What's your advice on made up stories for context?
There's no point telling the truth, since that'd just be dull, and it's not like the assessors are giving you marks on how accurate your story is (ie. if you write about a fight you had with your siblings but they somehow stalk your VTAC number and find out you don't have any siblings... they don''t care, so long as the ideas are good.)
So you can make up whatever you want; write about yourself*, write from the perspective of a character in your set text, adopt a voice of someone from history (eg. the inner monologue of Tony Abbot right after the libspill, or a POV narrative set in a post-nuclear future - anything) just so long as there's a valid reason for you making that choice. Try not to just rely on the plot or some novel aspect in order to get across your ideas. The reason most people opt for an expository style is because it's usually a more direct line of communication between you and the assessor, whereas creative pieces and stories tend to be more ambiguous, but that doesn't mean they can't be done well.
*Just don't make them "petty personal stories," as the examiner's reports used to say. The really tacky things like this example from the last page:
Prompt: The consequences of conflict are often unforeseen.One time, on the bus home from school, I was sitting next to a kid whose girlfriend broke up with him over the phone. He totes flipped out and accidentally smacked me in the face, and I got a sore nose. So because his girlfriend broke up with him, I got a sore nose. Through this, we can conclude that the consequences of conflict are often unforeseen...just come across as flimsy and insubstantial. Stories can be done well, but they take some work, so it just depends where your strengths lie.
In Henry IV, Hotspur gets furious by reading a letter outlining the dangers of the plans for the rebellion. (Act 2 Scene 3)
Might have misread, but does anyone know who wrote this letter?
Cheers
I
think that letter is from the Archbishop of York, which really isn't made plain so I can't blame you for not knowing - it took me a few readings and I thought I knew that text well
It's a little tricky because he kind of contradicts himself by first claiming that the Archbishop is a hypocrite, then a coward, then a traitor, then an ally, then a traitor again {...perhaps an indication of his haphazard logic and impetuosity}
His character is technically listed at the start, and we see him chat with Sir Micheal in Act 4 Scene 4, but his only role is aptly summed up by
lit charts: "Richard Scroop – The Archbishop of York, he is a rebel and friend of the Percy family who worries from a distance about their
treason plot. He supports the rebels not with military might but with strategic advice and letters to potential allies."
There's not a lot to say about him, and the only thing I'd make of that 2.3 letter reading scene is the fact that right from the start, Hotspur exhibits a stubbornness and refusal to entertain the thought of retreat or loss, and the fact that he lists his supporters to be his father, uncle, Mortimer, Glendower, and Douglas - most of whom either end up dead, captured, or just never rock up in the first place. So by the end of the play, all the support Hotspur thought he had ends up abandoning him, whereas Hal rides into battle with his father, brother, and allies by his side, suggesting the tables have turned, and whatnot.
if we're given a comparative that has a lot going on eg. 3 comments, how do we address the comments?
do we state all of their contentions in the intro? do we analyse them all separately as though they were an article?
I would just quickly mention in the intro that there were three responding comments to the piece and then later on just analyse them one by one. (In contrast ABC contends...) Likewise, 123 argues .... and Similarly, 999 asserts that..) If one of the comments are supporting the original article then state that 'Supporting the views of the (Author), 999 asserts)
That's how i'd do it and have done it, not sure if it's entirely correct but someone can verify this hopefully
✓ Verified
Exactly what Christiano said; a brief statement in the introduction like 'The piece was also accompanied by a variety of comments spanning different views from members of the public / of the school community / of the local barber's association / w/e' is sufficient, and then you can go into detail with each one when it's relevant to the discussion in your body paragraphs. The linking phrases in the quote above are also excellent ones to use in that situation.
If you're really desperate, you can just talk about them in a paragraph at the end, but it'd be better to try and integrate them, if possible.
Because of Wag the Dog is in this year's Whose Reality text list, would it be safe to assume that prompts pertaining to memories, shared experiences etc. will not appear this year? For instance, last year (the first year Wag the Dog appeared on the text list), the prompt was ‘Misrepresenting reality can have serious consequences', which fits perfectly with Wag the Dog, because the film is all about manipulating people's reality for political gain and the consequences which arise from doing so.
Surely the prompt must relate well to all four texts for Whose Reality? Or does VCAA expect you to know more than one Whose Reality text? Because we did Death of a Salesman as well, but I don't want to have to prepare for both texts for Context...
As mentioned, your context prompt
will relate to all four texts, but some will fit better than others. Inevitably some texts have a natural advantage some years, but since it's what you do with those ideas that matters, you shouldn't have to worry too much. So long as you've endeavored to connect the core of the prompt with the core of the text somehow, you'll be fine.
However, the texts that are in their first year tend to have a
very obvious link, whereas the others might be more peripheral, meaning that one text for each context:
[IL] -
A Passage to India[WR] -
Foe[EC] -
The Lietenant & A Separation (because the person in charge of conflict can't count)
[ID&B] -
Wild Cat Fallingwill likely have a really clear prompt link. To some extent you can look back over previous years and see this - the '14 WR prompt was clearly angled towards
Wag The Dog whilst the '14 EC prompt suited
Every Man in this Village really well. It's not the be-all-end-all, and most competent writers can make their ideas fit a whole variety of prompts anyway, as exemplified by the fact that you can go back as far as 2008 and still consider connections even though your texts weren't even considered at that point.
You should be safe enough concentrating on a single text for context, but it can't hurt to go back over notes or old essays for your other one just in case.
Does anyone feel like one hour is way too little to annotate one/two language analysis pieces AND write an 800-1000 word piece? Has anyone in the past tried an exam structure like:
Section A - 50 minutes
Section B - 50 minutes
Section C - 1 hour 20 minutes
If you can't get Language Analysis done in under an hour, then you're probably doing a lot of unnecessary work, or demonstrating the same skill over and over to no effect. I'd argue L.A. is the one piece you want to finish in less than an hour, and Sec.A and B are the ones where you can spend more time fleshing out ideas. L.A. is ludicrously formulaic, and you shouldn't have to annotate them too extensively. Are you just finding persuasive devices? Or do you link them to effects and to other parts of the article too? Either way, try to cut your planning/annotating time down, and then be as efficient as possible when you're writing. 1000+ words is kind of excessive for L.A. hitting around there is pretty much necessary for T.R. and Context if you're aiming high (~though depending on your style for Context.)
Remember, they're testing your ability to be selective, and the assessors want to see that you know how to pick out the most important parts of the article to analyse, not just discuss absolutely everything you come across, so prioritise the important bits and try not to get caught up in the trap of overanalysing and wasting time.
I'd also advocate doing Section C first if you can get the timing under control, since having to revisit it after spending almost two hours doing other things can mean an unnecessary extra read-through or time wasted reacquainting yourself with the material, whereas if you spend the majority of reading time getting through the article(s,) jot down a couple of things for Parts A/B when writing time begins, but then get straight into L.A. and aim to finish in under an hour, you'll be in a better position to get more credit in the other two sections where the breadth of your coverage is more important.
+ in relation to various queries about what the prompts will be about, obvs. we won't know for sure until 9:00 on Wednesday, but be careful when ruling things out completely, as VCAA can throw you various kinds of curveballs (for reference, see the entirety of the 2011 exam) and one of their favourite curveballs is giving you a familiar concept wrapped up in unfamiliar terminology. So whilst the key areas that have come up in previous years are unlikely/basically impossible options for this year, that doesn't mean VCAA can't alter the wording just to mess with you.
eg. 2012 IL Prompt: The ways in which we understand a landscape and respond to it can change over time.
2014 IL Prompt: Imagination shapes our response to the landscape.
2009 WR Prompt: We do not see things as they are. We see them as we are.
2011 WR Prompt: Shared experience does not mean that people see things the same way.
2010 EC Prompt: It is difficult to remain a bystander in any situation of conflict.
2012 EC Prompt: The experience of conflict changes people’s priorities.
2008 ID&B Prompt: Our relationships with others help us to define who we are.
2011 ID&B Prompt: Without connection to others there is no me.
I'm not saying these prompts are identical, and your responses
should differ depending on the exact wording, but notice how there's a lot of overlap between the kinds of concepts and arguments you'd use in these sets of situations? It's entirely possible VCAA will give you an entirely new bit of terminology that they haven't used before (... in fact that's quite likely,) but the
core of it is still going to fit under that Context umbrella of ideas, and it will still hopefully be fairly familiar to you.
If you're pressed for time, by all means consider what's likely to come up and what you can fairly safely rule out, but make sure you're prepared for a difficult exam just in case. If it ends up being dead easy, then all those complex things you've developed can make your pieces even better. And if it is difficult, then you'll have an edge over the majority of the state who've only prepared for the standard stuff