Damn, Brenden, you beat me to it :PNo reason why you can't! Would love another opinion on it!
Damn, Brenden, you beat me to it :PHahaha, 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.
I call shotgun ^.Out of curiosity, do you take pleasure in marking essays? Like what kind of gain do you achieve?
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?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?
Thanks BrennyAll goodz in da hoodz brah.
Is that your SAC prompt, Romaboy?
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.
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.
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 :)
...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!!!
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.
This is only an introduction for a Twelve Angry Men essay, I may post the finished piece later: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.
'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.
This is on Gattaca by Andrew Niccol :) This is my first Gattaca pieceThis is actually really nicely written for the majority of it.
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 tobecoming an alcoholic, or inheriting any illnessesalcoholism 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, theviewer recognisesthat 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.
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>recognisesdemonstrates 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?
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?
...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
“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.
This is a Ransom text response responding to the prompt :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.
"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 andalsoPriam'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.
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.
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!!
Thanks so much, really insightful. Definitely going to take your advice on.
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.
Thank you so much jeanweasley! Your comments definitely helped me a lot! ;D
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 hiscausepurposewas 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 elegiacqualityaspect of Owen’s poetry reveals his pity for the menofatwar: “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 friendexemplifiedexemplifies (use present tense for TR essays) the confusion of the soldier’s situationsand 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 dissonanceofcaused 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 ofadestructive 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?
Owenhimselfmocks the audience, citizens of society who are criticized for overlookingreturned 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 acaringconcern 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 buttocontrast 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 ofscrambledan 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
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 :)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).
Comments and criticism greatly appreciated! Thanks heaps! :D
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?
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.
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 JurorNot bad, not bad. I think it would be helpful for you to introduce discussion of Rose to your paragraphs. For example.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.
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?
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.
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]
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
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 jurorsthroughout the playwith 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 :)
^^^^
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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!
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! :)
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?
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.
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 sharpthrough 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 worldhe lives instating 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,escalatingheightening 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 hardshipsthrough 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 realizesstorytelling 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 assumptionsis 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
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?