VCE English Question Thread

[_fruitcake_]

Cheers fruitcake, but do you have any specific improvements for me?

6. What changes do people experience, if any, after they have lived under tyranny for so long?

When people live under tyranny for so long, they start to reform their lifestyles and habits, adjusting them just to survive the oppression. 'Adjusting themselves' would be a better phrase. When you  reform your lifestyle and habits, it means that you  are adapting to the situation. You change your mindset, personality..ect. So its best to summarise all this by 'Adjusting themselves'. It tackles the reform question through a holistic approach.

Vladek constantly stated that he remains a "strong man" throughout the Holocaust, “I was still strong, I could sit through the snow all night”. Good use of embedding quotes

The war took a toll on Vladek, however, after the war had ended, Vladek had changed forever. Very ambiguous sentence. Your vocabulary and structure is letting your ideas down. Its best to make the ideas clear then work on vocabulary. For example, a more clear way of expressing yourself here would be - The war took such a toll on Vladek, that it transformed him forever. Yes you get marked on vocabulary, but you lose way more if your ideas aren't clear. Keeping things short and clear allows you to write more, which means more ideas and concepts to talk about later.

The skills and ideas that Vladek developed during the war to survive became permanent, and he continued to express them in New York. The skills and ideas that Vladek had adopted to survive have become perpetual throughout his later life. The reoccurring problem with your answers is the subtle repetition of ideas. We know from your before sentences that he was in the Holocaust, which means that you dont have to explain later that 'during the war'. You still demonstrate solid ideas which is good.

The reason behind Vladek's substandard behaviours is due to  the scarce conditions he endured, and the only way that he could persevere throughout the war was to cherish and hold on to humanity. Although the war made Vladek stronger and more respectable, it was slowly destroying Anja’s life. Anja was not as strong as Vladek, and thus her post-war experience was dark and depressing. Anja fell victim to depression and was in a world of confusion, which ultimately lead to her death. Anja committed suicide because she could not handle the stress of the war, the overflowing drama and paranoia.Good ideas here... i feel like though your vocabulary is lacking in flair. This might just be me.. however it seems a bit dry. For example i bolded what could be change. This is just some ideas and by no means correct, its just me And by all means it could be wrong

What i would say of it is that its got very good content but vocabulary is at times lacking profoundness .
What I would recommend is to read complex-written books to expand on your vocabulary. Otherwise good effort. I did criticize heavily though and by no means all of what i wrote is correct, i am not an English teacher and i could be mistaken

[cosine]

What i would say of it is that its got very good content but vocabulary is at times lacking profoundness .
What I would recommend is to read complex-written books to expand on your vocabulary. Otherwise good effort. I did criticize heavily though and by no means all of what i wrote is correct, i am not an English teacher and i could be mistaken

Thank you so much _fruitcake_ that was actually very helpful, I will definitely be posting more soon!

Yah I know, my vocabulary needs improvements, my teachers tell me this too, so you're not mistaken
What books do you recommend me reading? Cheers.

[_fruitcake_]

Thank you so much _fruitcake_ that was actually very helpful, I will definitely be posting more soon!

Yah I know, my vocabulary needs improvements, my teachers tell me this too, so you're not mistaken
What books do you recommend me reading? Cheers.

If you are doing conflict - Every man in this village is a liar is great one for conflict - very poetic as well in nature

- A People's Tragedy - very historical, its about the Russian revolution - a good book for revolution students but you can get good insight into language/conflict

In Cold Blood - complex themes and language in this novel

Charles Dickens - author

Frederick Forsyth - author

[heids]

1. What makes someone a survivor like Vladek?

To become a survivor, much like Vladek, an individual must have endured, and essentially have overcome such challenging experiences. The events that Vladek went through can be seen as incomparable, the inhumane treatment, scarce supplies and the deadly diseases that the Jews had to witness overall, just to suffer another day.  Rephrase: 'The inhumane treatment, scarce supplies and deadly diseases Vladek faced daily were incomparable in their brutality.' The conditions were [need a verb or else the sentence is incomplete/a fragment] so bad and the food so scarce, that it was the perfect recipe to "die even more slowly". To give up and “to die, it is easy”, “But you have to struggle for life!” Never write sentences that are solid quote.  Something more like: "While dying is presented as 'easy', [author] underscores the need to 'struggle for life'."  You are writing the sentence, not relying on quotes to write it for you; you should just pinch a word or phrase here and there and integrate them smoothly into your own sentence.  P.S. A person is classified as a survivor when they overcome situations where it is much easier to give up, then to persist and conquer. Surviving situations like this requires not only physical strength, but, more importantly, one must have the correct mindset and emotional stability to endure the conflict.  That is what it takes, to become a survivor like Vladek.

Notes:
> Tense.  Not important, but people often slip between tenses in essays which is bad, so practising writing ENTIRELY in present tense is helpful.

> Until the second-last sentence (which was your best sentence), you didn't actually fully address the question!  Boiling it down, you've said - to be a survivor, you must... er... survive.  You've more defined what a survivor is, than explained how one becomes a survivor, what characteristics someone must have to survive.  You should be delving more into what specific qualities the author is upholding, as qualities important for survival (be even more specific and use quotes/evidence/events to back it up).  Can you contrast him with another character who doesn't survive?  Just because it says 'like Vladek' doesn't mean you're restricted to solely discussing him, like you can say 'X character WASN'T a survivor like Vladek because, unlike Vladek, he...'

> Stick more closely to the text.  Extended responses aren't essays, sure, or phrased like essays (though, while Idk the text, there could actually possibly be an essay question based on this idea!), but you should still treat them like text response essays since that's what you're practising for.  In a text response, you CAN'T come to conclusions without referencing them through the lens of the text, like you can't say, 'surviving situations like this requires not only physical strength, but...' - you have to say 'Vladek's blah blah blah demonstrates that surviving situations...', or '[author] suggests that surviving situations...'.  This is why in text response those verbs, reveals, demonstrates, conveys, illustrates etc. are REALLY REALLY vital; they help you to move between evidence from the text, and what message that shows.  In context, sure, you're discussing the ideas, and the text is just a vehicle, but in text response, you can't ever make statements about life except in as far as the author or text demonstrates that.

> You need MORE specific textual evidence, exact examples where a certain quality of Vladek helps his survival or something.

> P.S. Picking on your quoting from the other ext response: Vladek constantly stated that he remains a "strong man" throughout the Holocaust, “I was still strong, I could sit through the snow all night”.  The 'strong man' quote is perfectly embedded, you see how it fits smoothly into your own sentence?  BUT, the second quote isn't embedded; to be grammatical, you'd need a semi-colon before the quote, but even then that's just tacking on a chunk without fitting it into your flow.  "Vladek's claim that he 'could sit through the snow all night', and constant statement that he remains a 'strong man'..."

[cosine]

Notes:
> Tense.  Not important, but people often slip between tenses in essays which is bad, so practising writing ENTIRELY in present tense is helpful.

> Until the second-last sentence (which was your best sentence), you didn't actually fully address the question!  Boiling it down, you've said - to be a survivor, you must... er... survive.  You've more defined what a survivor is, than explained how one becomes a survivor, what characteristics someone must have to survive.  You should be delving more into what specific qualities the author is upholding, as qualities important for survival (be even more specific and use quotes/evidence/events to back it up).  Can you contrast him with another character who doesn't survive?  Just because it says 'like Vladek' doesn't mean you're restricted to solely discussing him, like you can say 'X character WASN'T a survivor like Vladek because, unlike Vladek, he...'

> Stick more closely to the text.  Extended responses aren't essays, sure, or phrased like essays (though, while Idk the text, there could actually possibly be an essay question based on this idea!), but you should still treat them like text response essays since that's what you're practising for.  In a text response, you CAN'T come to conclusions without referencing them through the lens of the text, like you can't say, 'surviving situations like this requires not only physical strength, but...' - you have to say 'Vladek's blah blah blah demonstrates that surviving situations...', or '[author] suggests that surviving situations...'.  This is why in text response those verbs, reveals, demonstrates, conveys, illustrates etc. are REALLY REALLY vital; they help you to move between evidence from the text, and what message that shows.  In context, sure, you're discussing the ideas, and the text is just a vehicle, but in text response, you can't ever make statements about life except in as far as the author or text demonstrates that.

> You need MORE specific textual evidence, exact examples where a certain quality of Vladek helps his survival or something.

> P.S. Picking on your quoting from the other ext response: Vladek constantly stated that he remains a "strong man" throughout the Holocaust, “I was still strong, I could sit through the snow all night”.  The 'strong man' quote is perfectly embedded, you see how it fits smoothly into your own sentence?  BUT, the second quote isn't embedded; to be grammatical, you'd need a semi-colon before the quote, but even then that's just tacking on a chunk without fitting it into your flow.  "Vladek's claim that he 'could sit through the snow all night', and constant statement that he remains a 'strong man'..."

Thank you so much!! xD

Key things to work on:
- Embedding quotes into sentences, and ensuring they flow
- Vocabulary, mainly verbs to describe certain events
- Relate the ideas explored more to the text and use more examples from the text

Got it, cheers!

[heids]

Yes (love that you're listing it out, a brilliant exercise), and just delve deeper in to the topic in general.  Spend longer brainstorming the different implications, trying to be deeper and more specific and seeing it from different angles.  This one's harder to fix up, because it's a bit intangible - it's more about your THINKING than your writing.  (This was my comment about addressing the question more fully - not just saying what a survivor is, but how one becomes a survivor, what qualities they need.  And looking at other characters.)

Especially relate to the AUTHOR's perspective, btw - show awareness that the author presents the character Vladek in a specific way convey (verb <3) a message about what qualities one needs to be a survivor.

[tashhhaaa]

Hey,

I feel like I'm all out of ideas for context (ID&B) and I want to shake things up a bit.

Are we allowed to discuss controversial or explicit material? For example (not that I will do this exactly), can we write a creative about a drug-affected drag queen? (totally random I know)

I go to a "religious" school so probably not in a SAC, but would this be ok for the exam? Or are examiners really conservative?

[heids]

Hey,

I feel like I'm all out of ideas for context (ID&B) and I want to shake things up a bit.

Are we allowed to discuss controversial or explicit material? For example (not that I will do this exactly), can we write a creative about a drug-affected drag queen? (totally random I know)

I go to a "religious" school so probably not in a SAC, but would this be ok for the exam? Or are examiners really conservative?

I don't actually know, but I personally would say - do the bold, daring thing, rather than trying to play it safe (except, as you say, on SACs).  In general, I think examiners quite like something provocative, interesting and different because they're bored so sick of 'Identity is a key multidimensional aspect of our lives...'.  You want to wake them up and stand out.  Controversial is definitely fine; they've said before in exam reports that they can totally disagree with what you say as long as you write it well and it thoroughly relates to the prompt (avoid something super controversial like gay marriage though).  And most of them would be fine with explicit - you might by chance get someone conservative, but look, when are English teachers conservative?

[tashhhaaa]

I don't actually know, but I personally would say - do the bold, daring thing, rather than trying to play it safe (except, as you say, on SACs).  In general, I think examiners quite like something provocative, interesting and different because they're bored so sick of 'Identity is a key multidimensional aspect of our lives...'.  You want to wake them up and stand out.  Controversial is definitely fine; they've said before in exam reports that they can totally disagree with what you say as long as you write it well and it thoroughly relates to the prompt (avoid something super controversial like gay marriage though).  And most of them would be fine with explicit - you might by chance get someone conservative, but look, when are English teachers conservative?

I personally have a mix of teachers at my school: A couple who are very open minded (younger) and a couple who are ultra-conservative (do I need the hyphen lol) and biased...

I'd have to do a lot of research to write creatives or essays about things I've never experienced so I'm hoping it's worth it...

[literally lauren]

Hey,

I feel like I'm all out of ideas for context (ID&B) and I want to shake things up a bit.

Are we allowed to discuss controversial or explicit material? For example (not that I will do this exactly), can we write a creative about a drug-affected drag queen? (totally random I know)

I go to a "religious" school so probably not in a SAC, but would this be ok for the exam? Or are examiners really conservative?

I'm inclined to say no, because 'being controversial' just for the sake of being controversial doesn't get you any marks :p

If you had a valid reason for exploring a prompt from the perspective of a drugged-up transsexual, then by all means go for it. But if you're just writing a standard piece that shows how some people choose not to belong, or how sometimes our identity changes over time, then there's no real reason to be using that distinctive character or voice.

The question isn't really about whether the examiners will be on-board with more liberal ideas, or if they'll just faint at the mere mention of anything more scandalous than an ankle, but rather what your response has to gain by mentioning certain examples, or writing from a certain point of view! If you think you can offer a more profound insight by using an example that's a bit left-of-field, then I can't imagine too many assessors having a problem with it.

HOWEVER ( ) the aim of the exam is to write what is safe. If you're like me and don't care too much about your score, then you can take some risks here and there (...pretty sure my Context piece contained more than a few silly puns) but ultimately, you don't know who will be reading your piece! I wrote in a completely different way for most of my SACs because I knew who my teacher was and what he was looking for. In the exam, though, you're writing what should suit the majority of teachers around the state.

This is why I generally advise against bringing up any religious or political examples unless they're purely expositional. The last thing you want is to write a piece about why Buddhism is a poor way of dealing with conflict, or why Julia Gillard had a weak sense of self... only to find out your assessor is the most hardcore Labour Buddhist in the state :p

The assessors are MEANT to put aside their biases when marking - and the good one's will - but they're only human, and it's hard for them not to be more critical if you've offended their sensibilities.

But it sounds like you're quite committed to fleshing out this idea and not doing what my friends did by thinking 'imma write from the point of view of a drunk hobo for the lolz' and provided you're doing the research and writing it in a sophisticated way, you should be absolutely fine.

Some optional reading, if you're looking for some different perspectives. Reading things like this can also help you get a sense of the 'voice' in a creative piece, which is just a fancy way of saying 'the pretend person you create as your writer.' Obviously you can't just open the story by saying 'Well as a drag queen junkie, I think identity is a fluid concept' because that would be ridiculous... so you have to find away of creating a character as well as telling a story or reflecting on certain ideas- that's the true challenge of imaginative writing.

Let us know if you've had any thoughts about how you'll go about this - I'd be interested to see how things turn out for this hypothetical cross-dressing drug addict (or whichever character you create)

[heids]

^ I always dive in and give it a go, figuring I'll assume Lauren's too busy to answer all questions and she'll contradict me when I'm wrong so take my answers with a teaspoon of salt
Thanks Lauren

[tashhhaaa]

I'm inclined to say no, because 'being controversial' just for the sake of being controversial doesn't get you any marks :p

If you had a valid reason for exploring a prompt from the perspective of a drugged-up transsexual, then by all means go for it. But if you're just writing a standard piece that shows how some people choose not to belong, or how sometimes our identity changes over time, then there's no real reason to be using that distinctive character or voice.

The question isn't really about whether the examiners will be on-board with more liberal ideas, or if they'll just faint at the mere mention of anything more scandalous than an ankle, but rather what your response has to gain by mentioning certain examples, or writing from a certain point of view! If you think you can offer a more profound insight by using an example that's a bit left-of-field, then I can't imagine too many assessors having a problem with it.

HOWEVER ( ) the aim of the exam is to write what is safe. If you're like me and don't care too much about your score, then you can take some risks here and there (...pretty sure my Context piece contained more than a few silly puns) but ultimately, you don't know who will be reading your piece! I wrote in a completely different way for most of my SACs because I knew who my teacher was and what he was looking for. In the exam, though, you're writing what should suit the majority of teachers around the state.

This is why I generally advise against bringing up any religious or political examples unless they're purely expositional. The last thing you want is to write a piece about why Buddhism is a poor way of dealing with conflict, or why Julia Gillard had a weak sense of self... only to find out your assessor is the most hardcore Labour Buddhist in the state :p

The assessors are MEANT to put aside their biases when marking - and the good one's will - but they're only human, and it's hard for them not to be more critical if you've offended their sensibilities.

But it sounds like you're quite committed to fleshing out this idea and not doing what my friends did by thinking 'imma write from the point of view of a drunk hobo for the lolz' and provided you're doing the research and writing it in a sophisticated way, you should be absolutely fine.

Some optional reading, if you're looking for some different perspectives. Reading things like this can also help you get a sense of the 'voice' in a creative piece, which is just a fancy way of saying 'the pretend person you create as your writer.' Obviously you can't just open the story by saying 'Well as a drag queen junkie, I think identity is a fluid concept' because that would be ridiculous... so you have to find away of creating a character as well as telling a story or reflecting on certain ideas- that's the true challenge of imaginative writing.

Let us know if you've had any thoughts about how you'll go about this - I'd be interested to see how things turn out for this hypothetical cross-dressing drug addict (or whichever character you create)

Thank you so much Lauren, you're truly amazing

I almost died of laughter at this hahahah: "The question isn't really about whether the examiners will be on-board with more liberal ideas, or if they'll just faint at the mere mention of anything more scandalous than an ankle" & the Labour Buddhist part lolol

I've never written a creative in a SAC so that's another reason why I'd like to explore that idea. I'll definitely post or show you whatever I can come up with 

I care about my score but I think I'm more afraid of boring my assessor than shocking them tbh...

[tashhhaaa]

^ I always dive in and give it a go, figuring I'll assume Lauren's too busy to answer all questions and she'll contradict me when I'm wrong so take my answers with a teaspoon of salt
Thanks Lauren

No your advice is just as valuable! Seriously, I look at your Guide to HHD almost religiously, and I have shamelessly stalked your posts to find answers to questions I have... (sorry) 

[heids]

No your advice is just as valuable! Seriously, I look at your Guide to HHD almost religiously, and I have shamelessly stalked your posts to find answers to questions I have... (sorry) 

Dw, I shamelessly stalk all Lauren's posts
... and feel free to ask any questions directly !

[cosine]

After reading the book several times, and I have completed all comprehension questions, what do I do now? (text response essay in 3 weeks)