English Advanced Essay Marking (Modules Only)

[imtrying]

Hey there, you two! I'm really sorry - but before we have a look at this, I'll need to ask that you either post it as a word document or copy and paste your essay into a comment. The reason for this is, when I copy and paste the words from a PDF into the comment space for me to edit, it makes the paragraphs and line structure go crazy and it becomes really hard to edit properly! Sorry! If you post it back I'll get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks!

Oops, sorry about that:)
I've attached it as a Word file now

[wesadora]

Hey Elyse. I have a school assessment tomorrow on the same essay question (we were given the question in class) and I would like to check if you would have any last-minute recommendations for my writing style/content/form before my exam tomorrow?

I understand if you don't get back in time....but I would appreciate any reply- I really respect this generous gesture of free essay marking. Wow
Thanks!

[elysepopplewell]

Hey Elyse. I have a school assessment tomorrow on the same essay question (we were given the question in class) and I would like to check if you would have any last-minute recommendations for my writing style/content/form before my exam tomorrow?

I understand if you don't get back in time....but I would appreciate any reply- I really respect this generous gesture of free essay marking. Wow
Thanks!

Hey there! I hope this isn't too late! I will just touch on minor things that can be easily fixed so that if you read this before your exam, you have the ability to make changes (if any)!

Original:

Spoiler

In what ways does a comparative study of Richard III and Looking for Richard enhance your appreciation of how context affects form and values?

In a time shaped by conservative providentialism, Shakespeare’s sixteenth century historical tragedy King Richard III challenges the values of his era through the representation of the villainous character of Richard. Contrastingly, Al Pacino takes a different approach towards interpreting the character of Richard in his docudrama Looking for Richard (1992) as he utilises film form to effectively convey Shakespearean values and meaning to a postmodern audience.  Points of contrast and connections between the two texts can be drawn when exploring key values such as religious worldviews, ambition, power and authority. The different applications of these values are thus demonstrated through the two composers’ unique use of form, evident when considering the dichotomy of two, distinct contextual interests.

The religious tension between providentialism and determinism within the Elizabethan era’s religious contextual influence is evident in Shakespeare’s work, although Pacino’s text places greater focus on the role of the individual. Shakespeare’s Richard often uses theatrical, religious imagery to construct a righteous appearance for the common population. He appears before the citizens with theatrical symbols such as “a book of prayer in his hand” to align his appearance with righteous Christian values. Furthermore, Richard’s association with humanistic beliefs is evident when he admittedly recognizes he is unsuited to a peacetime life in Act I. He says, “But I am not shaped for sportive tricks, and so I am determined to prove a villain”. This paradoxical pun epitomises the aforementioned conflict between beliefs by Richard’s double entendre of ‘determined’. Shakespeare uses this to pose two possibilities that Richard is either motivated to act a villain out of personal interests, or is divinely preordered to do so. This tension is in direct contrast in Pacino’s Looking for Richard, which aims to engage a secular audience. Supernatural elements from the play are abandoned, such as the ghost scene in Act V in favour of exploring Richard’s psychological, human struggle. Instead, Richard is haunted by memories of his past. Intercutting scenes between rehearsal footage and dramatised performance serves to represent his split identity crisis. Furthermore, rapid montage to superimpose his villainous deeds is coupled with repetitive voiceovers of “despair and die”. Pacino thus rejects the play’s equal religious parallelism between the curse, “despair and die” and blessing, “live and flourish”, favouring determinism in which Richard’s final destiny is self-inflicted rather than preordained. Pacino uses his unique hybrid of film form to dwell upon Richard’s human power to construct his own destiny, marginalising the tension between Elizabethan religious values explored by Shakespeare.

These differences in religious contexts also affect the representation of ambition and power, contrasting the nature of Richard’s ascension and downfall between the two texts. The play’s core structure is characterised with the rising action of Richard utilising cunning deception to gain accession to the throne in the first three acts. He constructs a humble appearance to persuade others he is deserving of the throne: for example, he insists, “your love deserves my thanks, but desert unmeritable shuns your high request”. The pure Machiavellian deception takes advantage of reverse psychology to trick the common citizens. However, in Acts IV and V his customary eloquence deserts him; his hamartia apparent by this stage as is the case for Shakespearean tragedy plays. He says, “Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am”. The nonsensical anthypophora and disruption of rhythm breaks Shakespeare’s iambic pentameter to signify his loss of power. On the contrary, twentieth-century knowledge regarding psychology shapes Pacino’s interpretation of the text, particularly in the final act as Richard’s subterfuge lingers through filmic elements. Intercutting the uninteresting low eye-level, static frame of Richmond’s prayer with the handheld camera movement and low-angle shot of Richard’s oration displays his strong ambition and charismatic personality, even in the final scenes. His dynamic oration is further amplified, interspersed with a montage of vivid battle scenes complemented with sudden red and white flashes to uphold Richard’s longstanding power during the final scenes as the dramatic crux of the film. Thus, the different way in which both composers portray the longevity of Richard’s villainous character represents their interpretation and interests regarding ambition and power.


The influence of these previously discussed conservative Elizabethan values is evident in Shakespeare’s hyperbolic portrayal of Richard’s villainous nature compared to Pacino’s artistic freedom to communicate the play’s core values how he pleases. Shakespeare’s vilification of Richard seems logical as he is obligated to support the Tudor Myth and the Divine Right of Kings. Therefore, he portrays Richard to inherit the role of an alien to society from the outset of the play. The opening lines, “Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this son of York” throw off the form of verse with trochaic inversion, going against iambic pentameter; one of Shakespeare’s most ingrained language devices. Richard is shown to be a unique and corrupt character in this sense. The essence of his corruption is also communicated being described as “deformed, unfinished, sent before my time”. Unpleasant images of physical deformity justify Richard’s corruption as a consequence of his villainous nature and usurpation of the throne later on. However, Pacino is not restricted by religious and superstitious values and so exercises an egalitarian approach towards ‘organically’ communicating Shakespeare’s core values. His work is a deliberate pastiche of ‘behind-the-scenes’ rehearsals, vox pops, interviews, commentary and dramatised segments. For example, cutting between the vox pop of an African-American man’s profound statements that “Shakespeare instructed us [to feel]” and nonsensical pronouncements of educated actors regarding the “iambic pentameter of the soul”. This intentional juxtaposition exemplifies the wide appeal of Shakespeare Pacino is encouraging. In valuing the process of exploring the play rather than the finished product, Pacino even undercuts the villainous nature of Richard at times. The film itself ends by diminishing the seriousness of Richard’s death by cutting to an organic, unedited handheld camera shot of Pacino dying on a staircase. The villainy of Richard and exploration of Shakespearean values in these two texts is a product of the composers’ purpose.
   
Varying contexts of two distinctly different eras evidently shape Shakespeare’s and Pacino’s representation of Richard. Values concerning religion, power, villainy and authority are communicated through the appropriate textual and filmic forms necessary. The variety of form and structure is evident in the way these two composers thus place their chosen focus on certain aspects of the play according to common worldviews within their respective context.

With my writing in bold:

Spoiler

In what ways does a comparative study of Richard III and Looking for Richard enhance your appreciation of how context affects form and values?

In a time shaped by conservative providentialism, Shakespeare’s sixteenth century historical tragedy King Richard III challenges the values of his era through the representation of the villainous character of Richard. Super informative, super good!)Contrastingly, Al Pacino takes a different approach towards interpreting the character of Richard in his docudrama Looking for Richard (1992) as he utilises film form to effectively convey Shakespearean values and meaning to a postmodern audience.  Points of contrast and connections between the two texts can be drawn when exploring key values such as religious worldviews, ambition, power and authority. The different applications of these values are thus demonstrated through the two composers’ unique use of form, evident when considering the dichotomy of two, distinct contextual interests.  In here, I would probably define the context-value connection in Shakespeare a little more. Talk about the current monarch, the need to flatter it, providentialism, etc. All of these things will form the basis of what you contrast too. It only needs to be touched on here and fleshed out later. Either way, this is a solid introduction, don't fret. But that is something I suggest!

The religious tension between providentialism and determinism within the Elizabethan era’s religious contextual influence is evident in Shakespeare’s work, although Pacino’s text places greater focus on the role of the individual rather than a deity? predetermination? Your marker will know what you mean, but you want to be super explicit.. Shakespeare’s Richard often uses theatrical, religious imagery to construct a righteous appearance for the common population. He appears before the citizens with theatrical symbols such as “a book of prayer in his hand” to align his appearance with righteous Christian values. Wonderful! Furthermore, Richard’s association with humanistic beliefs is evident when he admittedly recognizes he is unsuited to a peacetime life in Act I. He says, “But I am not shaped for sportive tricks, and so I am determined to prove a villain”. This paradoxical pun epitomises the aforementioned conflict between beliefs by Richard’s double entendre of ‘determined’. Shakespeare uses this to pose two possibilities that Richard is either motivated to act a villain out of personal interests, or is divinely preordered to do so. This tension is in direct contrast in Pacino’s Looking for Richard, which aims to engage a secular audience. Supernatural elements from the play are abandoned, such as the ghost scene in Act V in favour of exploring Richard’s psychological, human struggle. Instead, Richard is haunted by memories of his past. Intercutting scenes between rehearsal footage and dramatised performance serves to represent his split identity crisis. Furthermore, rapid montage to superimpose his villainous deeds is coupled with repetitive voiceovers of “despair and die”. Pacino thus rejects the play’s equal religious parallelism between the curse, “despair and die” and blessing, “live and flourish”, favouring determinism in which Richard’s final destiny is self-inflicted rather than preordained. Pacino uses his unique hybrid of film form to dwell upon Richard’s human power to construct his own destiny, marginalising the tension between Elizabethan religious values explored by Shakespeare.  At the start of this paragraph, I would try provide a little more info. Why did Shakespeare have to flatter Richard? Why did he have something to prove? I'm saying this because I think it makes the content make more sense, but also because the essay question asks for context! Your analysis is very strong.

These differences in religious contexts also affect the representation of ambition and power, contrasting the nature of Richard’s ascension and downfall between the two texts. The play’s core structure is characterised with the rising action of Richard utilising cunning deception to gain accession to the throne in the first three acts. He constructs a humble appearance to persuade others he is deserving of the throne: for example, he insists, “your love deserves my thanks, but desert unmeritable shuns your high request”. The pure Machiavellian deception takes advantage of reverse psychology to trick the common citizens. However, in Acts IV and V his customary eloquence deserts him; his hamartia apparent by this stage as is the case for Shakespearean tragedy plays. He says, “Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am”. The nonsensical anthypophora and disruption of rhythm breaks Shakespeare’s iambic pentameter to signify his loss of power. On the contrary, twentieth-century knowledge regarding psychology shapes Pacino’s interpretation of the text, particularly in the final act as Richard’s subterfuge lingers through filmic elements. Intercutting the uninteresting low eye-level, static frame of Richmond’s prayer with the handheld camera movement and low-angle shot of Richard’s oration displays his strong ambition and charismatic personality, even in the final scenes. His dynamic oration is further amplified, interspersed with a montage of vivid battle scenes complemented with sudden red and white flashes to uphold Richard’s longstanding power during the final scenes as the dramatic crux of the film. Thus, the different way in which both composers portray the longevity of Richard’s villainous character represents their interpretation and interests regarding ambition and power.
I think you deal with the texts with a good balance!

The influence of these previously discussed conservative Elizabethan values is evident in Shakespeare’s hyperbolic portrayal of Richard’s villainous nature compared to Pacino’s artistic freedom to communicate the play’s core values how he pleases. Shakespeare’s vilification of Richard seems logical as he is obligated to support the Tudor Myth and the Divine Right of Kings. Therefore, he portrays Richard to inherit the role of an alien to society from the outset of the play. The opening lines, “Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this son of York” throw off the form of verse with trochaic inversion, going against iambic pentameter; one of Shakespeare’s most ingrained language devices. Richard is shown to be a unique and corrupt character in this sense. The essence of his corruption is also communicated being described as “deformed, unfinished, sent before my time”. Unpleasant images of physical deformity justify Richard’s corruption as a consequence of his villainous nature and usurpation of the throne later on. However, Pacino is not restricted by religious and superstitious values and so exercises an egalitarian approach towards ‘organically’ communicating Shakespeare’s core values. His work is a deliberate pastiche of ‘behind-the-scenes’ rehearsals, vox pops, interviews, commentary and dramatised segments. For example, cutting between the vox pop of an African-American man’s profound statements that “Shakespeare instructed us [to feel]” and nonsensical pronouncements of educated actors regarding the “iambic pentameter of the soul”. This intentional juxtaposition exemplifies the wide appeal of Shakespeare Pacino is encouraging. In valuing the process of exploring the play rather than the finished product, Pacino even undercuts the villainous nature of Richard at times. The film itself ends by diminishing the seriousness of Richard’s death by cutting to an organic, unedited handheld camera shot of Pacino dying on a staircase. The villainy of Richard and exploration of Shakespearean values in these two texts is a product of the composers’ purpose.
   
Varying contexts of two distinctly different eras evidently shape Shakespeare’s and Pacino’s representation of Richard. Again, I would sketch the details of the context here just briefly. Mainly because it is specifically referenced in the essay question! Values concerning religion, power, villainy and authority are communicated through the appropriate textual and filmic forms necessary. The variety of form and structure is evident in the way these two composers thus place their chosen focus on certain aspects of the play according to common worldviews within their respective context.

You'll do really well. Stay calm, you know your stuff!

[wesadora]

THANK YOU SO MUCH ELYSE! I kept refreshing this page all day whilst trying to compile logical notes for this (we're allowed to bring in 1 page of notes into the exam) and memorize a bit. I'll be sure to incorporate some of your suggestions...thanks again <3

[elysepopplewell]

Oops, sorry about that:)
I've attached it as a Word file now

Hey there!

Thanks so much for reposting, I really appreciate it!

OKay, here is your original:

Spoiler

Speeches embrace the power of words and draw attention to flaws in society to inspire change in their audience.
To what extent does this perspective align with your understanding of the speeches set for study?

Speeches are powerful persuasive tools utilized by skilled speakers who understand the power tied up in their words and how they use them in influencing the thoughts and actions of others. In addressing their audiences, speechmakers focus in on societal inequalities and injustices and, to varying degrees, attempt to bring about change, either by provoking the listener to take action or to simply become more informed or aware of an issue. Although both approach their subject differently, both Anwar Sadat’s Speech to the Israeli Knesset and Noel Pearson’s An Australian History For Us All are speeches which, through use of literary technique and rhetorical device, harness the power of words, and to varying degrees, attempt to inspire change.
One of the most powerful and important ways in which a speechmaker can use their words is by taking account of the audience to whom they are speaking, and recognising how they must tailor their language forms in order for their words to be persuasive and resonate with their audience. This is particularly true in the case of Sadat’s speech, given the context in which it was delivered. Sadat delivered this speech in 1977, by which time a long history of conflict and war had existed between the state of Israel and Egypt, of which Sadat was then President. Sadat was determined to bring an end to the hostilities of the two nations by visiting the Israeli Knesset, but in so doing, placed himself, the head of a foreign enemy state, which was itself the source of a great deal of sorrow and anger in Israel, within their own parliament. Rather than allow this raw emotion to detract from his message, Sadat used this emotion to his own advantage by taking considerable effort to establish pathos with his audience. This is demonstrated in the speech when Sadat asks the audience to consider the effects of war on the civilian, relating the flow-on effect of the loss of human life ‘irrespective of its being that of an Israeli or Arab.’ Expressions such as ‘the wife who becomes a widow’ and ‘innocent children’ are pieces of highly emotive language which focus the audience on a pain common to both nations, and also identifies that the real issue being discussed is not political ties but the need for justice and peace amongst nations. Sadat also establishes positive pathos by creating a common ground with his audience. This is imperative given the fractured relations between Israel and the nation Sadat represents. Sadat makes use of the strong religious background of his audience by linking the traditional faiths of both nations, as seen in his allusions to the shared suffering of ‘Muslims, Christians and Jews’ at regular intervals. This, along with inclusive language such as ‘we all’ and ‘us, you and the entire world,’ creates a feeling of shared experience with his audience and redirects the potential for negative and angry emotion to a common mourning over the devastations of war, an attitude which is much more suited to Sadat’s purpose of encouraging a change to mutual peace. Sadat then addresses his solution for change in the form of quaesitio questions, asking ‘why don’t we stretch our hands…so that we might destroy this barrier?’, a technique which includes the audience in the decision making process and identifies the change as theirs to make. In order for his audience to take notice of what is being said, Sadat also looks to establish his own authority and appeal to the ethos of the audience. He achieves this in several ways, including the use of facts, dates, names and documents such as ‘the Balfour Declaration’ and the ‘Geneva Conference,’ which demonstrates to the audience that he is well informed of the facts and in a credible position to advocate needed change. This authority is also established by reference to his powerful political position and that he is coming to speak to them ‘In the name of God, the Gracious and Merciful,’ which not only establishes him as a sincere religious figure, but also demonstrates his understanding of the devout spiritual context of his audience. By exercising his authority and establishing his own ethos, Sadat effectively balances the emotional aspects of his language with stark reality, moving his audience to make a tangible change.
Despite the difference in context and purpose, Pearson’s speech also utilises rhetorical device to give his words persuasive power and address current issues in the quest for societal change. Pearson delivered his speech in Australia in 1996, a time when recognition of past injustice and subsequent reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people was a contentious topic both at governmental level and amongst the general public. The purpose of Pearson’s speech here is to present an argument against the views of some politicians, Prime Minister John Howard in particular as well as the media, who, according to Pearson, advocate the repression of responsibility for injustices over imposing ‘guilt’ on the Australian people. Unlike Sadat, Pearson is in a position in which he has full freedom of speech to criticise even government leaders, and he uses this to his advantage to create his own ethos. He emphasises his own credibility by discrediting his opponents, making an effective use of irony and sarcasm particularly regarding John Howard’s stance on the issue, claiming he would be better to “read Robert Hughes (a social historian) rather than the opinion polls.” Throughout the speech, Pearson refers to or directly quotes, sometimes at length, prominent and respected figures to lend credibility to his arguments and establish ethos, all of which subtly cause the audience to take to heart his suggestions. Similar to Sadat, Pearson also uses emotive language to his advantage, establishing pathos with the audience through appeals to national pride, claiming that treatment of Aboriginal peoples “left the country with a legacy of unutterable shame.” This is underpinned by a repetition of a quote from former PM Keating that Australians need to “open our hearts a bit,” implicating the audience in the issue and giving it present-day relevance. Rhetorical questions are also used to incur a sense of responsibility on the audience and provoke them to take action, particularly in the quote from William Cooper: “Will you, by your apathy tacitly admit that you don’t care and thus assume the guilt of your fathers?” In this one quote, Pearson achieves ethos through reference to an authority figure as well as a sense of moral duty whilst calling his listeners to action.
Although the above speeches were made by different speakers, focussing on different issues in very different contexts and with varied purposes, it is clear through close analysis that they both possess the same quality: the recognition of the persuasive power of words. It is indeed through careful choice of language form and rhetorical device appropriate to audience and purpose that speakers are able to inspire change in the attitudes and actions of audience to right perceived flaws in society.

Here is your essay with some changes or suggestions written in bold font:

Spoiler

Speeches embrace the power of words and draw attention to flaws in society to inspire change in their audience.
To what extent does this perspective align with your understanding of the speeches set for study?

Speeches are powerful persuasive tools utilized (That's American English - it should be utilised) by skilled (Not sure about skilled? This is an action packed sentence and skilled doesn't add to this. Because speakers can be skilled or unskilled in one person's eyes and the opposite in another person's, it is subjective. Unless you were stating your opinion (which you are asked to do in this module but it doesn't appear you have taken that road in the first sentence, totally fine) then you should avoid subjectivity. speakers who understand the power tied up in their words (power of their words? capacity of their words?) and how they use them in influencing the thoughts and actions of others. In addressing their audiences, speechmakers focus in on societal inequalities and injustices and, to varying degrees, attempt to bring about change, either by provoking the listener to take action or to simply become more informed or aware of an issue. Although both approach their subject differently, both Anwar Sadat’s Speech to the Israeli Knesset and Noel Pearson’s An Australian History For Us All are speeches which, through use of literary technique and rhetorical device, harness the power of words, and to varying degrees, attempt to inspire change. (You have a lot of little phrases in here divided by commas. I would change this to, "...are speeches which harness the power of words through literary and rhetorical devices and to varying degrees, attempt to inspire change." Also remember, in this module you can use adverbs to describe how the composers work. Don't shy away from "artfully manipulates the conventions..." or "skillfully articulates..." Also. you've only implicitly dealt with the question in terms of the "flaws." I would definitely say flaws explicitly and use synonyms later.
One of the most powerful and important ways in which a speechmaker can use their words is by taking account of the audience to whom they are speaking, and recognising how they must tailor their language forms in order for their words to be persuasive and resonate with their audience. This is particularly true in the case of Sadat’s speech, given the context in which it was delivered. Sadat delivered this speech in 1977, by which time a long history of conflict and war had existed between the state of Israel and Egypt, of which Sadat was then President. Sadat was determined to bring an end to the hostilities of the two nations by visiting the Israeli Knesset, but in so doing, placed himself, the head of a foreign enemy state, which was itself the source of a great deal of sorrow and anger in Israel, within their own parliament.I'm noticing a trend in your writing  You love the comma splices! Try to make your sentences flow as greatly as possible. Your use of commas makes it sound like you are actually writing a speech rather than writing about a speech. Rather than allow this raw emotion to detract from his message, Sadat used this emotion to his own advantage by taking considerable effort to establish pathos with his audience. Awesome! This is demonstrated in the speech when Sadat asks the audience to consider the effects of war on the civilian, relating the flow-on effect of the loss of human life ‘irrespective of its being that of an Israeli or Arab.’ Expressions such as ‘the wife who becomes a widow’ and ‘innocent children’ are pieces of highly emotive language which focus the audience on a pain common to both nations, and also identifies that the real issue being discussed is not political ties but the need for justice and peace amongst nations. Sadat also establishes positive pathos by creating a common ground with his audience. This is imperative given the fractured relations between Israel and the nation Sadat represents. Sadat makes use of the strong religious background of his audience by linking the traditional faiths of both nations, as seen in his allusions to the shared suffering of ‘Muslims, Christians and Jews’ at regular intervals. This, along with inclusive language such as ‘we all’ and ‘us, you and the entire world,’ creates a feeling of shared experience with his audience and redirects the potential for negative and angry emotion to a common mourning over the devastations of war, an attitude which is much more suited to Sadat’s purpose of encouraging a change to mutual peace. Sadat then addresses his solution for change in the form of quaesitio questions, asking ‘why don’t we stretch our hands…so that we might destroy this barrier?’, a technique which includes the audience in the decision making process and identifies the change as theirs to make. In order for his audience to take notice of what is being said, Sadat also looks to establish his own authority and appeal to the ethos of the audience. He achieves this in several ways, including the use of facts, dates, names and documents such as ‘the Balfour Declaration’ and the ‘Geneva Conference,’ which demonstrates to the audience that he is well informed of the facts and in a credible position to advocate needed change. This authority is also established by reference to his powerful political position and that he is coming to speak to them ‘In the name of God, the Gracious and Merciful,’ which not only establishes him as a sincere religious figure, but also demonstrates his understanding of the devout spiritual context of his audience. By exercising his authority and establishing his own ethos, Sadat effectively Excellent use of adverb! balances the emotional aspects of his language with stark reality, moving his audience to make a tangible change. Do remember what the question is asking of you. You've packed the paragraph full in ways that show your textual knowledge so so well. It is obvious that you do know the text well! However, you need a far more consistent link to the flaws and inspiration that the question asks of you. Although I can definitely see that it is angled at many times, you need to have a super strong thesis running through this to make sure that your awesome textual knowledge isn't penalised. You should aim to relate every, or every second, piece of textual evidence back to the question.
Despite the difference in context and purpose, Pearson’s speech also utilises rhetorical devices to give his words persuasive power and address current issues in the quest for societal change. Pearson delivered his speech in Australia in 1996, a time when recognition of past injustice and subsequent reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people was a contentious topic both at governmental level and amongst the general public. The purpose of Pearson’s speech here is to present an argument against the views of some politicians, Prime Minister John Howard in particular as well as the media, who, according to Pearson, advocate the repression of responsibility for injustices over imposing ‘guilt’ on the Australian people. Unlike Sadat, Pearson is in a position in which he has full freedom of speech to criticise even government leaders, and he uses this to his advantage to create his own ethos. Great integration of texts here!He emphasises his own credibility by discrediting his opponents, making an effective use of irony and sarcasm particularly regarding John Howard’s stance on the issue, claiming he would be better to “read Robert Hughes (a social historian) rather than the opinion polls.” Throughout the speech, Pearson refers to or directly quotes, sometimes at length, prominent and respected figures to lend credibility to his arguments and establish ethos, all of which subtly cause the audience to take to heart his suggestions. Similar to Sadat, Pearson also uses emotive language to his advantage, establishing pathos with the audience through appeals to national pride, claiming that treatment of Aboriginal peoples “left the country with a legacy of unutterable shame.” This is underpinned by a repetition of a quote from former PM Keating that Australians need to “open our hearts a bit,” implicating the audience in the issue and giving it present-day relevance. Rhetorical questions are also used to incur a sense of responsibility on the audience and provoke them to take action, particularly in the quote from William Cooper: “Will you, by your apathy tacitly admit that you don’t care and thus assume the guilt of your fathers?” In this one quote, Pearson achieves ethos through reference to an authority figure as well as a sense of moral duty whilst calling his listeners to action. Again, the same as above, you need to refer to the question more.
Although the above speeches were made presented by different speakers, focussing on different issues in very different contexts and with varied purposes, it is clear through close analysis that they both possess the same quality: the recognition of the persuasive power of words. It is indeed through careful choice of language form and rhetorical device appropriate to audience and purpose that speakers are able to inspire change in the attitudes and actions of audience to right perceived flaws in society.

Okay:

Your textual analysis is truly truly awesome. I mean that! However, the linking to the question just isn't there enough. There is a personal voice developing, but it will get to the right level when it is linked to the essay question. You can disagree with the question, but each paragraph should be dictated by your response so that your marker can see that you have formed an opinion based on what is set for study and the essay question.

Like I said above, make sure that every, or every second, piece of textual referencing is directly related to the question/your thesis. This is also a good test if you ever need to cut out evidence: what can't be easily linked to the essay question?

You've got a good grasp on the speeches, their purpose, their achievements, their context, etc. Now it is time to work on the picky side of things and turn this knowledge into the kind of response that a marker wants to see. Let me know if this doesn't make perfect sense and I'll try flesh it out a little more You should be very pleased with your textual knowledge!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hi,
Can you please look at my essay for The Crucible and my related.

Thank you so much 

Hey summerxyingshi!! Thanks for posting, we'd love to give you some feedback, but we can't until you've made 5 posts on ATAR Notes Forums. You are only a few away, try posting some questions, thanks, answers, anything! We introduced this restriction because this service is overwhelmingly popular, and we want to make sure the people who want it most receive high quality feedback, not just superficial comments on everyones essays, not as helpful  just give us a reminder once you've met the requirement (maybe repost the essay too if that is okay) and we will jump on it when we can!

Hopefully we will get back to you soon 

[jamonwindeyer]

Hi, Elyse. Sorry but i was just wondering if you had missed marking mine?
No rush, just a reminder
Thanks

Hey WLalex, I think it did get lost in the shuffle bit, sorry! We'll get to your essay ASAP, thanks for your patience!! 

[imtrying]

Thankyou so so much for all your feedback! I've uploaded 2 essays now and it has helped me so much . You guys are awesome! 

[elysepopplewell]

Hi, i am currently studying Module A (The Prince and Julius Caesar), it would be great if you could take a look at my essay.
 Thanks, i have attached it

Hey there! I am truly sorry that your essay got lost in the shuffle. Thank you for being so patient and sending a reminder, I would have hated for you to stay quiet and not received feedback!

Because your essay is sent on a PDF it looks a bit funny when I copy and paste it below because a PDF ensures that your writing cant be reformatted to fit the lines of this textbook. No problem though! I'm just letting you know so that you don't look at this like, what is going on here? haha

Here is your original essay:

Spoiler

Does the treatment of personal morality (actions and choices based on morality) in Julius Caesar
and The Prince reveal similarities or reinforce the texts’ distinctive qualities?
The treatment of personal morality is arguably the main contributing factor in rising or succumbing
to power. Machiavelli’s The Prince, a non-fiction political treatise written in prose form and
Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar, written in the final years of Elizabeth’s reign both communicate
the unstable nature of the political world where in order to sustain power, personal morality must be
obliterated. In the 16th century, a leader must possess the ability to be interchangeable when the
occasion demands it, using manipulation as a mechanism to gain support. Both texts deal with the
overarching question of whether a leader should accept the means justifying the end. Separate in
time and place, both composers value a nation of stability, arising issues of leadership and
succession, demonstrating both similarities and distinctive qualities regarding the implication of
personal morality in political decisions.
Personal morality in politics only leads to self-destruction, therefore there should be a distinction
between how a leader wants to act and how he should act. Machiavelli suggests that for a leader
to gain and maintain power he has to make decisions that negate his morality as to avoid moving
“towards self-destruction rather than self-preservation.” This contradiction reflects Machiavelli’s
contention in that he is emphasising why Florence is crumbling. Shakespeare presents the
character of Brutus as one who deviates from what Machiavelli, as he is portrayed as honorable,
yet naive, about the political treachery surrounding him. In his soliloquy, he is convincing himself
that Caesar’s death is necessary because “he would be crowned. How that might change his
nature.” Shakespeare uses Brutus’s implausible reasoning, with his wavering ethics as the
catalysts to which Brutus embarks on a road to self destruction. Machiavelli insists that there can
be no moral considerations when it comes to politics as “anyone who declines to behave as people
do, in order to behave as they should, is schooling himself for catastrophe.” Machiavelli’s political
realism in the early turmoil of 16th century Europe, shed light on the corrupt nature of humans and
their desires for power. Conjunctively, Shakespeare successfully demonstrated that a nation in
such state holds no room for honourable men as Cassius exploits Brutus’s honour as a weakness
for “who so firm that cannot be seduced?”. This rhetorical questions reiterates Cassius’s
machiavellian intent which will gradually dismantle Brutus’s character as Shakespeare emphasises
the state of political turmoil in Rome as a power struggled emerged due to England being without
an heir. Power demands the negation of morality in order for a leader not to succumb to self
destruction.
A leader must seperate their ethics from their actions, resulting in a persona that possess the
ability to be interchangeable when the occasion demands it. The prince has been regarded as the
‘work of the Devil’ as Machiavelli exposes the idea that in order to sustain power one must “be a
fox in order to recognise traps, and a lion to frighten off wolves.” Caesar recognised the danger of
Cassius, and arguably, if he had been a ‘lion’ as Machiavelli suggests, he would have been able to
cease Cassius’s intent before they spiralled. Cassius represents the Roman republic which was
fighting against the threat of the tyranny of monarchial rulers - with comparison to the Prince, it
could be concluded that Caesar was not of ‘machiavellian nature’ nor a tyrant. Machiavelli
conflicted with the Catholic Church’s ethical teachings in that as long as “a leader does what it
takes to win power and keep it, his methods will always be reckoned honourable and widely
praised” as the people are only concerned with the end result. The obliteration of ethics when the
occasion demands it fits Antony’s portrayal throughout Julius Caesar is one of admiration in his
ease of making rational political decisions. The composition of a proscription list immediately after
his persuasion of the people, Machiavelli would approve of, as a measure to ensure their smooth
advance into power and ensuring their position by removing any opponents. Antony in this, is
presented an astute leader as to win power he agrees that “[his sisters son] shall not live”. One
must be able to adapt when it is necessary.
A leader who is able to use manipulation as a mechanism to hid their true intent will achieve results
. Manipulation requires going against what the right thing would be in order to benefit oneself and
Machiavelli says that a leader has to “know to to disguise [their] slyness, how to pretend one thing
and cover up another”. Shakespeare successfully portrays this through Cassius who manipulates
Brutus’s to partake in the conspiracy as a figure-head that will cover his evil intents with that of
honourable reasoning and change “what would appear offence in us..will change to virtue and to
worthiness”. Through Cassius’s sinister approach Shakespeare is demonstrating the profusion of
ambition which drives elite men to strive for power at any cost. Machiavelli would agree with this
because a leader doesn't have to be “compassionate, loyal, humane, honest and religious,” as
long as he “seem to possess them.” This ostentatious list is in regard to the shifting allegiances
and betrayal surrounding the roman empire and Machiavelli suggests that to maintain power
amongst the fickle, a facade is essential as a mechanism of manipulation. In accord to this,
Shakespeare uses Antony as an epitome the Elizabethan ideal of being patriotic and able to make
effective political decisions. Antony’s calculated revelation of Caesar’s generosity finally drives the
crowd into a destructive frenzy. They leave, intent on revenge, and Antony’s calculated intention
becomes clear as he addresses the empty stage: “Now let it work. Mischief, thou art afoot, Take
thou what course thou wilt!,” addressing the power of rhetoric and the successive portrayal of
virtue. Manipulation is necessary to advances ones position.
In order to sustain power, a leader must accept that the end justifies the means. Due to human
nature, arguable, it is acceptable to take measures to control ambition to prevent tyranny.
Machiavelli emphasises that it’s important to “foresee and forestall future problems” and uses the
analogy of tuberculosis to relate to conspiracy in that “as time goes by it gets easy to diagnose and
hard to cure.” This is successfully demonstrated when Caesar recognises that “Cassius has a lean
and hungry look…such men are dangerous” but doesn’t do anything about it. Arguably, if he had
made the decisions necessary to ensure his safety, his rein would not have been challenged. In
order to maintain power Machiavelli says that a complete disregard for moral standards is required
which segregated his work from all that had gone before it as “the end is all that counts”.
Shakespeare uses Brutus as the main point of contention with the ‘Machiavellian’ idealism and the
use of personal morality. During a period of war, when one should supposedly nullify morality,
Brutus asks cassius, “did not great Julius bleed for justice’ sake?”. Shakespeare uses this rhetoric
question to connect with his audience and propose the spiralling threat of a non-ethical world.
Whilst Brutus questions morality in theMachiavellian view that the end justifies the means, it is
clear that a leader will have to go against his moral if he is to succeed in the political world.
The use of personal morality supply’s one with the ability to both achieve and fail.Machiavelli’s
political treatise, The Prince and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, despite seperate in time and place,
clearly enhance the portrayal of moral standards in regards to how a leader should act and the
threats necessary to gain and maintain power. Acting as a ‘how to’ guide and demonstrative
handbook, both composers successfully demonstrate the role of people in a nations stability.

Here is your essay with my annotations written in bold:

Spoiler

Does the treatment of personal morality (actions and choices based on morality) in Julius Caesar
and The Prince reveal similarities or reinforce the texts’ distinctive qualities?

The treatment of personal morality is arguably the main contributing factor in rising or succumbing
to power. Awesome! Machiavelli’s The Prince, a non-fiction political treatise written in prose form and
Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar, written in the final years of Elizabeth’s reign both communicate
the unstable nature of the political world where in order to sustain power, personal morality must be
obliterated. This sentence reads awkwardly because you've got a bunch of clauses and phrases that are a bit disjointed. I would write this as:
"Machiavelli's non-fiction political treatise written in prose, The Prince, and Shakespeare's historical tragedy composed in the final years of Queen Elizabeth's reign, Julis Caesar, both observe the unstable nature of the political world. Both texts explore the notion that in order to sustain power, personal morality must be obliterated." This reverses the placement of the text in relation to its description, but also cuts it into two sentences so that it is more easily digestable. In the 16th century, a leader must possess the ability to be interchangeable when the occasion demands it, using manipulation as a mechanism to gain support. Both texts deal with the overarching question of whether a leader should accept the means justifying the end. I think this should be, "the ends justifying the means" otherwise this reads as though you are saying that although the ending may be bad, the way it all happened was moral. Which The Prince suggests the opposite of, from my understanding? Separate in
time and place, both composers value a nation of stability, arising issues of leadership and
succession, demonstrating both similarities and distinctive qualities regarding the implication of
personal morality in political decisions. You've done an excellent job of directly answering the question over and over. It is so rare that students truly do this because they get excited about the texts and their knowledge of that, and forget to tailor it to the question.
Personal morality in politics only leads to self-destruction To me, you are talking about the literal death of the person by saying self-destruction. Is this what you intend, or do you mean them and their empire/intentions/government can also be destructed? It is a small word choice thing but I want you to be aware , therefore there should be a distinction
between how a leader wants to act and how he should act. Machiavelli suggests that for a leader
to gain and maintain power he has to make decisions that negate his morality as to avoid moving
“towards self-destruction rather than self-preservation.” This contradiction reflects Machiavelli’s
contention in that he is emphasising why Florence is crumbling. Shakespeare presents the
character of Brutus as one who deviates from what Machiavelli, as he is portrayed as honorable,
yet naive, about the political treachery surrounding him. In his soliloquy, he is convincing himself
that Caesar’s death is necessary because “he would be crowned. How that might change his
nature.” Shakespeare uses Brutus’s implausible reasoning, with his wavering ethics as the
catalysts to which Brutus embarks on a road to self destruction. Machiavelli insists that there can
be no moral considerations when it comes to politics as “anyone who declines to behave as people
do, in order to behave as they should, is schooling himself for catastrophe.” Machiavelli’s political
realism in the early turmoil of 16th century Europe, shed light on the corrupt nature of humans and
their desires for power. Conjunctively, Shakespeare successfully demonstrated that a nation in
such state holds no room for honourable men as Cassius exploits Brutus’s honour as a weakness
for “who so firm that cannot be seduced?”. This rhetorical questions reiterates Cassius’s
machiavellian intent which will gradually dismantle Brutus’s character as Shakespeare emphasises
the state of political turmoil in Rome as a power struggled emerged due to England being without
an heir. Power demands the negation of morality in order for a leader not to succumb to self
destruction. Again, this has really dealt with the words of the question beautifully. Your integrated is great, and you've also followed through with the self-destruction part of this paragraph really well, it is very unique.
A leader must seperate their ethics from their actions, resulting in a persona that possess the
ability to be interchangeable when the occasion demands it. I'm just so ridiculously impressed by this. You've really embodied everything that The Prince suggests, but is also evident in Shakespeare's texts, and you've let it give your paragraph direction. Although, I'm wondering, if you could add "personal morality" or a variation to the sentence? Potentially swap "ethics" for "personal morals?" I know it doesn't have the same meaning on a technical level, but it is something to consider so that you can show the marker that you are really dealing with the question in every spot. The prince has been regarded as the
‘work of the Devil’ Where is this quote from? Is it from the text or is this from an outside source? If it is from an outside source it needs to be referenced. Otherwise, carry on as Machiavelli exposes the idea that in order to sustain power one must “be a
fox in order to recognise traps, and a lion to frighten off wolves.”You could identify a technique here to strengthen this. Where there is a description involving an animal, there is a technique This will strengthen your analysis. Caesar recognised the danger of Cassius, and arguably, if he had been a ‘lion’ as Machiavelli suggests, he would have been able to
cease Cassius’s intent before they spiralled. Cassius represents the Roman republic which was
fighting against the threat of the tyranny of monarchial rulers - with comparison to the Prince, it
could be concluded that Caesar was not of ‘machiavellian nature’ nor a tyrant. Machiavelli
conflicted with the Catholic Church’s ethical teachings in that as long as “a leader does what it
takes to win power and keep it, his methods will always be reckoned honourable and widely
praised” as the people are only concerned with the end result. For a long time now, there has been no deep textual analysis, only talking about the text on a macro level. You can do this, but you need to them zoom in on a specific example from the text to give it strength.The obliteration of ethics when the
occasion demands it fits Antony’s portrayal throughout Julius Caesar is ?? as?? maybe? The sentence doesn't quite make sense. one of admiration in his
ease of making rational political decisions. The composition of a proscription list immediately after
his persuasion of the people, Machiavelli would approve of, as a measure to ensure their smooth
advance into power and ensuring their position by removing any opponents. Antony in this, is
presented an astute leader as to win power he agrees that “[his sisters son] shall not live”. One
must be able to adapt when it is necessary.
A leader who is able to use manipulation as a mechanism to hid their true intent will achieve results
. Manipulation requires going against what the right thing (This is subjective. Try, ethical or moral. would be in order to benefit oneself and
Machiavelli says that a leader has to “know to to disguise [their] slyness, how to pretend one thing
and cover up another”. Shakespeare successfully portrays this through Cassius who manipulates
Brutus’s to partake in the conspiracy as a figure-head that will cover his evil intents with that of
honourable reasoning and change “what would appear offence in us..will change to virtue and to
worthiness”. Through Cassius’s sinister approach Shakespeare is demonstrating the profusion of
ambition which drives elite men to strive for power at any cost. Machiavelli would agree with this
because a leader doesn't have to be “compassionate, loyal, humane, honest and religious,” as
long as he “seem to possess them.” This ostentatious list is in regard to the shifting allegiances
and betrayal surrounding the roman empire and Machiavelli suggests that to maintain power
amongst the fickle, a facade is essential as a mechanism of manipulation. In accord to this,
Shakespeare uses Antony as an epitome the Elizabethan ideal of being patriotic and able to make
effective political decisions. Antony’s calculated revelation of Caesar’s generosity finally drives the
crowd into a destructive frenzy. They leave, intent on revenge, and Antony’s calculated intention
becomes clear as he addresses the empty stage: “Now let it work. Mischief, thou art afoot, Take
thou what course thou wilt!,” addressing the power of rhetoric and the successive portrayal of
virtue. Manipulation is necessary to advances ones position.
In order to sustain power, a leader must accept that the end justifies the means.(Yeah, this is how the quote is supposed to be hehe) Due to human
nature, arguabley, it is acceptable to take measures to control ambition to prevent tyranny.
Machiavelli emphasises that it’s important to “foresee and forestall future problems” and uses the
analogy of tuberculosis to relate to conspiracy in that “as time goes by it gets easy to diagnose and
hard to cure.” This is successfully demonstrated when Caesar recognises that “Cassius has a lean
and hungry look…such men are dangerous” but doesn’t do anything about it. Arguably, if he had
made the decisions necessary to ensure his safety, his rein would not have been challenged. In
order to maintain power Machiavelli says that a complete disregard for moral standards is required
which segregated his work from all that had gone before it as “the end is all that counts”.
Shakespeare uses Brutus as the main point of contention with the ‘Machiavellian’ idealism and the
use of personal morality. During a period of war, when one should supposedly nullify morality,
Brutus asks cassius, “did not great Julius bleed for justice’ sake?”. Shakespeare uses this rhetoric
question to connect with his audience and propose the spiralling threat of a non-ethical world.
Whilst Brutus questions morality in theMachiavellian view that the end justifies the means, it is
clear that a leader will have to go against his moral if he is to succeed in the political world.

The use of personal morality supply’s supplies one with the ability to both achieve and fail.  Machiavelli’s
political treatise, The Prince, and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, despite being seperate in time and place,
clearly enhance the portrayal of moral standards in regards to how a leader should act and the
threats necessary to gain and maintain power. Acting as a ‘how to’ instructional, directional, directing...these sound better to me than "how to"guide and demonstrative
handbook, both composers successfully demonstrate the role of people in a nations stability.

Conclusion - Awesome. A few tweaks to be made in terms of sentence structure but this is seen throughout and I've commented on it a few times.

Your inclusion of the essay question throughout, even with a nice original take for each paragraph, is also awesome.

What lacks is your technical analysis. You can talk about the relationship between the two on a macro level but not necessarily as well on a deep, micro level. It would be awesome for you to espouse the structure of: quote, technique, analysis at least every second quote. It is okay to have a quote that supports your general argument without being specifically analysed, but you want to be as deep as possible in your analysis in order to ensure that you are showing the marker that you understand each text specifically, but also as a combination.

Again, I'm very sorry that your essay was lost in the pile and I really appreciate you coming back to let me know it was missed.

[elysepopplewell]

Thankyou so so much for all your feedback! I've uploaded 2 essays now and it has helped me so much . You guys are awesome! 

No, no, Thank YOU for helping the community grow! We are really thrilled that you are finding what we do helpful!

[Son of Thatcher]

Hello guys!

First allow me to thank you for the opportunity to even use this service, really it's a huge help!

In any event, I am currently doing Module A and have managed to produce an essay that I will hopefully be able to use in the imminent half-yearlies (Great Gatsby + EBB). I would really appreciate any feedback/criticism, thanks so much!

[Mizuki]

  thankyou!

[elysepopplewell]

Hello guys!

First allow me to thank you for the opportunity to even use this service, really it's a huge help!

In any event, I am currently doing Module A and have managed to produce an essay that I will hopefully be able to use in the imminent half-yearlies (Great Gatsby + EBB). I would really appreciate any feedback/criticism, thanks so much!

I'm glad to hear you're enjoying ATAR Notes!

Okay, I'll get started! You should know that I did module A (obvs), but I did a different elective + different texts. So based on what I understand of this elective, I'll do my best!

Original essay:

Spoiler

‘The focus on the ideal in The Great Gatsby and Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s poetry reveals the relationship between text and context’

‘True’ love when epitomised as the ultimate ideal has the potential to offer insight into the necessary relationship between text and context and ultimately, reveal the attitudes and values of a writer. This notion is explored in the poetic works of Elizabeth Barrett Browning in her Sonnets From the Portuguese and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 1924 novel, The Great Gatsby. Despite fundamentally different historical and social influences, it is through examining each text as social commentaries within their respective contexts, that one can come to a more profound appreciation of the attitudes and values of each author and recognise their shared understanding of love.

The focus on an idealised form of love, illustrating the contextual influence of Romanticism can best be seen in Barrett Browning’s Sonnets From the Portuguese.  This collection of poems narrates the spiritual journey of the textual persona from one that is initially reluctant to engage in any form of love, to one that openly extolls the virtues of a sincere type of love, a love rooted in emotion and unshackled by worldly constraints. This concept in Sonnet XIII, where Barrett Browning brazenly rebuffs Robert and his request for her to ‘…fashion into speech the love I bear thee…’, saying ‘Nay, let the silence of my womanhood commend my woman-love to thy belief… The defiant tone of Barrett Browning’s retort, especially emphasised by her forceful exclamation of the word ‘…nay…’  encapsulates her strong opposition to the superficial nature of love during the Victorian Era by surreptitiously repudiating the notion that love needed to be expressed through words. Barrett Browning further derides this idea in the phrase ‘…silence of her womanhood…’ , which illustrates her indignation at the very idea that spoken word was an adequate enough tool for expressing love, instead implying that it is only through emotion that love is best conveyed. This form of sincere love which Barrett Browning advances is best demonstrated through her introduction to Sonnet XXII ‘When our two should stand up erect and strong, Face to face silent, drawing nigh and nigher…’. This excerpt not only reinforces Barrett Browning’s earlier repudiation of spoken word as a means to express love, but implicitly reveals her attitude towards love as something that should be founded upon emotion. Thus, it is this subliminal idea, coupled with the motif of angelic and soulful imagery in the extract which conveys the influence of Romanticism in the works of Barrett Browning; a tool used as a catalyst for critiquing love during the Victorian era.

Conversely, Romanticism is also evident in Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby via the characterisation of its titular character, Jay Gatsby and his quest to win the heart of Daisy Buchanan with the sincerity of his love. All the while, Gatsby’s mission is undermined by the contextual forces of the ‘Roaring Twenties’, in which the ostentatious display of wealth and the flaunting of vice were the norm. The repeated positive depiction of Gatsby and his romanticised form of love coupled with the negative imagery associated with the shallow ‘love’ characteristic of the time, is indicative of the text’s opposition to the materialism of the time. This type of superficial love, even exhibited by characters like Daisy is clearly evident from very early in the text where she states ‘It makes me sad because I've never seen such--such beautiful shirts before…Daisy bent her head into the shirts and began to cry stormily.’ Daisy’s emotional reaction to such a material and trivial an item as a shirt, underscored by the words ‘…stormily…’  and ‘…sad…’ portrays her as a product of her times, in which affection was dispensed frivolously. This is sharply contrasts with Gatsby’s interpretation of love, aptly encapsulated in Chapter 6, where a romantic interaction between Gatsby and Daisy occurs:’Then he kissed her. At his lips’ touch she blossomed for him like a flower and the incarnation was complete.’ The phrase’s repeated reference to a flower, a prominent piece of natural imagery with strong positive connotations compares love to a flower, implying that for love to grow, it must be nurtured like a flower; over time and with dedication. By emphasising the strength of this pure form of love, Fitzgerald therefore offers an implicit criticism of the worldly objects of love so common to the 1920s.

This idealised form of pure love further reveals the relationship between text and context and is evident though Barrett Browning’s depiction of the female archetype. Barrett Browning openly subverts the patriarchal values of her Victorian society by appropriating a forceful and masculine poetic voice in stark opposition to the the prevailing social consensus of the time in which women were marginalised. This is apparent in Sonnet XIII, where Barrett Browning flatly refuses Robert Browning’s request to verbalise her love saying ‘…commend my woman-love to thy belief, seeing that I stand unwon, however wooed…’ .This phrase serves to embody Barrett Browning’s rebuff to the patriarchal attitudes of the time by debunking the idea that love could only be pursued by the male. As a woman, Barrett Browning not only assumes the dominant role in the relationship by completely ignoring the request of a man, but openly cites her femininity or ‘…woman-love…’ as the chief reason for doing so. Ultimately, this characterises Barrett Browning as an individual whose attitude towards the strictures of her time is critical, whilst also characterising her as someone who believes that love is impervious to earthly barriers such as gender.

Whilst Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby offers the appearance of female emancipation, in reality women are in fact more even more constrained in their romantic affairs. Fitzgerald uses the novel-long conflict between Gatsby and Tom over who should be able to love Daisy as a means of illustrating just how subservient women are to men. This is particularly evident in Chapter 7 where Gatsby and Tom engage in an acrimonious verbal brawl with Tom exclaiming ‘She’s not leaving me!’. This passage not only encapsulates Tom’s domineering and possessive attitude towards women, emphasised by the way in which Tom is preempting what Daisy should do, but is also emblematic of the attitudes of the broader context. Embedded within the phrase is also an irony stemming from Tom’s hypocrisy acting as the staunchest defender of protecting an established marriage, purportedly the traditional catalyst for love, whilst engaging in numerous affairs himself. In this way, Fitzgerald portrays marriage as a failed and corrupted institution that no longer serves the purposes of love, thus offering an implicit criticism of the way love is conducted during this time.

In essence, while it is clear that each text acts as a critique of the love which typifies their respective contexts, it is only via both text’s emphasis on a pure love, one based on emotion and unencumbered by earthly constraints that the relationship between context and text is apparent.

Essay with feedback in my bold font:

Spoiler

‘The focus on the ideal in The Great Gatsby and Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s poetry reveals the relationship between text and context’

‘True’ love when epitomised as the ultimate ideal has the potential to offer insight into the necessary relationship between text and context and ultimately, reveal the attitudes and values of a writer. Tick! Tick! Tick! Gold star for you. This notion is explored in the poetic works of Elizabeth Barrett Browning in her Sonnets From the Portuguese and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 1924 novel, The Great Gatsby. Despite fundamentally different historical and social influences, it is through examining each text as social commentaries within their respective contexts, that one can come to a more profound appreciation of the attitudes and values of each author and recognise their shared understanding of love. No qualms here. Except, I would revisit "the ideal" again in this last sentence, just to seal the deal. It isn't an enormous deal. It's a stylistic feature that I would implement, but it may not suit your writing style. Take advice as you wish, no pressure to take it all!

The focus on an idealised form of love, illustrating the contextual influence of Romanticism can best be seen in Barrett Browning’s Sonnets From the Portuguese.  This collection of poems narrates the spiritual journey of the textual persona from one that is initially reluctant to engage in any form of love, to one that openly extolls the virtues of a sincere type of love, a love rooted in emotion and unshackled by worldly constraints. This concept in Sonnet XIII, where Barrett Browning brazenly rebuffs Robert and his request for her to ‘…fashion into speech the love I bear thee…’, saying ‘Nay, let the silence of my womanhood commend my woman-love to thy belief… The defiant tone of Barrett Browning’s retort, especially emphasised by her forceful exclamation of the word ‘…nay…’  encapsulates her strong opposition to the superficial nature of love during the Victorian Era by surreptitiously repudiating the notion that love needed to be expressed through words. Barrett Browning further derides this idea in the phrase ‘…silence of her womanhood…’ , which illustrates her indignation at the very idea that spoken word was an adequate enough tool for expressing love, instead implying that it is only through emotion that love is best conveyed. This form of sincere love which Barrett Browning advances is best demonstrated through her introduction to Sonnet XXII ‘When our two should stand up erect and strong, Face to face silent, drawing nigh and nigher…’. This excerpt not only reinforces Barrett Browning’s earlier repudiation of spoken word as a means to express love, but implicitly reveals her attitude towards love as something that should be founded upon emotion. Thus, it is this subliminal idea, coupled with the motif of angelic and soulful imagery in the extract which conveys the influence of Romanticism in the works of Barrett Browning; a tool used as a catalyst for critiquing love during the Victorian era.The essay questions requests that you talk about the ideal. I know you do this by talking about love. But, I think you should explicitly use the words "the ideal" or a variation of it throughout the paragraph in more places than just the opening. This is just showing the marker that you see the challenge they presented, and you're willing to take it on by fusing what they ask of you and your own understanding of the texts together.

Conversely, Romanticism is also evident in Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby via the characterisation of its titular character, Jay Gatsby and his quest to win the heart of Daisy Buchanan with the sincerity of his love. You've won my literary heart. I love when people use "titular" in an essay. It is so underused!All the while, Gatsby’s mission is undermined by the contextual forces of the ‘Roaring Twenties’, in which the ostentatious display of wealth and the flaunting of vice were the norm. You deal with the text really well without at all being verbose or out of proportion.The repeated positive depiction of Gatsby and his romanticised form of love coupled with the negative imagery associated with the shallow ‘love’ characteristic of the time, is indicative of the text’s opposition to the materialism of the time. This type of superficial love, even exhibited by characters like Daisy is clearly evident from very early in the text where she states ‘It makes me sad because I've never seen such--such beautiful shirts before…Daisy bent her head into the shirts and began to cry stormily.’ Daisy’s emotional reaction to such a material and trivial an item as a shirt, underscored by the words ‘…stormily…’  and ‘…sad…’ portrays her as a product of her times, in which affection was dispensed frivolously. This is sharply contrasts with Gatsby’s interpretation of love, aptly encapsulated in Chapter 6, where a romantic interaction between Gatsby and Daisy occurs:’Then he kissed her. At his lips’ touch she blossomed for him like a flower and the incarnation was complete.’ The phrase’s repeated reference to a flower, a prominent piece of natural imagery with strong positive connotations compares love to a flower, implying that for love to grow, it must be nurtured like a flower; over time and with dedication. By emphasising the strength of this pure form of love, Fitzgerald therefore offers an implicit criticism of the worldly objects of love so common to the 1920s.

This idealised form of pure love further reveals the relationship between text and context and is evident though Barrett Browning’s depiction of the female archetype. Barrett Browning openly subverts the patriarchal values of her Victorian society by appropriating a forceful and masculine poetic voice in stark opposition to the the prevailing social consensus of the time in which women were marginalised. This is apparent in Sonnet XIII, where Barrett Browning flatly refuses Robert Browning’s request to verbalise her love saying ‘…commend my woman-love to thy belief, seeing that I stand unwon, however wooed…’ .This phrase serves to embody Barrett Browning’s rebuff to the patriarchal attitudes of the time by debunking the idea that love could only be pursued by the male. As a woman, Barrett Browning not only assumes the dominant role in the relationship by completely ignoring the request of a man, but openly cites her femininity or ‘…woman-love…’ as the chief reason for doing so. Ultimately, this characterises Barrett Browning as an individual whose attitude towards the strictures of her time is critical, whilst also characterising her as someone who believes that love is impervious to earthly barriers such as gender. Again, you have mastered the balance of context and analysis. Your analysis is complicated but written so simply. It's very impressive.

Whilst Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby offers the appearance of female emancipation, in reality women are in fact more even more constrained in their romantic affairs. Fitzgerald uses the novel-long conflict between Gatsby and Tom over who should be able to love Daisy as a means of illustrating just how subservient women are to men. This is particularly evident in Chapter 7 where Gatsby and Tom engage in an acrimonious verbal brawl with Tom exclaiming ‘She’s not leaving me!’. This passage not only encapsulates Tom’s domineering and possessive attitude towards women, emphasised by the way in which Tom is preempting what Daisy should do, but is also emblematic of the attitudes of the broader context. Embedded within the phrase is also an irony stemming from Tom’s hypocrisy acting as the staunchest defender of protecting an established marriage, purportedly the traditional catalyst for love, whilst engaging in numerous affairs himself. In this way, Fitzgerald portrays marriage as a failed and corrupted institution that no longer serves the purposes of love, thus offering an implicit criticism of the way love is conducted during this time.

In essence, while it is clear that each text acts as a critique of the love which typifies their respective contexts, it is only via both text’s emphasis on a pure love, one based on emotion and unencumbered by earthly constraints that the relationship between context and text is apparent. This is a very short conclusion. it is literally one sentence. I always aim for 4. 3 sentences is usually easy to hit, but 4 just seals the deal. I would delete the "in essence" and simply go ahead with the rest of the sentence. Make sure you explicitly deal with THE IDEAL and then talk about it synonymously with love as the subject noun afterwards. If you please, you could deal with each text in a separate sentence and then in a third sentence, bring the two together in one last comparison to relate directly to the essay question. Your essay is band 6 worthy, definitely without a doubt...only once this conclusion is organised. The conclusion needs to leave the marker with a strong taste of your grasp of the topic and your writing ability. You can do this!
 

You'll find specific comments attached inside. This is a very impressive essay. It was really a pleasure to read. This essay is worthy of a band 6 in my own opinion. However, it would only achieve that when the conclusion is fleshed out a little more.

You should be very proud. Do feel free to post back any time with anything else, or this essay again with changes made!

[Son of Thatcher]

Thank you so much, I am really glad to hear you liked it! I am literally so appreciative of the value of this service, your feedback is truly superb! 

[elysepopplewell]

Thank you so much, I am really glad to hear you liked it! I am literally so appreciative of the value of this service, your feedback is truly superb! 

Seriously glad to hear this!