English Extension 1 Essay Marking

[elysepopplewell]

Hi Elyse! When you have the chance could you please have a look at my essay. I'm doing ATB and the same texts as you did but my essay is not nearly as good as yours. Thanks for taking the time to mark it! I really appreciate it!!!!!

Stoked to help a fellow ATB-er!!!!!

Spoiler

“The texts in the After the Bomb period share a common purpose: to challenge the contextual values of their society.” Good question! To take on this question, you'd need to make sure you're addressing the common purpose (linking the texts), identifying the contextual values, and the word "challenge."
Following the unprecedented violence and destruction of World War Two, the ‘After the Bomb’ period prompted a reconstruction of not only infrastructure, but institutions, ideologies and systems. Consequently, texts of the era challenged and changed social, political and religious values with radical forms and ideas that provided new ways of thinking. Sylvia Plath’s confessional poems you've identified "poems" as plural, and then talked about a specific poem? Perhaps talk about her anthology, Ariel. ‘The Applicant’ re-examined the female experience in America during the mid-20th century whilst Ingmar Bergman’s 1966 Swedish art film Persona encompasses Surrealist aesthetics to critique the post-war value placed upon marriage. Another of Plath’s poems, ‘Fever 103’ and Samuel Beckett’s Absurdist play Waiting for Godot presents the lack of Christian compassion and questions the reliability of religion following the dropping of the atomic bomb in Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1946 which fused worldwide tension and uncertainty. The mercurial play also promotes camaraderie and company as solace in light of widespread re-evaluation of religious and social institutions, as does Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s 1986 novella, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. At this point we haven't yet identified exactly what the contextual values in the essay question are. You've linked them wonderfully, but not yet anything really unique, like the identification of the values YOU perceive, to set you apart from the bunch.

Both ‘The Applicant’ and Persona criticise and challenge the traditional notion that marriage is a social expectation and requirement for acceptance, which existed during the ATB period. It isn't clear here that you are discussing the applicant and the persona as two different entities, it sounds like you're talking about the poem as a whole and then another persona within. I'd start this paragraph by talking about a specific contextual value. This is another opportunity for you make your unique presence known to a marker - identifying a contextual value. Then introduce the texts accordingly. In ‘The Applicant’, Plath highlights the issue with this view on marriage through her depiction of marriage as a three-way transaction involving two unwilling parties and society as the matchmaker. I love the description "transaction."The didactic voice of society personified in the voice of the unseen ‘Interviewer’, “open your hand… Here is a hand to fill it”, The punctuation goes inside the quotation mark. Ok I'm on the train and I think I backspaced something at the start of this sentence...sorry!appears omnipotent through its mutual objectification of both the man and woman, representing the ingrained social expectations that pervaded not only a woman’s identity as a wife, but a man’s identity as the carer for the wife. The woman is referred to with the derogatory “it” and objectified by sales jargon, “it is waterproof, shatterproof”, which reminisces the rising capitalist consumerist culture in the US. Likewise, the man is also treated as an automaton that equally has no choice in the marriage – “Will you marry it, marry it, marry it.” The tautology in the final line of the poem transforms the initial question “will you marry it?” into an order, which echoed New York Times journalist, Mary Cantwell’s comment “God knows what would be left if you waited until you were 25 or 26”, thus demonstrating the value for marriage during this time and the determining role marriage in defining a person’s identity and acceptance within 1950s America. Unfortunately I think this last section is the first real attack on "contextual values" indicated in the essay question. It's important in an exam, as well as always, to take the time to dissect the question and identify which sections require significant emphasis. In this situation, the values are identified uniquely and supported at each turn - every time there's a technique mentioned, bring in the values (or whatever it is that the question specifies) I also think it isn't worth bringing in the Persona at the start of the paragraph. Linking at the beginning of the next paragraph is enough!

Bergman’s iconic thriller, Persona, similarly interrogates the institution of marriage through the disintegration of the principal characters, Alma and Elisabet’s serene ‘personas’. Great link The globalised world of the ATB period prioritised normalisation and social reintegration over the effective treatment of significant ‘wounds’ caused by the war. For Alma, this ‘treatment’ was to further her career and marry her fiancé, whilst Elisabet’s manifests in a symbolic mutism. Elisabet’s inability to continue playing the ‘persona’ of the perfect mother, wife, and actress, comes from her sense of personal responsibility for the traumas of the war, No solid analysis yet - I'd take out the sentence prior to this one, else, cling it to a technique of some sort and turn it into analysis. In ext 1, there is very little time for context/plot without analysis. It's a very dense essay in Extension indicated by a close up shot of her mortified reaction to historical footage of the self-immolation of a Buddhist monk and photograph of a Warsaw ghetto. Her marriage breakdown contrasts with Alma’s desperate desire for a successful marriage, a juxtaposition which Bergman foregrounds in a surreal dream sequence where he superimposes the women's faces. Great!!Alma’s absorption of Elisabet’s ‘persona’ at the end of the film culminates in her surreal kiss with Elisabet’s husband, reflecting the abating worth of marriage due to the fluidity of identity and ‘personas’ in the changing world. Therefore, both Plath and Bergman’s subversive portrayals of the disintegration of marriage during the ATB period serves as their criticism of their society’s over-valuation of traditional customs such as marriage. Wonderful closing sentence - really ties it together.

Religion as a cultural influence is challenged in Beckett’s Godot and Plath’s ‘Fever 103’, through the respective representation of the hypocrisy of Christianity and the ways its teachings failed its followers. Beckett’s play interprets religion as a totalising grand narrative but upon reconsideration of it’s inherent sanctimony, rejects religion thusly. The play centres on two characters, Vladimir ‘Gogo’ and Estragon ‘Didi’, who wait endlessly for the arrival of Godot. Immediately after Godot is first mentioned, Vladimir and Estragon reference an allusion!the crucifixion of Christ, “one of the thieves were saved” and discuss the Evangelists’ four accounts of Christ’s death, of which only one mentions the salvation of the thief. The presentation of the irregularities in the accounts of Christianity serves as Beckett’s criticism of people’s blind faith in an unaccounted god-like being. Further, in Act 2, Pozzo is compared to Adam and Eve’s sons Cain and Abel, the scriptural origins of murder and guilt. This biblical reference not only suggests that the characters in the play represent the human race, but illustrate religion as a promulgator of crime, which furthers Beckett’s view of the imprudence of religious belief. Thus the dropping of the atomic bomb led to an intensified questioning of religion as revealed in nihilistic tensions of Godot. Wonderful - similar criticism as earlier - the values take is talked about at the end more than throughout. Nice for rounding off!

Similarly, in ‘Fever 103’, Plath echoes the widespread re-evaluation of traditional Christian values in post-WW2 America. Her depiction of a delirious and frenzied fever, articulates a vision of the consequences of war. Nice take! The Dantean imagery of Hell, “the tongues of hell are dull… as the triple tongues of dull, fat Cerberus”, along with the hallucinatory style of the poem, insinuates the speaker’s internal struggles to commit to, and submit to the teachings of a failed and now archaic institution. These tactile images of Hell are contrasted with symbols of purity in “acetylene Virgin… cherubs”, reinforcing the Church’s failure to protect its disciples ‘after the bomb’. Further, the parallelism with which she states, “your body hurts me, as the world hurts God” demonstrates the persona’s self-deification and affinity with God as a sufferer and sacrifice, echoing Plath’s existential crisis and anguish, which lead to her subsequent suicide. However, unlike Plath, the speaker ultimately ‘rises’ above the confusion of the world, “to paradise”. Whilst there is discomfort in Plath’s symbolic apotheosis at the end of the poem, the speaker expresses awareness of the sin that is permeating society and the fear and questioning of religion which epitomised the post-war period. Therefore, both Plath and Beckett critique the role and relevance of religious faith and contemplate the collapse of religious beliefs through their respective American and French perspectives. I love that you've compared perspectives from America and France - really nice. It's a great touch!

Disappointment in the institution of marriage and of the validity of religious grand narratives precipitated a fundamental secular shift which transformed relationships and camaraderie into something to be relied upon in the ATB period. The symbiotic relationship between Estragon and Vladimir and the dependency of Pozzo and Lucky in Godot and the decorum between the prisoners in Ivan is indicative of this value of friendship. ‘Gogo’ and ‘Didi’s’ dependence on each other to provide distraction from the fractured world is portrayed in the repetitiveness of their comedic cross-talk routine, “You must be happy too”, “Happy about what?”, “To be back with me again”. Paralleling this relationship, Pozzo and Lucky also share a dependence on each other but unlike Estragon and Vladimir, their relationship is based on subjugation. The ironically named Lucky, who , in an economic viewing/reading/perspective, represents the working class, is characterised as dependent on Pozzo, who represents the aristocracy. Lucky, the oppressed, needs Pozzo, the oppressor, to provide direction and order, “Leave him in peace… Basket!” Reciprocating this dependency, Pozzo requires Lucky to serve him, “I'd very much like to sit down, but I don't quite know how to go about it”. Their mutual dependence on each other indicates the need for a functioning relationship between the top and bottom echelons of power especially during the ATB as society reverted back old ways of thinking in an attempt to gain stability and a sense of normalcy. I think this is a good opportunity to talk about wider paradigms of this period - socialism, capitalism, etc, etc. When you talk about aspects of a text being representative of wider scenarios - ensure you talk about the perspective that you are espousing. Like I suggested above

In the same way, Ivan presents camaraderie as vital to survival during the hopeless ATB period. Solzhenitsyn recounts the repressive anxiety of the Cold War period through the portrayal an “almost happy day” in a Gulag. Ivan and the members of Gang 104 work together to earn extra supplies to complete the arduous tasks assigned by the prison officials and prolong their survival in the prison. Solzhenitsyn uses the prison as a microcosm of the Soviet Union and renders the hostile prison environment and lingering threat of starvation in Ivan’s conversation with fellow “zek” Alyoshka, “our Lord commanded us to pray for our daily bread”. Alyoshka satirically elevates the prison officials to God, which foregrounds the power wielded by the guards, who are models of Stalin’s totalitarian leadership. The inmate’s dependence on each other which mirrors the relationships between Estragon on Vladimir and Pozzo’s and Lucky in Godot, illustrates the indispensability of camaraderie in the ATB period, whereby all these characters maintain their sanity and survive in the oppressive world through their meaningful relationships with others.

Ultimately, significant texts in the ATB period challenged the political, religious and social values of their era. Plath’s poems ‘Fever 103’ and ‘The Applicant’, Bergman’s Minimalist Thriller Persona, Beckett’s Absurdist play, Godot, as well as Solzhenitsyn’s novella, Ivan, all challenged the paradigms and institutions which dictated an individual’s livelihood in the ATB climate of Cold War anxiety and displacement. These texts respectively provided an American, Swedish, French and Russian representation of societies’ blind certainty and belief in the institution of marriage and religion, to convey the climate of denial, existentialism and rising value of camaraderie in the ATB period.

A few critiques:
-The essay question needs like, a good 30 seconds to a minute of staring at. You need to identify usually about two key terms, and sometimes there's a little something extra that they want you to excel in - in this case, the comparison of the two. I think the "values" in the essay question was never "attacked" and rather, used as a placid guideline for your essay. It might be a situation of topping and tailing your paragraphs, and then filling it in with content in the middle that at least once references the question. If this is the approach you need to take, then by all means!
-The ways of thinking, similarly to the essay question, are present, but hardly challenged/attacked/explored. The conclusion sums it up well, and the paragraphs about marriage do a really good job. But, I think the introduction and conclusion could tease them out more. Leading into my next point.
-The conclusion does espouse a listing form when talking about the texts. I think if you just deal with two at a time per sentence, you give yourself the opportunity to tie them together one last time!
-I like your quote in the first body paragraph - great for contextualising!!!

[sunshinelollipops]

Hey Elyse thanks so much for your feedback! It's super super helpful!

Just a quick question, when you say I need to attack the ways of thinking and values, do you mean go beyond/make a unique point out of marriage/religion/relationships... Not just for instance say that marriage was relied upon as a means to revert to the old ways of thinking to provide stability and a sense of normalcy?

And is there a difference between values and ways of thinking? Because aren't values what shape ways of thinking in the same way that ways of thinking shape values?

Thanks again!!!

[elysepopplewell]

Hey Elyse thanks so much for your feedback! It's super super helpful!

Just a quick question, when you say I need to attack the ways of thinking and values, do you mean go beyond/make a unique point out of marriage/religion/relationships... Not just for instance say that marriage was relied upon as a means to revert to the old ways of thinking to provide stability and a sense of normalcy?

And is there a difference between values and ways of thinking? Because aren't values what shape ways of thinking in the same way that ways of thinking shape values?

Thanks again!!!

The ways of thinking and the values are closely linked. I think the ways of thinking should be clearly identified like: nihilism, suspicion of politics, fear of instability, etc. These lead to new values, often, like: definite truths of faith, new political agendas, the family unit. So, extremely closely linked - but I think in your work actually saying "Plath reflected a common way of thinking amongst women..." will elevate your work and draw attention where it's deserved.

In response to your first question, I think it's best that you take on some kind of thesis that potentially is used despite what the essay question is. Something universal that you understand of all of your texts, so that you can tag it with the great take you took on marriage, relationships, etc.
I'm kind of suggesting: complicating your work in a clear way.

I know this seems intense because there is sooo much in an extension essay, but this kind of thread to tag it all through together is taking it to the next level. I definitely should have said in the original feedback that I think this is worthy of the top band! It's just about developing a distinct voices and style amongst hundreds of people who have done the same texts, and have taken the same ideas. It's just about bringing a new perspective to your work, to add onto the perspective you've got based on the essay question.

Let me know if anything doesn't make sense. I did a LOT of last minute editing on my extension 1 piece. A LOT.

[elysepopplewell]

I was hoping someone could look over my generic ATB essay. With every paper I've attempted, I've basically adjusted my generic essay and ended up with a really long and chaotic essay. Any advice for where I've lost focus/areas which could be easily moulded to a particular question and how to better address ways of thinking would be great 

I will give you some feedback on this today aoife! Stay tuned

[elysepopplewell]

I was hoping someone could look over my generic ATB essay. With every paper I've attempted, I've basically adjusted my generic essay and ended up with a really long and chaotic essay. Any advice for where I've lost focus/areas which could be easily moulded to a particular question and how to better address ways of thinking would be great 

I had a really quite generic essay throughout the year and then at last minute I made hugely enormous changes to make my essay textually and conceptually dense - so that might make your experience seem a little more normal! I had a very similar experience to you

Spoiler

As the 1945 mushroom cloud ballooned over Hiroshima city, traditional values regarding the pursuit of man were dashed away forever, replaced by distrust, paranoia and existentialism, indicating a loss of faith in former certainties such as the Christian metanarrative. I'd introduce the metanarrative idea in a sentence that isn't the very first - let your awesome ideas sink in! Then bring in the specifics Responding to this shift in global consciousness, composers of the era saw the atomic bomb as humanity's failure and reflected the resulting disillusionment and changing values through their texts. This is explicit through the subversion of literary conventions, as in Samuel Beckett’s 1953 play Waiting for Godot, and Stanley Kubrick's film Dr Strangelove (1964) which embody popular nihilistic and hopeless views. Great introduction of texts!Further, the culture of distraction through material possession and adoption of social restrictions, which developed to mask the pervading isolation is critiqued by Sylvia Plath’s poetic anthology Ariel and Don DeLillo’s 1985 novel White Noise. Through diverse representations of common post war rationales, these composers reveal the ways of thinking of the period. Stellar introduction - no other criticisms other than what I said in the first sentence. Fabulous!

The dropping of the bomb saw increasing isolation as enlightenment thinking was replaced by existentialist doubt regarding .... Keen to know what goes here! This is an excellent opening!This intensive questioning of perceived truths and resulting instability is represented through Beckett’s absurdist text Waiting for Godot. Emblematic of the eras increasing rejection of Christianity, Beckett absurdly depicts Sartre’s teachings through the protagonists Vladimir and Estragon, who embody “bad faith” through their pursual of external answers to their purpose, which Sartre finds false and unfulfilling. This provides insight into the prevailing disillusionment following the contextual horrors which leads the characters to put complete faith in the omniscient, controlling and metaphorical ‘Godot,’ creating a stagnant plot which allegorically highlights the consequences of trusting authority, reflecting changing values. This realisation of human powerlessness is amplified to readers through darkly humorous stage directions which demonstrate societies struggle to continue daily life without the faith they had previously trusted. This manifests differently through the characters as frantic pacing and emotional breakdowns in Didi and incoherent intellectual musings by Gogo. This characterisation manipulates the absurdist form to express the underlying dysfunction which grew from the sudden absence of individuals power. Beckett further reveals this through the rejection of traditional language conventions through fragmented syntax and useless repertoire in the dialogue “Nothing to be done”. LOVE THIS!!!!!!! The motif captures the prevailing loss of faith in leaders and religion following the bomb. Absolute trust in authority is further criticised through characters desensitised reactions to inhumanity through the satirically childlike connotations of “We could play at Pozzo and Lucky.” The characters empathy is subverted, metaphorically questioning the consequences of the periods reliance on propaganda to suppress and control and revealing the rejection of dictated truths. Through stage directions and truncated sentences, the composer creates a poignant tone, revealing the extent of disempowerment “To every man his little cross. Till he dies. (Afterthought) And is forgotten.” This questions the prevalent trust in religious authority by subverting Christian ideologies of reaching salvation through suffering. Instead, Beckett proposes individuals are insignificant, revealing the contextual existentialism and rejection of religion which resulted from the dropping of the bomb.This is wonderfully. it's incredibly dense with everything you need: ways of thinking, analysis, texts, WONDERFUL!

Following post bomb conventions, Kubrick’s film Dr Strangelove employs satire to express contextual disillusionment in authority following its failure to protect humanity, embodying  political unrest as opposed to Beckett’s nihilism. The film manipulates audience’s contextual hyper-anxieties to reveal the flaws of total trust in authority, alluding to McCarthy's ‘Red Scare’ through General Ripper. Realising the absurdity of the Cold War, Kubrick highlights the dangers of propaganda-driven terror through Ripper’s erratic movements which suggest a brainwashed neurosis, connotating the suppression of thought. By reducing the atomic bomb to a sexual metaphor which alludes to Jack the Ripper’s violent sexual tendencies, the composer satirised leaders egos, likening the arms race to a male desire to prove his masculinity through the size of his genitalia. Their incompetent protection of society manifests in the President's dramatically ironic objection to a scuffle between two delegates, “you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!” Love this part of the text - you've used it well!The contextual political compliance was further criticised through historical figures incompetent characterisation, paralleling disillusionment in the Christian god. Their fallibility is evident through cross-cutting which undermines their authority by contrasting the comical chewing of gum with absurd dialogue between opposing leaders  “Don’t say that you’re more sorry than I am.”  regarding the global doom they invoked. This subverts prevailing notions of right versus wrong, finding the surrendering of power to any one body as dangerous. The paradoxical policy M.A.D is satirised through the ironic motto “Peace is our profession,” which appears in the background of combat scenes to emphasise the irrationality of deterrent policies. This is reiterated by the contrasting montage of explosions and non diegetic score music which foreshadow Kubrick's perceived future. Thus, Kubrick embodies post war disillusionment, revealing all politicians as incompetent and reflecting the resultant hopelessness as the concept of American greatness collapsed.

Reacting to growing instability, Western society turned to traditional conservative values for order. Satirically representing the commodification of women, Plath utilises historical allusions and emotive personas to criticise her society for its culture of superficial containment. The contextual disintegration of trust associated with fears of Communism left individuals isolated. Seeking identity, they conformed to stereotypical roles, as criticised by Plath in Daddy through the satirical character representation. Transfixed by a “man in black with a Meinkampf look,” the developed Electra complex really good link to a sophisticated school of thought - the Electra Complex. Amazing! satirises societal clinging to oppressive values in order to gain identity, alluding to the Nazi regime and black motifs to reveal the oppressive relationships between women and men. The authors criticism of her society for accepting these values is evident through the juxtaposition of these harsh images with an insistent nursery rhyme tone, using language to metaphorically reveal the inequality. Plath exposes social expectation as a threat to wellbeing through the characterisation of a leering crowd at Lady Lazarus’ “big strip tease.” The symbolism metaphorically represents the unfeeling, self regulating society emerging to cope with the new terrifying reality of their mortality, alluding to the constant fear of being labelled a Communist during the Red Scare. A titillating and perverse tone furthers Plath’s criticism of society’s “comfortable concentration camp” (Freidan) Add a date for when Betty Friedan said this, I can't tell you what it is off the top of my head. But I've learnt this year that it's best to cite the year! where women are viewed as a commodity, drawing on the corporate setting and stereotypical roles of married partners to demonstrate her society's attempt to regain stability following the bomb. This is clear in The Applicant through an extended interview metaphor which satirises traditional family values. The housewife parody “Come here, sweetie, out of that closet” is aided by a condescending tone to create an emotional dissociation, reflecting the inferior role of women in the context and more broadly, the harm caused by social constraints on individuality. Plath ultimately rejects the traditional values adopted by her context to impose order, finding them oppressive and destructive. Embodying the growing feminist movement, Plath’s satirical use of persona’s and reliance on evocative historical allusions provides insight into the struggle of individuals in questioning their own identity amidst social restrictions and expectations.

Consumerism as a distraction from fear is criticised in DeLillo’s postmodernist novel White Noise as disintegrating the family unit. Depicting the ‘consume or die’ American culture, DeLillo demonstrates the growing contextual consumerism as a method of diversion from mortality. This is explicit in the motif stream of consciousness “Who will die first?”  interrupted by the mantra “Mastercard, Visa, American Express.” The composer uses religious allusion to the Trinity to highlight the contextual replacement of religion with material goods. The structural placement of this internal dialogue reveals the chaotic human psyche following 1945, which individuals sought to reconcile through material distraction. DeLillo presents consumerism as an analogy for propaganda; an omnipresent being demanding complete submission.  Through a lexical chain and sensory appeals, the composer creates a tone of overwhelming choice, revealing advertising as a method of cognitive repression. The endless soundtrack of “toneless systems, the jangle and skid of carts, the loudspeaker” diverts the protagonist from his toxic environment, maintaining his naivety and suppressing his individuality. Submersion in the superficial is revealed as creating dysfunction through a series of subplots and tangents. These reveal the resulting disorder where family values are subverted. This culminates in adultery for material gain, explicitly criticised by the composer as a “Capitalist transaction”,  Do you have the source for this quote? satirically revealing the consequences of consumerism on society. Cold War reliance on superficial distractions from fear is thus portrayed by DeLillo as responsible for the breakdown of traditional values, reiterating Plath’s acknowledgment of social coping mechanisms as threatening humanity. This criticism of consumerism is thus a response to the author's distaste in his society's ignorance, offering a significant understanding into the contextual focus on distraction from mortality which developed following significant human loss in the period.

Responding to the post 1945 shift in ways of thinking, composers sought to reveal the prevalent isolation and disillusionment which affected all aspects of society. By portraying disturbing accounts of modern reality from multiple perspectives, texts emulated the prevalent questioning of former certainties about technology as furthering civilisation and the Christian metanarrative. These are apparent through various text representations which convey the disintegration of trust, identity, family and logic. These are significant as they reveal both popular paradigms from the context and the response of some to challenge these ways of thinking.

This is simply amazing, I couldn't fault it! This is more than definitely worth the top band. Your text selection is great because you have political and personal attitudes in all, and that will give you some flexibility in the exam. I'm sorry I can't tell you much how to improve, it's just such an impressive piece! I know it seems complicated and crazy to you right now because you've just adjusted it all, but it reads as smooth as butter to new eyes!

Have you applied this to past questions? Has any particular topic in the past questions thrown you?

[aoife98]

I had a really quite generic essay throughout the year and then at last minute I made hugely enormous changes to make my essay textually and conceptually dense - so that might make your experience seem a little more normal! I had a very similar experience to you

This is simply amazing, I couldn't fault it! This is more than definitely worth the top band. Your text selection is great because you have political and personal attitudes in all, and that will give you some flexibility in the exam. I'm sorry I can't tell you much how to improve, it's just such an impressive piece! I know it seems complicated and crazy to you right now because you've just adjusted it all, but it reads as smooth as butter to new eyes!

Have you applied this to past questions? Has any particular topic in the past questions thrown you?

I have applied it to a few questions but I always sit between 21-23/25. I'm probably not explicitly addressing the question just because i've spent so long refining my generic essay  Thank you Elyse!

[elysepopplewell]

I have applied it to a few questions but I always sit between 21-23/25. I'm probably not explicitly addressing the question just because i've spent so long refining my generic essay  Thank you Elyse!

If you learn this piece really well (however you do that - memorisation, mnemonics, whatever), then I'm certain you'll be able to manipulate it really well in an exam. This is one of the best pieces I have seen for ATB this year! Excellent work

[danijela.mitrovic99]

Hello! I was wondering if you could provide feedback on my paragraphs for my prescribed texts; 'Waiting for Godot' and 'Good Night, and Good Luck'. As you know, the exam is on Monday so if you could provide feedback as soon as possible, I would be most grateful! Thank you!
A little information into the elective I'm doing:
- Module B: Texts and Ways of Thinking
- Elective 1: After the Bomb
The following paragraphs are not for a specific question; I was planning to change a few elements in the paragraphs in order to fit the question in the exam.

‘Waiting for Godot’ is an absurdist play that examines the repetitive essence of the existence of mankind, one that is generated by fear and paranoia. It accentuates man’s dependency on hope and authority, regardless of the inescapability of a futile existence. Beckett portrays a post-nuclear wasteland that is void of any real time or space. It is in this bleak setting that the fruitless endeavours of Vladimir and Estragon takes place. The two “tramps” wait in endless limbo for Godot, who remains an unidentified controlling entity throughout the play, and thus attempt to satisfy the Sisyphean nature of existence. Beckett explores the self-interrogation of personal values and beliefs, which are the result of the reliance upon a non-existent hegemonic force. Despite the concept that Vladimir and Estragon are cognisant in their purpose in life, Beckett reflects ultimate worthlessness through the use of illogical dialogue and devices like stichomythia. The sempiternal essence of the play exhibited within the motif of “nothing to be done”, and Vladimir and Estragon’s suppression in the line “we’ve lost our rights” reflects the way in which people’s personal values and beliefs became lost in a repetitive and obedient existence. Beckett relates the loneliness of an individual to the societal reliance upon authority and their dictation of philosophical paradigms in order to provide caution against an unquestioning reliance upon weakened social pillars, like the political sphere. Beckett ultimately judges man’s ability to accept a nihilistic nature when challenged by utter hopelessness, hence the central characters’ persistence in waiting for Godot, despite the fact that he hasn’t come for “60 years”. However, the arrival of the boy at the end of both acts signifies the reigniting of hope, and is symbolic of the restoration of faith within the futile political supremacy. Beckett suggests that, in the Cold War context, it is man’s innate ability to accept meaninglessness in the face of extinction, which leads to the involvement of an individual becoming dependent on authority. He then concludes that society will finally become institutionalised as they are obstructed from the true discovery of meaning.

George Clooney’s black-and-white film “Good Night, and Good Luck” tells the story of Edward R. Murrow as he created a sequence of reports that assisted in the condemnation of Senator Joseph McCarthy. The film establishes the intertwined nature of the personal and political through the examination of an individual’s competence to challenge authority. Clooney investigates the ramification of a fearful Cold War society through an individual’s bold defiance of a seemingly unparalleled political realm. The authority in the film, which is embodied by Senator McCarthy, is depicted as a politically and ideologically corrupt body through the unbalanced political power and dictation of societal values. This is emphasised through Friendly and Murrow’s whispered exchange, “it’s not McCarthy…is it?” Clooney surpasses the inherent view of authority in the Cold War climate through his depiction of Senator McCarthy, presenting a vulnerable political sphere by elevating Murrow to a position equal to authority. This is established through Murrow’s repetitive stance, “we will not walk in fear.” Murrow is ideologically motivated by McCarthy’s trials, which destroyed all meaning within society through the construction of fear and anxiety as a mechanism for control. The dark mise-en-scene of Murrow typing alone in an empty office with only his face lit is symbolic of the isolation of the individual within the Cold War context. This therefore highlights the importance of a universal moral compass, and acts as prevention for the political abuse of power. Both McCarthy and Murrow are pushed out of their respective fields due to their conflict, making way for a new figure of authority and a new symbol of the public. This indicates the futility of the Cold War through the meaninglessness of Murrow and McCarthy’s philosophical conflict highlighted through the ability of both the political and personal spheres to progress and continue.

[cmbarnes]

Hey, when you have time, could you have a brief look at this practise essay for extension 1? I typed it under timed conditions so it's not very refined, but I'd appreciate thoughts/feelings anyway! It's from Elective 2 - Romanticism. And I hope the rest explains itself

Q. The art of words and images has the power to evoke questioning and resistance.

Evaluate this statement with reference to TWO prescribed texts and at least TWO texts of your own choosing.

Honestly, the fact that this was written under timed conditions is so weird to me! It was really well written, especially the conclusion. You're going to do so well in the exam!

[elysepopplewell]

Hello! I was wondering if you could provide feedback on my paragraphs for my prescribed texts; 'Waiting for Godot' and 'Good Night, and Good Luck'. As you know, the exam is on Monday so if you could provide feedback as soon as possible, I would be most grateful! Thank you!
A little information into the elective I'm doing:
- Module B: Texts and Ways of Thinking
- Elective 1: After the Bomb
The following paragraphs are not for a specific question; I was planning to change a few elements in the paragraphs in order to fit the question in the exam.

Hi there! I'll give you some thoughts

Spoiler

I think it is best to start your paragraph with the identification of a way of thinking, or else the context or event that prompts the way of thinking. You're writing a ways of thinking essay - and this is the best way to ground it in that ‘Waiting for Godot’ is an absurdist play that examines the repetitive essence of the existence of humankind, one that is generated by fear and paranoia. It accentuates human’s dependency on hope and authority, regardless of the inescapability of a futile existence. Beckett portrays a post-nuclear wasteland that is void of any real time or space. It is in this bleak setting that the fruitless endeavours of Vladimir and Estragon takes place. The two “tramps” wait in endless limbo for Godot, who remains an unidentified controlling entity throughout the play, and thus attempt to satisfy the Sisyphean nature of existence. Beckett explores the self-interrogation of personal values and beliefs, which are the result of the reliance upon a non-existent hegemonic force I don't necessarily know that this is a non-existent force - do you? Perhaps, never-appearing?. Despite the concept that Vladimir and Estragon are cognisant in their purpose in life, Beckett reflects ultimate worthlessness through the use of illogical dialogue and devices like stichomythia. Explain where stichomythia is found. The sempiternal essence of the play exhibited within the motif refrain? More than a motif, I think. Although it can be a recurring motif...if you explain the significance it will make more sense. of “nothing to be done”, and Vladimir and Estragon’s suppression in the line “we’ve lost our rights” reflects the way in which people’s personal values and beliefs became lost in a repetitive and obedient existence. Beckett relates the loneliness of an individual to the societal reliance upon authority and their dictation of philosophical paradigms in order to provide caution against an unquestioning reliance upon weakened social pillars, like the political sphere. Beckett ultimately judges man’s ability to accept a nihilistic nature when challenged by utter hopelessness, hence the central characters’ persistence in waiting for Godot, despite the fact that he hasn’t come for “60 years”. However, the arrival of the boy at the end of both acts signifies the reigniting of hope, and is symbolic of the restoration of faith within the futile political supremacy. Beckett suggests that, in the Cold War context, it is man’s innate ability to accept meaninglessness in the face of extinction, which leads to the involvement of an individual becoming dependent on authority. He then concludes that society will finally become institutionalised as they are obstructed from the true discovery of meaning.

Again, start with the way of thinking to be explored.George Clooney’s black-and-white film “Good Night, and Good Luck” tells the story of Edward R. Murrow as he created a sequence of reports that assisted in the condemnation of Senator Joseph McCarthy. The film establishes the intertwined nature of the personal and political through the examination of an individual’s competence to challenge authority. Clooney investigates the ramification of a fearful Cold War society through an individual’s bold defiance of a seemingly unparalleled political realm. The authority in the film, which is embodied by Senator McCarthy, is depicted as a politically and ideologically corrupt body through the unbalanced political power and dictation of societal values. This is emphasised through Friendly and Murrow’s whispered exchange, “it’s not McCarthy…is it?” Clooney surpasses the inherent view of authority in the Cold War climate through his depiction of Senator McCarthy, presenting a vulnerable political sphere by elevating Murrow to a position equal to authority. This is established through Murrow’s repetitive stance, “we will not walk in fear.” Murrow is ideologically motivated by McCarthy’s trials, which destroyed all meaning within society through the construction of fear and anxiety as a mechanism for control. The dark mise-en-scene of Murrow typing alone in an empty office with only his face lit is symbolic of the isolation of the individual within the Cold War context. This therefore highlights the importance of a universal moral compass, and acts as prevention for the political abuse of power. Both McCarthy and Murrow are pushed out of their respective fields due to their conflict, making way for a new figure of authority and a new symbol of the public. This indicates the futility of the Cold War through the meaninglessness of Murrow and McCarthy’s philosophical conflict highlighted through the ability of both the political and personal spheres to progress and continue.

I think that the first way to improve your work is to identify the ways of thinking clearly - this should be in your introduction and also at the start of each new paragraph. Then every single time you talk about a piece of evidence, it either needs to link back to the way of thinking, or else the essay question/thesis you adapt. At the moment, the ways of thinking are sparsely placed, and the evidence doesn't clearly link back. Remember, the way of thinking isn't just "paranoia" - the way of thinking is nihilism, rejection of patriarchy, suspicion of politics, or the inversion of any of these

The good news is that all of your evidence is judiciously selected, and you spend just the right amount of time explaining the texts. The way to bump this into the highest mark possible is to work on making the effect of the technique link to the way of thinking. When this is adapted to an essay question, it will become even more dense.

I hope this makes sense to you!

[bsdfjnlkasn]

Hey there,

Sorry if I'm posting this too late but I would really love to get some feedback on this oral presentation on After the Bomb which I have to know off by heart by Monday (so would really appreciate some time to edit and learn it, but whenever I get this back, I'll be happy). I've attached a photo of the notification and the marking guidelines are:

    Sophistication of multimodal presentation (still working on it)
    Sophisticated speaking skills demonstrated in communication of complex ideas clearly and cohesively
    Extensive investigation and analysis
    Extensive reflection on how a study of set and related texts shapes an understanding of After the Bomb ways of thinking
    Highly developed control of language to express complex ideas with clarity 

If you could please mark this speech as an assessment (so in alignment with the outcomes assessed on the notification and the above criteria) I'd really appreciate it as the task if 40% and I can't afford to be losing any marks. I know that sets a really high standard but I haven't done particular well in EX1 this year and am looking to bump up my rank a fair bit. If the speech comes off more as sounding like an essay, do let me know because i'll need to fix that! Also, I'm struggling to integrate specific references to the Cold War context and would love some suggestions as to where you think the ways of thinking i'm discussing are relevant in the Cold War timeline. Im struggling to think of events other than the dropping of the atomic bomb - if I can reference smaller events which added to the time's consciousness that will show my markers "extensive investigation". Also, as form is such a big part of the module i'd really appreciate it if you could comment on my discussion on form as I suspect there isn't enough and so would love some suggestions as to where I can better discuss it. I sort of link the form to the audience but am not sure if there's a better, more sophisticated approach in doing this.

I know the feedback is incredibly detailed on here so I'm looking forward to some really specific points for improvement - if you're able to give more feedback than usual I will be so incredibly grateful for it, and if not, that's cool too 

Thank you so much for offering this service and I hope to hear back from you soon (so that I can start learning it  )!!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey there,

Hey! So first off, so sorry that it's me giving you this feedback - El will definitely give you way better feedback when she's on steadier internet, so that even if it doesn't benefit you for this task, you have points to move forward with.

Jeez, reading this was seriously intimidating. I've done my best to sort of assess you based on the criteria, and here are my comments:

Sophistication of multimodal presentation: Can't really assess this aspect, put on a cool show and you'll be all sweet!
Sophisticated speaking skills demonstrated in communication of complex ideas clearly and cohesively: Speak slowly, add emphasis where you want it. Remember that although the words flow naturally to you, the audience will need time to think and digest your points - Give them those short 1-3 second break to do so. Look at everyone in the room at least once by the end of the presentation. Speak with confidence, even if you think you are talking absolute nonsense
Extensive investigation and analysis: Can't comment on this a lot - I do think you could do more to link the concepts/ideas you are raising to contextual cues for those concepts. Like, you are exploring aspects of the post-bomb social zeitgeist, tell me the specific things you see that suggest certain ideas/concepts, if you catch me.
Extensive reflection on how a study of set and related texts shapes an understanding of After the Bomb ways of thinking - Perhaps more comparison between the texts? The criteria/task seems to suggest that this is quite important, and you do make some links, but I think you could make more, at least in a slightly more obvious way.
Highly developed control of language to express complex ideas with clarity - Use of language is fine, besides a few spots I don't think quite make sense. You should score really well here.

I think the biggest issue I had reading it was structure - Even though it's a speech, I think it might need just a little something more to tie it all in together - Perhaps it is because I don't know this Module, but I struggled to tie all your points together into a cohesive argument. I didn't quite get how one paragraph tied to the next or to your big ideas. Again, this could very well be simply that I don't know the Module, don't know the aims, don't know the sorts of things that typically get raised.

I think you've definitely discussed aspects of humanity (be a little more specific in linking with Cold War I reckon), I think the techniques need to have a bit more of a focus if you can. Definitely more discussion of form - Though exactly how you could link this I am not quite sure. I'm not sure how well you've linked to "Ways of Thinking" - FIngers crossed El can shed some light before tomorrow.

I realise this feedback is probably so crap, and I feel so so so bad that I can't give you more cohesive direction or feedback - But hopefully this mismash of thoughts is at least a little helpful?

(Check comments throughout as well - Not many, but again, my little sporadic thoughts might be helpful)

[elysepopplewell]

Hey there,

Sorry if I'm posting this too late but I would really love to get some feedback on this oral presentation on After the Bomb which I have to know off by heart by Monday (so would really appreciate some time to edit and learn it, but whenever I get this back, I'll be happy).

Hey there! I've taken a quick skim and on the whole I definitely agree with Jamon's points. Is this due today? If you mean next Monday, I'll go through and have an intensive look at it. But I don't want to do that now if you're going to present it in an hour and then read my feedback later and panic. But if it's due next Monday I'll get to it ASAP. Just let me know! I love Ways of Thinking If it is due today but you'd still like feedback, I'll still mark it by all means.

[bsdfjnlkasn]

Hey there! I've taken a quick skim and on the whole I definitely agree with Jamon's points. Is this due today? If you mean next Monday, I'll go through and have an intensive look at it. But I don't want to do that now if you're going to present it in an hour and then read my feedback later and panic. But if it's due next Monday I'll get to it ASAP. Just let me know! I love Ways of Thinking If it is due today but you'd still like feedback, I'll still mark it by all means.

Hey Elyse!

Yeah I presented the attached version of the speech today, hopefully it was better than what Jamon so kindly marked.
Thank you anyway, I'd love to hear your feedback and see where I could have improved regardless of what happened
 

[elysepopplewell]

Hey Elyse!

Yeah I presented the attached version of the speech today, hopefully it was better than what Jamon so kindly marked.
Thank you anyway, I'd love to hear your feedback and see where I could have improved regardless of what happened
 

Great! I'm going to the library tomorrow (it's Monday night where I am) so I will sit to look at this then. How did you think you went with the presentation?