fair jury member and bases his decisions on ‘’facts’’, yet rose reveals the dramatic irony of Juror Three as he claims to be ‘’talking facts’’, however in contrast reveals his prejudice describing it’s the ‘’kids’’, thus implying Juror Three aims to punish the accused for the falling out with his  son.I reckon you could find better evidence to support this idea Furthermore as deliberations over ‘’reasonable doubt’’unnecessary quoting intensify Juror Three decides to play ‘’tic tac toe’’ as this case is ‘’getting to be a goddamn joke’’, highlighting the misuse of power given to jury members as they decide to interest themselves in games while a 16 year old boy the defendant‘’may die’’. Hence Rose shows the possible events that can occur in jury system of the 1950’s where many were opinions were disregarded for supporting communismlink back to the prompt??. And as a consequence rose shows the flaws of a justice system trying to achieve a fair verdict.make sure you're not straying from the prompt as well as including your idea!

The power given to jury members alloweds - always write in present tense NEVER past! them to reveal their prejudices and racism, therefore showing the misuses of a jury system in the 1950’s.Remember it's the misuse of POWER not the misuse of a jury system - I think that might be part of where you're going wrong. Rose begins the play on the ‘’hottest day of the year’’ to signifying the severity of the case as it infact is the ‘’most serious case tried in our criminal courts’’ therefore Rose highlights the importance of the case and that the jury should effectively utilise their power, yet as jurors are told to ‘’deliberate honestly and thoughtfully’’. I think what you're trying to say here is getting a bit muddled. You are talking about what jurors SHOULD do ect ect but there is no mention  or reference to how power is being misusedJuror Seven depicted by rose as a ‘’Milwaukee fan’’ who insists on escaping his civic duty as a jury member, misuses his power as he has a ‘’ball game’’ to watch. And J7 thus votes guilty as the majority and implies ‘’you couldn’t change my mind if you talked for a hundred years’’ through this illustration of Juror Seven who ‘’has a ticket burning a hole in his pocket’’ highlights the level of subjectivity in a jury room towards ‘’a 16 year old boy’’.Again I'd say too much quoting. Make sure you properly explain exactly what you mean before you move on to quoting again - otherwise it begins to look like you're just quoting for the sake of it More over as the vote is ‘’eleven to one’’ juror Seven believes the boy is ’guilty and just wants to ‘’go home before we get sort throats’’ highlighting his misuse of power as he further tries to escape his responsibility by superficially looking at the case without any evidence to support his ‘’assumptions’’ therefore Rose shows the flaws on a jury system when many characters in the play ineffectively utilise their power to try and hasten the case so they can be escape their duty. In comparison, Juror Twelve is found to be ‘’doodling’’ on his sheet ‘’as it keep him thinking clearly’’ suggests he is interested in conducting other activities and not utilising his power effectively to assist in the process of finding a reasonable doubt.link back to the prompt - how does this relate to him abusing his power? Therefore Rose shows the flaws of a jury system as such events in a jury room should not occur, especially as the ‘’case is the most serious charge tried criminal court’’, further representing the misuse of power in a society where many where individuals were afraid of change and therefore voted with the majority as they did not have the ability to stand up to more dominant figures.Remember its about POWER not the jury system hahha Therefore through such irresponsibility shown by many jurors, Rose propels his belief that many jury members seen this power given, as a weapon and thus used it against the accused in order to reach a ‘’quicker verdict’’.unnecessary quoting again - if it's not proving your point in something or backing you up, don't include it.

However, power is seen as a strength and therefore if utilised effectively has the ability to prevail others who see itor even abuse it? as an excuse to reveal their prejudices. At first instance Initially, juror eight- make sure you write capital letters in the jurors names! is depicted, starring at the ‘’New York skyline’’, suggesting his independence as the rest of the jury members ‘’sit down’’ while also indicating that the discussion within the jury room will have a greater impact on America as a whole, therefore showing that Juror Eight is a character of fairness and objectivity. At first vote juror eight is depicted ‘’standing alone against the ridicule of others’’ as the majority voted guilty this further shows how Juror Eight ‘’finds it difficult to send a boy off to die without talking about it first’’ instantly highlights his objectivity within the case, while many simply voted guilty ‘’after five minutes’’ because ‘’nobody proved otherwise’’, further highlighting the flaws and misuses of power in regards to finding a ‘’reasonable doubt’’ or even that it isnt always misused and if used correctly it can aid the justice system?
However this perceptionwhat are you talking about exactly, be specific is challenged by Juror Eight who is a defender of democracy, by stating ‘’nobody has to prove otherwise, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution’’. Rose identifies this as a key feature of a jury system as it allows one to remain innocent until proven guilty.Seems as though you're straying and talking about the flaws in the justice system rather than an abuse of power - they can be linked but make sure you're referring back to the prompt! Moreover Juror Eight’s persistence in ‘’questioning the facts’’ creates tension within the jury room as jurors begin to change their vote sparking Juror Three to be described a ‘’public avenger as he ‘’lunges wildly’’ at Juror Eight, expressing ‘’I’ll kill him, I’ll kill him’’, this strongly shifts the majority of Jurors position on the case as they now have a ‘’doubt’’ that it cannot be taken literally.prompt?? Therefore through the power Juror Eight utilised, he created ‘’the competitive type’’ juror three to be made an example of, thus influence others to be believe that ‘’sometimes the facts that are starring you in the face are wrong’’, Hence Rose shows how power should be used through Juror Eight who in the end convinces the majority of Jurors to believe that ‘’sometimes the facts staring you in the face are wrong’’.You need to definitely link back to the prompt DURING the para rather than just at the end, I think you got lost in the flaws of the justice system in there. Also dont forget to add in what Rose is trying to say through what you've quoted - it's important!

In essence, Rose explores the jury system within the American judicial system as a whole.Again focus on jury system rather than the prompt Through many character backgrounds who reveal their prejudices and racism, Rose shows the potentiality for injustice to prevail as many were incapable of fulfilling their civic duty in an appropriate manner, yet Rose is more focused on the Justice system having the ability to prevail when members of the jury use their power effectively and as intended resulting in a fair verdict.

I definitely think you want to re-read the play and pick out some strong evidence that you can use. If you pick beast evidence it will back up what you're trying to get across. Also as I have mentioned be careful about straying from the prompt!
Goodluck with it:)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Limista on October 04, 2013, 01:41:06 am
I'm not sure how many people have read or are studying Wilfred Owen, but some feedback on this would be appreciated :)

It is those who glorify war, and not the soldiers who fight them, that Owen’s poetry denounces.[/size]

It is hard to say who is the greatest enemy in the poetry of Wilfred Owen, for his bitterness is directed at more than one target.Here you've directly answered the question in a sentence. Good. Yet, Owen’s “subject [of] war and the pity of war” reveals his irrefutable'irrefutable' is controversial. Because it has a strong meaning, I wouldn't really put it in the intro. Save it for the body paragraphs. animosity towards war’s destruction and those who instigated and propagatedchoose either 'instigated' or 'propagated'. Clearly you have a broad vocab, but you're trying too hard to emphasise this. it. His hatred was concentrated on those who so readily told “the Old Lie” with “such high zest”; words that were the catalyst for the irreversible “doomed fate” of the youth of the dayThe first part before the semi-colon was great. I though after the semi-colon, you would go on to justify exactly what you meant, after drawing on these implications within the text. The examiner may not read this anthology as thoroughly as you or me. He wouldn't know what you meant here all that clearly, but he could harbour a guess I suppose.. Owen’s emotional fervour and rich poetic idioms, made it clear that his cause purposewas not the glory of bellicose Englandwhilst 'bellicose' is a great adjective, I don't think you should be using it to describe a proper noun. It seems out of place here.; rather, he aimed to combatis combat really the word you are looking for? It seems too intense. Maybe something more euphemistic, like 'rebuke' the rhetoric of his day, to shock the deluded military officials and civilians out of their state of ignorance, so they too could comprehend the attrition of warnicely put. I might use "the attrition of war" in my essays too.  :P. Parallel to these themes, Owen vividly describes the validity of the feelings of love and grief that existed sempiternally between the unbreakable bonds of the fighting menActually, I can argue this. Take a look at the "Dead-beat" poem. Also, I feel like you've overdone this sentence. You've tried too hard to communicate something pretty simple, and it shows through the vocab. Basically, it's a bit verbose. Too much has been put into the one sentence, making for exhaustive reading.. The unequivocal lament of the “doomed youth” was eternalised in Owen’s verse and highlightedso the words I've underlined in this sentence. They are some seriously strong, intense words. When used near each other, it makes for exhaustive reading (in my opinion). I kind of got put off. Eruditeness is not always the key to success. If you didn't have these words in, it'd make for more approachable reading. The examiner spends more time discerning your ideas, rather than being barred by the vocab. At the same time, an extensive vocab works wonders; you have more to pick and choose from, so that you can sub. in a word that fits EXACTLY within the context. A big word shouldn't be used for the sake of it. that he did not aim to denounce the soldiers who fought the war, but rather those who could so easily, “smiling, write his lie [of age].”I crossed out 'smiling' to avoid a grammar error. It should have been 'smilingly' - the adverb.

The elegiac qualityaspect of Owen’s poetry reveals his pity for the men of atwar: “those who die[d] as cattle.”what does this tone have to do with the topic? Rather than feelings ofInstead of exuding feelings of animosity towards the enemy, camaraderie existed in every tier, on every side of the battle, between the soldiershow is this related to the mournful tone of the poem?. The fateful meeting between two soldiers in Hell, told in Strange Meeting, tells this profound ideologylol. Firstly, I don't think it's an ideology. Certainly it's your revelation, but it's not an ideology. Secondly, by using the adjective 'profound', you're actually complementing your revelation, so you're complementing yourself. This provides the examiner with quite an impression of the student  :P. The exchange of words between the soldiers, “I was the enemy you killed, my friend,” engendered a smile rather than animusand as a result...? Link it back to your opinion: that there is a strong bond between the soldiers.. The paradox of an enemy being considered a friend exemplifiedexemplifies (use present tense for TR essays) the confusion of the soldier’s situations and conversely, their deep felt empathyhuh? "Conversely" means like 'on the other hand' or something. But how is "their deep felt empathy" on the opposite end of the spectrum of their confusion? Also "deep felt" is hyperbole. It's too much. Just 'empathy' would have been fine.. The unbroken iambic pentameter and consistent rhythm of the Strange Meeting resembles a normal conversation, illustrating Owen’s desire to portray the assiduity of fellow feeling what are you trying to say here exactly? under war’s derisionI think only a person can be derisive. War is a construct. Constructs cannot be derisive.. You have not answered the topic in this paragraph. You have not linked these points to the topic. The points are there; they demonstrate textual knowledge. But the extent to which you know your text seems superficial, because of all these big words that do not make things clear.

The real enemies of the young men were not the Germans who were “scarcely thought of,” but in fact the army officials of their own country who were only too willing to help them “throw away their knees.” excellent. LINKS TO TOPIC!  :DThe manipulative recruitment techniques and misleading propaganda of the army officials exploited the desire of “children ardent for some desperate glory.” Owen bitterly recounts how these naïve young men, aspiring to also adorn the “jewelled hilts,” “plaid socks” and “smart salutes,” of the army officials were left as little more than “queer disease” after the warexplicitly state that the exposed naivety of the soldiers is what denounces them . The mourning of “undone years” echoes through Owen’s verse, the penitence of lost youth evident in the dissonance of caused by the pararhyme of Owen’s poetrypretty wordy. Basically, pararhyme evokes feelings of discord. Readers are left feeling disconcerted. The regret is heartfelt in the stark contrast between the diction in the stanzas of Owen’s Dulce et decorum estshouldn't the names of the poems be in question marks? I'm not sure about this by the way.. Stanza four employs evocative language, “obscene”, “froth-corrupted”, “writhing” and “bitter”; all words indicative of a destructive forces. The subsequent juxtaposition of “innocence” and “sin” metaphorically personifies the deceitful “friend” as the one who sinned, the “devil”. It was these men who told the “old Lie” but never the truth of warand these implicit poetic conventions were used on Owen's behalf to debase the men --> phrase this differently if you will, but the point I'm trying to make here is: link to the topic.. This anger is furthered as these were the men who “smiling, wrote his lie,”why are you repeating the quotes from your introduction?? happy to let the youth’s “veins run dry.” The promise of looking “a god in kilts” was never met, but a life “bent double as beggars and hags,” was the fate that awaited the soldiers.Why is the "anger furthered" through these things you've pointed out here? Also, how does any of this link to the topic?   

Owen himself mocks the audience, citizens of society who are criticized for overlooking returned soldiersveterans, forcing them to “take whatever pity them may dole.” Sincerity of feeling only existed on the battlefieldthis ties to the point in your first para. But all the same, don't make an extreme statement like this and leave it hanging without any justification.. Owen felt scorn for thewas scornful of the idea of memorial services, held in churches at home, with “prayers” and “bells” and “signing choirboys” holding candles, whichsomehow made the deaths acceptable. He felt that it was all hypocrisy, and that the only sincere memorial light was when the eyes of the soldier in the field lit up with the “holy glimmer of goodbyes,”, the quick farewell when they saw a comrade fall in battle. These were men for whom “life became absurd but death became absurder.” They could no longer place faith in those who had led them to the war, generals and imperials who were not subject to the “smothering dreams” the soldier’s suffered. Owen’s denunciation of these men is seen in the soldier’s increasing reliance on nature for comfort. The long, soft vowels and quiet consonants of Futility suggest only a caring concern for death, a refusal to panic, wherebyconfidence isplaced in the purity of nature and the curing properties of the sun. These are the emotions presented in Owen’s visceral narrative of the tragic story of the soldiers, that reveal not only his love for them but to contrast these sincere emotions with his hostility towards a government, that simplyused the soldiers as tools for egocentric and demented desires. you are accusing the government here. Doesn't this point then belong in your second para?

Owen’s use of scrambledan alternating rhyming pattern and stanza length echoes the uncertainty and incompleteness of the lives of soldiers. Such a bitter tone and attitude toward the British Armythis contradicts with your first para, and your intro, where you praise the soldiers for their camaraderie. Or have I misunderstood? and supporters of the war reiterates the ‘true’ aspects of war that Owen wished to convey. conclusion could have been a bit longer.

woahhh, not sure why the end is all crossed out

Sometimes you use quotes excessively. Naturally, you embed them in smoothly and easily, but too many quotes means that you are not spending time on ruminating over your ideas in the essay, if you know what I mean.

 :)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: jeanweasley on October 04, 2013, 05:07:15 pm
Note: I'm not an expert but I'll give this a shot.

“We’re children of nature, my lord. Of earth, as well as of the gods.” Is Somax’s view of humanity important in ‘Ransom’? Explain your view.

Whilst the novel “Ransom” is set in the midst of the ten-year long Trojan War, the author, Don't spell out things that we already know. Assessors have read the book and know who the author is.David Malouf, demonstrates that it is stillWhat is the use of 'still' here? I don't think it serves any purpose. The usage of whilst denotes that there is a comparison but there is none here. essential to maintain a sense of one’s place in the world and a connection with others. This is good.Malouf’s addition of the character Again, don't spell everything out. Somax to the legend of TroyAgain, this is assumed. presents an everyday man’s ordinary wisdom, contrasting with the royal conventions of noble King Priam Addressing him as Priam is fine.and the fierce warrior and hero Achilles. Somax’s delight in simple pleasures such as nourishment of the body and banal small talk serve to remind King Priam of his existence in nature. Achilles echoes Somax’s sentiment as he seeks comfort in a harmonious connection with nature. Ultimately, Achilles overcomes his grief by recognising his shared mortality and shared father-son relationship with Priam, as they are both human, So what if they're both human? I don't know what the latter part of this sentence entails. unlike the gods. Priam’s appreciation of this, however, is catalysed by Somax’s storytelling and hence Somax’s simple philosophy is certainly instrumental in allowing the ransom of Hector’s body to be achieved.From your first paragraph, I feel like there's a certain will to impress here. Your vocabulary is impeccable but they need not be in every single line. Adjectives that describe the characters whilst demonstrating some knowledge become a little bit like a review and a biased analysis of them. I think your ideas here are definitely great but they need to be simply told.

Through Somax’s strong sense of place in the natural world, Malouf reveals the humane side of heroesBut aren't heroes normally human though? I think you could definitely push this a bit more and explain further. in an epic legend. During the journey, Somax coaxes Priam to take food and drink as nourishment by reminding Priam that “[they’re] children of nature”. Explain the significance of this quote and why this is important.While Priam is inclined to abstain from food and drink for “fear” of “compromising the purity of his mission”, he nevertheless accepts Somax’s offer and appreciates the nourishing “effect on the spirit”. Excessive quoting here without explanation. Why does Priam feel the way he does and why is your use of quotes important in showing what you want to show?In the sharing of a simple meal between an “ordinary carter” and “great Priam”,What does the quote mean? Don't they present a contrast and if so, why does Malouf use this? It's okay to have a little bit of language analysis in a text response. You can analyse Malouf's usage of words, especially since there are some topics that focus on his construction of the novel and how he achieves this. Malouf suggests that the natural bodily need for nourishmentSounds really awkward. Again, it feels like you're trying to impress with your vocabulary. is part of what makes us human, regardless of status.Explain status a bit more. I feel like you haven't really established this before in the early part of your paragraph. Somax’s delight in small talk and stories further cements his connection to nature in a “prattling world”What's the significance of this quote?. As “children of nature”, Somax shows that humans are equally prattling which means what? Why is this important?as he relates his personal anecdotes for the “interest” and “curiosity” of Priam. Malouf evokes the power of Somax’s values What are Somax's values?in his vivid imagery of the “continuous rustling and buzzing and humming”Great use of quote here but what does this mean and what is Malouf trying to say? It's not really clear. which Priam is exposed to. Priam, in paying “the price of the new”, discovers with childlike amazement that “if you stopped to listen, everything prattled”, reflective of his developing understanding of Somax’s view of himself as part of nature. Without realising it, Somax’s view of himself as part of the world around him indoctrinates Priam into the “new and unimaginable” which Malouf suggests is part of our universal humanity.I'm not going to annotate every single quote here but I have to reiterate that your vocabulary needs to be simplified and quotes here need to be toned down and explained. Whilst you do talk about Malouf's intent, you sacrifice the explanation for the quality of your quotes. Don't just quote for the sake of quoting - anybody can do that. Explain why Malouf has written what he has and why has your selected quote support your contention? I'm going to underline your use of excessive 'big word' vocab as I feel like you need to tone down your writing, as sometimes it feels like you're overwriting. Writing is balance of 'easy' and 'big words' and short and long sentences.

Similarly, Achilles reflects the need to be in harmony with oneself, others and the earth, in line with Somax’s earthly delights and rejection of violence.I'm not sure Somax rejects violence. He is a drunkard and his actions reflect so. I think it's more like he chooses not to punch beauty or engage in violent actions because he knows that it's going to bring back his son and it's no use. Malouf’s objection to war as a means to resolve problems is conveyed in Achilles’ yearning to be in harmony with the earth Repetition of earth.as a farmer. He contends that “war should be practised swiftly, decisively” as being caught in the idleness of war is “death to the warrior spirit”. Instead, Achilles pines for the “farmer’s life”, described as “sitting about in the shade doling out the small change of gossip” and “listening while flies buzz”. Explanation about the writing can be useful here too. What do these two quotes suggest?This strongly echoes Somax’s “prattling” stories and the “continuous rustling” on the banks of the Scamander River.Why is the river important? By separating the different points of view of Somax and Achilles into different sections of the novel while still expressing similar sentimentssentiments of what? Be clear., Malouf asserts that a desire for such simple activities transcends the chasms between humans forged by war and status. In fact, Malouf depicts violence as futile and reveals how it may hamper attainment of a sense of self through Somax’s wisdom. Somax articulates his rage upon discovering his dead son as he “felt like punching [Beauty]”. Despite this, Somax knows the answer to his own question; “what would have been the good of that? That wouldn’t have brought him back”.Quoting here is kind of messy. I had to read it twice to get it what it meant. Almost as an implicit rebuke of Achilles’ desecration of Hector’s body while raging over the loss of his “soulmate”, Malouf’s characterisation of Somax emphasises the intrinsic human requirement to be at peace rather than at war.This sentence here I think could be shorter and the idea could probably be joined with the previous sentence.

Furthermore, Somax’s acceptance of the gods’Capital. control over men’s lives, in line with the Ancient Greek beliefs, allows him to accept and deal with grief which is a concept central to the conflict within and between Achilles and Priam. Somax sees humans as “children” “of earth, as well as of the gods”.Awkward quoting here. The quotation marks look weird. IN recognition of the domination the gods may have over mankind, he attributes the “many things we don’t know” to the gods’ actions. While he questions “mightn’t the gods regret it too and think that they acted too hasty?”, he is accepting of the role they have in determining men’s lives. This allows him to deal with the sudden, inexplicable and tragic loss of his sons with the philosophy “we go on, for all our losses”. Which means what?Malouf highlights the significance of these wise words by subverting the social hierarchy in Somax’s teaching to “King Priam”.Analysis here falls short. The quote needs to be explained as it's one of the most significant quotes of the novel. I'm not convinced that this is all Malouf wants to do. Malouf depicts Priam as a “toddler” and “a child with seventy years on his back” in the presence of Somax’s life experience. Which means what? How does the characterisation support your stance?It is Somax’s storytelling Quote is important here; you might also want to describe the factors of storytelling and why they are only important, not just showing Priam that he isn't really human.You can link storytelling with human connection here.which triggers Priam’s consideration of whether he really knows “what it is to lose a son”. Priam ponders his ignorance of the “human occasions” missed in his sons’ lives which alleviates the pain of having to bury a son “twenty times over”. Don't really know what you're trying to say here. Through Somax’s education sounds awkwardof Priam, Malouf epitomises the importance of engagement with both the “pain and pleasure” of life as well as the need to recognise that loss is an intrinsic part of being human.

Somax’s understanding of shared mortality is ultimately realised in the act of the ransom with the liberation of Achilles from his rage and grief. Kind of a mouthful here.Somax’s capacity to stoically and courageously soldier onkind of colloquial. with life is exactly what Achilles lacks in the opening of the novel.Unless the section is really important, don't mention it. Of course, you would expect in a text that there would be some kind of character development. Malouf places emphasis on the extent to which Achilles is caught in a cycle of unfulfilling vengeance by the symbolism of the knot. Having tied Hector’s body “knot after knot” to his chariot, Achilles is unable to “break free” of his “maddened grief”. Good use of symbolism here While Priam is similarly attempting “to cut this knot we are all tied in”, he has gained insight from Somax’s storytelling into the mortality and fatherhood which he and Achilles share in as part of the human race. Sounds awkward. Makes me think that there are alien races. Hence, Priam orchestrates the emancipation of Achilles, enabling him to find the “living man at the centre of…himself”. How, though? Additionally, Priam’s “new-found” connection with humanity allows him to connect with Achilles with compassion. What does this quote mean? Priam falls to his knees “out of instant fellow-feeling” just as previously Somax’s “heart softened” with “fellow-feeling” “since he too was a father” and understood Priam’s grieving state of mind. Too many quotes in the one sentence and with minimal explanation. Why are your selected quotes important? What do they entail? Through this domino effect of Priam doing to Achilles what Somax had done to him, Malouf reveals how raw human emotions and connections are imperative toin helping one another overcome the vagaries of life.

In his retelling of the “Iliad”, Malouf’s introduction of the character Somax allows the human side of the legendary heroes Priam and Achilles to be explored. Awkward ending here. Anything is, in a sense, able to be explored. Why is humanity so important? Why didn't Malouf focus on traditional heroism? Somax enables Priam to reconnect with his humanity, reminding the great King of his place in the natural order of things, only because this sentence sounds like a race. as well as his shared mortality and the necessity to deal with loss. In turn, Priam evokes Somax’s teachings in his appeal to Achilles, catalysing Achilles’ reattachment awkward word use with his own sense of identity. In evoking the raw human emotions and connections required for a successful ransom, Malouf attests to the necessity of moments of peace and humanity in a world of never-ending war and conflict. Nice ending sentence here

Overall, there is good use of textual knowledge and evidence, however, on most occasions, there seems to be excessive quoting - that is, quoting for the sake of quoting. Explanations seem to be quite minimal, without full exploration of what has happened. Vocabulary is somewhat too complex and hinders the understanding of the analysis as a whole. I suggest simplifying some of the words and phrases there and aim for a substantial explanation. Inclusion of storytelling could be further explored as well as the use of language employed by Malouf. On the whole, this is a very good essay, although at times it suffer from the weight of complex words and excessive quoting, masking the potential for in depth analysis.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: ahat on October 04, 2013, 05:36:33 pm
@Sugarminted

Thanks so much for the feedback. It agrees with my opinion on that essay too, I didn't think it was particularly good. I tried to use big words to veil my lack of proper textual knowledge :P
Would you mind (if you have any practice Wilfred pieces), sharing them? It would really help.

Btw, what's the effect of using pararhyme and half-rhyme on the audience, in your opinion?
If you look at 'Has your soul slipped', the whole thing is pararhyme. What's the effect?
And have you grouped your poems by theme?
(sorry for the barrage of questions)

Btw, in my second paragraph, I was trying to say that Owen isn't denouncing the soldier because he pities them, but this obviously has to be reworked?
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Limista on October 04, 2013, 07:31:14 pm
Well whatever Wilfred Owen practice pieces I do have, they are either somewhere under my bed/ with my teacher etc etc. Point being that they are all handwritten and I honestly don't know why, but I always end up losing them (kind of like socks in the washing machine  :P ). I'll try and write one that's top quality soon though.

I think pararhyme and half-rhyme have pretty much the same effect on the reader. They have that jarring kind of feeling, because we think, "Why isn't it full rhyme??" As readers, we want to be treated to something that rhymes completely, so that we feel a sense of completeness. But his poetry deliberately avoids this - Owen does not want us to be satisfied.

As for the 'theme' question: not exactly.

It's your choice whether you want to rework your second para. I guess I just got confused because the topic sentence had 'army officials' written, as opposed to 'soldiers'. 

Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: ahat on October 04, 2013, 08:09:51 pm
Thanks man, I'll be eagerly awaiting your piece because I'll really need the help.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Alwin on October 05, 2013, 12:50:24 pm
Hi guys, this is for David Malouf's "Ransom". It was not done to time but it's probably the length I'll be aiming for in the exam so I would like a mark to see where it would get me  :)
Comments and criticism greatly appreciated! Thanks heaps!  :D
          You know I'm not doing Ransom, but you wanted some feedback so here it is (mainly stylist suggestions since I can't comment on textual knowledge).
          Btw sorry I made you wait until the morning sah sah, or I would have made a bunch of errors in my suggestions :P You don't have to take them all on board btw, some are just stylistic.

Intro:
Example 1
          Whilst the novel “Ransom” is set in the midst of the ten-year long Trojan War, the author, David Malouf, demonstrates that it is still essential to maintain a sense of one’s place in the world and a connection with others. Malouf’s addition of the character Somax to the legend of Troy presents an everyday man’s ordinary wisdom, contrasting with the royal conventions of noble King Priam and the fierce warrior and hero Achilles.

Possible rewording cutting down on words and adjectives.
          Set against the backdrop of war and revenge that ultimately would span ten years, David Malouf explores the importance of one's position in the world and relations with others. Through Somax, Malouf's idea of a 'common man' during the time of Troy, Malouf is able to juxtapose and challenge different points of view underpinning society (?) awkward ending here sorry, since I don't know enough about the text
The rest of your intro is a bit too detailed for my liking, very strong signposting on the verge retelling the story.

         Varying sentence structure is something you might want to consider too. You begin with two long sentences with a few too many commas for my liking - although some you can remove easily but cutting down on unnecessary phases like: " , the author," and " , the character,". But, following these (carefully?) constructed sentences are a series of short more simple sentences. It almost feels like a list of dot points with conjunctions at the start of each idea to give it cohesion, but lends itself to a bit of a 'stop start' sounding structure.

         Typically short sentences are good for a clear introduction of a specific point, or reiteration of an important point. Complex sentences, often including quotes, are often for analysis or exploration of ideas. Note that this is a personal view and other people may disagree. Again, you do not have to take on all my suggestions.  anyways, an example:
The sky is such a vivid blue. It's on the verge, the very edge of the slim divide between a brilliant azure and the richest sapphire - that to anyone else would appear as a simple, continuous "sky blue". But it's more to me. Much more.
Clearly you can't overuse this is formal writing since that example is a much more creative twist, but that's my general impression of use sentence lengths. Only use very short ones (or even non-standard form if a creative piece) to make a strong point. Otherwise, you might consider combine two of your shorter sentences in your introduction with an appropriate conjunction. eg:

Example 2
          Achilles echoes Somax’s sentiment as he seeks comfort in a harmonious connection with nature. Ultimately, Achilles overcomes his grief by recognising his shared mortality and shared father-son relationship with Priam, as they are both human, unlike the gods.

Could become:
          Achilles echoes Somax’s sentiment as he seeks comfort in a harmonious connection with nature, yet ultimately he is overcome by his grief recognising his shared mortality and shared father-son relationship with Priam, (as they are both human, unlike the gods.) <-- put last bit in brackets since I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it. I'll assume it's because I haven't read the text

          Varying sentence lengths and structure is astylistic element only, and not everyone is comfortable with it. You can continue writing in the same style (I don't see much wrong with it, if at all anything) but just to make you aware that you can use different types of sentences too. I think you need to find a balance of short and long sentences that you are comfortable writing in and gives your essay good cohesion.

Punctuation (while I'm at it)

          I'd suggest that maybe you learn how to use all of the following punctuation so you can really vary up your sentences (I just included the basic ones too which you already know how to use judging from the essays your given me to read):
Some punctuation
,  comma     .  full stop     /  slash     :  colon     ;  semi colon     ( <clause or phrase> ) parenthesis aka brackets     - <clause or phrase> -  dashes     , <clause or phrase>,  paired commas     " " quotation marks   ' apostrophe    ? question mark    ! exclamation mark     ... ellipsis (always three of them! never more, never less)
BUT word of warning, do not abuse them especially the semi colon, and never use an exclamation mark in formal writing (unless in a quote perhaps). And don't spend too long on sentence structures and punctuation as your ability to express yourself and use of the English Language is assessed more in Section B. Section A is more focused on your analysis and ideas of the text.

          I notice you don't use any ellipsis at the beginning of quotations (please use the proper noun form of "quote". Quote is a verbs, so adding an 's' to make QUOTES doesn't really it a noun. The proper plural is quotations. A bit pedantic I know, but meh. Just a habit). Also I acknowledge how you've used square brackets when quoting from the text, but personally I prefer to avoid them at all costs even tho there's nothing wrong with it. Anyways, an example:

Example 3
          amazement that “if you stopped to listen, everything prattled”, reflective of his developing understanding of Somax’s view of himself as part of nature
Could become:
          amazement that “...if you stopped to listen, everything prattled...”, reflective of his developing understanding of Somax’s view of himself as part of nature
          Not really of much importance, just makes your writing look a bit cleaner, although I only use it on long quotes personally. Some people don't use them at so really it's another aesthetic thing.


Body Paragraphs (and back on track!):

          I think someone said something about this before, but occasionally you seem to be quoting for the sake of quoting. It's not that I'm harshly criticising your work, but 13 quotes in the first paragraph 9 of which are three words or less is just a bit excessive for my liking. You said you're known for your 'one word quotes' and yes it does add to your evidence in a typical TEEL structure, but I want you sah sah to consider this:

          Will you get marks by just repeating another person's words, even if it is the author of the text?         

          Looking at the criteria sheet, you will notice that it does mention knowledge of the text, and there's no better way to demonstrate knowledge other than memorising large sections of the text yeah?
          But then, look at all the other marking criteria, "...exploring complexities of its concepts and construction..." "...understanding of the implications of the topic ... and exploring its complexity from the basis of the text..." What examiners are mainly looking for is your analysis and ideas and understanding and explanations of the text. Depth and complexity is the key.

          So there's really, nothing technically wrong with quoting excessively from the text, so long as you can explain all your evidence and relate it back to the prompt. Rather than TEEL (Topic Sentence, Evidence, Explanation, Link), I tend to write in:
TEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL
(Topic Sentence, Evidence, Explanation, Explanation, Explanation, Explanation, Evidence, Explanation, Explanation, Explanation, Explanation, ... , Link)
Okay I was a bit excessive on the E's (at that rate one paragraph would be like 2 pages long haha) but hopefully you get the idea.

          When quoting, and again I'm not encouraging you to employ this structure too but merely want to show my structure, I tend to paraphrase and only sparingly use quotes to demonstrate understanding of text. To me, a quote is like the cherry on top, it looks pretty but only has limited use. What's much better (and more tasty!) is the filling, the explanation. I can't help you with analysis because I haven't read the text, but I would encourage you to go back to each quote and ask yourself the following questions:
Pretty much the tl;dr version is: Have I explained the quote and related it back to prompt by analysing it fully?

Example 4
"In the narrative The Three Little Pigs the wolf gives up too easily" Discuss

Possible evidence:
          Regardless of the fact he is unable to "blow away" the third house, the big bad wolf undoubtedly tries ("endeavours" could be used here, but I don't like the flow) his best straining to bring down ("demolished" could be used here too) the final house. Moreover, given his previous efforts blowing down the two houses, that he "...huffed and he puffed and he huffed and he puffed..." is indicative (a simpler word could be used here eg "indicates") the wolf's determination to succeed and gobble up the first little pig (explanation of quote). Though he does not appear to exert too much energy bringing down the first house, it demonstrates that the wolf did not meekly ("simply" could have been used here too) give up at the first sign of opposition symbolised by the straw house (more analysis of the quote, addressing the prompt that he 'gives up too easily')
etc etc, he climbs down the chimney of the third house, explain how it shows he didn't give up easily etc etc

          (note that I would use the phrase "give up" not "give in" because the later implies the wolf succumbed to some more power force rather than the wolf himself being the one in power. Sometimes it's just the little things, like one word's difference that is important) Also, I didn't use that many "big words" because I felt it would detract from what I'm trying to say. This I can't explain sorry, but more of a gut instinct thing for me, when to tone things up with big words and when to tone down with short words

          I could have excessively quoted, that the little pigs where defiant proclaiming "By the hair of my chinny chin chin, I will not let you come in." and the wolf replied "________" and then ___________ happened which demonstrated that __________ (clearly it's been awhile since I read this story haha!) But, that would be retelling more of the story and added maybe 3-4 lines to my paragraph, which might have mean less explanations.
          Hopefully you get the idea!

          Oh, and another thing (sorry for doing things out of order) but erm you might want to work on your topic sentences a little. In my cooked up example above, I used a LOT of definites in my opening line. "Why" you may ask? It demonstrates two things, 1) you are confident with your text and 2) you have a strong postilion and contention.
          If, for example you were concerned about your ambiguity hehe, then try using more definite words like "undoubtedly", "clearly", "ultimately" etc but I don't see this as a major issue in this essay

          I notice in almost all your essays, you try to link between paragraphs. There are two schools of though on this, both imho equally valid so I won't make this post any longer but trying to explain both. Just don't try to link between paragraphs if it feels unnatural!

          What I suggest for your body paragraphs is a bit less quoting and more analysis. Also, maybe a few less 'big' words and use simpler more direct wording to convey your ideas with greater ease. Again, just a suggestion, but I feel the explanation and analysis parts are quite important in Text Response.

Conclusion (of your essay, not my suggestions hehe):

          Not much to be said. Nice strong ending and no inclusion of "new evidence" that some people try to slip in to impress the examiners which should not be done... ever. However, some word choice are a bit unsual

Example 5, last one I promise!
In turn, Priam evokes Somax’s teachings in his appeal to Achilles, catalysing Achilles’ reattachment with his own sense of identity.

Could be:
In turn, Priam evokes Somax’s teachings in his appeal to Achilles, initiating (or "speeding up", I dunno since haven't read the text) the renewal Achilles’ connection with his own sense of identity.

Final comments (aka the tl;dr version :P):


GOOD LUCKS :))
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: 9_7 on October 05, 2013, 06:30:28 pm
I just wrote a few paragraphs out of bordem.. could i get some feedback too please!! thanks a lot ^_^

However, one juror stands out not only by following the judge’s instructions “honestly and thoughtfully” with “grave responsibility” but by also acting as a shining light in the jury room. Utilized through the 8th Juror – the only character who initially submitted a “not guilty” verdict, illustrates how he wants to be sure that the jurors have given due consideration to the deliberations before condemning the defendant to death. Unlike the other characters, the 8th Juror is willing to question the “facts” given to them. His remarks of “I cannot send a boy off to die” without “talking about it first” demonstrates how he is taking full responsibility of his duty and is prepared to spend time discussing the case rather than deferring to an overwhelming majority of opinions. Symbolized by the stage direction of the “pauses” before the 8th Juror talks, reveals how he is thoughtful about the deliberations in a well-reasoned and objective manner. Hence, it is the 8th Juror who stands out in the jury because of his heroic, non-prejudicial and non-complacent acts.

As the intricacies of the plot unfold, Rose demonstrates the presence of complacency within the jury room. Despite the fact that the jurors are faced with “grave responsibility” of deliberating, some of the jurors could not care less and formed the “guilty” vote straight away demonstrating their lack of civic duty. Demonstrated through Juror 3 and Juror 12’s game of tic-tac-toe, this emphasizes how care-less the jurors were about the deliberations. Further symbolized by the “scarred table”, suggest that even past jurors have preferred to etch out the table out of sheer boredom rather than confront the seriousness of their roles as jurors. In addition, Juror 7’s remarks of “god damn waste of time” reflects his lack of civic duty as he “doesn’t care” whether the boy faces a guilty or not guilty verdict. Hence, we see that complacency and a lack of civic duty can seriously undermine justice and make the process of reaching a fair verdict more difficult.

Rose endeavors to highlight to the audience how ones prejudice may cloud up the ability to reach a fair verdict. When prejudice is present through the minds of the jurors, it has a direct impact on whether they view the case in a well-reasoned and objective manner. Through the plot device of the setting, Rose emphasizes the suffocation and oppression that stems from prejudice which is symbolized by the “stifling heat”. The stifling heat is severe to demonstrate the discrimination and subsequent tension that arises from some of the jurors. Prejudice has a major impact on the juror’s attitudes towards the defendant due to their unfavorable feelings and beliefs. This is demonstrated through Juror 10’s remarks of “You cannot believe a word they sat” as “they are born liars”. Here, it is evident to see his overwhelming hatred towards people from the “slums” meaning people from low-socio economic backgrounds. Not only this but Rose portrays how Juror 10 sees the boy as a representative of a “group” rather than an individual. Here, his remarks about the defendant clearly show his unwillingness to view the case in a well-reasoned and objective manner. To reinforce this, Juror 4, a character that is portrayed as a bigot has similar beliefs as to Juror 10. His remarks of “slums are breeding grounds for criminals” show that he also views the defendant as a group rather than an individual. Thus, through the actions of both Jurors 10 and 4, we can see how prejudice creates difficulty for the jury to reach a final verdict.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on October 07, 2013, 02:26:44 pm
Quote
However, one juror stands out not only by following the judge’s instructions “honestly and thoughtfully” with “grave responsibility”, but by also acting as a shining light what does this mean?in the jury room.If this were a topic sentence, I probably wouldn't quote in it. It's hard to judge your topic sentence without seeing the corresponding prompt. Utilized through the 8th Juror – the only character who initially submitted a “not guilty” verdict if you wanted to do this but look a bit better, you could write "The only character who initially "raised his hand" to vote not guilty" -- stage direction looks better than dialogue., illustrates how he wants to be sure that the jurors have given due consideration to the deliberations before condemning the defendant to death. Unlike the other characters, the 8th Juror is willing to question the “facts” given to them. His remarks of “I cannot send a boy off to die” without “talking about it first” demonstrates how he is taking full responsibility of his duty and is prepared to spend time discussing the case rather than deferring to an overwhelming majority of opinions. Symbolized by the stage direction of the “pauses” before the 8th Juror talks, reveals how he is thoughtful about the deliberations in a well-reasoned and objective manner grammar - read that sentence out loud.. Hence, it is the 8th Juror who stands out in the jury because of his heroic, non-prejudicial and non-complacent acts. stick to two descriptors. "His heroic and non-prejudicial acts". If it takes you three descriptors, you're not using the best descriptors.
Yep, good integration of quotes and not bad quotes used. It's hard to judge an individual paragraph not in an essay because half of the criteria disappears. I don't think you're analysing as much as you could, rather, just quoting for the sake of showing your knowledge. (Which, sure, will get you marks, but not all of them. Quote to show your knowledge and to springboard your analysis)... I mean, it's all well and good to quote and say what that quote shows about the character. But what does that quote show about the text? About society? About the values of the author, or the potential ideas/concepts that arise from that quote?

Quote
As the intricacies of the plot unfold, Rose demonstrates the presence of complacency within the jury room. Seems a bit strange to say that Rose demonstrates something within in the jury room. Like. "Rose demonstrates that 8th Juror is objective".. It seems pretty odd, because he is creating the 8th Juror, not demonstrating him. Same for the complacency. I mean, what is Rose saying about the complacency in the jury room? "Rose condemns the complacency of the jury room, asserting that the structure of the justice system allows its most valuable principles to be lost in practice". The sentence I just wrote is substantial, and leads into something else. But your topic sentence above, it doesn't tell me the idea of your paragraph (well, I know it will be about complacency) and doesn't lend itself to analysis. If there were a prompt, the topic sentence would probably not quite connect to the prompt, because the TS is just "this is what's in the jury room".. There's no real comment about it if that makes sense. The way I structure TS is explained on previous pages (check the 12AM feedback links on the 1st page) Despite the fact that the jurors are faced with “grave responsibility” of deliberating, some of the jurors could not care less seems informal. The problem with informality is that it can damage the sexiness of your writing and the effectiveness of your writing (just so people know that we don't avoid informality just for the sake of it) and formed the “guilty” vote straight awaycomma demonstrating their lack of civic duty yeah but what about this? Needs more. (same as the last paragraph's feedback, values etc). Demonstrated through Juror 3 and Juror 12’s game of tic-tac-toe quote this to make it really obvious., this emphasizes how care-less careless the jurors were about the deliberations. Further symbolized by the “scarred table”, suggest that even past  grammar again. I think what you want is "Further, the symbolism of the "scarred table" suggests that even past jurors preferred to etch the table out of boredom rather than confront the seriousness of their role."... moreover, good quote of scarred table, but you could get more out of it. Not bad analysis, don't get me wrong... but "out of boredom" seems like a bit of a reach. You coudl say the scarred tables symbolise the damage of the justice systemjurors have preferred to etch out the table out of sheer boredom rather than confront the seriousness of their roles as jurors. In addition, Juror 7’s remarks of “god damn waste of time” reflects his lack of civic duty as he “doesn’t care” whether the boy faces a guilty or not guilty verdict. Hence, we see that complacency and a lack of civic duty can seriously undermine justice and make the process of reaching a fair verdict more difficult.
Not bad. What's with the civic duty stuff? People seem to use that a lot. I think it's pretty boring, and no one reallly deconstructs it for analysis it? Nice finish here. This paragraph had good quotes used, and shifted more toward good analyssis than the last para. Your last sentence was nice.

Quote
Rose endeavors to highlight to the audience how onesneeds a possessive apostrophe prejudice may cloud up the ability to reach a fair verdict nicer topic sentence. When prejudice is present through the minds of the jurors, it has a direct impact on whether they view the case in a well-reasoned and objective manner. Through the plot device of the settingsounds slightly cumbersome , Rose emphasizes the suffocation and oppression that stems from prejudice which is symbolized by the “stifling heat”. nice quote and nice analysis but expression of the previous sentence needs some reworking. The stifling heat is severe to demonstrate the discrimination and subsequent tension that arises from some of the jurorsodd phrasing here. Prejudice has a major impact on the juror’s attitudes towards the defendant due to their unfavorable feelings and beliefs. This is demonstrated through Juror 10’s remarks of “You cannot believe a word they sat” as “they are born liars”. Here, it is evident to see his overwhelming hatred towards people from the “slums” meaning people from low-socio economic backgroundsagain, odd phrasing. Sentence starts off nice, I'm expectng something like "Here, it is evident that his overwhelming hatred towards people from the "slums" corrupts the proper functioning of the justice system", but then you just explain what it means to be from a slum. Doesn't hit any of hte criteria really. Analyse, don't just describe with quotes.. Not only this but Rose portrays how Juror 10 sees the boy as a representative of a “group” rather than as an individual. Here, his remarks about the defendant clearly show his unwillingness to view the case in a well-reasoned and objective mannernot bad. shift more of your writing toward this instead of description.. To reinforce this, Juror 4, a character that is portrayed as a bigot hmm, not quite. He is protrayed as a fiercely logical character, any bigotry is pretty subtle, so I think it's a stretch to say his whole portrayal is bigoted. (though, I do agree, he's a prick).. It works better if you say that he's meant to be a logical character, but is prejudiced anyway, and this shows the inescapable nature of prejudicehas similar beliefs as to Juror 10. His remarks of “slums are breeding grounds for criminals” show that he also views the defendant as a group rather than an individual yeah, but what about this? You just repeated what you said for Juror 10. Have a look at the VCAA criteria and see if you can match this sentence to any of the dot points.. Thus, through the actions of both Jurors 10 and 4, we can see how prejudice creates difficulty for the jury to reach a final verdict.
Not bad, not bad. I think it would be helpful for you to introduce discussion of Rose to your paragraphs. For example.

"Here, Rose condemns...." or "Here, Rose endorses...." or "Here, Rose asserts..." etc - to force you more toward good analysis.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: sin0001 on October 07, 2013, 07:35:21 pm

 Not bad, not bad. I think it would be helpful for you to introduce discussion of Rose to your paragraphs. For example.

"Here, Rose condemns...." or "Here, Rose endorses...." or "Here, Rose asserts..." etc - to force you more toward good analysis.

Will it be better to go into detail about the rich history of the text and show the 'bigger picture' of the idea presented in the body para? If so, how would one integrate this discussion without sounding completely irrelevant?
Thanks
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on October 07, 2013, 08:09:20 pm
Hm. It's always best to integrate the "bigger picture", I think. That's where good analysis comes from and where your scape character/plot summaries. So in terms of the history - keep it all relevant. I mean, discussing 10thJuror as an embodiment of McCarthyism was one of my favourite things, and sometimes (rarely) I  juxtaposed 3rd as an embodiment of undesirable capitalist traits and 8th as the polar desirable socialist traits (keeping with the history). It's fine to integrate and can work really great. But demonstrating knowledge and analysis is the croteria, so if you only demonstrate that you could be a great historian, you're going nowhere. Keep it balanced :)

As to how -- if you go on the English board (not submissions) and look back a week or two, I posted an example 12AM essay. There should be historical discussion. If there's notc let me know and I'll try find a good example. (Actually, I think the essay I uploaded might be one of the capitalism/sociali ones, but one of the shitty ones)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: ahat on October 09, 2013, 01:18:34 pm
War Poems :) Feedback appreciated.

Owen describes a state of moral and physical disorder, using great control of poetic form and structure.
 
Owen’s poetry is relentless in its denunciation of war. The macabre imagery of his verse reveals the morphing of the soldier’s reality – of young men “ardent for some desperate glory” to a satanic scene where “death became absurd but life became absurder.”  Owen’s anthology is sentiment to his conviction that the poet must share the suffering – even the self sacrifice of the troops – so he too could bear witness to “man’s inhumanity to man.” By doing so, Owen aimed to expose the complacent civilian populations to the moral and physical disorder of war, not on a merely superficial level, but to the point where the reader could truly envisage the suffering of the soldiers. His precise intertwining between poetic device and bittersweet narrative accomplished this aim, so the reader could relive the tragic tale of the men of war. Despite his disturbing tale, Owen also exemplified the feelings of love and fellowship that existed sempiternally between the soldiers, even in the disorder of the battlefield.

 ‘Has your soul sipped’ and ‘Strange Meeting’ provide an antithetical interpretation for morality in war. Whereas ‘Strange Meeting’ boasts the deep felt empathy between the soldiers even in the derision of ‘Hell’, ‘Has your soul sipped’ tells of the carnal pleasures of murder and death.  The inclusion of ‘soul’ in the title has immediate connotations of death – the poem seems to be the description of an event that goes beyond flesh and blood and is almost other worldly. Owen’s use of sibilance in the title (‘soul sipped’) sets an appropriately sinister tone for the poem and foreshadows the shocking revelation at the end. The use of pararhyme (‘sweet’/’sweat’,’ meaning’/’mourning’) and anaphora (repetition of ‘sweeter’) speeds up the flow of the verse, reflecting the increasing excitement of the speaker as he describes his pleasure being even “sweeter than the nightingales” – the voices of the soldiers who sing of hope and glory . The story culminates in the murder of soldier, a boy, dead and no longer considered a ‘threat’. In this macabre scene as the boy’s ‘life tide’ slowly seeps into the ground is the violence of war seen as appalling rather than pleasing. After being exposed to such a horrendous tale does the reader finally begin to comprehend the attrition of war. Empathy is felt for these “doomed youth” who “die as cattle” and their deaths are considered all the more heinous and sacrilegious due to this twisted fate. 

This role of fate and God’s overruling power is a strong motif in Owen’s verse. He reveals his antipathy towards an almighty being who refused to “assuage the tears” or “fill these void veins full again with youth” of the lives He had knowingly shortened. Owen draws parallels between the biblical tale of Abraham and the genocide of Europe in ‘Parable of the old man and the young’ to highlight God’s blasphemous nonchalance. Metaphorically representing God as the ‘Old man’ Owen describes how God refused to accept the “Angel” who “called …out of heaven” which would have meant an end to the war. Rather, the decision to reject the offer had an impact that would be felt for generations, and as such, Owen consummates his poem in a couplet that hyperbolises this impact. This rejection had such a quick and unavoidable effect, (and hence the faster pace of the couplet) that the youth of Europe were left to perish “one by one”. Owen’s stringent use poetic convention serves to highlight his abhorrence of those who propagated war.

Owen’s poetry reveals that real enemies of the young men were not soldiers or Germans who were “scarcely thought of,” but in fact the army officials of their own country who were only too willing to help them “throw away their knees.” This was the most immoral act of all. Army officials, generals and leaders, people who were idolised for their “smart salutes” and “jewelled hilts”, role models for the naïve and innocent younger generations, were the ones only too willing to “smiling[ly], [write] the lie [of age]”. These were men who Owen described as having “famines of thought and feeling,” people who if they had been subject to the “smothering dreams” that they had forced upon the soldiers, would never have told “the Old lie” with such “high zest”. Owen denounces these men and aims to eternalise the story of the soldiers in verse so that the same mistakes never happen again.

War was far removed from the glorious “pleasure” that the soldier’s thought it was. Young, strong men were transformed into “old beggars” and “hags” due to the physical disorder of war. Rather, war was an ecstatic and adrenaline fuelled pit of terror that had no end, exemplified in the long, running sentences of “Dulce et decorum est”. The sudden change of meter of the poem reveals the grudging acceptance of the soldiers for the fate they were sealed to, of “blood-shod” feet and “drowning as if under a green sea”. 

Owen constantly talks of a world which seems on the verge of disintegration, and as such, makes use of pararhyme and half-rhyme that produce this sense of dissonance. The whole world of the poem is a cracked and damaged place to be, the rhymes are broken (and frequently irritating) to match the world of war that in no way resembled society which kept its remnants of morality.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: simba on October 09, 2013, 07:53:49 pm
Okay, so this is the first relatively timed essay (I finished it in 68 minutes, every essay I've done thus far has been 90+). I also did a word count of this and it was only around 800 words... Would I need to write more in the exam? (ah!)

"It's very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this." How is this shown to be in this play

American society in the 1950's was established on a base of fear towards those endowing features of difference. Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men acts as a microcosm for society, demonstrating the ways in which personal prejudices can seek to hinder justice. 5th Juror and 3rd Juror struggle to differentiate their upbringing and relationships respectively from the deliberations at hand. Furthermore, several jurors find it difficult to part with prejudices held in this era, rather than their own personal feelings. Finally, Rose examines the features of the judicial system itself which leads to the difficulty in keeping personal prejudice out of the deliberations, ultimately enforcing his view that in the judicial system, the final verdict can often be skewed due to a range of factors, rather than merely the individual personal prejudices on the case.

Rose condemns the ways in which personal prejudice can alter ones view on the deliberations, utilising 5th and 3rd Jurors to demonstrate the difficulty in "not [making] this a personal thing." 5th Juror feels a connection to the defendant, due to their similar upbringing. Hence, he subconsciously becomes defensive as other jurors consider the defendants upbringing, arguing "I nurse that trash in Harlem six nights a week," convinced the comments "[are] something personal" towards him. This, in turn, positions 5th Juror against the contentions of of the other jurors, due to their generalisations which 5th Juror has taken personally. 5th Juror appears unaware to the ways in which the defendants guilt, indicating the difficulty in keeping his personal prejudice out of the case. Furthermore, Rose highlights how personal prejudice can be difficult to part with through 3rd Juror. At the commencement of the play, 3rd Juror notes "Now I have no personal feelings on the case," which is later contradicted by his statement "I know [the defendant]... what they do to you." Rose utilises this contradiction to imply 3rd Juror may not be actively aware of his personal prejudice affecting his judgement. This is reinforced at the denouement of the play, indicated by the stage direction "there is a long pause," as 3rd Juror considers his notion of the boys guilt. The use of the adjective "long" symbolises the strenuous amount of time required for 3rd Juror to part with his personal prejudice before voting "not guilty," connotating the difficulty of keeping personal misconceptions out of the deliberations.

Utilising several jurors throughout the play with prejudices specific to the time period, Rose asserts that prejudice which is not necessarily personal may contribute to the difficulty in remaining objective. Whilst 4th Juror is characterised by Rose as a fact based character, reflected in his stage direction of "reading a newspaper" at the commencement of the play, his misinformed statements such as "slums are breeding grounds for criminals" implies the difficulties in keeping the commonly held beliefs of social class from his objectivity. Furthermore, 10th Juror finds it difficult to differentiate the proceedings from the prejudices involved with the era of McCarthyism. These commonly held beliefs lead him to deduce "They're against us, the hate us, they want to destroy us." Whist 10th Juror has personally dealt with the defendants type before, Rose implies it is the misconceptions of the era in itself which leads him to deduce "he's guilty," as he even notes "I've met some who were okay," reinforcing it's not purely his personal interactions with others that make  it difficult to keep prejudice out of the deliberations

Rose examines the ways in which the judicial system positions the jurors to involve their personal prejudice on the issue, signifying the role the justice system plays in the difficulty of jurors differentiating their views from what should theoretically be objective deliberation. This is demonstrated as 11th Juror nots "we have nothing to gain or lose from our verdict." Whilst this factor is essential towards establishing a theoretically objective based discussion, in practice this would clearly not be the case. 4th Juror mentions "We can't help letting the only motive we know of enter our thoughts," signifying how the representation of the defence and prosecution create a significant difficulty for the jurors to view the defence's case as strongly as the prosecution.

Ultimately, Rose asserts that whilst personal prejudice may be difficult to keep out of the deliberations, a wider variety of factors also contribute towards the difficulty of purely objective discussion. Commonly held misinformed beliefs in the McCarthyist era prevent many jurors from objectively viewing the case, whilst the difficulty implementing the theories of the judicial system create a subconscious bias in the jurors, evidenced in their initial votes and certainty of guilt. Fundamentally Twelve Angry Men serves to demonstrate the difficulty of obtaining a purely objective verdict due to personal prejudice, the judicial system and the era of time itself.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Henreezy on October 09, 2013, 10:51:03 pm
Okay, so this is the first relatively timed essay (I finished it in 68 minutes, every essay I've done thus far has been 90+). I also did a word count of this and it was only around 800 words... Would I need to write more in the exam? (ah!)

"It's very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this." How is this shown to be in this play

American society in the 1950's was established on a base of fear towards those endowing features of difference. Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men acts as a microcosm for society, demonstrating the ways in which personal prejudices can seek to hinder justice [This could be worded better. "seeks to abc" or "personal prejudices hinder justice", I'm not quite sure what the correct terms are, but I don't think they should be used together like that. Play with grammar in your writing, find concise ways to express things without being superfluous]. 5th Juror and 3rd Juror struggle to differentiate their upbringing and relationships respectively from the deliberations at hand. [Again, this also could be worded more clearly. e.g. The (optional) 5th and 3rd Juror fail to dissociate (I think this is the word you're looking for, or a synonym) themselves from their upbringing and personal lives from xyz. Your use of language is excellent but making this sentence too wordy takes away from it, I had to read it a few times to actually get what you were trying to express. One of the criteria for a 9-10 is • Develops a cogent, controlled and well-substantiated discussion using precise and expressive language. Don't make it work for the reader to understand your points, try to be more concise and avoid being superfluous. Yes, you should be flashy with your writing but it should not be at the cost of the 'flow', you've got to ensure that it's clean and fluid like a river while being awe inducing and memorable.] Furthermore, several jurors find it difficult to part with prejudices held in this era, rather than their own personal feelings. Finally, Rose examines the features of the judicial system itself which leads to the difficulty in keeping personal prejudice out of the deliberations, ultimately enforcing his view that in the judicial system, the final verdict can often be skewed due to a range of factors, rather than merely [Same thing happening here, "rather than xyz" is adequate, merely seems out of place, re-read that and have a think about it.] the individual personal prejudices [You're doing the same thing here.]on the case.

Rose condemns the ways in which personal prejudice can alter ones view on the deliberations, utilising 5th and 3rd Jurors to demonstrate the difficulty in "not [making] this a personal thing." 5th Juror feels a connection to the defendant, due to their similar upbringing. Hence, he subconsciously becomes defensive as other jurors consider the defendants upbringing, arguing "I nurse that trash in Harlem six nights a week," convinced the comments "[are] something personal" towards him. [Excellent analysis and quote usage, avoids re-telling story to pad paragraph.]This, in turn, positions 5th Juror against the contentions of of the other jurors, due to their generalisations which 5th Juror has taken personally. 5th Juror appears unaware to the ways in which the defendants guilt, indicating the difficulty in keeping his personal prejudice out of the case. Furthermore, Rose highlights how personal prejudice can be difficult to part with through 3rd Juror. At the commencement of the play, 3rd Juror notes "Now I have no personal feelings on the case," which is later contradicted by his statement "I know [the defendant]... what they do to you." Rose utilises this contradiction to imply 3rd Juror may not be actively aware of his personal prejudice affecting his judgement. This is reinforced at the denouement of the play, indicated by the stage direction "there is a long pause," as 3rd Juror considers his notion of the boys guilt. The use of the adjective "long" symbolises the strenuous amount of time required for 3rd Juror to part with his personal prejudice before voting "not guilty," connotating the difficulty of keeping personal misconceptions out of the deliberations. [Excellent first paragraph, makes up for bumpy start, but would score higher if it was fluid throughout.]

Utilising several jurors throughout the play with prejudices specific to the time period, Rose asserts that prejudice which is not necessarily personal may contribute to the difficulty in remaining objective. Whilst 4th Juror is characterised by Rose as a fact based character, reflected in his stage direction of "reading a newspaper" at the commencement of the play, his misinformed statements such as "slums are breeding grounds for criminals" [I'm not sure I'd make such an absolute statement, I'd go down the path of explaining that his focus is placed on the stigma associated with statistics. Or that his interpretation of fact is resulting from biased interpretations. e.g. "charming and imaginative little fable."] implies the difficulties in keeping the commonly held beliefs of social class from his objectivity. Furthermore, 10th Juror finds it difficult to differentiate the proceedings from the prejudices involved with the era of McCarthyism. [Unlike in the introduction, the usage of differentiate is more well-placed imho.] These commonly held beliefs lead him to deduce "They're against us, the hate us, they want to destroy us." Whist 10th Juror has personally dealt with the defendants type before, Rose implies it is the misconceptions of the era in itself which leads him to deduce "he's guilty," as he even notes "I've met some who were okay," reinforcing it's not purely his personal interactions with others that make  it difficult to keep prejudice out of the deliberations
[I think this paragraph was a weak continuation of the first, it didn't complement it at all. If anything, it took away from the quality of the overall essay. This paragraph does seem to have a focus, but it falls into the trap of re-telling. There is some good analysis, it's just it doesn't work like a 'kite.' A kite is a network of ideas attached to the same string; while this paragraph did have a focus, the way you developed the ideas was kind of strange. You seemed to jump from one idea to the next, trying to fit it all in around 300 words and hope that the fancy wording covered it, or at least that's the impression I get.]

Rose examines the ways in which the judicial system positions the jurors to involve their personal prejudice on the issue [long sentence, be more concise e.g. "Rose examines the ways the judicial system enables each juror to xyz.."], signifying the role the justice system plays in the difficulty of jurors differentiating their views from what should theoretically be objective deliberation. This is demonstrated as 11th Juror nots "we have nothing to gain or lose from our verdict." Whilst this factor is essential towards establishing a theoretically objective based discussion, in practice this would clearly not be the case. 4th Juror mentions "We can't help letting the only motive we know of enter our thoughts," signifying how the representation of the defence and prosecution create a significant difficulty for the jurors to view the defence's case as strongly as the prosecution.
[Overall, your point of contention is not developed well. You seem to be throwing in the right things but you aren't doing more than skimming the surface. I was like, "yoo, this sounds pretty good!", but the storyline didn't develop so I lost interest. Another criteria is "Demonstrates a close and perceptive reading of the text, exploring complexities of its concepts", you're delving into the deep end but it's more like you're standing and looking at it instead of jumping right in and seeing what it holds. Sorry for my use of metaphors, I'm tired and that's just how I explain stuff. It almost feels formulaic when I read it, I mean yes you highlight the ways which people abuse the judicial system but you don't let your paragraphs have any 'feeling of progression.' It's like watching a movie set in a hospital and all of a sudden there's a helicopter scene which just interrupted the doctor talking about some serious things. It shouldn't be 'surprising' in the sense that it chops and changes focus, it should be surprising how fluid, concise, deep and well-structured it is. I can see you're throwing in the historical context and that is good, but I get the impression that you were 'just trying to get it done' given the flow of this paragraph.]

Ultimately, Rose asserts that whilst personal prejudice may be difficult to keep out of the deliberations, a wider variety of factors also contribute towards the difficulty of purely objective discussion. Commonly held misinformed beliefs [I'm not sure if this is correct or not, too many adjectives? Idk.]in the McCarthyist era prevent many jurors from objectively viewing the case, whilst the difficulty implementing the theories of the judicial system create a subconscious bias in the jurors, evidenced in their initial votes and certainty of guilt. Fundamentally Twelve Angry Men serves to demonstrate the difficulty of obtaining a purely objective verdict due to personal prejudice, the judicial system and the era of time itself. [Good closing sentence]


I'm not an expert on marking, but given the exam criteria I'd probably give this essay like a 6/10.
 • Demonstrates a close and perceptive reading of the text, exploring complexities of its concepts
and construction.
>From the first paragraph, you hit the nail on the head. The other two don't seem to follow suit.
• Demonstrates an understanding of the implications of the topic, using an appropriate strategy for
dealing with it, and exploring its complexity from the basis of the text.
The historical contexts and discussion of the ideologies of each jurors in relation to the time period was excellent. However their place in the paragraph seemed somewhat forced. You know how movies and games sometimes have a prologue before they dive right into the story? It seems like you slip in historical context just to hit the criteria, and I can assure you it might attriubte to be better mark but the way you did it might just drag it down.
• Develops a cogent, controlled and well-substantiated discussion using precise and expressive
language.
Some ways you express things are good but they could be worded better. Try to find concise ways to express things so it doesn't seem like you're just cramming a bunch of stuff into a sentence.

Sorry if I sound mean or anything the way I type is quite blunt. I think your problem isn't that you're making these mistakes, writing to time shifts the way we think and it gives us tunnel vision and makes it easy to forget some key things that we've heard over and over. I think as you write more and more you'll gain more confidence in writing and there won't be as many mistakes.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: lolipopper on October 09, 2013, 11:38:20 pm
i have written a little bit. can someone please mark /10.

Mohsin Hamid actively involves the reader in his novel. How does he do this?

Suspense is a fundamental key to the success of many thriller novels along with an almost necessity of a setting to which the audience may relate to. Mohsin Hamid's, The Reluctant Fundamentalist, is a superbly engaging novel that appeals to the sense of curiosity of the audience through the use of empowering scenes and techniques. With a key character that may become the victim of an assassination or rather the assassin himself and the disappearance of his love that may one day return, the reader feels the drawn into the world of the novel with an urge to continue reading. And although the reader does tend to question the integrity of Changez's recital, this seems to further enhance the concept of suspense within the novel, rendering it highly reflective and influential for the audience.

Throughout the plot of the novel, a line of suspense seems to follow the impending murder of either Changez or the silent American.
With continual hints upon the physique of the American's "broad chest" and an alarmingly vibrant phone, the audience is given the impression that the American may in fact be on a "mission". This tends to accommodate the scenario of Changez promoting an anti-American agenda and the recent assassination of an American Official by his students, which leads to Changez being warned, America may be looking to "intimidate me or worse". However, the silent American seems to be in an equivalent amount of danger himself, as he is often suspicious of his surroundings, the waiter and the intentions of Changez. "This tea hasn't been poisoned" and "why do you jump as though you were under the shadow of a hawk" tends remind the audience of a relation between predator and prey, and that one must eventually die. Additionally, as Hamid doesn't provide a suffice ending to the story, the audience is left engaged in a guessing games as to who meets the fate of death.

Similarly, the death of the nostalgia struck Erica also tends to lay itself to the audience as a mystery beyond the conclusion of the novel. Fallen in the love of a "guy with long skinny fingers" leaves Erica in a miserable and fragile state of mind that is in fact catalysed by Changez's expression of love. This in turn tends to send her further into an unforgiving turmoil of "anti-depressents" and "numerous trips to the hospital". Eventually Erica is thought to have committed suicide, however the troubled personality of Changez is not ready to accept this and he waits for her return. This event creates a trail of suspense that lasts till the end of the novel, and suggests a familiar fate of her allegory, America, which after the attack of 9/11, throws itself into a deep alienation from the rest of the international community. By the end, the fate of both is unknown and is a source from which Hamid draws the attention of his readership.

Through the lack of the Silent American's speech, Hamid encounters the audience questioning the integrity of Changez's story. Although this format of a dramatic monologue is essential to developing the ideas of Changez and his thoughts, it often comes at a cost of not being able to reveal critical scenes of the plot. As Changez recites the words of the silent American, who is intended to portray the wider audience, "why shall I believe you", Hamid allows the readers to consider and revaluate their thoughts and belief in Changez's story. Thus although this seems to ward off the sense of trust of the audience in the narrator, it is useful in effectively engaging their thoughts.

Despite resulting in a seemingly deceptive story, Mohsin Hamid uses the character of Changez and the reality of suspense in The Reluctant Fundamentalist to creatively enthral and include the readership within its plot. Through incomplete endings about the fate of Changez, the silent American, Erica and even America itself, Hamid keeps the audience in a loop of suspense and continual guessing as to what may be the eventual outcome.     
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: silverpixeli on October 10, 2013, 11:03:21 am
Hey guys, I'd love some feedback and clarification on where I'm retelling vs where I'm actually analysing, thanks a bunch :)

PS - where i have two words like this/that i am unsure of whether to use the second one rather than the first

Quote
On the Waterfront VCAA 2010
How important is family loyalty in the film?


Set against the backdrop of 1950’s Hoboken, New Jersey,  Elia Kazan’s On the Waterfront presents a claustrophobic underworld rife with betrayal. The notion of loyalty among the various families and also among members of the familial community of the docks is largely ignored in favour of self serving tendencies. As a result, the Waterfront is permeated by corruption. The few characters seen to value loyalty to others over self are also seen to take a stand against corruption, suggesting that the venomous culture of the docks is somehow linked to the prevalence of disloyalty. Kazan presents these loyal characters as triumphant towards the film’s denouement,  establishing their refusal to betray others as key to the waterfront’s liberation.

Kazan presents the waterfront as a corrupt world rules by disloyal mobsters and populated by individuals who undervalue their loyalty to each other. Through the  venal union leader Johnny Friendly, Kazan characterises/epitomises the hypocritical view on loyalty typical of each mobster. Friendly wears “one hundred and fifty dollar suits” at the expense of the longshoremen, but is quick to utilise the “best muscle on the waterfront” to silence anyone who would think to betray him by speaking to the cops. Kazan extends this theme of disloyalty to the rest of the mob as they exile Charley Malloy, once “Johnny Friendly’s right hand”, now faced with a harsh ultimatum while the rest of the mob look on in silence. Thier inaction demonstrates that they will turn on anyone, even “one of [their] own” at a moment’s notice. Additionally, community loyalty is undervalued by the disenfranchised longshoremen. By having the dockworkers abide religiously by their self-destructive/deleterious? paradigm “deaf and dumb”, Kazan highlights their misplaced loyalty in a union which they should arguably be uniting against. Thus, the characters of the waterfront struggle with the concept of loyalty, dramatically undervaluing it, supporting the ensnaring corruption.

Not all of Kazan’s characters undervalue loyalty, some refuse to act disloyally despite the various pressures urging them to do so. The angelic Edie Doyle refuses to be silenced by the waterfront, and will not back down until she “finds out who is guilty for Joey”, notwithstanding pressures from both Terry and Pop Doyle to “go back to the sisters” where she will not be put at risk. Terry himself is initially ambivalent towards the lifestyle of betrayal he is expected to accept as part of the mob, as exemplified by Marlon Brando’s hunched posture and awkward expression surrounding Joey Doyle’s murder. When given the choice between acting disloyally towards his fellow longshoremen, accepting “four hundred dollars a week … you don’t say nothing”, he instead resolves to stand up against the mob and put his life at risk by testifying against Johnny Friendly. Terry’s decision signifies his understanding of community loyalty as more important than self preservation. Additionally, Charley Malloy is put in a similar position, where he can have it “your way or his way, but you can’t have it both ways”. Clearly understanding the “ten to one” odds against his survival if he lets Terry go, Charley elects to remain loyal to his brother rather than saving himself by silencing the threat to Johnny’s power. Hence, Kazan articulates the importance of family and community loyalty to key characters in the film by having them refuse to act disloyally despite compelling reasons to yield to the harsh world of the waterfront.

The film’s conclusion establishes the loyal characters as triumphant over the corruption of the docks. Through Terry’s testimony, an act of loyalty to those on the docks, Kazan “breaks the Joey Doyle case” and begins the orchestration of Johnny Friendly’s fall from power. Friendly’s loss of power is accentuated by the courtroom scene itself, where we see him physically restrained for the first time in the film, foreshadowing his eventual impotence on the docks. By having Friendly’s empire of corruption demolished by acts of loyalty, namely Terry’s testimony and the aforementioned actions of Charley and Edie, Kazan establishes notions of loyalty as more powerful than disloyalty. Solidifying this notion, Kazan ends the film by having ll of the longshoremen fall in behind Terry, supporting his as the community proceeds to “go to work”. The victory is conducive to an improvement of the quality of life for those on the waterfront, as the longshoremen commit to “run [the union] on the up and up”, suggesting that they intend to install a system of loyalty and fairness rather than surreptitiousness and corruption. Hence, Kazan displays that it is only through a refusal to betray others that a culture of betrayal and corruption can be broken, emphasising the importance of loyalty to family and community in achieving lasting change for the better.

Kazan’s On the Waterfront deals extensively with the notion of loyalty to families and, by extension, loyalty to community. The corruption on the docks can arguably be traced to the prevalence of betrayal among the rulers of the underworld, and also to the misplaced loyalties of its inhabitants. By having a series of key characters make choices in favour of remaining loyal in spite of harsh personal sacrifice, Kazan emphasises the importance of loyalty to the characters, When these loyal actions facilitate the fall of Friendly’s surreptitious regime, the viewer begins to understand the importance of loyalty in relation to achieving any worthwhile cultural change.

888 words
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Limista on October 12, 2013, 08:42:07 pm
Hi there  :) Would appreciate criticism on this essay. THANKS

Referring to Dulce et Decorum est pro Patria mori and any other two poems,
discuss Owen’s use of irony.

In his anthology, The War Poems, Wilfred Owen seeks to use war as a context, setting or medium to shape understanding of the human condition during the World War One period. The extent to which truth was dispelled or shirked is implied in his poetry, and it is this very implication that renders Owen’s outlook ironic, since he does not explicitly pinpoint the pain and suffering of reality in this era; instead, he leaves readers with the task of deriving the greater and holistic meaning of his poetry. Sensory imagery and figurative language then become vehicles, complementary devices or clues to provide readers with the idea that Owen’s subject is not war, but rather, “the pity of war”. By using an interchange between past and present, Owen attempts to compare and contrast the previously blissful lives of these men with the morbidity and wrath of war, where such nostalgia is essentially regression or “a trek from progress”: something he forbids of society at that time, particularly in the poem, “Strange Meeting”. Adopting a more psychological viewpoint, “S.I.W” also underscores the potency of the mind in yearning for a past period, from the perspective of a soldier. Whilst Owen’s intention is to arouse pity in readers by demonstrating the bitterness of war, as is observed through the realism evoked in “Dulce Et Decorum Est”, he does not realise that the obvious confusion evident in the verses of his poems renders him mentally incapable or lacking control, as opposed to the soldiers. His original intention – to leave readers dissatisfied and incomplete and insecure – then becomes inverted, as we are positioned to view the poet, himself, as being uncertain of what he is penning. The pity he attempts to evoke within us, as a result, lacks credibility, since the writer has identified himself as being ultimately dubious of what he is trying to achieve. The juxtaposition between the stanzas of “Insensibility” explores this notion.   

Owen attempts to engulf and embroil readers within the problems during the war time period in order to arouse pity for the soldiers, such that mistakes are learned from; however, it is the extent to which we are drowned within this emotive language that makes us incapable of moving henceforth to falsify these myths about war. In other words, readers are ironically suffocated by poetic devices, such as the personification “of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind”, which identifies gas shells as being tired. The fact that an inanimate object is weary, when readers are aware that such objects are incapable of feeling, demonstrates the exhausting nature and pointlessness of war: a combat that is portrayed as lacking purpose and meaning. The soldiers are ironically, then, juxtaposed as being unreal or stripped of their humanity, through being metaphorically depicted as “[marching] asleep”, indicating that the bodies of soldiers are no longer occupied by their souls; only by the organs necessary for functioning, synonymous to the workings of a robot. This dehumanising strategy is also touched upon in “Anthem for Doomed Youth”, where soldiers are likened to “cattle” and are not given a proper Christian burial. Consequently, Owen uses these vibes to suggest that everyone and everything is pitted against the soldiers. Because of this, they should always be the ones to be pitied, according to Owen. Astute readers may draw an element of bias here, considering that Owen may only feel this way because he was a soldier? Specifically, the civilians back home and world leaders are blamed for what the soldiers have to endure. Yet, higher powers like the devil and God are not held culpable. This is observed in “Dulce Et Decorum Est”, where even Satan is depicted as being “sick of sin”. Owen blames humans for the fate of other humans. Readers are encouraged to shame themselves and are made out to be remorseless, cold-hearted and cruel, particularly through the implication that “children” are being told an “old Lie” regarding the “glory” of war. As well as being an indicator of how myths about war are spread, readers are positioned to view themselves in a negative sense, because they are supposedly lying to “innocent” children. Owen is pointing the finger at others of his own species, which is quite ironic. By blaming other humans, he is essentially castigating himself, if looked at from the broadest level.

In the allegory, “Strange Meeting”, it seems ironic that the soldier who attempts to “[escape] battle” by entering a “profound dull tunnel”, finds himself in the more dangerous setting of “Hell”, which can be extended to suggest that conscience from a prior period can never be outrun. Even though Owen acknowledges that myths about war will still be reinforced in the future, as is observed through the verse, “truths that lie too deep to taint”, he focuses on using the bitter ruminations of the “enemy” to underscore how “discontent” war is, so that war is avoided in the future. In doing so, he challenges the premature maxim that war is the gateway to peace, or that it is “glorious” – romanticised notions harboured by people during this period. In spite of him doing so, a unique meaning can be derived from the last verse in this poem, “Let us sleep now…”, which innocuously purports that the “enemy” in this poem is attempting to murder the “innocent” soldier. In other words, war is taking place in this “sullen hall”, albeit on a smaller scale, in spite of Owen contending that war is a mistake. It is also the incompleteness of the identity of this “enemy” that renders him a farcical character. For instance, he is initially dehumanised by Owen, as he exudes numbness to his environment, being too immersed within his own internal and psychological conflicts, as is evident in him being “Too fast in thought or death to be bestirred”. However, he exhibits feeling, particularly in the form of grief, by emphasising the regret and despondency involved in “The hopelessness” of war or “the pity war distilled”. This man, as a result, is not completely soulless, as Owen would like readers to assume. Probing this idea from a broader perspective would deem it to be a means of augmenting instability and uncertainty within the reader, at a subconscious level. However, from a closer reading, we can observe that this underlying meaning on Owen’s part is ironic, since the “enemy” was not actually “killed”.

One the one hand, the poem “Insensibility”, proposes that the highest ideal of war and reality is to be unfeeling and completely numb to the surrounding environment; on the other hand, he attempts to elicit pity for the soldiers using a number of poetic nuances. As a result, he balances the ambivalence he creates through his poetry with the linkages or similarities between verses and stanzas, where the positives and negatives ultimately cancel to create a neutral or unfeeling persona, which this poem adulates at face-value. For instance, the verses “The tease and doubt of shelling” and “Chance’s strange arithmetic/ Comes simpler than the reckoning of their shilling” both allude to the importance of destiny and fate, which attempts to neutralise the angst readers may feel for the “brothers” who are collectively suffering; the verb “cobbled” in the verse, “Sore on the alleys cobbled with their brothers”, reinforcing the painful and stone-like setting of war. The irony, then, lies in the fact that Owen attempts to arouse pity within readers for the soldiers through implications in his poetry, despite seemingly contending that emotion is undesired. For example, the verse, “The front line withers/ But they are troops who fade, not flowers” likens soldiers to inanimate objects, such as flora, at the disposal of world leaders; thus, readers are inclined to feel piteous of the helplessness of the situation. Then again, the soldiers whom Owen attempts to contrive compassion for “fleers”, due to their “tearful fooling”, which suggests that they are crying – a sign of weakness. Stiff, unconcerned or insensitive readers are typically spiteful of criers, and instead of being sympathetic of soldiers as is desired by this verse, they are positioned to dislike these soldiers. Hence, “Insensibility” rings with irony.

Irony is not particularly explicit in Owen’s poetry, as the multiple meanings conveyed by ironic ideas was not Owen’s main aim in his poetry. Because of this, irony then has an unintended sarcastic effect that almost degrades the seriousness and predominant meaning of the poem. Conversely, the undercurrent of irony evident in a few of the war poems makes for lighter reading; something that is much desired by readers who do not wish to fully immerse themselves in the horrors of war, due to the cleverness, craftiness and wit required to derive ironic meaning from the greater concepts in Owen’s poetry.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: 09Ti08 on October 12, 2013, 10:50:07 pm

Hi vce2013, I'm also doing "A Christmas Carol" :D I did my best to give some feedback, but I'm not an expert, so please feel free to disagree with me :D
The topic is: ‘A Christmas Carol is more than a story of one man’s redemption.’ Discuss

Charles Dickens constructed his Victorian novella, A Christmas Carol, as a critique against the very rationale of utilitarianism. He detested this Victorian worldview that valued a person based on their ability to contribute to society’s productivity Umm... Does this have anything to do with "rationale of utilitarianism"? As far as I understand, Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing "things" (happiness, benefits, etc.) , and A Christmas Carol was born from his observations of selfishness and avarice as being the dominant features of British society. In an acquisitive society, the form that selfishness predominantly takes is monetary greed, and this sole focus on financial gain can be seen to have far-reaching consequences. For instance, Malthusian thinking adopted by many at the time, viewed the poor as “idle” and as “surplus population”. Scrooge, and by extension the merchant class of which he is emblematic, view the impoverished as worthless, and it is this callous disdain, formed from society’s narcissistic focus, that Dickens seeks to attack. In depicting Scrooge’s personal metamorphosis as a microcosmic example for the change he desired in England, Dickens figures A Christmas Carol as a morality tale, highlighting his belief that Victorian society is in need of its own ethical conversion, through individual acts of redemption Very complex sentences, and impressive words... But to be honest, I have to re-read your introduction many times. I know you're trying to use those "big" words to impress the readers, but don't overuse them. Your sentences don't flow. With the speed at which the assessors mark our essays, I think they might not have time to re-read it... 

In order to highlight the allegorical nature of his tale, Dickens uses the heartlessness of Scrooge, to represent the averseness of the prosperous members of British society towards the less privileged members of that same society. Through his creation of the “boy and girl”, Ignorance and Want, Dickens frighteningly depicts the destitute Did you get this idea from Disney's cartoon? I think in the novella, we don't actually have this informationunderclass that has been created due to the forces of capitalism driving Britain’s industrial economy in the 1840s. In labelling them “Man’s”, Dickens attributes the existence of these “monsters” to the wealthy, like Scrooge, who have ignored their poverty-stricken life. From a metalinguistic I looked up this word on a dictionary, and I think you misused it, just be careful with those "linguistic" words :) I made the same mistake in one of my essays as well... Guess what, my teacher did linguistic at uni, so he knew that I didn't know what the big word means when I used it  ;Dstandpoint, Dickens manipulates I have an impression that this word carries negative connotation...the adjectives “wretched, abject, frightful, hideous, miserable” and “yellow, meagre, ragged, scowling, wolfish” in describing Ignorance and Want, to juxtapose against his characterisation of Scrooge in Stave 1 as a “squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous old sinner”. By using long lists of adjectives to describe the two different groups, Dickens literalises the link between the dehumanising suffering experienced by the poor, and the obsession with wealth over charity amongst the merchant class that has caused this. Under the aegis of the Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge is taken to view the Cratchit’s Christmas dinner, and is aghast by the sight of Tiny Tim who “bore a little crutch and was supported by an iron frame”. Scrooge’s horror causes him to develop a genuine concern over “whether Tiny Tim will live”. Scrooge’s subsequent visit to the Cratchit’s house with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come allows him to see that “poor Tiny Tim” will die unless Scrooge himself lives an “altered life”. This troubling revelation challenges Scrooge to accept his responsibility as the “founder of the feast”; that is, to denounce his pursuit of “the master passion, Gain” and to try and ease Tiny Tim’s situation. Scrooge’s desire to be a “second father” to Tiny Tim allows him to understand the wrongs of his utilitarian philosophy, where he believed that those of no utility, such as Tiny Tim, should “die…and decrease the surplus population”. Through depicting the pitiful plight of the poor, and the apathetic behaviour of the merchant class towards them, Dickens espouses the importance for all privileged citizens to develop consideration and concern for the marginalised in society. Another thing that I notice, I think you shouldn't use too many quotes and/or quotation marks in one sentence, otherwise it would sound very unnatural, like you are borrowing words from someone to elaborate/express your ideas...

Furthermore, Dickens uses Scrooge’s insular existence to highlight that wealthier citizens were often administered by a hardheaded focus on “the pursuit of wealth”, which prevents them from truly experiencing the world around them. Thus, in Stave 3 write this number in word please, Dickens aims to enhance the celebratory nature of Christmas, a phenomenon that is in the process of being discovered by the once redoubtable miser, Scrooge. In this scene, the Ghost of Christmas Present takes Scrooge through the crowded Christmas marketplace of his area. Dickens’ use of present participles such as “shovelling … calling … exchanging … laughing” adds energy to the Christmas scene, suggesting that Christmas is a time of action, and thus is a message from Dickens that Christmas is not something to watch on passively, as Scrooge and the British merchant class have previously done through the doctrines of “out upon merry Christmas” and “Bah Humbug!”. Dickens furthers this festive idea by personifying chestnuts, that are “shaped like the waistcoats of jolly old gentlemen” and Spanish onions that are “winking from their shelves in wanton slyness”. The animation of these objects illustrates Dickens’ belief that Christmas is a time where everything is alive and to be enjoyed. Extolling the festive spirit of Christmas, Dickens uses the language of excess to describe the “apoplectic opulence” of the market place. The compound adjectives “pot-bellied” and “broad girthed” also carry connotations of abundance, suggesting that the Christmas season is a time when everyone can celebrate and live comfortably. By juxtaposing the cornucopian Christmas season against Scrooge’s usual surrounds, which are characterised by drab, insipid language such as “gloomy” and “dreary”, Dickens highlights the closed existence of the British merchant class. The bounteousness with which Dickens describes the outside world serves as a call to arms to those like Scrooge to transform their lives, so as to live enjoyably. Ok, somehow I think this paragraph sounds like a language analysis piece  ;D I think you can discuss something like how Scrooge changes in the last stave, and how that makes him happier compared to the first stave.

Similarly, Dickens observes that Scrooge’s pursuit of a “golden” idol I don't really understand what you mean leaves him lacking qualities of warmth, generosity and compassion, and Dicken views this as symptomatic of the British moneyed classes. Thus, the Ghost of Christmas Past aims to draw Scrooge back to a time where he understood the humanistic values that should underpin a society. This sentence doesn't have a connection in idea with your topic sentence. Hence, the use of the word "thus" is not logical...In seeing the “power [that Fezziwig has] to render us happy”, Scrooge is transported back to a past before “the passion…had taken root”, as he “enjoyed everything” with his “heart and soul in the scene”. Here, Scrooge as “speaks unconsciously like his former…self”, Dickens highlights that the qualities of “forbearance and benevolence” exist within all men. However, Dickens demonstrates that as “nobler aspirations fall of one by one” in the pursuit of wealth, this charitable attitude is prone to being eclipsed. Thus, Dickens shows that it must take action for attitudes of empathy and understanding to regain control. With the “phantom” that is the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, Scrooge sees himself “unwept, uncared for” and alone at his grave, neglected and in dire fear of his own death. Confronting his own mortality, Scrooge’s own abject isolation catalyses his understanding that all human beings have a need for warmth and generous spirit. He even offers a “Merry Christmas” to others. Through his depiction of Scrooge’s rebirth as a caring philanthropist, Dickens uses A Christmas Carol to highlight the need for Victorian society to embrace values of magnanimity and beneficence.

Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol depicts a society that is controlled by an insatiable desire for profit. In charting the transformation of a character who is symbolic of the change he seeks in mankind, Dickens is able to widen his story from a simple redemption tale, to a novella that deals with a wider social agenda. In his novella, Dickens seeks to discourage such avarice, addressing those symbolised by Scrooge himself, as he calls for an end to indifference towards the suffering of others and for society to recognise the common humanity that we all share. good conclusion

Apart from some comments that I have annotated, I think this is a good essay as you have shown very complex ideas. Well done! :D
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on October 14, 2013, 01:17:05 pm
Okay, so this is the first relatively timed essay (I finished it in 68 minutes, every essay I've done thus far has been 90+). I also did a word count of this and it was only around 800 words... Would I need to write more in the exam? (ah!)WOO!  Well done :) Well, there's no 'rule' on word counts, but after reading your essay - you need more in the 2nd and 3rd :)

"It's very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this." How is this shown to be in this play

American society in the 1950's was established on a base of fear towards those endowing features of difference. Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men haha, good girlacts as a microcosm for society, demonstrating the ways in which personal prejudices can seek to hinder justice. 5th Juror and 3rd Juror struggle to differentiate their upbringing and relationships respectively from the deliberations at hand. Nice pointFurthermore, several jurors find it difficult to part with prejudices held in this 'this' is ambiguous say "find it difficult to part with the prejudices of the McCarthy era" era, rather than their own personal feelings. Finally, Rose examines the features of the judicial system itself which leads to the difficulty in keeping personal prejudice out of the deliberations, ultimately enforcing his view that in the judicial system, the final verdict can often be skewed due to a range of factors, rather than merely the individual personal prejudices on the case.Great introduction. (p.s include Henreezy's feedback, not mentioning things twice)

Rose condemns the ways in which personal prejudice can alter ones view on the deliberations, utilising 5th and 3rd Jurors to demonstrate the difficulty in "not [making] this a personal thing." Not bad not bad! Quoting in the topic sentence I'm a bit iffy with - people rarely go on to analyse the TS quotes, (and that's the point of quoting, other than to show your  textual knowedlge). It shows your knowledge nicely though, in this instance. 5th Juror feels a connection to the defendant, due to their similar upbringing. Hence, he subconsciously becomes defensive as other jurors consider the defendants upbringing, arguing "I nurse that trash in Harlem six nights a week," convinced the comments "[are] something personal" towards him. This, in turn, positions 5th Juror against the contentions of of the other jurors, due to their generalisations which 5th Juror has taken personally. 5th Juror appears unaware to the ways in which the defendantsyou need a possessive apostrophe here. I'll outline apostrophes at the bottom of the essay guilt, indicating the difficulty in keeping his personal prejudice out of the case. Furthermore, Rose highlights how personal prejudice can be difficult to part with through 3rd Juror. At the commencement of the play, 3rd Juror notes "Now I have no personal feelings on the case," which is later contradicted by his statement "I know [the defendant]... what they do to you." Rose utilises this contradiction to imply 3rd Juror may not be actively aware of his personal prejudice affecting his judgement. This is reinforced at the denouement of the play, indicated by the stage direction "there is a long pause," as 3rd Juror considers his notion of the boys guilt. The use of the adjective "long" symbolises the strenuous amount of time required for 3rd Juror to part with his personal prejudice before voting "not guilty," connotating connoting. connoting. NEVER CONNOTATINGthe difficulty of keeping personal misconceptions out of the deliberations.really great paragraph.

Utilising several jurors throughout the play with prejudices specific to the time period, Rose asserts that prejudice which is not necessarily personal may contribute to the difficulty in remaining objective. greatWhilst 4th Juror is characterised by Rose as a fact based character, reflected in his stage direction of "reading a newspaper" It might be best to use that stage direction as a quote that you go on to explain "The newspaper is used as a symbol of information and conscientiousness..." or something like that. It's not a super duper obvious one". (also, it's a symbol, so symbolised  at the commencement of the play, his misinformed statements such as "slums are breeding grounds for criminals" pay close attention to henreezy's feedback on this. It's not exactly a misinformed statement - it's the judgment connotations that are attached to that statement that makes him prejudicial. Statisically, slums probably are breeding grounds for criminals, so it's "informed", it's jus got an underlying prejudice/judgment there that wouldn't be there if there was true objectivityimplies the difficulties in keeping the commonly held beliefs of social class from his objectivity. Furthermore, 10th Juror finds it difficult to differentiate the proceedings from the prejudices involved with the era of McCarthyism. These commonly held beliefs lead him to deduce "They're against us, the hate us, they want to destroy us." Whist 10th Juror has personally dealt with the defendants type before, Rose implies it is the misconceptions of the era in itself which leads him to deduce "he's guilty," as he even notes "I've met some who were okay," reinforcing it's not purely his personal interactions with others that make  it difficult to keep prejudice out of the deliberationsThis is really rushed (i suppose you were rushing) but it detracts from the essay. There's a lot you can say about the tenth juror and you pretty much just tried putting it into a sentence and it takes your essay down a few notches. You also only give like one sentence for the 4th juror. Compare this paragraph to your first paragraph in terms of substance, quotes and analysis. THe point here is fine, but you need to ram it home. Even compare the length. Word count each of your three paragraphs.

Rose examines the ways in which the judicial system positions the jurors to involve their personal prejudice on the issue, signifying the role the justice system plays in the difficulty of jurors differentiating their views from what should theoretically be objective deliberation. This is demonstrated as 11th Juror nots "we have nothing to gain or lose from our verdict." Whilst this factor is essential towards establishing a theoretically objective based discussion, in practice this would clearly not be the case. 4th Juror mentions "We can't help letting the only motive we know of enter our thoughts," signifying how the representation of the defence and prosecution create a significant difficulty for the jurors to view the defence's case as strongly as the prosecution.This paragraph is legit 3 sentences. Same deal as my feedback for the last paragraph, you need ot work on extending this (you can do it, keep practicing your timing. After extending this paragraph and the last paragraph you'd probably be looking at close to 1000 words. You didn't even touch on the lawyers or the witnesses or even the symols such as scarred table/fan etc etc

Ultimately, Rose asserts that whilst personal prejudice may be difficult to keep out of the deliberations, a wider variety of factors also contribute towards the difficulty of purely objective discussion. Commonly held misinformed beliefs in the McCarthyist era prevent many jurors from objectively viewing the case, whilst the difficulty implementing the theories of the judicial system create a subconscious bias in the jurors, evidenced in their initial votes and certainty of guilt. Fundamentally Twelve Angry Men serves to demonstrate the difficulty of obtaining a purely objective verdict due to personal prejudice, the judicial system and the era of time itself.Great job. If you only took the 2nd and 3rd para ideas but turned them into the quality of the first para this would be like 9/10 or more. The flow of the first para could be slightly, slightly, slightly more fluid but it wouldn't really detract from your grades and it's something that you'll eliminate naturally through practice :)

http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/apostrophe

Basically, if something is showing ownership - put an apostrophe in there *most of the time*

So the defendant's guilt has one because the 'guilt' is pertaining to the defendant. The defendant's chair, the defendant's socio-economic background. If it is SOMEONE'S, then there's a possessive apostrophe there. """If it is SOMEONE'S""" -- here, I used a possessive apostrophe because "someone" owns "it" (in that sentence). >it< is owned by >someone< so, someone's.

What about words like "yours", "ours"? - NO. These words are possessive by nature. "ours" has the possession built into the meaning. You don't need the apostrophe to show the possession because it is already there. Whereas in "defendants chair" -- the meaning of the first word is "more than one defendant" and the meaning of the second is "sitting thinggy". The possession isn't built in, so to show that it is a possessive instead of a plural, you need the apostrophe.

And there's the one you would know - use an apostrophe where words are contracted. It's, there's, where'd, how'd, etc etc.

**** It's and its**** these are two different words. The first one is a contraction of "it is", but "its" is actually just a word the same as "ours". Totally different meanings. A lot of people go "Look at it's colour" thinking that the apostrophe denotes possession, but that is a mistaken use of the apostrophe. The word "its" already has the possession built in.

Think of words that already have possession built in like a constant in math: it will always be the same. It will always show possession. Whereas words that don't always show possession are variables. Variable words can either show possession or plurality. Eg. Defendant is a variable word. Because defendants = plural, defendant's = possessive.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: DoctorWho on October 15, 2013, 09:26:58 pm
‘Although Dickens’ story is entertaining, even enthralling, it is mainly intended to educate.’ Discuss.

‘A Christmas Carol’ by Charles Dickens, serves an important educational purpose to its readers. Dickens presents many ideas intended to educate society on values and morals. Primarily, he signifies that one is capable of redeeming themselves of past errors in judgement which may have led to them making mistakes. In addition to this, the importance of sharing relationships with others is also highlighted throughout the novella. Dickens also emphasises that generosity and charity can have a significant impact on another’s life and could change an individual’s life. Furthermore, Dickens indicates the decline in values and morals in society and seeks to educate readers of its current appalling state. Whilst the novella is entertaining, Dickens mainly intends to educate through his captivating tale. 

Dickens indicates that one is capable of redemption regardless of mistakes they may have made in their past. The character of Ebenezer Scrooge is an embodiment of this idea as he demonstrates the ability to redeem oneself from past errors.  His change in character is clearly apparent towards the end of the novella from an ‘odious’ and ‘stingy’ man, to a man whose ‘own heart laughed’. Scrooge exemplifies that one can change the path that they are on and that it is never too late to redeem oneself. Moreover, Dickens indicates that one will be more fulfilled and happy if they choose to free themselves of a life of isolation and regret. Dickens uses the transformation of Scrooge to illustrate that anyone is capable of redemption and it is never too late to see the error of one’s ways.

In addition to this, Dickens illustrates the importance of human relationships to the wellbeing of an individual. This idea is demonstrated throughout the novella as Dickens contrasts his many characters to show how an individual may be impacted by the lack of relationships in their lives. The characters of Ebenezer Scrooge and his nephew, Fred, exemplify the need for true bonds in one’s life. Dickens uses the character of Fred to make evident that an individual can still experience happiness if they have loving relationships to enrich their lives. Contrasting Fred and Scrooge, he demonstrates that without loved ones and family to offer company, one can find themselves increasingly isolated and alone. Scrooge, who is described as ‘solitary as an oyster’ exemplifies the need for human connect throughout the novella. His dull and monotonous life serves as a lesson to the reader as to the importance of having relationships in one’s life. Fred illustrates the intense happiness one can experience as a result of putting loved ones ahead of superficial matters such as wealth and materialistic desires.

Furthermore, Dickens highlights the significance of being generous and charitable to others.  The importance of generosity is emphasised many times throughout the novella as one’s kindness can have a major impact on another individual’s life. Dickens demonstrates this idea through the character of Tiny Tim. Tiny Tim is foretold to have an early death by the Ghost of Christmas Present, ‘the child will die’, if the future remains unaltered. This is significant as it points out the power any individual has to change another’s fate. Dickens further highlights this idea towards the end of the novella, through the actions of Scrooge and his impact on Tiny Tim, ‘who did not die’. Dickens insinuates that if we change the path we are on and seek to help others, we may be able to better someone’s life or in fact, save them. Dickens stresses the importance of generosity and charity numerous times throughout the novella to educate his readers on the valuable outcome such acts may have.

Lastly, Dickens demonstrates that society needs to revaluate its values and morals. The character of Ebenezer Scrooge was, in essence, an attempt by Dickens to portray all the worst characteristics of society. Throughout the novella, it is clear that Scrooge is not a character that the audience is intended to like. This is because Scrooge is used as a representation of society and a clever ploy by Dickens to get his readers to revaluate the values and morals of society. Scrooge’s attitude towards to poor is simply appalling, as shows no empathy towards them and refers to them as the ‘surplus population’. This demonstrates the attitude the upper class had towards the poor. They saw them as worthless and hardly useful to society in anyway. Dickens uses Scrooge’s behaviour as a clear depiction of society and seeks to make his readers aware of the decline in values and morals within society. He further emphasises this idea through the two children, Want and Ignorance. Dickens indicates these as the dominant characteristics of Victorian society and seeks to warn readers of the ‘doom’ that accompanies such qualities in life.

In essence, ‘A Christmas Carol’ by Charles Dickens, is not only a tale of enlightenment for the protagonist, but for the reader too. Dickens highlights many ideas intended not simply to entertain his audience but to educate them.  The idea of redemption is highlighted throughout the novel to inform reader that there is always a chance to redeem one’s self.  Likewise, the importance of relationships is also emphasised by Dickens to demonstrate how they enrich our lives. Moreover, Dickens stresses the need for generosity and charity as it can play a key part in changing another’s life. Furthermore, the need for society to reform, in relation to morals and values, is also a key point that Dickens aims to get across to his readers. Essentially, ‘A Christmas Carol’ is an allegorical work and contains many important lessons that may enlighten the reader. 

- Sorry, my vocabulary is horrid. Definitely seen better than mine on this forum, but any feedback would be appreciated :)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Damoz.G on October 15, 2013, 09:52:56 pm
^^^^

Well done. I don't feel like I'm a person to give it a mark because I could be wrong, but a bit of my feedback:
* You've talked about Dickens' messages in the novella, but I think there needs to be more focus the bit about educating. I can see it in your piece at times, but I think you can make it a bit stronger. Talk about its relevance today, and how is it relevant. Dickens wrote this a while ago, so how can his readers today be able to relate to it? I think a few more STRONG topic sentences of these on your paragraphs will strengthen your piece.
* Could improve the wording and phrasing of "Dickens insinuates that if we change the path we are on and seek to help others, we may be able to better someone’s life or in fact, save them." You could emphasise and explain more of Dickens' message here, and state that Scrooge learnt that it was his responsibility to help, as a result of benefitting from industrialisation.
* Also, you gotta underline the title of the book, instead of using inverted commas. Also, you don't need to restate the book name and Dickens' name in your conclusion. Instead you could write something like: "In essence, Dickens' novella is not"....then continue on.
* Elaborate on your point about Ignorance and Want.

Oh, and by the way, no one is in the upper class in ACC - Scrooge is in the middle class.

No doubt that you have pretty much explained Dickens' messages, but you just gotta elaborate more of it in relation to the educating part.

Other than that, great job! :)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: DoctorWho on October 15, 2013, 11:41:55 pm
^^^^

Well done. I don't feel like I'm a person to give it a mark because I could be wrong, but a bit of my feedback:
* You've talked about Dickens' messages in the novella, but I think there needs to be more focus the bit about educating. I can see it in your piece at times, but I think you can make it a bit stronger. Talk about its relevance today, and how is it relevant. Dickens wrote this a while ago, so how can his readers today be able to relate to it? I think a few more STRONG topic sentences of these on your paragraphs will strengthen your piece.
* Could improve the wording and phrasing of "Dickens insinuates that if we change the path we are on and seek to help others, we may be able to better someone’s life or in fact, save them." You could emphasise and explain more of Dickens' message here, and state that Scrooge learnt that it was his responsibility to help, as a result of benefitting from industrialisation.
* Also, you gotta underline the title of the book, instead of using inverted commas. Also, you don't need to restate the book name and Dickens' name in your conclusion. Instead you could write something like: "In essence, Dickens' novella is not"....then continue on.
* Elaborate on your point about Ignorance and Want.

Oh, and by the way, no one is in the upper class in ACC - Scrooge is in the middle class.

No doubt that you have pretty much explained Dickens' messages, but you just gotta elaborate more of it in relation to the educating part.

Other than that, great job! :)

Thanks for the tips! So would it be better to just refer to them as the wealthier class? Also, should I underline the title of the book when I'm writing my essay in the exam?
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Damoz.G on October 16, 2013, 07:35:45 am
Thanks for the tips! So would it be better to just refer to them as the wealthier class? Also, should I underline the title of the book when I'm writing my essay in the exam?

Well, if you really wanted to, you can refer to them as the wealthier class. But I don't state it in my essays, because your examiner is most likely going to already know that Scrooge is in the middle class. Personally, I wouldn't do it, but if you really want to, then you can refer to them as the wealthy class.

Yes, you have to underline A Christmas Carol whenever you state the name. You have to do the same thing with Language Analysis when stating the company/publisher of the Newspaper, or Blog name, etc.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on October 16, 2013, 02:39:56 pm
War Poems :) Feedback appreciated.

Owen describes a state of moral and physical disorder, using great control of poetic form and structure.
 
Owen’s poetry is relentless in its denunciation of war. The macabre imagery of his verse reveals the morphing of the soldier’s reality – of young men “ardent for some desperate glory” to a satanic scene where “death became absurd but life became absurder.”  Owen’s anthology is sentiment to his conviction that the poet must share the suffering – even the self sacrifice of the troops – so he too could bear witness to “man’s inhumanity to man.” By doing so, Owen aimedwriter in present tense. he aims. to expose the complacent civilian populations to the moral and physical disorder of war, not on a merely superficial level, but to the point where the reader could truly envisage the suffering of the soldiers. His precise intertwining between poetic device and bittersweet narrative accomplishedaccomplishes (also, seems rather subjective, don't you think? this aim, so the reader could relive the tragic tale of the men of war. Despite his disturbing tale, Owen also exemplifiedexemplifies. this will be the last time I mention it. the feelings of love and fellowship that existed sempiternally between the soldiers, even in the disorder of the battlefield.

 ‘Has your soul sipped’ and ‘Strange Meeting’ provide an antithetical interpretation for morality in war. Whereas ‘Strange Meeting’ boasts the deep felt empathy between the soldiers even in the derision of ‘Hell’, ‘Has your soul sipped’ tells of the carnal pleasures of murder and death.  The inclusion of ‘soul’ in the title has immediate connotations of death – the poem seems to be the description of an event that goes beyond flesh and blood and is almost other worldly. Owen’s use of sibilance in the title (‘soul sipped’) sets an appropriately sinister tone for the poem and foreshadows the shocking revelation at the end. The use of pararhyme (‘sweet’/’sweat’,’ meaning’/’mourning’) and anaphora (repetition of ‘sweeter’) speeds up the flow of the verse, reflecting the increasing excitement of the speaker as he describes his pleasure being even “sweeter than the nightingales” – the voices of the soldiers who sing of hope and glory . The story culminates in the murder of soldier, a boy, dead and no longer considered a ‘threat’. In this macabre scene as the boy’s ‘life tide’ slowly seeps into the ground is the violence of war seen as appalling rather than pleasing. After being exposed to such a horrendous tale does the reader finally begin to comprehend the attrition of warsubjective? instead, bring it back to the prompt ''Ultimately, Owen highlights.... Empathy is felt for these “doomed youth” who “die as cattle” and their deaths are considered all the more heinous and sacrilegious due to this twisted fate.  Can't fault this without having read the text. I'd normally say to be wary of dashes but they feel okay here.

This role of fate and God’s overruling power is a strong motif in Owen’s verse. He reveals his antipathy towards an almighty being who refused to “assuage the tears” or “fill these void veins full again with youth” of the lives He had knowingly shortened. Owen draws parallels between the biblical tale of Abraham and the genocide of Europe in ‘Parable of the old man and the young’ to highlight God’s blasphemous nonchalance. Metaphorically representing God as the ‘Old man’ Owen describes how God refused to accept the “Angel” who “called …out of heaven” which would have meant an end to the war. Rather, the decision to reject the offer had an impact that would be felt for generations, and as such, Owen consummates his poem in a couplet that hyperbolises this impact. This rejection had such a quick and unavoidable effect, (and hence the faster pace of the couplet)not a fan of brackets at all. that the youth of Europe were left to perish “one by one”. Owen’s stringent use poetic convention serves to highlight his abhorrence of those who propagated war. not sure if it's just because i'm unfamiliar with the text or the poetry talk, but -- analysis in relation to the prompt? Are we talking about God's moral disorder? spell it out.

Owen’s poetry reveals that real enemies of the young men were not soldiers or Germans who were “scarcely thought of,” but in fact the army officials of their own country who were only too willing to help them “throw away their knees.” This was the most immoral act of all. Army officials, generals and leaders, people who were idolised for their “smart salutes” and “jewelled hilts”, role models for the naïve and innocent younger generations,this extensive description of hte soldiers is very distracting in this sentence. were the ones only too willing to “smiling[ly], [write] the lie [of age]”. These were men who Owen described as having “famines of thought and feeling,” people who if they had been subject to the “smothering dreams” that they had forced upon the soldiers, would never have told “the Old lie” with such “high zest”. Owen denounces these men and aims to eternalise the story of the soldiers in verse so that the same mistakes never happen againyou might be doing it really subtly but I think the prompt connection is too implicit. Seems that way without having read it or read any other essays on WP, anyway..

War was far removed from the glorious “pleasure” that the soldier’s thought it was. Young, strong men were transformed into “old beggars” and “hags” due to the physical disorder of war. Rather, war was an ecstatic and adrenaline fuelled pit of terror that had no end, exemplified in the long, running sentences of “Dulce et decorum est”. The sudden change of meter of the poem reveals the grudging acceptance of the soldiers for the fate they were sealed to, of “blood-shod” feet and “drowning as if under a green sea”.  This is interesting - you could even devote a paragraph to meter and say how the structure of hissentenes or poetic devise or whatever emphasise the moral condemnation, and that would be pretty direct on the prompt. This paragraph seems a bit short, but I guess it works okay considering the structure of your piece and just making the quick meter point. nb, nb

Owen constantly talks of a world which seems on the verge of disintegration, and as such, makes use of pararhyme and half-rhyme that produce this sense of dissonance. The whole world of the poem is a cracked and damaged place to be, the rhymes are broken (and frequently irritating) so much noto match the world of war that in no way resembled society which kept its remnants of morality.

You're a skilled writer. Honestly, I think someone more familiar with War Poems would be able to give you much better feedback. You're a good enough writer than I can't suggest big improvements simply without reading the text. It seems like a really great essay though, but I'm not sure how strongly it connects to the prompt. It seems to gloss over it slightly.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: shooterblitz on October 16, 2013, 03:59:31 pm

Oh, and by the way, no one is in the upper class in ACC - Scrooge is in the middle class.


Doesn't that come down to the interpretation? Because at our school, we looked at the text with a Marxist perspective, whereby Scrooge belongs to the bourgeoisie part of Victorian London, and characters like Bob Cratchit + family are considered a part of the proletariat class.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: DoctorWho on October 16, 2013, 04:18:31 pm
Doesn't that come down to the interpretation? Because at our school, we looked at the text with a Marxist perspective, whereby Scrooge belongs to the bourgeoisie part of Victorian London, and characters like Bob Cratchit + family are considered a part of the proletariat class.

Bourgeoisie refers to the upper, middle class and the proletariat is the working class... So I guess that would be accurate.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: DoctorWho on October 16, 2013, 04:31:42 pm
A Christmas Carol in more a social commentary than it is a moral tale. Discuss.

Charles Dickens', A Christmas Carol, presents an exploration of differing ideas and values through an enthralling tale of morality. In A Christmas Carol, Dickens demonstrates the idea that a life of ignorance towards morals will lead to an inevitable doom in the afterlife. In addition to this, Dickens also shows that that a lack of ethics can lead to an inner suffering that plagues one’s life. Furthermore, Dickens suggests that morality is the helping hand that society so desperately needs. Conversely, Dickens makes a social commentary on society by pointing out the hardship of the poorer classes which paints the wealthier classes in an extremely poor light.

Dickens insinuates that an existence which involves ignorance to morals eventually leads to anguish in the afterlife. Dickens demonstrates this idea through the character of Jacob Marley who comes to warn Scrooge of his eternal suffering, should he continue to be ignorant towards human morality. The character of Jacob Marley serves as a harbinger for the punishment awaiting those who live selfishly like Scrooge does. The ghost of Jacob Marley tells Scrooge of the chain he ‘forged in life’ that is now forced to wear. Dickens symbolizes Marley’s chain as a remnant of our past wrongdoings, thereby warning his readers of the doom they will suffer if they do not choose to live by principles such as generosity, compassion and sympathy for others. Moreover, this reinforces the moral points that Dickens wishes to get across.

In addition to this, a lack of morals can lead to an inner suffering which leaves the individual isolated and alone. Dickens emphasises this through the character of Ebenezer Scrooge who is seen to be an ‘odious’ and ‘stingy’ old man. Scrooge’s life is shown to be one of innate suffering and loneliness. Dickens uses the life of Scrooge to reinforce the idea of the woe that those who lack morals face. Although Scrooge is depicted as a greedy man who does not care for that company of others, he serves as an example of all that we wish to avoid in this world. By emphasising Scrooge’s anguish, Dickens provides his readers with a lesson of morality, by showing them the miserable life that one will face if they lack values.

Furthermore, Dickens suggests that morality is the saviour of mankind and can help ease the despair of others. Dickens reinforces this idea through the character of Tiny Tin who is foretold that he will ‘surely die’ if another person does not intervene to ease his suffering. The character of Tiny Tim is a clever ploy by Dickens to strike sympathy and guilt in the hearts of his readers and to demonstrate to them that their selfish ways do impact others. Moreover, Dickens emphasises this idea by showing the impact of Scrooge’s moral transformation and the effect this has on Tiny Tim’s life. He does not die, and lives a happier and more comfortable life. Hence, Dickens uses his tale of morality to encourage readers to think about their morals and the effect they have on others.

Conversely, Dickens does make a social comment on society by depicting the corruption and exploitation present in Victorian society. Dickens demonstrates the attitudes of the wealthier class through the selfishness of Scrooge. When Scrooge refers to the poorer classes as the ‘surplus population’ Dickens uses this sentence to embody the attitude that many of the wealthier classes hold against the poor. Thereby, he makes an elusive critique of societal values and ideas. This is further shown as he contrasts the lives of Bob Cratchit and Scrooge. Clearly they are both of different social standings and therefore live very different lives. However, Bob is shown is shown to be happier and loving than Scrooge, regardless of the fact that he is significantly poorer. This suggests that Dickens wished to demonstrate to readers that the wealthier classes were not as well off as one would think. Therefore, Dickens does make evasive critiques of society within his novella but continues to centralize the story around the morality of individuals.

In essence, A Christmas Carol is more a tale of morality rather than a social commentary. The ideas that Dickens presents in the novella are intended to enlighten and educate the reader of the importance of morals and values in one’s life. Dickens highlights many ideas that are centred on morality such as the detrimental effect of ignorance towards morals. Likewise, this is reinforced by the idea that a lack of morals leads to an individual’s inner suffering. Furthermore, Dickens suggests that our morals have a significant impact on the lives of others.  Conversely, Dickens also makes allusive comments on societal issues but A Christmas Carol is mainly a tale of morals.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: sin0001 on October 16, 2013, 05:03:16 pm
@John__Doe: I haven't read A Christmas Carol but your introduction feels too formulaic, it's like you've taken 4 dot points and just stuck them in a paragraph by just placing conjunction words like 'Furthermore, In addition & Conversely; you'll be better off improving the flow. Also, same deal with the start of your body paragraphs. Try linking to your previous ideas better, when you begin another body para., don't let words like 'conversely' & 'furthermore' do the talking for you!
Hope that helps.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: ahat on October 16, 2013, 07:26:34 pm
Ransom essay - feedback appreciated :)
“The characters’ identity is not defined by their names, but who they are.”

Malouf demonstrates how Priam, relinquishing himself of the asphyxiating epithet of king, was able to humble himself before an “implacable enemy” and be the agent of change. Surpassing his title and realising the beauty of life by inadvertently sharing in the experiences of Somax, the common carter, was Achilles also exonerated of his grief and his role as the “hero”. Malouf narrates the stories of these characters to exemplify the power of words and human nature in causing such an elementary change.

Priam, freeing himself of any “kingly trappings”, liberated himself from the confines of his sobriquet and ponders a life “aloof from the feelings of the common man”. It was Priam’s journey with Somax that highlighted that true courage lay away from the battlefield, in small acts of kindness and selflessness. Being finally made aware of a world that was constantly “pattering” by sharing in the experiences of a Somax, a “poor day labourer” whose position in society was antithetical to his own, did Priam realise the “intimacy” between men that he’d never had the chance to share in. Sharing in the experiences of Somax, Priam discovered the depth of the human connection, that despite the social spectrum, every man had an intertwined fate in a “story…that had not found its end”. It was this realisation that allowed him to break away from the “obligation of always being the hero” and led to his catharsis, allowing him to beseech Achilles for his son’s body as a “father” and “man”; not a king. Priam realised that like Achilles, both were fathers who shared in the subtle love and tumultuous grief of every man, intrinsic emotions of human nature that defined one’s characters but they had never considered. These decidedly masculine men recognised the shared humanity of Greek and Trojan and consequently, broke free of their titles and transcended the impositions set upon them by the war and their roles.

“It is the office and name that matters, not the person.” Certainly Somax feels that his name is important and he does not welcome the change. He fears that it may be presumptuous to put aside a name he has adorned so long and which “fits him” as the name Idaeus does not. Of course, by making Idaeus the name of an office, the king’s royal herald, rather than that of an individual, Malouf is able to introduce new characters into the narrative, but this is not without complications within the story. (would it be better if I started this paragraph here?) Somax, as the reader inevitably thinks of him, is “very much divided” about the new name and as time passes, will find that his word is doubted because his listeners know that “what he has to tell did happen” but the man in the story was “King Priam’s herald.” Hence, Malouf demonstrates the dual nature of words and titles. Paradoxically, it is precisely because Somax is not Priam’s customary herald that he can assist Priam’s education on the world of ordinary men. It is as Somax, not Idaeus, that the carter makes his impact on the king. Whilst the name of an office can have profound impacts on a person’s status and image, there is nothing to suggest that one’s experiences are left to lament as a cause. Somax, relishing the thought of “what a tale he’ll have to tell”, finds that no one is prepared to believe him, and is dismissed as a “known liar” and a “man who is a hundred years old and drinks too much”. His flair for telling a story counts against him, and his peers will, ironically, refuse the significance of his original name by refusing to credit any connection between him and the name Idaeus. By reinstating his identify as Somax, they will deny the reality of perhaps the most telling events of his life, despite the reader knowing the truth. Thus, Priam will win fame in death while Somax lingers on to watch the script of his life being rewritten by others.

 Malouf’s deliberate retention of Achilles name in the introduction of his novella allows the audience to have a first impression of the character without judging him based on their knowledge of the Iliad. The first few pages show Achilles' more sensitive, feminine side and it is a shock when his name is finally revealed that a character known to be so strong, is subject to such emotional thoughts, even tentatively susceptible to the human comfort of being “tenderly enfolded” in a mother’s grasp. This astonishing revelation demonstrates the power of names and words. The expectations of an immortal man, on par with gods, subject to intrinsic human emotions highlights that experience and humanity are not contained within a name. Whilst Achilles is expected be a fearless warrior, it is as if he lacks a true identity beyond this role. When, for example, he desecrates Hector’s corpse, he does so that he may believe “there was a living man at the centre of it, and that man himself”. But as the story progresses, Achilles relishes the opportunity “to take on the lighter bond of being simply a man” and discover his true identity. When presented with a golden opportunity to capture or kill the king of Troy, Achilles puts to one side his “hard manly qualities” and acts instead with compassion and kindness. Achilles and his Myrmidons act on instinct and are “unacquainted with second thoughts”, so when Priam enters Achilles’ tent his attendants expect their leader to “take the interloper by the throat”. Yet, Achilles sees the chance for change and discovers that it does not matter who he is underneath, but what he does that defines him.

Ransom depicts the rough world of men where a man’s act him in the form of a story. Despite the cataclysm of war and role conflict, many of the characters are able to reconcile with their true identities. Malouf writes these events so that the audience may reflect upon the layers of distortion which may overlay the core of reality at the heart of a story. Expectation of roles and name often overshadow the true character that lies underneath.


Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: ahat on October 16, 2013, 07:31:41 pm
You're a skilled writer. Honestly, I think someone more familiar with War Poems would be able to give you much better feedback. You're a good enough writer than I can't suggest big improvements simply without reading the text. It seems like a really great essay though, but I'm not sure how strongly it connects to the prompt. It seems to gloss over it slightly.

Thanks for the feedback man - I didn't even realise someone had marked it. I've moved onto Ransom though, because like you said, with Owen, I can never seem to be able to truly relay my essay back to the prompt (but hopefully I get better with Ransom). Really though, it's because I read Sugarminted's essay a while back and just gave up, because it was damn good:P
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: memarani on October 18, 2013, 10:17:43 am
Year of Wonders essay. Any feedback is appreciated.

More than anything else, it is Anna’s courage and determination that results in her eventual emancipation. Do you agree?

In Year of Wonders, Geraldine Brooks explores the patriarchal beliefs, religious dogma and social structure exclusive to 17th century Eyam. By straying away from the social, cultural and religious norms of the time, Anna, by gradually growing in courage throughout the plague year, is able to become independent, leading to her emancipation, that is, freedom from the laws and conventions of Eyam. However, her freedom is not solely the result of her own courage and determination. Without the assistance and encouragement of others, she would not have been able to realise her full potential and her own capabilities and self-worth.

Geraldine Brooks, by using the events of the plague year as a catalyst, is able to develop Anna’s character, transforming her from a timid and shy servant to a strong and independent woman. In the time of 1665, Anna is a ‘widow at eighteen’, having lost her husband Sam Frith to a mining accident. She follows the customs of Eyam by displaying deference to the upper classes, such as the Bradford family. When hosting a dinner party at the Bradford’s residence, she avoids Elinor’s attempt to converse with her lest it would cause ‘Colonel Bradford to expire from shock.’ Later, Anna does not display this deference to the Bradford’s; she is not afraid to call Elizabeth Bradford a ‘murdering bitch’. Anna further displays courage and determination by raising her two sons, Tom and Jamie, by herself, a task made more difficult by the death of her husband. Anys observes that Anna likes ‘to go and come without a man’s say-so’. Brooks illustrates Anna’s widowed status as something that has not caused solely grief, but has changed Anna in a way that does not fit the social conventions of that time, women being ‘shackled to their menfolk’. Her escape from a society that abides by restrictive laws is fully realised in her marriage to Ahmed Bey, being ‘in name if not in flesh’, having only been a marriage of convenience. Anna’s courage is displayed as she defies the social conventions belonging to her time and remains strong despite the hardships she has to face. However, courage cannot always come from within. Without assistance, Anna could not possess or maintain her courage.

It is the support of others which have helped Anna change and grow into a more courageous woman. Without the assistance of Elinor Mompellion, it is unlikely that Anna would have escaped Eyam. Elinor is a source of comfort and strength for Anna, having emotionally supported her throughout the plague year. It is Elinor’s support that allows Anna to conquer her fears and join Elinor in healing those who are afflicted by the plague. Anna’s fear of venturing into the Wickford mine stems from the fact that a mining incident claimed her husband’s life as well as the ‘fear of being in an airless place’. She is encouraged by Elinor to help Merry Wickford regain the claim to her family’s mine, being the only one left in her family. Having once failed to retrieve the ore from the Wickford mine, Anna is ashamed of her cowardice. She decides to use the dangerous method of ‘fire-setting’, which caused the death of her husband. Although Elinor had to convince Anna to assist her, Anna ensured that their efforts were successful. Geraldine Brooks is able to demonstrate, through Anna, how conquering one’s fear is an act of courage. It is not only her courage that leads to her eventual emancipation, but also her knowledge, as a result of her education, that is also a factor, as without these she would not realise her true potential and her purpose in life.

It is also intelligence and wisdom that lead to Anna’s freedom. Elinor’s assistance helps Anna further her knowledge and realise her courage. This results in her consequent movement away from the out-dated and ineffective medicinal practices used by the people of Eyam to combat the plague. Her newfound courage and determination enables her to escape to the more progressive city of Oran, dismissing the traditional and restrictive laws of Eyam. Being one of the few educated people in the village and naturally having noble qualities like bravery and wisdom that the others do not display, Anna does not fall victim to superstition as many of the villagers have done, resulting in the unjust murder of Anys Gowdie, and eventually, Mem Gowdie, who’s drowning by the villagers led her to catch Pneumonia. Both of these women did not conform to the conventions set in place in Eyam, displaying the courage and wisdom that Anna ‘admired’. As a result of the several deaths and tragedies caused by the plague, Anna, ‘after so many unanswered prayers … had lost the means to pray.’ Having lost her faith, she is able to notice that ‘the plague [is] a thing in nature’ and is not the working of God or the Devil. She instead practices medicine and uses herbs as cures for the sick. Her potential as a healer is realised when she travels to Oran. There, she meets the doctor Ahmed Bey who allows her to practice medicine in ways that ‘strengthen and nourish’. Although being his wife, she is not his ‘chattel’ as many women in Eyam are. As she has to be part of a harem in order to fulfil her dreams, she is restricted in a different way. Therefore, Brooks displays Anna’s emancipation as a product of her courage in challenging the conventions of the 17th century as well as the strength she is able to draw from Elinor Mompellion which helps her recognize her true potential.

Geraldine Brooks transforms Anna from a timid and shy girl to a courageous and intelligent woman. It is her strength as well as the help she incurs from Elinor which enables her to face the challenges of the plague year and realise her true potential and purpose in life. Without both of these, her eventual emancipation would have never come to fruition. However, while she is freer than the other villagers, she is still restricted. Nevertheless, even though Anna isn’t completely independent, her future is promising.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: lolipopper on October 22, 2013, 03:08:35 pm
Hi can someone please give this essay a mark out of 10. Even if you haven't read the text, give a mark on structure?
Hamid's use of an extended monologue makes this story engaging but leaves the reader with many unanswered questions. To what extent is this true?

Suspense is a fundamental technique implemented by many thrillers to engage their target audience into the world of the narrative. However this often comes at its own cost, leaving behind many unanswered questions which leave the story unravelled and rather incomplete. Mohsin Hamid's post 9/11 literature The Reluctant Fundamentalist does exactly so and while it creatively uses the extended monologue to grasp the audience's attention, they are left to speculate possible outcomes for many situations such as the probable fate of Erica and that of Changez as he may have soon become the victim of an assassination. However this single edged narration is overly critical in conveying the international attitude towards America's corporate fundamentalism and,  although not implied, in revealing the untold story of the 9/11 aftermath on the racially accused, proving to be rather essential to the plot of the novel.

As the novel receives numerous ideal classifications such as "more exciting than any thriller" or "thoroughly gripping book", the importance of the extended monologue become significantly apparent to the audience. The consistent suggestions of an assassination as Changez judges a "soldier" appearance of the American or when the American suspects Changez giving a "signal" to the waiter, create concern for the security of the two, as the description of these situations are limited to only Changez's dialogue. With first person narration, an otherwise uncommon view of the American retaliation to the 9/11 attacks acts to entertain the reader as it sets to challenge the norms established by the modern media. However attractive and encapsulating these entertaining and suspenseful elements may be, they often tend to compromise the values of certain characters and situations portrayed in the novel.   

The question of who is predator and prey, is one that surfaces continuously from beginning to conclusion in course of the narrative. As the reader indulges into the first page of the novel, Changez warns a "mission" in the process that the silent American may be on. Although at first it seems as merely an observation, when we discover Changez's efforts in promoting an "anti-American" propaganda, the retaliation becomes almost an expectation as Changez issues a "firefly's glow that transcends boundaries" of many continents. However, as a "Kurtz waiting for his Marlow", Changez's perceived racial identity of an Islamic extremist shadows a doubt that he may himself be the assassin as the Silent American doubts his hospitality and his potential accomplice, the waiter. The series of events that entail this judgement, reappear consistently in the start and ending of each chapter, creating a dramatic concerning atmosphere.

Nevertheless, as the story concludes with an ambiguous "glint of metal" which Changez believes is a "card holder", a lack of response from the American listener refrains the audience from reaching a clear decision, forming the first unanswered question.
Similarly, as Changez recounts his American journey, at first the audience embraces it with loyal trust owing to his credentials of a "Princeton" graduate. However as the silent American gains a deeper understanding of Changez, Changez's final claims appear somewhat contradictory and false, leading the American to question the integrity of those claims. Changez's smile at the tragic collapse of the twin towers is one that angers the silent American with his "hands rolled into a fist". This sets the audience and their symbolic representation, the Silent American, "ill at ease" and against Changez. The collective effect of this bias becomes apparent when later the American accusingly questions  Changez's lack of involvement in the assassination of an American Assistance Coordinator and his encounter with Juan Bautista, a proposed catalyst for Changez's abandonment of America. By making Changez the sole narrator, Hamid creates an entertaining setting that dwells on audience attention. Yet it is one that leaves them to ruminate if Changez is really only, like the bride of 'One thousand and One nights', reciting a story so he is not assassinated. This forms another member of the many  abandoned questions.

Hamid depicts Erica as a character whose identity is shaped solely by a "guy with long skinny fingers" as she dwells into a phase of deep nostalgia. Seeing only Erica's beauty despite "something broken" being clearly visible, Changez catalyses a chronic illness which is untreatable and rather unavoidable as he offers a sad reality. However once the attacks of 9/11 take place, the basic foundation of Erica's personality shatters dramatically leading her to "reside within herself". Although it is finally revealed that Erica has disappeared, Hamid's need to create the suspense of Erica's possible reappearance results in a lack of confirmation of Erica's fate as Changez's recital is itself largely unsure and reasonable unreliable. Thus another unanswered question dominates the plot.

Conversely, although the use of an extended monologue does tend to be important for an engaging plot and may result in numerous questions unanswered, this technique is quite significantly important in conveying the key  ideas and themes of the novel. This dramatic narration by Changez allows the audience to view the aftermath of the 9/11 events from another perspective contrary to those which dominate the mainstream media in support of America. It depicts the events of racial profiling where Changez's "two week old beard" become an issue of safety concern at an airport and at Underwood Samson whose "colleagiality veneer only goes so deep". The monologue also assists in explaining the views of the international society upon an America that "retreated into assumptions of its own superiority". At a time of great tension between its ally Pakistan and India, America's refusal in interfere is adjacent to the corporate theme of Underwood Samson, where "Maximum return was the maxim to which we returned time and time again". It is only through Changez's biased narration, that another side of the historical tragedy comes to the common view of the audience.               

Despite being the enticing engaging thriller, Mohsin Hamid's The Reluctant Fundamentalist,  doubtlessly as a sacrifice must revert to a plot with many unexplained scenes and unanswered questions. However the very structure of a dramatic monologue is the reason that the issues of racial profiling and America's selfish corporate nature are able to be addressed, factors which base the reason for Hamid's novel. 



 
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: MonsieurHulot on October 23, 2013, 03:01:43 pm
Hello all, I'd appreciate any advice/criticism/praise you have regarding this essay. Also, a mark out of 10 would be good, thank you.

"Twelve Angry Men is a play about how power can be misused."

Confined to a stifling jury room, Reginald Rose's play Twelve Angry Men branches out, probing numerous facets of American life at the epoch. Only one man is innocent of misusing the power vested in him, everyone but Juror 8, even the Judge, contributes to the seemingly inexorable perversion of justice that is narrowly averted. Rose uses the jury room as a microcosm of America. The play is both a scathing critique of the misuse of power and a reflection on Rose's natal country, its past, present and future.

The Judge's misuse of power is perhaps the most influential yet subtle and easily over-looked. As a judge, it is his duty to consider the evidence presented and dismiss the impertinent or misleading. Most importantly, a judge must preserve the court's integrity by disallowing any perjury. Rose's judge, however, fails. After mere minutes of reflection, the jurors agree that both the old male witness and the middle-aged female witness, "the entire case for the prosecution", could not have seen what they swore to have seen, thus perjuring themselves. It is the job of the jurors to use the evidence presented, which they believe to have been presented in all good faith, to deliberate on the defendant's guilt. The Judge must ensure the evidence's veracity. By not disallowing the false testimony, the Judge misuses his power. Furthermore, by stating that "the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy", the Judge compounds his failings by making the consequences deadly. The Judge is not the only member of the judicial system to be incompetent. According to Juror 8, "the defence counsel wasn't doing his job", nor was the prosecution presenting a fair case. The fact that the old man could pick out the boy's voice, beneath whom he had lived for years, "was just an ambitious District Attorney putting on a show" and ultimately proves nothing about the defendant's guilt. Thus, the legal system failed everybody; the boy, by not giving him a fair trial and the jury, by sending them away to deliberate on misleading evidence and perjury. The power entrusted to the Judge is misused and the ramifications could have been murderous.

The jurors are not exempt from Rose's criticism, with the exception of Juror 8. Eleven of them are willing to send a sixteen year old boy to the electric chair without first debating the case. As every single one of them ultimately changed their vote to not guilty, this is a shocking misuse of power. Juror 7's flippant attitude shows how much he values his civic duty to justice;  for him, the verdict "better be fast. I've got tickets to a ball game." Juror 8 must tirelessly combat this attitude in his quest to express the reasonable doubt in his mind. Juror 8 is a beacon of hope, he alone uses his power responsibly, and, perhaps unsurprisingly, in line with the dearly-held American values of democracy and freedom for all. Though technically democratic, the other jurors' initial unthinking guilty vote resembles more mob rule than the kind of responsible consideration Juror 8 espouses. "It is not easy for one man to stand against the ridicule of others", yet Juror 8 does so. He expresses his unpopular opinion and rationally convinces the others that he is right;  that there is reasonable doubt that the boy is guilty Rose portrays Juror 8 as an ideal for which Americans must strive.

Setting the whole play in a small room, Rose draws in different people to present a diorama of American life in the 1950s. Juror 8 embodies the future that Rose wishes to see emerge from a quagmire of racist and ignorant attitudes, personified by Juror 10. Though it is ultimately a hopeful play, Rose cannot help but express his frustration at the lack of progress. The jurors struggle to advance, with Juror 12 oscillating between each side. Rose writes that "It's oppressively still", ostensible referring to the room's meteorology but conveniently describing the zeitgeist. His use of synecdoche in substituting the jury room for America condenses and renders comprehensible his views on a wide range of contemporaneous issues.

While Twelve Angry Men is a play about the need for careful deliberation and the safeguard of reasonable doubt, it is also a social critique of Rose's America, the outwardly booming but inwardly stagnating American of the 1950s. Rose champions the educated citizen of Juror 8 over the crumbling, incompetent and dangerous legal institution. Twelve Angry Men is a panorama of American life, spanning the bigoted attitudes of the past and the cultural listlessness of the time while reaching for a future where citizens like Juror 8 abound, reaching like the torch-bearing arm of the Statue of Liberty.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: massachusetts8 on October 24, 2013, 01:40:56 pm
Anyone able to give me some feedback or a mark out of ten! I greatly appreciate it.

Humanity has to break free from the past if they are to move forward. Discuss in relation to Ransom.

   In Ransom, David Malouf weaves the grand themes of the Trojan War as he recreates the section of Homer’s The Illiad, in which King Priam journeys to the Archaen camp to retrieve the mutilated corpse of his son. The novel suggests that in order for human beings to liberate themselves, they must cease living in past experiences. Through letting go of hatred and tension, leaders are able to persevere through their limited life. However, Malouf highlights that embracing the past allows individuals to move forward. Moreover, it is through breaking free from obligations and overcoming fear that one can truly achieve catharsis. Thus in order for one to liberate oneself, it involves many factors.
   In some ways, Malouf suggests that men must discard the past to continue on with life. In holding feelings of hatred, revenge or pride, individuals burden themselves and are unable to progress forward. Through emancipating themselves from these previous recollections they are able to adopt a new optimistic perspective of life. The Archaen warrior, Achilles is overwhelmed with grief and consumed in his “self-defeating cycle of rage that wastes his spirit in despair” after he loses Patroclus, “his soulmate” to Hector, his “implacable enemy.” Referring to Hector as an “enemy” serves to highlight Achilles’ hatred and vengeance towards the Trojan prince. In allowing theses feelings to be expressed, Achilles immobilizes himself and is unable to assuage his anguish even as he desecrates Hector’s corpse as if he is under the influence of a “darker agency.” Accepting the ransom offered by Priam, Achilles “breaks free from the spell that binds him” and does not lose face. His transformation from the past is shown by Malouf as he describes the scene as a “dreamlike quality.” Furthermore, although being divided by the fortunes of war that separate Greece and Troy, both Achilles and Priam are able to momentarily disregard this dichotomy and successfully liberate themselves and Hector’s body. Through the shared humanity as “mere mortals,” both leaders are able to let go of the Trojan War and persevere toward adopting a new perspective as shown by Troy’s gates “gleaming with gold” and Achilles’ hut is “visited by lightness.”  Thus by moving away from past feelings of hatred, humans are able to move forward.
   On the other hand, Malouf demonstrate that through accepting the past, individuals can progress. Despite conflicted emotions of betrayal by the gods against loyalty to the gods, many humans are able to understand their previous life experiences and move on. Some people even use the past to make other realise the notion of the human condition. The Trojan king could have easily been amongst the “rabble of the slave children” had his sister, Hesione not saved him from his ignominious existence. After his promotion to leader of Troy, Priam’s receptivity to the gods falters as he believes that they set him up as an “ancient doll”
 only to mock him. Reassured by the goddess Iris who feeds Priam the ludicrous notion of “chance,” Priam ultimately accepts that his ransom as a child was not a mockery. He uses this past experience as a catalyst for his journey to the Archaen camp in which he “takes on the lighter bond of simply being a man” and show humbleness to retrieve the body of Hector. Additionally, having been saved from his anonymous existence, Priam further desires to leave an image that is a “living one” which highlights the king’s ability to move forwards. Furthermore, the common carter Somax’ insightful wisdom and past experiences of the loss of his “three sons and four daughters” allows him to change the king. As Somax walks around “with a near broke heart,” the ordinary villager shows stoicism as he perseveres through life and understands that humans “go on for all [their] losses.” Through his heartache of the past, Somax enables others and himself to understand mortality and move forward.
   Ransom also explores the way in which individuals can achieve catharsis by breaking free from self-doubt and expectations rather than the past to move forward. Through his third person narration, Malouf endeavours to make readers privy to the characters’ emotions and torment. In doing so, he also shows the transformation of individuals, suggesting that they must challenge their roles and inner fear to move forward. Priam transgresses the confinements of his regal reputation by using “chance” as recourse to define his actions which could have labelled him a heretic. The initially self-doubting Priam was a “stickler for convention” and is dissuaded by his council when he reveals his idea of removing all “glittering distraction” to appeal to the brutal Achilles. By subjecting himself to a vulnerable situation at his “frail old age,” Priam demonstrates that he has overcome his fear of death and of the looming Greek victory. Moreover as he successfully ransoms the body of Hector by appealing to Achilles “as a father,” Priam is able to achieve catharsis and continue forward in his limited life in which he dies bravely as shown by his “ghastly far off smile.” Subsequently, Achilles is also liberated as “the warrior within him is momentarily subdued” in his meeting with Priam, enabling Achilles to let go of his heroic nature and be in touch with his softer, more intuitive side. Malouf portrays this transformation as Achilles sheds tears over Hector’s corpse and reflects on his life which is close to its end similar to Priam. Thus it is through breaking free from expectations and fear that enables individuals to move forward.
   Ransom explores humanity’s actions as they try to persevere through life. The novel suggests that by moving away from past sentiments of hatred, individuals can move onwards. Yet, Malouf also shows that the past can be used to progress forward in life and relieving themselves from the burdens of their roles, an individual can have a cathartic ending. Thus while humankind must emancipate themselves from history, they must also accept their experiences as well.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Sapphire on October 25, 2013, 06:31:08 pm

A Christmas Carol in more a social commentary than it is a moral tale. Discuss.

Charles Dickens', A Christmas Carol, Remember to underline the title in the exam! presents an exploration of differing ideas and values through an enthralling tale of morality. I think it would be better to start with a contextualising sentence rather than getting straight to naming the book and the author. Perhaps refer to the setting, like ‘Set during nineteenth century England…’ or ‘Against the backdrop of Industrial England’   In A Christmas Carol, Dickens demonstrates the idea that a life of ignorance towards morals sounds clumpy, ‘a life devoid of morals’ or something like that would be better will lead to an inevitable doom in the afterlife. In addition to this, Dickens also shows that that a lack of ethics can lead to an inner suffering that plagues one’s life. Furthermore, Dickens suggests that morality is the helping hand that society so desperately needs. Conversely, Dickens makes a social commentary on society a  ‘social commentary’ implies that it is on society, there is no need to add that by pointing out the hardship of the poorer classes which paints the wealthier classes in an extremely poor light. How does showing the hardships of one class make the other class seem bad? Dickens attacks the inertia of the rich – the fact that those like Scrooge make flippant comments like ‘Are there no Workhouses?’ rather than attacking them just because they’re well off. You need to make yourself clearer here. Eg. ‘by highlighting the plight of the poor, Dickens attacks the inertia of the wealthy class’


Dickens insinuates that an existence which involves ignorance to morals eventually leads to anguish in the afterlife. Dickens demonstrates this idea through the character of Jacob Marley who comes to warn Scrooge of his eternal suffering, should he continue to be ignorant towards human morality. The character of Jacob Marley serves as a harbinger for the punishment awaiting those who live selfishly like Scrooge does. GoodThe ghost of Jacob Marley tells Scrooge of the chain he ‘forged in life’ that he is now forced to wear. Dickens symbolizes Marley’s chain as a remnant of our past wrongdoings, thereby warning his readers of the doom they will suffer if they do not choose to live by principles such as generosity, compassion and sympathy for others. Moreover, this reinforces the moral points that Dickens wishes to get across. But what are these moral points? Be more explicit in defining key words from the prompt

In addition to this, a lack of morals can lead to an inner suffering which leaves the individual isolated and alone. Dickens emphasises this through the character of Ebenezer Scrooge who is seen to be an ‘odious’ and ‘stingy’ old man. Scrooge’s life is shown to be one of innate suffering and loneliness. Dickens uses the life of Scrooge to reinforce the idea of the woe that those who lack morals face. Although Scrooge is depicted as a greedy man who does not care for that company of others, he serves as an example of all that we wish to avoid in this world. By emphasising Scrooge’s anguish, Dickens provides his readers with a lesson of morality, by showing them the miserable life that one will face if they lack values.

While you make decent points, your discussion is a bit lacking. You make several claims that you do not support, ‘Scrooge’s life is shown to be one of innate suffering and loneliness’ – show me some evidence to support this. Tell me about how he eats his ”melancholy dinner” alone or how nobody wishes to approach him on the streets.  Also, you say, ‘By emphasising Scrooge’s anguish’- you have provided no examples of his anguish, let alone how Dickens emphasises it. In fact, at the beginning of the novella, Scrooge is described by the narrator to be content with his lifestyle – “it was the very thing he liked. To edge his way along the crowded paths of life warning all human sympathy to keep its distance”. Pointing out Scrooge’s realisation that he is in fact lonely and miserable, after his journey with the Ghosts of Christmases, would strengthen your argument here.


Furthermore, Dickens suggests that morality is the saviour of mankind and can help ease the despair of others.. Dickens’ broader point here is that neglect of the poor won’t only result in the despair of those who need aid but also, to all those like Scrooge who turn a blind eye. It would add sophistication to your argument if you discuss the joy Scrooge gets out of helping Tiny Tim. Dickens reinforces this idea through the character of Tiny Tin who is foretold that he will ‘surely die’ if another person does not intervene to ease his suffering. The character of Tiny Tim is a clever ploy by Dickens to strike sympathy and guilt in the hearts of his readers and to demonstrate to them that their selfish ways do impact others. Moreover, Dickens emphasises this idea by showing the impact of Scrooge’s moral transformation and the effect this has on Tiny Tim’s life. He does not die, and lives a happier and more comfortable life. Hence, Dickens uses his tale of morality to encourage readers to think about their morals and the effect they have on others.

Conversely, Dickens does make a social comment on society again, there is really no need for the ‘on society’ by depicting the corruption and exploitation present in Victorian society. Dickens demonstrates embodies, even symbolises, would be a better word here the attitudes of the wealthier class through the selfishness of Scrooge. When Scrooge refers to the poorer classes as the ‘surplus population’ Dickens uses this sentence to embody the attitude that many of the wealthier classes hold against the poor. Thereby, he makes an elusive critique of societal values and ideas.Nice This is further shown as he contrasts the lives of Bob Cratchit and Scrooge. Clearly they are both of different social standings and therefore live very different lives. However, Bob is shown is shown to be happier and loving than Scrooge, regardless of the fact that he is significantly poorer. Some quotation would make this nicer, for example Dickens describes the Cratchits as not materially well-off but “happy, grateful, pleased with one another, and contented with the time”. This suggests that Dickens wished to demonstrate to readers that the wealthier classes were not as well off as one would think. Hmmm, I don’t see what you mean here? Are you referring to emotional poverty? If so, make this more clear! Also, the ‘wealthier class’ that Scrooge is a part of is the working, middle class. Therefore, Dickens does make evasive critiques of society within his novella but continues to centralize the story around the morality of individuals. Decent link

In essence, A Christmas Carol is more a tale of morality rather than a social commentary. The ideas that Dickens presents in the novella are intended to enlighten and educate the reader of the importance of morals and values in one’s life. Dickens highlights many ideas that are centred on morality such as the detrimental effect of ignorance towards morals. Likewise, this is reinforced by the idea that a lack of morals leads to an individual’s inner suffering. Furthermore, Dickens suggests that our morals have a significant impact on the lives of others.  Conversely, Dickens also makes allusive comments on societal issues but A Christmas Carol is mainly a tale of morals.Good conclusion

Overall, you have good ideas but sometimes it feels like your paragraphs are just a list of topic sentences. The structure you follow is 'Dickens insinuates/suggests X (you've made big claims, eg. ' Dickens suggests that morality is the saviour of mankind'), then Dickens reinforces X.' This is great but your discussion and textual knowledge seems to be lacking. I want to see you refer to the minor characters that demonstrate Dickens' ideal moral man - I'm thinking of Old Fezziwig and Fred here. Some more quoting would be nice too. The novella is laden with description, weave some of that into your own writing.

Also, don't look at the story as 'rich people need to help out the poor so they can be good people'. Scrooge himself becomes happier when he becomes a second father to Tiny Tim. There are two main elements in this prompt 'moral tale' and 'social commentary'. Be sure to define the key words explicitly in your essay. You can add some depth to it by describing the link between the two, rather than commenting on them separately.

I hope this somehow helps :)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: simba on October 25, 2013, 11:47:01 pm
I'm sorry if this entire essay just sounds like a heap of word vomit, I was really struggling with the time constraints! Be as harsh as possible, text response is definitely sucking right now :(

EDIT: just read my intro again and I've used the word significantly three times, gah!

'A persons surroundings can influence them' discuss in relation to Twelve Angry Men'

1950s America was characterised by a rigid fear towards those who embodied traits of difference. Reginald Rose's 'Twelve Angry Men' examines the ways in which an individuals environment can impact their ability to view the case objectively. The physical setting of the jury room provides a significant source of tension, impacting the decision making skills of each juror. Furthermore, the surroundings in which each juror was raised contribute significantly to their position on the case. Not only the physical settings contribute to an individual's perception on the case; the other jurors significantly influence each other's viewpoint on the case, ultimately reiterating the importance of the surrounding environment in determining each jurors final verdict.

The jury room is utilised by Rose throughout the play as a means of influencing each jurors position on the case. The physical heat inside the jury room is symbolically utilised by Rose to demonstrate the mentality of the short tempered characters. The heat itself causes discomfort to the majority of the jurors, only aggravated as they realise the fan "doesn't work." This heat encourages the each juror to vote guilty in order to quickly leave the "large, drab room." It is not until the jurors begin to discuss the notion of the defendants innocence that the physical conditions of the jury room improve. As the vote stands 6 guilty to 6 not guilty, the jurors are finally able to turn on the fan, recognising "it must have been connected to the light switch." Subsequently, Rose hints that the fan will work to "cool things off" between the jurors. Furthermore, Rose utilises the props in the jury room to further influence the decision making skills of each juror. As 8th Juror requests to see the "curiously designed knife" used as the murder weapon, he produces his own switch blade, the two being "exactly alike." Since the prosecution had painfully drawn out the importance of the uniqueness of the murder weapon, the other jurors begin to reconsider their notion of the defendants guilt, influenced by the physical presence of the two switch knives.

Each juror in 'Twelve Angry Men' has been raised in differing environments, significantly contributing to how each juror views the case. Raised in Germany, the 11th Juror recognises the "importance of democracy," subsequently taking his position as a jury member seriously and "not making [it] a personal thing." When challenged by the 10th Juror about his demeanour, the 11th Juror defends himself by stating "it was the way I was brought up." Rose utilises the 11th Juror to imply the significance an individuals upbringing provides to their final verdict, with the 11th Juror being able to recognise the importance of an "honest and thoughtful" deliberation. In contrast, Rose condemns characters such as 10th Juror, who were raised in the capitalistic environment of America. Throughout the play, Rose asserts the 10th Jurors certainty of the defendants guilt, his reasoning being "they want to destroy us." The 10th Jurors constant repetition of phrases such as "them" when discussing the defendants type eludes to the fact that 10th Jurors upbringing influences his view on the case, being unable to rationalise the defendants case beyond a misconceived stereotype.

The views of each individual juror are pivotal in influencing the final verdict of the others. Throughout the play, 8th Juror maintains that the defendant "may be guilty," but he has "reasonable doubt in [his] mind" as a defence for his verdict of "not guilty." It is the 8th Jurors perceptive outlook on the case that causes the other jurors to consider the notion of the defendants innocence, encouraging them to view the case outside the overwhelming initial appearance of guilt. 8th Juror consistently challenges each jurors verdict on the case by asking them the simple question "do you think the boy is guilty?" Rose characterises the 8th Juror as perceptive, reflected in his repetitive stage direction of "looking out of the window." The window is utilised as a symbol of objectivity throughout the play, implying the 8th Juror views the case beyond the constraints of the jury room. Subsequently, this implication of a balanced and rational verdict by the 8th Juror influences the other jurors to agree with his vote. When juxtaposed with the irrational and insubstantial arguments of the 3rd and 10th Jurors, who are unable to identify solid non-prejudiced reasoning for their verdict, 8th Jurors logical reasoning heavily influences the other Jurors final verdict of "not guilty."

'Twelve Angry Men' serves to reiterate the multitude of ways in which and individuals surroundings can influence their perception on the case. Through creating a tense physical environment, Rose aims to demonstrate the ways in which the jurors physical environment impact their final verdict. Furthermore, Rose demonstrates the significance of each jurors upbringing in their ability to rationalise the case. By creating characters such as the 8th Juror, Rose ultimately demonstrates the significance of the surrounding physical, personal and social surroundings in influencing each jurors final verdict.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: DoctorWho on October 26, 2013, 07:23:35 pm
Overall, you have good ideas but sometimes it feels like your paragraphs are just a list of topic sentences. The structure you follow is 'Dickens insinuates/suggests X (you've made big claims, eg. ' Dickens suggests that morality is the saviour of mankind'), then Dickens reinforces X.' This is great but your discussion and textual knowledge seems to be lacking. I want to see you refer to the minor characters that demonstrate Dickens' ideal moral man - I'm thinking of Old Fezziwig and Fred here. Some more quoting would be nice too. The novella is laden with description, weave some of that into your own writing.

Also, don't look at the story as 'rich people need to help out the poor so they can be good people'. Scrooge himself becomes happier when he becomes a second father to Tiny Tim. There are two main elements in this prompt 'moral tale' and 'social commentary'. Be sure to define the key words explicitly in your essay. You can add some depth to it by describing the link between the two, rather than commenting on them separately.

I hope this somehow helps :)

Thank you so much! I gave this essay to my teacher and got a series of ticks and one sentence at the end which read, 'very well-written piece'. That's actually been the majority of her feedback throughout the whole year. Your comments are so helpful! I'll definitely work on what you've pointed out, I agree that I don't explore the text thoroughly enough, but it's mainly because I don't want to fall back into 'retelling' the story. I understand what you mean though and I'll definitely work on my analysis a bit more.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: shooterblitz on October 29, 2013, 11:29:31 am
Just keen on some general feedback prior to tomorrow! Any advice is welcome, feel free to comment/mark :) Thanks!

Question: 'A Christmas Carol' suggests that although an obsession with money is harmful, an adequate amount of money can make people both comfortable and happy.' Do you agree?

Charles Dickens’ classical novella ‘A Christmas Carol’ is set in the midst of the Victorian London era, whereby the Industrial Revolution manifested itself within society and the economy. The tale surrounds main character Ebenezer Scrooge and his drive for money, and more so how he redeems himself to move away from greed. Dickens, the omniscient narrator additionally implements various secondary characters, who help develop an entertaining and enthralling novella, to serve his purpose. The narrative explores the negative repercussions that result from an obsession with money, which is understood through Scrooge’s life experiences. Although, the suggestion that an adequate amount of money can provide people with both comfort and happiness, stands incorrect. The novella evidently explains that it is not necessary to obtain monetary means to achieve well-being and pleasure. Dickens illustrates such an idea through the Cratchit family; a family that takes part in the proletariat aspect of society, Tiny Tim; a crippled young boy, and Belle; Scrooge’s past love interest. In turn, through secondary characters, Dickens claims that money in turn tends to destroy and harm individuals, rather than declare positive consequences. 

Dickens asserts that there is no need for monetary means, even adequate sums, to achieve or find pleasure and wellbeing through the Cratchit family. The omniscient narrator’s description of the Cratchit family suggests that ‘They were not a handsome family; they were not well dressed… their clothes were scanty…” Such a description validates Dickens’ argument at a latter point, although the reader is made aware about the lack of possessions and wealth carried by the Cratchit family and furthermore their position in society as part of the proletariat class. Dickens then asserts, “… they were happy, grateful, pleased with one another, and contented with the time.” Such an illustration painted by Dickens suggests that despite the lack of adequate money, or possessions, the Cratchit family obtained comfort and happiness. This tends to evidently suggest that there is no requirement for monetary means within families to grasp a sense of comfort or pleasure. The omniscient narrator’s idea is further validated through his description of the Christmas celebrations in the Cratchit household, whereby he states “The children were all dancing around, the fire was lit, and the potatoes were popping out of the kettle.” A descriptive statement, with an enlightened connotation declares that the Cratchit household lacked worry and stress upon Christmas, whereby their financial circumstances would not abide by such behaviour. Dickens’ illustration of the Cratchit family tends to further suggest that the author believes that there is no need for monetary means to obtain comfort or pleasure. It is further understood that Dickens’ motives to make such a claim derive form his personal experiences during the Industrial Revolution where he gave up education and worked to free his family from the debtors jail. Dickens’ drive to save his family to achieve comfort is represented through the attitudes of the Cratchit family in a slight sense. Overall, one way through which Dickens suggests that money, even an adequate amount is not necessary to obtain happiness is illustrated through the Cratchit family and their attitudes despite their financial circumstances. However, another way via which Dickens insinuates such an idea is through a different secondary character, Tiny Tim.

Dickens further insinuates that an adequate amount of money does not necessarily incline to provide happiness and comfort, through the secondary character of Tiny Tim. Tiny Tim is the youngest child of the Cratchit family, and is understood to have a generic medical condition, which is life defying and causes him to have a ‘wooden-leg’. Such medical conditions tended to be regular amongst the children of the proletariat class, and can be understood to be due to the appalling working conditions in the past for Tiny Tim, during the manifestation of the Industrial Revolution. The novella illustrates Tiny Tim as a positive and happy child, with a sustaining attitude to life, which tends to oppose the generalised view to life he should instead possess – which is on the opposite spectrum. Although the reader is not exposed to much dialogue from Tiny Tim, the memorable statement “God Bless us all everyone!” upon the dinner table summarises the joy and care Tiny Tim has for other, more so than for himself. The words ‘bless everyone’ suggest that he wishes to give his family blessings and grace, despite the understanding that he in turn needs it more than anyone else due to his medical circumstances. Although at a latter point in the narrative, the omniscient narrator asserts that Scrooge provided monetary means to help Tiny Tim recover, the idea that money does not provide happiness and comfort stands clear. Dickens positions the character of Tiny Tim to have generosity and comfort in life despite a serious medical condition, which requires money to fixate, but without an adequate sum, Tiny Tim is shown to still have happiness. Overall, the idea that money, in generous sum tends to provide Dickens argues one with comfort and happiness against, through his portrayal of Tiny Tim’s character. Dickens showcases Tiny Tim as a positive and generously hearted being who wishes the best for everyone, despite his financial and medical circumstances. The omniscient narrator further develops his argument through another secondary character in the narrative, Belle.

Another character, which Dickens tends to characterise to illustrate that money, even an adequate sum has no contribution to an individual’s level of comfort and happiness is Belle. Belle is a secondary character in the narrative that appears during the sequence in Stave 2, where the Ghost of Christmas Past shows Scrooge his younger years. The character of Belle is used by the omniscient narrator in a subtle sense, whereby her role tends to be significantly short, yet significantly influential. Moreover, Dickens tends to insinuate that comfort and happiness is not a product of money, as Scrooge’s drive for money and his support of Belle leads to a break up in their relationship. Belle claims “All your other hopes have merged into the hope of being beyond the chance of its sordid approach. I have seen your nobler aspirations fall off, one by one, until the master passion, Gain, engrosses you.” Dickens purposely claims through Belle’s thoughts that despite having an adequate amount of money, she fails to obtain happiness and comfort, which further illustrates that the omniscient narrator is against the idea of finding comfort and happiness through money. In the narrative, it is observed that Belle is instead worried and uncomfortable with the amount of ‘gain’ her fiancée is obtaining, which essentially puts her away from comfort and happiness. Making such an assertion allows Dickens to continue to suggest that regardless of the amount, money tends to have no causation in comfort or happiness, whereby in Belle’s scenario, she is instead forced to give up money and her relationship with Scrooge to obtain pleasure and wellbeing. Overall, Dickens, the narrator uses the minor secondary character of Belle to essentially educate the audience that regardless of the amount of money, happiness and comfort cannot be achieved. Particularly, Dickens showcases Bella breaking up her relationship with Scrooge as money provided her with relationship problems, as well as a lack of well being and comfort.

In conclusion, the novella ‘A Christmas Carol’, written by Charles Dickens tends to educate the reader that an obsessive amount of money is harmful, although even an adequate amount of money can not provide one with comfort or happiness. The omniscient narrator asserts such an idea through showcasing the attitudes, circumstances and decisions of secondary characters. In particular, Dickens presents the proletariat class family; the Cratchit’s and their attitudes in life despite their difficult financial and medical circumstances, Tiny Time and his ideas and attitude to life despite not having enough funds t save himself, and Belle; Scrooge’s love interest who decides to leave Scrooge after not finding happiness or comfort solely with money. The overall idea is sufficiently emphasised upon by Dickens, and tends to portray a significant life lesson to the reader.


Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Sapphire on October 29, 2013, 03:26:02 pm
Thank you so much! I gave this essay to my teacher and got a series of ticks and one sentence at the end which read, 'very well-written piece'. That's actually been the majority of her feedback throughout the whole year. Your comments are so helpful! I'll definitely work on what you've pointed out, I agree that I don't explore the text thoroughly enough, but it's mainly because I don't want to fall back into 'retelling' the story. I understand what you mean though and I'll definitely work on my analysis a bit more.
You're welcome :) Oh that's annoying, I've had my fair share of those kinds of teachers. Best of luck tomorrow John!

for shootersid:

Question: 'A Christmas Carol' suggests that although an obsession with money is harmful, an adequate amount of money can make people both comfortable and happy.' Do you agree?

Charles Dickens’ classical novella ‘A Christmas Carol’ is set in the midst of the Victorian London era, whereby the Industrial Revolution manifested itself within society and the economy. It’s great to see you starting with a contextualising sentence but it doesn’t need to be that long. Refer to Victorian England or the Industrial Revolution, not both. However, you can use them interchangeably throughout your essay. The tale surrounds main character Ebenezer Scrooge and his drive for money, and more so how he redeems himself to move away from greed. Good. Dickens, the omniscient narrator additionally implements various secondary characters, who help develop an entertaining and enthralling novella, to serve his purpose. I don’t see the relation here? I know what you’re getting at BUT you really need to make yourself clearer. Especially in the introduction, EVERYTHING should link to the question clearly. The narrative explores the negative repercussions that result from an obsession with money, which is understood through Scrooge’s life experiences. Although, the suggestion that an adequate amount of money can provide people with both comfort and happiness, stands incorrect. This is pretty much copied from the question, think of another way to say it. The novella evidently explains that it is not necessary to obtain monetary means to achieve well-being and pleasure. Dickens illustrates such an idea through the Cratchit family; a family that takes part in the proletariat aspect of society, Tiny Tim; a crippled young boy, and Belle; Scrooge’s past love interest. you don’t need to be so specific in your introduction. Mentioning the Cratchit family is enough, you do not need to list characters and provide description about them, that’s what the body paragraphs are for In turn, through secondary characters, Dickens claims that money in turn tends to destroy and harm individuals, rather than declare positive consequences. 

Dickens asserts that there is no need for monetary means, even adequate sums, to achieve or find pleasure and wellbeing through the Cratchit family. refer to feedback at the bottom about this point The omniscient narrator’s description of the Cratchit family suggests that ‘They were not a handsome family; they were not well dressed… their clothes were scanty…” Such a description validates Dickens’ argument at a latter point, although the reader is made aware about the lack of possessions and wealth carried by the Cratchit family and furthermore their position in society as part of the proletariat class. Dickens then asserts, “… they were happy, grateful, pleased with one another, and contented with the time.” Such an illustration painted by Dickens suggests that despite the lack of adequate money, or possessions, the Cratchit family obtained comfort and happiness. This tends to evidently suggest that there is no requirement for monetary means within families to grasp a sense of comfort or pleasure. The omniscient narrator’s idea is further validated through his description of the Christmas celebrations in the Cratchit household, whereby he states “The children were all dancing around, the fire was lit, and the potatoes were popping out of the kettle.” A descriptive statement, with an enlightened connotation declares that the Cratchit household lacked worry and stress upon Christmas, whereby their financial circumstances would not abide by such behaviour. Dickens’ illustration of the Cratchit family tends to further suggest that the author believes that there is no need for monetary means to obtain comfort or pleasure. It is further understood that Dickens’ motives to make such a claim derive form his personal experiences during the Industrial Revolution where he gave up education and worked to free his family from the debtors jail. Dickens’ drive to save his family to achieve comfort is represented through the attitudes of the Cratchit family in a slight sense. Overall, one way through which Dickens suggests that money, even an adequate amount is not necessary to obtain happiness is illustrated through the Cratchit family and their attitudes despite their financial circumstances. However, another way via which Dickens insinuates such an idea is through a different secondary character, Tiny Tim.

Dickens further insinuates that an adequate amount of money does not necessarily incline to provide happiness and comfort, through the secondary character of Tiny Tim. Tiny Tim is the youngest child of the Cratchit family, and is understood to have a generic medical condition, which is life defying and causes him to have a ‘wooden-leg’. Such medical conditions tended to be regular amongst the children of the proletariat class, and can be understood to be due to the appalling working conditions in the past for Tiny Tim, during the manifestation of the Industrial Revolution. The novella illustrates Tiny Tim as a positive and happy child, with a sustaining attitude to life, which tends to oppose the generalised view to life he should instead possess – which is on the opposite spectrum. Although the reader is not exposed to much dialogue from Tiny Tim, the memorable statement “God Bless us all everyone!” upon the dinner table summarises the joy and care Tiny Tim has for other, more so than for himself. The words ‘bless everyone’ suggest that he wishes to give his family blessings and grace, despite the understanding that he in turn needs it more than anyone else due to his medical circumstances. Although at a latter point in the narrative, the omniscient narrator asserts that Scrooge provided monetary means to help Tiny Tim recover, the idea that money does not provide happiness and comfort stands clear. Dickens positions the character of Tiny Tim to have generosity and comfort in life despite a serious medical condition, which requires money to fixate, but without an adequate sum, Tiny Tim is shown to still have happiness. Overall, the idea that money, in generous sum tends to provide Dickens argues one with comfort and happiness against, through his portrayal of Tiny Tim’s character. Dickens showcases Tiny Tim as a positive and generously hearted being who wishes the best for everyone, despite his financial and medical circumstances. The omniscient narrator further develops his argument through another secondary character in the narrative, Belle.

Another character, which Dickens tends to characterise to illustrate that money, even an adequate sum has no contribution to an individual’s level of comfort and happiness is Belle. Belle is a secondary character in the narrative that appears during the sequence in Stave 2, where the Ghost of Christmas Past shows Scrooge his younger years. The character of Belle is used by the omniscient narrator in a subtle sense, whereby her role tends to be significantly short, yet significantly influential. Moreover, Dickens tends to insinuate that comfort and happiness is not a product of money, as Scrooge’s drive for money and his support of Belle leads to a break up in their relationship. Belle claims “All your other hopes have merged into the hope of being beyond the chance of its sordid approach. I have seen your nobler aspirations fall off, one by one, until the master passion, Gain, engrosses you.” Dickens purposely claims through Belle’s thoughts that despite having an adequate amount of money, she fails to obtain happiness and comfort, which further illustrates that the omniscient narrator is against the idea of finding comfort and happiness through money. In the narrative, it is observed that Belle is instead worried and uncomfortable with the amount of ‘gain’ her fiancée is obtaining, which essentially puts her away from comfort and happiness. Making such an assertion allows Dickens to continue to suggest that regardless of the amount, money tends to have no causation in comfort or happiness, whereby in Belle’s scenario, she is instead forced to give up money and her relationship with Scrooge to obtain pleasure and wellbeing. Overall, Dickens, the narrator uses the minor secondary character of Belle to essentially educate the audience that regardless of the amount of money, happiness and comfort cannot be achieved. Particularly, Dickens showcases Bella breaking up her relationship with Scrooge as money provided her with relationship problems, as well as a lack of well being and comfort.

In conclusion, the novella ‘A Christmas Carol’, written by Charles Dickens tends intends to educate the reader that an obsessive amount of money is harmful, although even an adequate amount of money can not provide one with comfort or happiness. The omniscient narrator asserts such an idea through showcasing the attitudes, circumstances and decisions of secondary characters. In particular, Dickens presents the proletariat class family; the Cratchit’s and their attitudes in life despite their difficult financial and medical circumstances, Tiny Time and his ideas and attitude to life despite not having enough funds t save himself, and Belle; Scrooge’s love interest who decides to leave Scrooge after not finding happiness or comfort solely with money. The overall idea is sufficiently emphasised upon by Dickens, and tends to portray a significant life lesson to the reader.  Same as with the introduction, you do not need to list your examples all over again and provide so much detail in a conclusion.

Okay, I’ve had a quick read through your essay but I haven’t gone through your body paragraphs and essay structure in detail because I have so much to do today since I always leave everything to the last minute…
Anyway, here’s some general feedback
I think you’re missing a point, the questions says ‘BOTH’ comfortable AND happy. The Cratchits are NOT comfortable, you're using this word incorrectly.
Comfortable:
1.   (especially of clothes or furnishings) providing physical ease and relaxation.
"comfortable sturdy shoes"

2.   as large as is needed or wanted.

Do you think this applies to the Cratchits?

They are described to wear ‘scanty’ clothes, 'their shoes far from being water-proof'. They are struggling to make ends meet. They have a crippled little boy, they don’t see one of their daughters half the time because she’s off at work, they are a large family living on Bob’s meagre salary.
So, while they are happy and content with the little that they have, an adequate amount of money would certainly ease their suffering and make their lives easier. In fact, when Scrooge redeems himself, he raises Cratchit’s salary and takes it upon himself to look after Tiny Tim and ensure the boy does not die because of an implied lack of healthcare or nutrition.

Also, you argue:
‘Dickens claims that money in turn tends to destroy and harm individuals, rather than declare positive consequences.‘

Dickens does not claim that money destroys and harms individuals. There is nothing in the novella that suggests that. If there is, you haven’t demonstrated that to me. Rather, Scrooge’s consuming obsession (key word) with money and the pursuit of wealth is his downfall. What Dickens does insinuate however, is that the wealthy should look after the poor and employers have a duty towards their employees (through paralleling Fezziwig and Scrooge and Bob and Scrooge).


I would suggest keeping your introduction and conclusion succinct and really thinking about the key words in the question and all their implications before you write tomorrow because you do seem to know your text well. Good luck! :)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: shooterblitz on October 29, 2013, 03:30:48 pm

Okay, I’ve had a quick read through your essay but I haven’t gone through your body paragraphs and essay structure in detail because I have so much to do today since I always leave everything to the last minute…
Anyway, here’s some general feedback
I think you’re missing a point, the questions says ‘BOTH’ comfortable AND happy. The Cratchits are NOT comfortable, you're using this word incorrectly.
Comfortable:
1.   (especially of clothes or furnishings) providing physical ease and relaxation.
"comfortable sturdy shoes"

2.   as large as is needed or wanted.

Do you think this applies to the Cratchits?

They are described to wear ‘scanty’ clothes, 'their shoes far from being water-proof'. They are struggling to make ends meet. They have a crippled little boy, they don’t see one of their daughters half the time because she’s off at work, they are a large family living on Bob’s meagre salary.
So, while they are happy and content with the little that they have, an adequate amount of money would certainly ease their suffering and make their lives easier. In fact, when Scrooge redeems himself, he raises Cratchit’s salary and takes it upon himself to look after Tiny Tim and ensure the boy does not die because of an implied lack of healthcare or nutrition.

Also, you argue:
‘Dickens claims that money in turn tends to destroy and harm individuals, rather than declare positive consequences.‘

Dickens does not claim that money destroys and harms individuals. There is nothing in the novella that suggests that. If there is, you haven’t demonstrated that to me. Rather, Scrooge’s consuming obsession (key word) with money and the pursuit of wealth is his downfall. What Dickens does insinuate however, is that the wealthy should look after the poor and employers have a duty towards their employees (through paralleling Fezziwig and Scrooge and Bob and Scrooge).
[/b]

I would suggest keeping your introduction and conclusion succinct and really thinking about the key words in the question and all their implications before you write tomorrow because you do seem to know your text well. Good luck! :)

Appreciate the feedback! Yep, I think the reason why I misconstrued the meaning of the word 'comfortable' was just the pressure, as I put myself in a 50 minute limit, rather than 60. I've just gone about misinterpreting the question, although thanks a bunch for looking into it! Good luck for tomorrow as well :)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Limista on October 29, 2013, 04:12:43 pm
Hallo everyone!

I actually posted my War Poems essay 2 weeks ago, and no one has marked it yet. So yeah - I'm feeling a bit sad.

I know the English exam is tomorrow, and I also know that Uni exams are approaching (or have they started? Not sure), so even the briefest advice is appreciated. 
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: RakiZtahX123 on October 29, 2013, 08:11:28 pm
Cmonn can you please do COSI?

'Only mad people in this day and age would do a work about love and fidelity'
What does Nowra suggest about the importance of love?

During the 1970s, the pace of change in Melbourne's society was increasingly rapid and it was evident by people's perceptions of love and fidelity. However, these ideas and concepts of love were undermined by the war happening in Vietnam, which elevated the awareness of war instead of love. Louis Nowra's 'Cosi' illustrates the complexity of how important love is  through Lewis, Nick, Lucy and the patients' understanding and approach towards the real meaning of love. Through this, Nowra shows how important love is within these characters especially Lewis and the patients as they struggle through the production of Mozart's 'Cosi fan tutte'.

At the beginning, Lewis is unsure of himself - this is evident in his interactions with the patients. This can be seen by Lewis' lack of confidence and determination as a director- 'don't know', 'I need the money' and also by the fact the he was unable to stop Roy from hijacking the production and Doug from lighting fires. Furthermore, it can be seen that Lewis' perception on love and that 'love is not so important nowadays' shows us a subtle influence of Nick and Lucy's perception on love. This illustrates for us an incomplete character inside Lewis as he was unable to express himself freely and was easily influenced by others. Later on we find out that Lewis realizes his passion on love as he goes through the play 'Cosi' with the patients and realizes that 'without love, the world wouldn't mean much'.

Blocking the real essence of love, the issue of the war happening in Vietnam is constantly being raised by Nick and Lucy as they express their true intentions towards the patients. By Lewis' quote about Lucy, 'she hates me doing an opera about love and fidelity while thousands of Vietnamese are being killed by the American troops', this leaves a gap between Lewis and Lucy creating a divide within their relationship. Parallel to Lucy, Nick also shows that love is less significant within the society and that 'only mad people in this day and age would do a work about love and infidelity'. Hence showing Nick's sanctimonious nature when he himself believes in infidelity- 'Women shouldn't come between mates, its only sex'

Throughout the play, the patients show the variety of ways in which love is defined. This is shown through Doug's aggressive approach towards love, 'this is the era of free love and orgies'. This supports the fact that the social evolution in Melbourne has reached a point where individual's rights to freedom in how they choose to engage in romantic relationships are dominant. Furthermore, it is also shown through Roy's cynical views on love and that 'love is what you feel when you don't have enough emotion left to hate', this obviously shows the effect of his lonely childhood distorting his views on love, 'he spent most of his early life in orphanages being farmed out to foster parents'. On the other side, Henry shows us an insight on which he supports fidelity and this was evident when he was being provoked by Nick, 'my mother loved my father, no one else!' It can also be seen in the play the term 'unrequited love' evident by Cherry's uncontrollable desires toward Lewis and that Lewis is unable to stop Cherry from force feeding him, 'with someone like you I could be true and faithful'

By  Nick being a hypocrite, Lucy being unfaithful and Roy's and Doug's cynical perception on love, 'Cosi' demonstrates the variety of views about love in Melbourne during the 1970's in which it juxtaposes the notion that love is precious. However, it is also evident that love still exist in times of struggle, and that love is significant among others through Lewis, Henry and Cherry's opinions. Although Lucy shows no interest on love, love still exists inside her as it is the force that built a relationship between her and Lewis. This shows us love is everywhere and it can be seen in any way or form and that Nowra aims to show the readers that love is significant throughout the society .
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Alwin on October 29, 2013, 09:05:24 pm
Just finished on the LA board. If anyone is doing Things We Didn't See Coming or Stasiland idm marking it now if you post it.

Sorry to everyone else, I would only be able to mark on fluency which is pretty pointless since VCAA looks at ideas, characters, structure, etc.


Good luck to everyone for tomorrow! =]
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: brenden on October 29, 2013, 09:14:39 pm
Apologies, Starfish.  (and to everyone else, I'm still prepping some of my own students and trying to answer questions elsewhere etc etc)

Referring to Dulce et Decorum est pro Patria mori and any other two poems,
discuss Owen’s use of irony.

In his anthology, The War Poems, Wilfred Owen seeks to use war as a context, settingI'd put a comma here. People drop them at the end of lists (which is fine), but i think it's better to keep the comma all the way through for clarity (which is also fine) or medium to shape understanding of the human condition during the World War One period. The extent to which truth was dispelled or shirked is implied in his poetry, and it is this very implication that renders Owen’s outlook ironic, since he does not explicitly pinpoint the pain and suffering of reality in this era; instead, he leaves readers with the task of deriving the greater and holistic meaning of his poetry. Sensory imagery and figurative language then become vehicles, complementary devices or clues to provide readers with the idea that Owen’s subject is not war, but rather, “the pity of war”. By using an interchange between past and present, Owen attempts to compare and contrast the previously blissful lives of these men with the morbidity and wrath of war, where such nostalgia is essentially regression or “a trek from progress”: something he forbids of society at that time, particularly in the poem, “Strange Meeting”. Adopting a more psychological viewpoint, “S.I.W” also underscores the potency of the mind in yearning for a past period, from the perspective of a soldier. Whilst Owen’s intention is to arouse pity in readers by demonstrating the bitterness of war, as is observed through the realism evoked in “Dulce Et Decorum Est”, he does not realise that the obvious confusion evident in the verses of his poems renders him mentally incapable or lacking control, as opposed to the soldiers. His original intention – to leave readers dissatisfied and incomplete and insecure – then becomes inverted, as we are positioned to view the poet, himself, as being uncertain of what he is penning. The pity he attempts to evoke within us, as a result, lacks credibility, since the writer has identified himself as being ultimately dubious of what he is trying to achieve. The juxtaposition between the stanzas of “Insensibility” explores this notion.   Great, well done. Quite clear.

Owen attempts to engulf and embroil readers within the problems during the war time period in order to arouse pity for the soldiers, such that mistakes are learned from; however, it is the extent to which we are drowned within this emotive language that makes us incapable of moving henceforth to falsify these myths about war. In other words, readers are ironically suffocated by poetic devices, such as the personification “of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind”, which identifies gas shells as being tired. The fact that an inanimate object is weary, when readers are aware that such objects are incapable of feeling, demonstrates the exhausting nature and pointlessness of war: a combat that is portrayed as lacking purpose and meaning. The soldiers are ironically, then, juxtaposedperhaps, "The soldiers, then, are ironically... as being unreal or stripped of their humanity, through being metaphorically depicted as “[marching] asleep”, indicating that the bodies of soldiers are no longer occupied by their souls; only by the organs necessary for functioning, synonymous to the workings of a robot. This dehumanising strategy is also touched upon in “Anthem for Doomed Youth”, where soldiers are likened to “cattle” and are not given a proper Christian burial. Consequently, Owen uses these vibes to suggest that everyone and everything is pitted against the soldiers. Because of this, they should always be the ones to be pitied, according to Owen. Astute readers may draw an element of bias here, considering that Owen may only feel this way because he was a soldier? ï think astute is relatively subjective (too much so, obviously a lot of poetry is subjective), and I'm assuming the question mark was a typo. Just in case it isn't: no. I'm also not sure if WHY he feels a particular way is relevant to his use of ironySpecifically, the civilians back home and world leaders are blamed for what the soldiers have to endure. Yet, higher powers like the devil and God are not held culpable. This is observed in “Dulce Et Decorum Est”, where even Satan is depicted as being “sick of sin”. Owen blames humans for the fate of other humans. Readers are encouraged to shame themselves and are made out to be remorseless, cold-hearted and cruel, particularly through the implication that “children” are being told an “old Lie” regarding the “glory” of war. As well as being an indicator of how myths about war are spread, readers are positioned to view themselves in a negative sense, because they are supposedly lying to “innocent” children. Owen is pointing the finger at others of his own species, which is quite ironic. By blaming other humans, he is essentially castigating himself, if looked at from the broadest level.I would have liked this point to be more obviously made earlier in the paragraph so we knew what you were discussing, rather than discussion and then the link. Best to have it strong the whole way through, THEN link AGAIN just to reinforce it. Good discussion and knowledge etc

In the allegory, “Strange Meeting”, it seems ironic that the soldier who attempts to “[escape] battle” by entering a “profound dull tunnel”, finds himself in the more dangerous setting of “Hell”, which can be extended to suggest that conscience from a prior period can never be outrun. Even though Owen acknowledges that myths about war will still be reinforced in the future, as is observed through the verse, “truths that lie too deep to taint”, he focuses on using the bitter ruminations of the “enemy” to underscore how “discontent” war is, so that war is avoided in the future. In doing so, he challenges the premature maxim that war is the gateway to peace, or that it is “glorious” – romanticised notions harboured by people during this period. In spite of him doing so, a unique meaning can be derived from the last verse in this poem, “Let us sleep now…”, which innocuously purports that the “enemy” in this poem is attempting to murder the “innocent” soldier. In other words, war is taking place in this “sullen hall”, albeit on a smaller scale, in spite of Owen contending that war is a mistake. It is also the incompleteness of the identity of this “enemy” that renders him a farcical character. For instance, he is initially dehumanised by Owen, as he exudes numbness to his environment, being too immersed within his own internal and psychological conflicts, as is evident in him being “Too fast in thought or death to be bestirred”. However, he exhibits feeling, particularly in the form of grief, by emphasising the regret and despondency involved in “The hopelessness” of war or “the pity war distilled”. This man, as a result, is not completely soulless, as Owen would like readers to assume. Probing this idea from a broader perspective would deem it to be a means of augmenting instability and uncertainty within the reader, at a subconscious level. However, from a closer reading, we can observe that this underlying meaning on Owen’s part is ironic, since the “enemy” was not actually “killed”.Yeah I would prefer an earlier discussion of irony. even if you put a similar link closer to the start of your paragraph then did the same discussion i think it would be bettter just so the reader is never left confused

One the one hand, the poem “Insensibility”, proposes that the highest ideal of war and reality is to be unfeeling and completely numb to the surrounding environment; on the other hand, he attempts to elicit pity for the soldiers using a number of poetic nuances. As a result, he balances the ambivalence he creates through his poetry with the linkages or similarities between verses and stanzas, where the positives and negatives ultimately cancel to create a neutral or unfeeling persona, which this poem adulates at face-value. For instance, the verses “The tease and doubt of shelling” and “Chance’s strange arithmetic/ Comes simpler than the reckoning of their shilling” both allude to the importance of destiny and fate, which attempts to neutralise the angst readers may feel for the “brothers” who are collectively suffering; the verb “cobbled” in the verse, “Sore on the alleys cobbled with their brothers”, reinforcing the painful and stone-like setting of war. The irony, then, lies in the fact that Owen attempts to arouse pity within readers for the soldiers through implications in his poetry, despite seemingly contending that emotion is undesired. For example, the verse, “The front line withers/ But they are troops who fade, not flowers” likens soldiers to inanimate objects, such as flora, at the disposal of world leaders; thus, readers are inclined to feel piteous of the helplessness of the situation. Then again, the soldiers whom Owen attempts to contrive compassion for “fleers”, due to their “tearful fooling”, which suggests that they are crying – a sign of weakness. Stiff, unconcerned or insensitive readers are typically spiteful of criers, and instead of being sympathetic of soldiers as is desired by this verse, they are positioned to dislike these soldiers. Hence, “Insensibility” rings with irony.

Irony is not particularly explicit in Owen’s poetry, as the multiple meanings conveyed by ironic ideas was not Owen’s main aim in his poetry. Because of this, irony then has an unintended sarcastic effect that almost degrades the seriousness and predominant meaning of the poem. Conversely, the undercurrent of irony evident in a few of the war poems makes for lighter reading; something that is much desired by readers who do not wish to fully immerse themselves in the horrors of war, due to the cleverness, craftiness and wit required to derive ironic meaning from the greater concepts in Owen’s poetry.

very well written piece, be confident going into the exam
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Eugenet17 on December 10, 2013, 10:16:21 pm
My first of many practice essays for Year 12! It's on 'In the Country of Men' and i've only read the text once so far so I feel that my knowledge is still quite limited. Tell me what you think!

PROMPT: ‘In the world of Suleiman’s childhood, there is no place for innocence.’ Discuss.

Hisham Matar’s ‘In the Country of Men’ depicts the irrefutable loss of innocence that occurs within a harsh environment with an abundance of conflict. Matar demonstrates that it is human nature to mature upon encountering life’s inevitable struggles through the protagonist, Suleiman, who is confronted by adult hardships at a young age, subsequently leading to a subconscious urgency to grow up. As a result, the author establishes Suleiman’s abrupt transition into manhood, encouraging a sense of sympathy within the reader towards Suleiman’s internal struggles throughout the text. The author explores the gradual receding of Suleiman’s childish and fantasised views of the world he lives in through his exposure to the realities of conflict. Thus, Matar compels the reader into understanding the severe impact of witnessing conflict on a child’s innocence, escalating the reader’s sympathy towards Suleiman. Matar further establishes the effect of witnessing conflict on a child’s innocence through Suleiman’s increasing tendencies towards violent behavior in the latter stages of the text. Hence, the author positions the reader to empathise with the protagonist’s hostility towards those around him due to the external influences within the environment he lives in. ‘In The Country Of Men’ emphasises the fragility of innocence through the protagonist, who is forced into manhood as a result  of his world that is seemingly filled with conflict.

Matar presents that it is human nature to mature upon encountering the life’s hardships through Suleiman, who is confronted by adult affairs despite only being a child, leading to anurgency within himself to grow up. The author highlights Suleiman’s sudden development into a man, encouraging the reader to sympathise with Suleiman’s internal conflicts throughout the text. Matar establishes Suleiman’s urge to grow up when he questions about the Revolutionary Committee’s intention to search their house in which his mother, Najwa, states that children “aren’t supposed” to know “these things”. Najwa acknowledges her son’s growing concern regarding issues she deems unsuitable for children, yet rfuses to accept Suleiman’s desire to understand and transition into the adult world. The author explores the juxtaposition between Suleiman’s initial attitude towards his mother’s mental condition in which he states ‘I longed’ for how ‘things had been’ and his attitude in the latter stages of the text where he fantasised ‘revenge’ that filled him with ‘urgency’ to ‘be a man’ in order to ‘change the past’ and ‘rescue that girl’ from her ‘black day’. Suleiman realizes that simply hoping for his mother’s condition to improve is of no use, which fuels his desires to become a man in order to actively save his mother and ‘run away’ to somewhere ‘beautiful and green’. Furthermore, Matar depicts the protagonist’s gradual understanding of his own loss of innocence when he relates to his mother’s childhood in which she was a girl ‘unaware of herself’ in a ‘moment sheltered’ in the ‘clarity of innocence’ before her ‘thrust into womanhood’. Thus, Suleiman is able to empathise with his mother’s own loss of innocence as a child, due to his personal experiences. Matar demonstrates that it is human nature to mature as a result of life’s struggle through Suleiman who desires to become a man upon being confronted by the struggles of adulthood, despite only being a child.

Matar explores the diminishing of Suleiman’s fantasised views of the world upon his constant exposure towards the reality of conflict. Consequently, the author compels the reader to understand the dire impact of witnessing conflict onto a child’s innocence, further developing the reader’s sympathy towards Suleiman. The author depicts the beginning of Suleiman’s understanding of the reality of his world through his first encounter with conflict surrounding an individual he was personally close to, Ustath Rashid, whose interrogation was broadcasted on television.  Suleiman begins to realize that those around him are not immune to danger, not even Ustath Rashid who Suleiman considers to be his father’s ‘lost brother’.  Matar further demonstrates the receding of Suleiman’s childish views of the world upon Ustath Rashid’s execution in which he realizes that ‘good things’ did not always happen to ‘good people’ and that ‘the rug’ could be pulled ‘beneath his feet’ at ‘any moment’. Suleiman’s childish assumptions is seen to be completely eradicated, along with his ‘illusions’ that ‘I or Baba or Mama’ were immune from being ‘burnt by the madness’, indicating that he has truly grasped the cruel and dangerous nature of the world he lives in. The author presents the final destruction of Suleiman’s fantasy of an easier life in which he offers his father the mulberries which he states were brought by ‘angels from heaven’ to make life ‘easier for us’, only for his father to refuse and point to his temple where ‘they’ put out ‘the cigarettes’. Thus, Suleiman is confronted by his father’s struggles in which he was unable to accept Suleiman’s innocent optimism which in turn, signifies the absolute end of Suleiman’s own childish fantasies. Matar emphasizes the gradual loss of Suleiman’s fantasised perception of the world through his repeated exposure towards conflict and it’s reality.

The author further demonstrates the effects of witnessing conflict on a child’s innocence through Suleiman’s growing tendencies towards violent behavior in the latter stages of the text. Subsequently, Matar positions the reader to empathise with Suleiman’s hostile behavior towards those around him due to the external influences of his surroundings. Matar presents Suleiman’s first act of violence when he gets into a fight with his best friend Kareem, after which he reflects upon his actions and acknowledges his ‘enjoyment’ of his ‘betrayal’, considering himself a ‘traitor’ to Kareem. Suleiman impulsively resorted to violence when confronted by Kareem, consequently opposing his own personal values and integrity thus indicating that his environment was beginning to affect his moral judgement. The author further establishes the escalation of Suleiman’s violent tendencies when he instinctively threw stones at Bahloul with a ‘satisfying thump’ before stating that ‘something in me’ was ‘ashamed’ of what ‘I had done’ to Bahloul. Much alike with the incident with Kareem, Suleiman utilises violence without thought and only shows remorse afterwards, demonstrating that the environment is subconsciously compeling Suleiman to oppose his values as a human being, and he is unable to stop it. Matar depicts the effects of witnessing conflict through the protagonist’s rising violent tendencies throughout the text.

‘In the Country of Men’ demonstrates the undisputable loss of innocence that occurs within an unforgiving environment consisting of boundless conflict. Matar establishes that it is human nature to mature upon encountering the difficulties of life through Suleiman who is confronted by an adult’s struggles despite only being a child, leading to an urgency within himself to grow up. This depicts Suleiman’s sudden transition into manhood, subsequently encouraging the reader to sympathise with Suleiman’s internal hardships throughout the text. The author presents the gradual diminishing of the protagonist’s childish and fantasised views of the world he lives in due to his repeated exposure to the harsh reality of conflict. Hence, the reader is compelled to understand the dire impact of witnessing conflict on a child’s innocence, escalating the reader’s sympathy towards Suleiman. Matar further demonstrates the effect of conflict on a child’s innocence through Suleiman’s growing tendencies towards violence. This positions the reader to empathise with Suleiman’s hostile actions towards those around him due to the external effects of his environment. Through his depiction of Suleiman’s childhood, Matar encapsulates the delicateness of innocence in an environment where conflict is a common agenda.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Eugenet17 on January 02, 2014, 09:37:21 pm
Hey guys, here's another one :)

IN THE COUNTRY OF MEN TEXT RESPONSE PRACTICE ESSAY #2
Prompt: How does the dominance of men affect Suleiman?

Hisham Matar’s “In the Country of Men” depicts the effects of a predominantly male environment on Suleiman’s perception of the world and his own personal values. Matar demonstrates Suleiman’s rising maturity upon confronting life’s hardships, subsequently leading to an urge to grow up and adopt his duty as a man as perceived through the men around him. Thus, the author presents the protagonist’s abrupt transition into manhood, encouraging the reader to sympathise with Suleiman’s internal struggles throughout the text. The author explores Suleiman’s integration of his life and his Islamic beliefs which sets the basis of his personal values as encouraged by the men surrounding him. Matar compels the reader to understand the significance of religion in an environment ridden of conflict for it provides hope and morality, inducing a sense of empathy within the reader towards Suleiman’s dependence on religion. Matar establishes that it is human nature to conform through Suleiman’s growing violent tendencies towards others due to the influence of his environment wherein conspicuous violence is particularly irrefutable within the men. Hence, the author positions the reader to further empathise with Suleiman’s hostility towards others due to the external influences of the men around him. “In the Country of Men” presents the significance of the men around Suleiman in shaping his matured outlook of his world and his own values as a human being.

Matar presents Suleiman’s growing maturity upon encountering life’s hardships, leading to a subconscious urgency to grow up and adopt his duty as a man as perceived through the men around him. Hence, the author depicts Suleiman’s sudden transition into a man, encouraging a sense of sympathy within the reader towards Suleiman’s internal struggles throughout the text. The author establishes Suleiman’s need to mature upon his father’s departure in the initial stages of the text in which his father requests for him to “take care” of his mother as he is the “man of the house” now. Thus, Suleiman acknowledges that he must adopt his father’s responsibilities and support his family despite only being a child. Futhermore, Matar explores the juxtaposition between Suleiman’s initial attitude towards his mother’s mental condition in which he states “I longed” for how “things had been” and his attitude in the later stages of the text where he fantasised to “be a man” in order to “change the past” and rescue her mother from her “black day”. Suleiman realises that simply hoping for his mother’s condition to improve is ultimately of no use, fuelling his desires to be a man and take responsibility in saving his mother. The author depicts Suleiman’s apprehension towards being labelled a child when he is mocked by his best friend, Kareem, instead of supporting his claims that he was “not a child” which led to a physical fight. Thus, the prospect of being a man is highly significant to Suleiman in which he is willing to challenge anyone who defies his claim on manhood. Matar explores the effect of Suleiman’s father in shaping Suleiman’s childish perception of the world when he offers his father the mulberries which he claims were brought by “angels from heaven” to make life ‘easier for us’, only for his father to refuse and instead point to his temple where ‘they’ put out ‘the cigarettes’. Hence, Suleiman’s idealistic fantasies of the world he lives in diminishes upon being confronted by his father’s struggles, signifying the ultimate conclusion of his childhood. Matar explores Suleiman’s transition into a man upon encountering life’s struggles which led to a sense of urgency within Suleiman to grow up and fulfill his duty as a man as influenced by the men around him.

Matar depicts Suleiman’s constant integration between his life and his Islamic beliefs which sets the basis of his own personal values as encouraged by the men around him. Given the significance of religion in an environment with an abundance of conflict as it is a source of hope and morality, the author compels the reader to empathise with Suleiman’s dependence on religion. The author establishes the religious influence of the men around Suleiman when Moosa states that God never “forgets the faithful”. Thus, Moosa claims that loyalty is always rewarded which Suleiman is presented to abide to when he labels himself as a “traitor” following his fight with Kareem in the latter stages of the text. Matar explores Moosa’s religious influence over Suleiman when he states that whenever someone is very “upset or angry”, ask them to “praise the Prophet” and they have to stop. Perceived as the “Allknowing”, Suleiman withstands his belief that all actions are monitored by God in which one must praise God to “bid away” the “evil spirits”. The author explores the extent to which Suleiman integrates his life with his religious beliefs when Suleiman recalls the “Bridge to Paradise” as taught by Sheikh Mustafa, imagining what life in “Hell Eternal”. Suleiman’s belief in Hell sets a precedent in which he must not sin in order to be able to “cross to Paradise”.  Matar presents Suleiman’s absolute belief in the religion in which his values as a human being is based upon, as encouraged by the men around him.

The author demonstrates human nature to conform through Suleiman’s rising violent tendencies towards others due to the influence of the world he lives in, where overt violence is especially evident within the men. As a result, Matar encourages the reader to empathise with Suleiman’s hostility towards others due to the external influence of the men in the environment he lives in. matar establishes that Suleiman’s world is filled with public violence when Ustath Rashid’s execution was broadcasted on television in which Suleiman realises that he does not live in a place where “good things” always happened to “good people”. Suleiman’s environment revolves around constant, irrefutable violence, thus it is the source of Suleiman’s rising violent urges. The author presents Suleiman’s initial act of violence through his fight with Kareem in which he acknowledges that he “enjoyed’ his own ‘betrayal’. Suleiman resorted to violence despite opposing his personal values, indicating that his environment was beginning to affect his moral judgement. The author further emphasises the escalation of Suleiman’s violent tendencies when he threw stones at Bahloul impulsively, before stating that ‘something in me’ was ashamed of what ‘I had done’. Suleiman utilises violence instinctively and only shows remorse upon reflection, indicating that Suleiman is compelled into conforming to his environment subconsciously. Matar presents human nature to conform to others through Suleiman’s violent tendencies towards others due to the influence of his environment in which violence is common amongst the men in particular.

‘In the Country of Men’ demonstrates the effect of an environment dominated by males on Suleiman’s perception of the world and his own personal values. Matar presents Suleiman’s growing maturity upon encountering life’s struggles, consequently leading to an urge to grow up and adopt his role as a man, as influenced by the men around him. Thus, the author depicts Suleiman’s sudden transition into manhood, encouraging the reader to sympathise with Suleiman’s internal hardships throughout the text. Matar demonstrates Suleiman’s constant integration between his life and his religious beliefs which sets the basis of his own values as insinuated by the men surrounding him. The author compels the reader to understand the vitality of religion in a conflict-ridden world, encouraging the reader to empathise with Suleiman’s dependence on his religious beliefs. The author explores that it is human nature to conform through Suleiman’s growing violent tendencies towards others due to the influence of his environment in which violence is particularly apparent within the men. As a result, the author inclines the reader to empathise with Suleiman’s hostility towards others due to the influence of the men around him. Matar emphasises the effect of an environment dominated by men on Suleiman’s perspective on the world and his moral values as an individual.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: kandinsky on January 08, 2014, 09:41:45 am
This is a really good essay. The things I liked about it were (i) you tried to show the growth of the character beteen the beginning of the text and the end in each paragraph (ii) each topic sentence as clearly geared towards the topic (iii) you really tried to keep on topic.

However, if you take on some criticism you will improve a lot. At the moment this essay is probably a 7/10. The problem is that much of your discussion of the text sounds like story-telling.

For example this sentence:  The author further emphasises the escalation of Suleiman’s violent tendencies when he threw stones at Bahloul impulsively, before stating that ‘something in me’ was ashamed of what ‘I had done’.

Now you say the author 'emphasises' but do not actually state how the author does so. The author does not emphasise things by merely putting them in the story. That is a very superficial mode of literary analysis. What I'm getting to is that in order to get closer to 9 in your essays you need to talk a bit about metalanguage and the construction of the text. By this, I mean how does the author use things like imagery, characterisation, and location (among others), to accentuate the meaning; how does an author construct a scene to delineate an idea? Otherwise it sounds too much like you are listing things in the text. Your topic sentences do this the right way. Just remember not to use things like 'Suleiman realises' and change that to 'the author constructs suleiman to realise...' This turns narrating into analysis. Simple hey?

The other thing is that you need to talk about the reader more in your analysis of such metalanguage. By so doing, you will actually be able to impress the marker more.

I think it is also necessary for you to talk about less random things and focus more on a few 'scenes' each paragraph and go into them in depth. This gives gravitas to your essay - the marker will be impressed by the depth and insight of your knowledge. Sometimes it's best to say more about less, not less about more.

Some other small things: Even though this is a character question on Suleiman, you really need to talk about other characters more. The dominance of what men? This is something I did not get from your essay - you took it for granted that men were dominant without giving a reason why in your essay. Make it look like you understand more about concepts such as dominance and the men dominating in different areas in the book. (I haven't read this book btw). I would encourage you to do more than 3 paragraphs, or at least not feel bound by the structure of body, 3 paras, conclusion. Also, your last paragraph should always be about the last 1/4 of the text. In fact in my opinion it should encompass the very end of the text and the way the author leaves the reader feeling about the topic in question.

Overall, this is a really great essay for this time of the year! I hope you find these little things helpful - with small changes you can take a big step up in terms of marks. You clearly have the potential/capability to do so.

p.s i didn't like the 'thus' in the third sentence and the constant subject - verb - object construction. Change up your sentence structure to impress more!

IN THE COUNTRY OF MEN TEXT RESPONSE PRACTICE ESSAY #2
Prompt: How does the dominance of men affect Suleiman?

Hisham Matar’s “In the Country of Men” depicts the effects of a predominantly male environment on Suleiman’s perception of the world and his own personal values. Matar demonstrates Suleiman’s rising maturity upon confronting life’s hardships, subsequently leading to an urge to grow up and adopt his duty as a man as perceived through the men around him. Thus, the author presents the protagonist’s abrupt transition into manhood, encouraging the reader to sympathise with Suleiman’s internal struggles throughout the text. The author explores Suleiman’s integration of his life and his Islamic beliefs which sets the basis of his personal values as encouraged by the men surrounding him. Matar compels the reader to understand the significance of religion in an environment ridden of conflict for it provides hope and morality, inducing a sense of empathy within the reader towards Suleiman’s dependence on religion. Matar establishes that it is human nature to conform through Suleiman’s growing violent tendencies towards others due to the influence of his environment wherein conspicuous violence is particularly irrefutable within the men. Hence, the author positions the reader to further empathise with Suleiman’s hostility towards others due to the external influences of the men around him. “In the Country of Men” presents the significance of the men around Suleiman in shaping his matured outlook of his world and his own values as a human being.

Matar presents Suleiman’s growing maturity upon encountering life’s hardships, leading to a subconscious urgency to grow up and adopt his duty as a man as perceived through the men around him. Hence, the author depicts Suleiman’s sudden transition into a man, encouraging a sense of sympathy within the reader towards Suleiman’s internal struggles throughout the text. The author establishes Suleiman’s need to mature upon his father’s departure in the initial stages of the text in which his father requests for him to “take care” of his mother as he is the “man of the house” now. Thus, Suleiman acknowledges that he must adopt his father’s responsibilities and support his family despite only being a child. Futhermore, Matar explores the juxtaposition between Suleiman’s initial attitude towards his mother’s mental condition in which he states “I longed” for how “things had been” and his attitude in the later stages of the text where he fantasised to “be a man” in order to “change the past” and rescue her mother from her “black day”. Suleiman realises that simply hoping for his mother’s condition to improve is ultimately of no use, fuelling his desires to be a man and take responsibility in saving his mother. The author depicts Suleiman’s apprehension towards being labelled a child when he is mocked by his best friend, Kareem, instead of supporting his claims that he was “not a child” which led to a physical fight. Thus, the prospect of being a man is highly significant to Suleiman in which he is willing to challenge anyone who defies his claim on manhood. Matar explores the effect of Suleiman’s father in shaping Suleiman’s childish perception of the world when he offers his father the mulberries which he claims were brought by “angels from heaven” to make life ‘easier for us’, only for his father to refuse and instead point to his temple where ‘they’ put out ‘the cigarettes’. Hence, Suleiman’s idealistic fantasies of the world he lives in diminishes upon being confronted by his father’s struggles, signifying the ultimate conclusion of his childhood. Matar explores Suleiman’s transition into a man upon encountering life’s struggles which led to a sense of urgency within Suleiman to grow up and fulfill his duty as a man as influenced by the men around him.

Matar depicts Suleiman’s constant integration between his life and his Islamic beliefs which sets the basis of his own personal values as encouraged by the men around him. Given the significance of religion in an environment with an abundance of conflict as it is a source of hope and morality, the author compels the reader to empathise with Suleiman’s dependence on religion. The author establishes the religious influence of the men around Suleiman when Moosa states that God never “forgets the faithful”. Thus, Moosa claims that loyalty is always rewarded which Suleiman is presented to abide to when he labels himself as a “traitor” following his fight with Kareem in the latter stages of the text. Matar explores Moosa’s religious influence over Suleiman when he states that whenever someone is very “upset or angry”, ask them to “praise the Prophet” and they have to stop. Perceived as the “Allknowing”, Suleiman withstands his belief that all actions are monitored by God in which one must praise God to “bid away” the “evil spirits”. The author explores the extent to which Suleiman integrates his life with his religious beliefs when Suleiman recalls the “Bridge to Paradise” as taught by Sheikh Mustafa, imagining what life in “Hell Eternal”. Suleiman’s belief in Hell sets a precedent in which he must not sin in order to be able to “cross to Paradise”.  Matar presents Suleiman’s absolute belief in the religion in which his values as a human being is based upon, as encouraged by the men around him.

The author demonstrates human nature to conform through Suleiman’s rising violent tendencies towards others due to the influence of the world he lives in, where overt violence is especially evident within the men. As a result, Matar encourages the reader to empathise with Suleiman’s hostility towards others due to the external influence of the men in the environment he lives in. matar establishes that Suleiman’s world is filled with public violence when Ustath Rashid’s execution was broadcasted on television in which Suleiman realises that he does not live in a place where “good things” always happened to “good people”. Suleiman’s environment revolves around constant, irrefutable violence, thus it is the source of Suleiman’s rising violent urges. The author presents Suleiman’s initial act of violence through his fight with Kareem in which he acknowledges that he “enjoyed’ his own ‘betrayal’. Suleiman resorted to violence despite opposing his personal values, indicating that his environment was beginning to affect his moral judgement. The author further emphasises the escalation of Suleiman’s violent tendencies when he threw stones at Bahloul impulsively, before stating that ‘something in me’ was ashamed of what ‘I had done’. Suleiman utilises violence instinctively and only shows remorse upon reflection, indicating that Suleiman is compelled into conforming to his environment subconsciously. Matar presents human nature to conform to others through Suleiman’s violent tendencies towards others due to the influence of his environment in which violence is common amongst the men in particular.

‘In the Country of Men’ demonstrates the effect of an environment dominated by males on Suleiman’s perception of the world and his own personal values. Matar presents Suleiman’s growing maturity upon encountering life’s struggles, consequently leading to an urge to grow up and adopt his role as a man, as influenced by the men around him. Thus, the author depicts Suleiman’s sudden transition into manhood, encouraging the reader to sympathise with Suleiman’s internal hardships throughout the text. Matar demonstrates Suleiman’s constant integration between his life and his religious beliefs which sets the basis of his own values as insinuated by the men surrounding him. The author compels the reader to understand the vitality of religion in a conflict-ridden world, encouraging the reader to empathise with Suleiman’s dependence on his religious beliefs. The author explores that it is human nature to conform through Suleiman’s growing violent tendencies towards others due to the influence of his environment in which violence is particularly apparent within the men. As a result, the author inclines the reader to empathise with Suleiman’s hostility towards others due to the influence of the men around him. Matar emphasises the effect of an environment dominated by men on Suleiman’s perspective on the world and his moral values as an individual.
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Eugenet17 on January 08, 2014, 12:21:19 pm
This is a really good essay. The things I liked about it were (i) you tried to show the growth of the character beteen the beginning of the text and the end in each paragraph (ii) each topic sentence as clearly geared towards the topic (iii) you really tried to keep on topic.

However, if you take on some criticism you will improve a lot. At the moment this essay is probably a 7/10. The problem is that much of your discussion of the text sounds like story-telling.

For example this sentence:  The author further emphasises the escalation of Suleiman’s violent tendencies when he threw stones at Bahloul impulsively, before stating that ‘something in me’ was ashamed of what ‘I had done’.

Now you say the author 'emphasises' but do not actually state how the author does so. The author does not emphasise things by merely putting them in the story. That is a very superficial mode of literary analysis. What I'm getting to is that in order to get closer to 9 in your essays you need to talk a bit about metalanguage and the construction of the text. By this, I mean how does the author use things like imagery, characterisation, and location (among others), to accentuate the meaning; how does an author construct a scene to delineate an idea? Otherwise it sounds too much like you are listing things in the text. Your topic sentences do this the right way. Just remember not to use things like 'Suleiman realises' and change that to 'the author constructs suleiman to realise...' This turns narrating into analysis. Simple hey?

The other thing is that you need to talk about the reader more in your analysis of such metalanguage. By so doing, you will actually be able to impress the marker more.

I think it is also necessary for you to talk about less random things and focus more on a few 'scenes' each paragraph and go into them in depth. This gives gravitas to your essay - the marker will be impressed by the depth and insight of your knowledge. Sometimes it's best to say more about less, not less about more.

Some other small things: Even though this is a character question on Suleiman, you really need to talk about other characters more. The dominance of what men? This is something I did not get from your essay - you took it for granted that men were dominant without giving a reason why in your essay. Make it look like you understand more about concepts such as dominance and the men dominating in different areas in the book. (I haven't read this book btw). I would encourage you to do more than 3 paragraphs, or at least not feel bound by the structure of body, 3 paras, conclusion. Also, your last paragraph should always be about the last 1/4 of the text. In fact in my opinion it should encompass the very end of the text and the way the author leaves the reader feeling about the topic in question.

Overall, this is a really great essay for this time of the year! I hope you find these little things helpful - with small changes you can take a big step up in terms of marks. You clearly have the potential/capability to do so.

p.s i didn't like the 'thus' in the third sentence and the constant subject - verb - object construction. Change up your sentence structure to impress more!

Thank you so much! I was really iffy about this essay but a couple of questions:

1. ' The dominance of what men? This is something I did not get from your essay - you took it for granted that men were dominant without giving a reason why in your essay. Make it look like you understand more about concepts such as dominance and the men dominating in different areas in the book.' :  Matar presents Suleiman’s growing maturity upon encountering life’s hardships, leading to a subconscious urgency to grow up and adopt his duty as a man as perceived through the men around him. Hence, the author depicts Suleiman’s sudden transition into a man, encouraging a sense of sympathy within the reader towards Suleiman’s internal struggles throughout the text. Would it be appropriate to explain that his father was an dominant male in his life/family as seen by Suleiman's overt respect for him and back that up with a quote?

2.'The other thing is that you need to talk about the reader more in your analysis of such metalanguage. By so doing, you will actually be able to impress the marker more. ' Is this just for analysis of metalanguage or should I also be emphasising the effect on the reader after each point of analysis?
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: kandinsky on January 08, 2014, 05:20:06 pm
Thank you so much! I was really iffy about this essay but a couple of questions:

1. ' The dominance of what men? This is something I did not get from your essay - you took it for granted that men were dominant without giving a reason why in your essay. Make it look like you understand more about concepts such as dominance and the men dominating in different areas in the book.' :  Matar presents Suleiman’s growing maturity upon encountering life’s hardships, leading to a subconscious urgency to grow up and adopt his duty as a man as perceived through the men around him. Hence, the author depicts Suleiman’s sudden transition into a man, encouraging a sense of sympathy within the reader towards Suleiman’s internal struggles throughout the text. Would it be appropriate to explain that his father was an dominant male in his life/family as seen by Suleiman's overt respect for him and back that up with a quote?

2.'The other thing is that you need to talk about the reader more in your analysis of such metalanguage. By so doing, you will actually be able to impress the marker more. ' Is this just for analysis of metalanguage or should I also be emphasising the effect on the reader after each point of analysis?


Re 1: I would go so far as to have at least one example of a man who has dominance in Suleiman's life in each paragraph. That way the marker will see that you both understand the effect of dominant men on Suleiman, and can draw on examples of dominant men from the text itself. After all, they do just want to see how well you know the text. For example, you could have para 1 about Suleiman's father influencing childhood and the way this affected how Suleiman growing up. There may be obvious characters the examiners want you to talk about. One good way to structure an essay for a question like this, which is really asking about how individuals affect Suleiman's life, is to literally have a paragraph on each.

This may sound a bit list-y, but if you can do it without mentioning said character in topic sentence (instead say how they affect Suleiman but something general - just as your topic sentences already are). If there are, say, 3 dominant men in the text, then you can have them as your first 3 paragraphs (always talking about their affect on Suleiman), and then perhaps have some other insight in a fourth paragraph, perhaps about more minor characters (which examiners love). Doing it this way usually helps because it means you will always be specific. The worst thing in an essay is to not be specific enough in your evidence. Examiners will love it if you can pick out different dominant men, rather than talk about them in general.

Re 2: I would leave effect on reader for language analysis. There are, however, two opportunities to talk about large-scale effect on reader in 4th paragraph and end of conclusion. Something like this (sorry it's a bit blahh..):


At the denouement (the end/climax of a text - a good word for the exam :)), the influence of men is held intact, strengthened even, in the world of the text. We the readers are left amidst....

You can actually end with the feeling of the audience/reader. I think it is quite acceptable, just remember to try and expand the topic to a broader perspective. Think of the big message that is behind the topic question, which you will probably see instantly when you know your text better.

For what it's worth, I'd just point out that a topic like this should not really have a counterpoint about, say, a dominant woman in Suleiman's life. This is the sort of topic which wants to know how much you know about dominant men, whereas some topics sort of need a counter point for balance.


Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Eugenet17 on January 08, 2014, 05:25:10 pm

Re 1: I would go so far as to have at least one example of a man who has dominance in Suleiman's life in each paragraph. That way the marker will see that you both understand the effect of dominant men on Suleiman, and can draw on examples of dominant men from the text itself. After all, they do just want to see how well you know the text. For example, you could have para 1 about Suleiman's father influencing childhood and the way this affected how Suleiman growing up. There may be obvious characters the examiners want you to talk about. One good way to structure an essay for a question like this, which is really asking about how individuals affect Suleiman's life, is to literally have a paragraph on each.

This may sound a bit list-y, but if you can do it without mentioning said character in topic sentence (instead say how they affect Suleiman but something general - just as your topic sentences already are). If there are, say, 3 dominant men in the text, then you can have them as your first 3 paragraphs (always talking about their affect on Suleiman), and then perhaps have some other insight in a fourth paragraph, perhaps about more minor characters (which examiners love). Doing it this way usually helps because it means you will always be specific. The worst thing in an essay is to not be specific enough in your evidence. Examiners will love it if you can pick out different dominant men, rather than talk about them in general.

Re 2: I would leave effect on reader for language analysis. There are, however, two opportunities to talk about large-scale effect on reader in 4th paragraph and end of conclusion. Something like this (sorry it's a bit blahh..):


At the denouement (the end/climax of a text - a good word for the exam :)), the influence of men is held intact, strengthened even, in the world of the text. We the readers are left amidst....

You can actually end with the feeling of the audience/reader. I think it is quite acceptable, just remember to try and expand the topic to a broader perspective. Think of the big message that is behind the topic question, which you will probably see instantly when you know your text better.

For what it's worth, I'd just point out that a topic like this should not really have a counterpoint about, say, a dominant woman in Suleiman's life. This is the sort of topic which wants to know how much you know about dominant men, whereas some topics sort of need a counter point for balance.


Awesome, that's a much better way of structuring for this prompt haha. Thanks so much :)
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: kandinsky on January 08, 2014, 05:50:45 pm
My first of many practice essays for Year 12! It's on 'In the Country of Men' and i've only read the text once so far so I feel that my knowledge is still quite limited. Tell me what you think!

PROMPT: ‘In the world of Suleiman’s childhood, there is no place for innocence.’ Discuss.

Hisham Matar’s ‘In the Country of Men’ depicts the irrefutable loss of innocence that occurs within a harsh environment with an abundance of conflict.  Throughout 'In the Country of Men', Matar depicts the loss of innocence within an environment of conflict' Matar demonstrates that it is human nature to mature upon encountering life’s inevitable struggles end sentence here - keep your sentences sharp through the protagonist, Suleiman, who is confronted by adult hardships at a young age, subsequently leading to a subconscious urgency to grow up you can change this. As a result, the author establishes good use of authorial construction Suleiman’s abrupt transition into manhood, encouraging a sense of sympathy within the reader towards Suleiman’s internal struggles throughout the text. The author explores the gradual receding of Suleiman’s childish and fantasised views of the world he lives in stating the obvious? through his exposure to the realities of conflict. Thus, Matar compels the reader this sounds a little too much language analysis, maybe 'directs the reader to see' is less forceful into understanding the severe impact of witnessing conflict on a child’s innocence, escalating heightening the reader’s sympathy towards Suleiman. Matar further establishes the effect of witnessing conflict on a child’s innocence through Suleiman’s increasing tendencies towards violent behavior in the latter stages of the text. Maybe say about the state of innocence in teh world of the text at the very end of the novel - it shows the marker you know the book better Hence, the author positions the reader  to empathise with the protagonist’s hostility towards those around him due to the external influences within the environment he lives in. ‘In The Country Of Men’ emphasises the fragility of innocence through the protagonist, who is forced into manhood as a result  of his world that is seemingly filled with conflict.

This contention is a little too single-character based. The question actually isn't looking for innocence in Suleiman as a child, but for that which is in his world which takes away/corrupts his innocence. Remember to always include some minor characters in your discussion, makes it so much more impressive.


Matar presents that it is human nature to mature upon encountering the life’s hardships through Suleiman, who is confronted by adult affairs despite only being a child, leading to anurgency within himself to grow up. The author highlights Suleiman’s sudden development into a man, encouraging the reader to sympathise with Suleiman’s internal conflicts throughout the text. Matar establishes Suleiman’s urge to grow up when he questions about the Revolutionary Committee’s intention to search their house in which his mother, Najwa, states that children “aren’t supposed” to know “these things”. Najwa acknowledges her son’s growing concern regarding issues she deems unsuitable for children, yet rfuses to accept Suleiman’s desire to understand and transition into the adult world. The author explores the juxtaposition between Suleiman’s initial attitude towards his mother’s mental condition in which he states ‘I longed’ for how ‘things had been’ and his attitude in the latter stages of the text where he fantasised ‘revenge’ that filled him with ‘urgency’ to ‘be a man’ in order to ‘change the past’ and ‘rescue that girl’ from her ‘black day’. Suleiman realizes storytelling that simply hoping for his mother’s condition to improve is of no use, which fuels his desires to become a man in order to actively save his mother and ‘run away’ to somewhere ‘beautiful and green’. Furthermore, Matar depicts not storytelling the protagonist’s gradual understanding of his own loss of innocence when he relates to his mother’s childhood in which she was a girl ‘unaware of herself’ in a ‘moment sheltered’ in the ‘clarity of innocence’ before her ‘thrust into womanhood’. Thus, Suleiman is able to empathise with his mother’s own loss of innocence as a child, due to his personal experiences. Matar demonstrates that it is human nature to mature as a result of life’s struggle through Suleiman who desires to become a man upon being confronted by the struggles of adulthood, despite only being a child. Great paragraph Just be careful with storytelling in a few spots

Matar explores the diminishing of Suleiman’s fantasised views of the world upon his constant exposure towards the reality of conflict. Consequently, the author compels the reader to understand the dire impact of witnessing conflict onto a child’s innocence, further developing the reader’s sympathy towards Suleiman. The author depicts the beginning of Suleiman’s understanding of the reality of his world through his first encounter with conflict surrounding an individual he was personally close to, Ustath Rashid, little more of this needed in the essay whose interrogation was broadcasted on television.  Suleiman begins to realize storytelling that those around him are not immune to danger, not even Ustath Rashid who Suleiman considers to be his father’s ‘lost brother’.  Matar further demonstrates the receding of Suleiman’s childish views of the world upon Ustath Rashid’s execution in which he realizes that ‘good things’ did not always happen to ‘good people’ and that ‘the rug’ could be pulled ‘beneath his feet’ at ‘any moment’. Suleiman’s childish assumptions is seen to be 'are for the reader' completely eradicated, along with his ‘illusions’ that ‘I or Baba or Mama’ were immune from being ‘burnt by the madness’, indicating that he has truly grasped the cruel and dangerous nature of the world he lives in. The author presents the final destruction of Suleiman’s fantasy of an easier life in which he offers his father the mulberries which he states were brought by ‘angels from heaven’ to make life ‘easier for us’, only for his father to refuse and point to his temple where ‘they’ put out ‘the cigarettes’. Thus, Suleiman is confronted by his father’s struggles in which he was unable to accept Suleiman’s innocent optimism which in turn, signifies the absolute end of Suleiman’s own childish fantasies. Matar emphasizes the gradual loss of Suleiman’s fantasised perception of the world through his repeated exposure towards conflict and it’s reality.

The author further demonstrates the effects of witnessing conflict on a child’s innocence through Suleiman’s growing tendencies towards violent behavior in the latter stages of the text good to see you moving towards the end of the text. Subsequently, Matar positions the reader to empathise with Suleiman’s hostile behavior towards those around him due to the external influences of his surroundings. Matar presents Suleiman’s first act of violence when he gets into a fight with his best friend Kareem, after which he reflects upon his actions and acknowledges his ‘enjoyment’ of his ‘betrayal’, considering himself a ‘traitor’ to Kareem. Suleiman impulsively resorted to violence when confronted by Kareem, consequently opposing his own personal values and integrity thus indicating that his environment was beginning to affect his moral judgement. The author further establishes the escalation of Suleiman’s violent tendencies when he instinctively threw stones at Bahloul with a ‘satisfying thump’ before stating that ‘something in me’ was ‘ashamed’ of what ‘I had done’ to Bahloul. Much alike with the incident with Kareem, Suleiman utilises violence without thought and only shows remorse afterwards, demonstrating that the environment is subconsciously compeling Suleiman to oppose his values as a human being, and he is unable to stop it. Matar depicts the effects of witnessing conflict through the protagonist’s rising violent tendencies throughout the text. Question: Is Suleiman still a child at this stage of the text?

‘In the Country of Men’ demonstrates the undisputable loss of innocence that occurs within an unforgiving environment consisting of boundless conflict. Matar establishes that it is human nature to mature upon encountering the difficulties of life through Suleiman who is confronted by an adult’s struggles despite only being a child, leading to an urgency within himself to grow up. This depicts Suleiman’s sudden transition into manhood, subsequently encouraging the reader to sympathise with Suleiman’s internal hardships throughout the text. The author presents the gradual diminishing of the protagonist’s childish and fantasised views of the world he lives in due to his repeated exposure to the harsh reality of conflict. Hence, the reader is compelled to understand the dire impact of witnessing conflict on a child’s innocence, escalating the reader’s sympathy towards Suleiman. Matar further demonstrates the effect of conflict on a child’s innocence through Suleiman’s growing tendencies towards violence. This positions the reader to empathise with Suleiman’s hostile actions towards those around him due to the external effects of his environment. Through the depiction of Suleiman’s childhood, the reader is left by Matar to ponder the delicateness of innocence in an environment where conflict is a common agenda.

If you lose the storytelling and add some metalanguage and in-depth discussion of specific scenes and characters, you will move from 7 to a higher mark. I can see you can do it! You just need to work at it
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: kandinsky on January 08, 2014, 05:53:53 pm
Also, this ais a question where you can use a counter point. Are there examples of innocence? Look at the way the author writes about things. Do some of the descriptions seem to evoke innocence as a contrast to the backdrop of war?
Title: Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
Post by: Eugenet17 on January 08, 2014, 06:59:08 pm
Also, this ais a question where you can use a counter point. Are there examples of innocence? Look at the way the author writes about things. Do some of the descriptions seem to evoke innocence as a contrast to the backdrop of war?

Yeah there's a period in the beginning of the text where he is portrayed as a very innocent boy which deteriorates throughout the text so that could be a counterpoint. His mother is also a very important figure in his life, she can also be argued to be an immense factor in him wanting to grow up (she is quite vulnerable, has mental issues, constantly alone without her husband etc) so I think that can be a counterpoint too?
Title: Re: Compilation of Text Response Feedback
Post by: heids on May 16, 2015, 03:56:51 pm
Hey guys,

Bumping to tell you that I've quickly updated the TR compilation front page so there may be some essays for your text!  They may or may not be high-quality; just reading through other people's essays, whatever the quality, is beneficial.  Hopefully to be further updated, and thanks to everyone who contributed the essays.  A reminder that plagiarism is not acceptable and not helpful to you.

I'm aware we haven't been getting much feedback for essays; from now on I intend to give /minor/ feedback for most essays despite my lack of skills/knowledge, and I really encourage you year 12 guys to help out here even if you think you don't know much.  Look, not only will others be more likely to help you, you'll really learn heaps from the marking process and reading other people's ideas :))!

All the best with your essay writing... I know it's daunting, but every essay you write helps you on your way to a better SS and a greater sense that you've conquered and achieved something. :) :)