Enrol now for our new online tutoring program. Learn from the best tutors. Get amazing results. Learn more.

January 29, 2022, 05:35:14 am

### AuthorTopic: Compilation of Text Response Feedback  (Read 75729 times) Tweet Share

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Daenerys Targaryen

• Victorian
• Posts: 606
• Aka HatersGonnaHate
• Respect: +6
##### Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2013, 05:50:32 pm »
+2
On the Waterfront essay
Terry is the sole hero in ‘On the Waterfront’ Discuss

Every story revolves around a single character that emerges as the hero, however none the less to say there is always only one; this is demonstrated in Elia Kazan’s film ‘On the Waterfront’ where the protagonist Terry Malloy is not the sole hero. Heroism exists within: Edie Doyle whom is the driving force in unveiling the truth of Joey’s death, and Father Barry who indirectly succeeds to break the waterfront culture. In contrast to the heroism displayed by Edie and Father Barry, Johnny Friendly is the antagonist; however he is also a hero in his own story. It is the influences of these other heroes in which embark Terry on his adventure to gain courage and heroism.

From the first scenes in which Edie appears, Kazan utilizes her as the initial stimulus to uncover the truths of the corruption that exists on the waterfront. At first sights of Edie, the audience are persuaded to perceive her as the epitome of goodness and kindness. Kazan achieves this visually through Edie’s fluorescent blonde hair in contrast to the dark backgrounds of the film in which she is present. The director also demonstrates Edie’s innocence verbally when she confirms that she has ‘never had a glass of beer’. Further, Kazan exhibits Edie’s kindness through Edie’s philosophy on life; ‘shouldn’t everyone care about everyone else’ in contrast to the longshoremen’s of ‘it’s every man for himself’. Kazan presents Edie in this particular light in order to encourage the audience to understand why Edie has great influence over Terry’s actions. Edie’s expectation of Terry speaking up and telling the truth lingers in Terry’s “conscience” which becomes a crucial factor in the result of Terry testifying against Johnny Friendly, exposing the corruption on the docks. Her contribution in exposing the truth of the deceptions of the waterfront brands her as one of Kazan’s heroes.

Father Barry is commended as a hero for his determination to eradicate the corrupt mob despite his hesitation at the beginning of the film. In order for Father Barry to begin intervening with the waterfront situation, Edie must accuse him of ‘hiding in his church’ for him to realise he must witness the shape-up for himself. Having observed why some get ‘picked’ and others ‘passed over’, he is forced by his duty as a priest, to foster the proposition to take down the mob alongside the longshoremen. The exchange of cigarettes between Father Barry and Dugan symbolizes the allegiance formed. After Father Barry assures Dugan that if he ‘stands up, [he] will stand up with [him]’, Dugan sacrifices his life to put ‘39 pages’ of Johnny Friendly’s ‘operation’ in the hands of the police. However the death of Dugan is proved to have no practical value once Johnny Friendly obtains possession of the documents, due to the dishonest system that extends further than the waterfront. In addition, Father Barry attempts to dissolve the ‘D and D’ culture on the docks by planting seeds of guilt in the longshoremen’s minds. He contends that ‘Jesus stands alongside [them]’ and that ‘keeping silent’ is a ‘crucifixion’, this speech largely impacts on Terry. Consequently, Terry’s guilt consumes him and imposes him to admit his part in Joey’s death to Edie and Father Barry – a stepping stone in the dethroning of Friendly. Furthermore, the Father convinces Terry to ‘fight [Friendly] in the courtroom’ which, to an extent, defeats Johnny Friendly. Father Barry’s commitment to Dugan and the longshoremen is what deems him to be another hero in Kazan’s ‘On the Waterfront’.

In contrast to the purpose of characters such as Edie and Father Barry, Johnny Friendly adopts the role of the villain in the film; however he displays heroism in an omitted story of ‘On the Waterfront’ involving Friendly’s livelihood. Kazan paints Friendly as evil and aggressive in order to amplify the different values of morals between the mob leader and Terry. The audience is given an insight into Friendly’s past where he of ‘ten kids’ were ‘raised on a watchmen’s pension’ and had to ‘beg for work’ when he was young. Naturally, the audience would sympathise for his past, however because the director has presented him as sinister, the audience forget that he is anything other than wicked. It is evident that Johnny Friendly has worked ‘[his] way up’ to wear ‘$150 suits’ and ‘diamond rings’, but his work was not honest, but laced with corruption. Nevertheless, Friendly’s union is a segment of a fraudulent organisation where he is only an underling. This instils the fear of being cut off by his superior Mr. Upstairs. We acknowledge this fear when Mr. Upstairs calls and is ‘plenty hot’, and as a result Friendly requests to see Terry immediately. This is demonstrative of Friendly’s fear of his boss. When Mr. Upstairs states ‘I’m out’ of Friendly’s operation coupled with Friendly’s deprivation of the control over the longshoremen, the audience acknowledges Friendly’s defeat. Ultimately when the evil façade of Johnny Friendly is removed, the audience is able to perceive him as a hero in his own right. Kazan, from the beginning of the film, depicts Terry as a man who is kind separating himself from the people he is associated with. This is evident through the close ups of Terry’s face expressing unease after realising he has become an accessory to the murder of Joey Doyle, juxtaposed with Truck and Tullio’s reaction of pure laughter and no remorse. Consequently, the audience is positioned to adopt sympathy for him at times later in the film, which further reminds the audience of his affability. However there are also times where the audience overlooks his kind persona due to his upbringing, nature and remaining ‘deaf and dumb’. Due to the influences of Edie, Terry advances from not having ‘a spark of sentiment or romance’ to being in ‘love’; the presence of Father Barry paired with the consuming guilt, induces Terry to confess his and the mob’s responsibility of Joey and Dugan’s deaths. This shows the metamorphosis within Terry that needed to occur before he was able to testify against ‘people [he] may know’ and cleanse the waterfront of the mob. In addition, the instruction of Johnny Friendly to have Terry’s brother Charley killed is the trigger in which eventually eradicates the mob from the waterfront union. Ultimately Terry deserves the label of hero, but only if the other characters are worthy too due to their immense contribution towards the defeat of Friendly. In Elia Kazan’s film ‘On the Waterfront’, the director shows that the influences characters have on each other are what deems each of them as heroes. These influences consist of Edie’s perseverance and Father Barry’s commitment to the longshoremen. Kazan also demonstrates how the antagonist Johnny Friendly displays heroism despite his role in the corrupt waterfront. However, Terry’s journey depicts him as the most obvious hero; conversely it is the influences of other characters that reject Terry as the sole hero. I am Daenerys Stormborn of House Targaryen, the Unburnt, Mother of Dragons, Khaleesi to Drogo's riders, and queen of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros 2012: Further | Biology 2013: Methods | Specialist | English | Chemistry | Japanese ATAR: 97.20 #### brenden • Honorary Moderator • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes • Posts: 7185 • Respect: +2590 ##### Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback] « Reply #2 on: February 10, 2013, 08:49:02 pm » +4 Terry is the sole hero in ‘On the Waterfront’ Discuss Every story revolves around a single character that emerges as the hero, however none the lessThis is two of the same thing. "However nevertheless" or ""however despite that". to say there is always only one;Bit of a cool start/haven't seen before. Was confusing. I thought you were agreeing with the prompt until I read your next sentence... I think the part preceding the semi-colon needs revising this is demonstrated in Elia Kazan’s film ‘On the Waterfront’ where the protagonist Terry Malloy is not the sole hero.Really picky here but readers don't want to hear about what isn't. Effective writing will usually convey what is and thus it is known what is not. For example "where the protagonist Terry Mallor is only one of many heroes." I just think the reader would be more satisfied. Heroism exists within: Edie Doyle whom who is the driving force in unveiling the truth of Joey’s death, and Father Barry who indirectly succeeds to break the waterfront culture. I think the colon is superfluous and too strong for the meagre list. I think the sentence would read better without punctuation where the colon is, but with a comma after "Doyle" and "Barry"In contrast to the heroism displayed by Edie and Father Barry, Johnny Friendly is the antagonist This sentence sounds off to me, but I could be imagining things, my initial thought was that it /feels/ unnatural but I didn't know why. BUT, I think it's because you speak of a trait pertaining to Edie and Barry, but then speak of a title pertaining to Johnny, so the 'in contrast' seems awkward because it's like the thoughts are too separate. ; however he is also a hero in his own storySeems like a cool point of view, but I haven't seen the movie.. It is the influences of these other heroes in which embark Terry on his adventure to gain courage and heroism. Nice thesis statement. (if that's what it was intended as and not another point of argument? can't decide lol) From the first scenes in which Edie appears, Kazan utilizes her as the initial stimulus to uncover the truths of the corruption that exists on the waterfront. At first sights of Edie,Just be wary of sentence starters like these. "From the first" "at first sights", it will shape your writing more towards retelling. Doesn't seem so bad now though. It also seems repetitive when you're talking abotu Edie but sort of introduced her introduction twice. the audience are persuaded to perceive her as the epitome of goodness and kindness.If she's actually good and kind, you could just start the sentence like "Edie is characterised as the epitome of goodness and kindness; Kazan promotes the audience's perception of this visually... Kazan achieves this visually through Edie’s fluorescent blonde hair in contrast to the dark backgrounds of the film in which she is present. The director also demonstrates Edie’s innocence verbally when she confirms that she has ‘never had a glass of beer’. Further, Kazan exhibits Edie’s kindness through Edie’s philosophy on life; ‘shouldn’t everyone care about everyone else’ in contrast to the longshoremen’s of ‘it’s every man for himself’. Kazan presents Edie in this particular light in order to encourage the audience to understand why Edie has great influence over Terry’s actions. Edie’s expectation of Terry speaking up and telling the truth lingers in Terry’s “conscience” which becomes a crucial factor in the result of Terry testifying against Johnny Friendly, exposing the corruption on the docks. Her contribution in exposing the truth of the deceptions of the waterfront brands her as one of Kazan’s heroes. Okay, nice. The red seemed slightly repetitive/choppy/could flow better. It was also a bit unconventional how you essentially went "evidence evidence evidence analllysiiiis". I don't see anything wrong with it, I just felt like pointing it out. Could encourage that chop|chop|chop flow, however. Father Barry is commended as a hero for his determination to eradicate the corrupt mob despite his hesitation at the beginning of the film. In order for Father Barry to begin intervening with the waterfront situation, Edie must accuse him of ‘hiding in his church’ for him to realise he must witness the shape-up for himself. Having observed why some get ‘picked’ and others ‘passed over’, he is forced by You changed your tense, keep it consistent (must accused)(forced)his duty as a priest, to foster the proposition to take down the mob alongside the longshoremen. The exchange of cigarettes between Father Barry and Dugan symbolizes the allegiance formed.This seems really like an 'oh by the way' statement that you don't really discuss directly again. Just like "HERE'S A THOUGHTandnowitisgone" AfterKeep in mind what I said about sentence starters and retelling Father Barry assures Dugan that if he ‘stands up, [he] will stand up with [him]’, Dugan sacrifices his life to put ‘39 pages’ of Johnny Friendly’s ‘operation’ in the hands of the police. However the death of Dugan is proved to have no practical value once Johnny Friendly obtains possession of the documents, due to the dishonest system that extends further than the waterfrontbit retelly. In addition, Father Barry attempts to dissolve the ‘D and D’ culture on the docks by planting seeds of guilt in the longshoremen’s minds. He contends that ‘Jesus stands alongside [them]’ and that ‘keeping silent’ is a ‘crucifixion’,I reckon a semi-colon would go better this speech largely impacts on Terry. Consequently, Terry’s guilt consumes him and imposes him to admit his part in Joey’s death to Edie and Father Barry – a stepping stone in the dethroning of Friendly. Furthermore, the Father convinces Terry to ‘fight [Friendly] in the courtroom’ which, to an extent, defeats Johnny Friendly. Father Barry’s commitment to Dugan and the longshoremen is what deems him to be another hero in Kazan’s ‘On the Waterfront’.Seemed like there wasn't a high enough analysis to retell ratio. Your writing is nice... That's all I can really correct when I don't know the text. Your writing is nice enough that you should be getting feedback for both writing and content (anyone here a fan of OTW?) In contrast to the purpose of characters such as Edie and Father Barry, Johnny Friendly adopts the role of the villain in the film; Yeah this is a better sentence than the antagonist referencehowever he displays heroism in an omitted story of ‘On the Waterfront’ involving Friendly’s livelihood. Kazan paints Friendly as evil and aggressive in order to amplify the different values of morals between the mob leader and Terry. The audience is given an insight into Friendly’s past where he of ‘ten kids’ were ‘raised on a watchmen’s pension’ and had to ‘beg for work’ when he was young. Naturally, the audience would sympathise for his past, however because the director has presented him as sinister, the audience forget that he is anything other than wicked. It is evident that Johnny Friendly has worked ‘[his] way up’ to wear ‘$150 suits’ and ‘diamond rings’, but his work was not honest, but laced withbut but corruption. Nevertheless, Friendly’s union is a segment of a fraudulent organisation where he is only an underling. This instils the fear of being cut off by his superior Mr. Upstairs. We acknowledge this fear when Mr. Upstairs calls and is ‘plenty hot’, and as a result Friendly requests to see Terry immediately. This is demonstrative of Friendly’s fear of his boss. When Mr. Upstairs states ‘I’m out’ of Friendly’s operation coupled with Friendly’s deprivation of the control over the longshoremen, the audience acknowledges Friendly’s defeat. Ultimately when the evil façade of Johnny Friendly is removed, the audience is able to perceive him as a hero in his own right.
Yeah I'm struggling to give feedback w/out textual knowledge. I'm tentative to say this but it seems this particular paragraph isn't very strictly discussion the prompt with the exception of the opening and closing lines.
Kazan, from the beginning of the film, depicts Terry as a kind man who is kind separating himself from the people he is associated with. This is evident through the close ups of Terry’s face expressing unease after realising he has become an accessory to the murder of Joey Doyle, juxtaposed with Truck and Tullio’s reaction of pure laughter and no remorse. Consequently, the audience is positioned to adopt sympathy for him at times later in the film, which further reminds the audience of his affability. However there are also times where the audience overlooks his kind persona due to his upbringing, nature and remaining ‘deaf and dumb’. Due to the influences of Edie, Terry advances from not having ‘a spark of sentiment or romance’ to being in ‘love’; the presence of Father Barry paired with the consuming guilt, induces Terry to confess his and the mob’s responsibility of Joey and Dugan’s deaths. This shows the metamorphosis within Terry that needed to occur before he was able to testify against ‘people [he] may know’ and cleanse the waterfront of the mob. In addition, the instruction of Johnny Friendly to have Terry’s brother Charley killed is the trigger in which eventually eradicates the mob from the waterfront union. Ultimately Terry deserves the label of hero, but only if the other characters are worthy too due to their immense contribution towards the defeat of Friendly.
This seems really good.
In Elia Kazan’s film ‘On the Waterfront’, the director shows that the influences characters have on each other are what deems each of them as heroes. These influences consist of Edie’s perseverance and Father Barry’s commitment to the longshoremen. Kazan also demonstrates how the antagonist Johnny Friendly displays heroism despite his role in the corrupt waterfront. However, Terry’s journey depicts him as the most obvious hero; conversely it is the influences of other characters that reject Terry as the sole hero.
Got the feeling this is a pretty good essay haha. I'd really like someone familiar with OTW to give you feedback.
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

#### Lolly

• Victorian
• Posts: 765
• Respect: +114
##### Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2013, 09:56:48 pm »
0
Damn, Brenden, you beat me to it

#### Daenerys Targaryen

• Victorian
• Posts: 606
• Aka HatersGonnaHate
• Respect: +6
##### Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2013, 10:06:25 pm »
-1
Damn, Brenden, you beat me to it
No reason why you can't! Would love another opinion on it!
I am Daenerys Stormborn of House Targaryen, the Unburnt, Mother of Dragons, Khaleesi to Drogo's riders, and queen of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros
2012: Further | Biology
2013: Methods | Specialist | English | Chemistry | Japanese
ATAR: 97.20

#### abcdqdxD

• Part of the furniture
• Posts: 1305
• Respect: +57
##### Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2013, 10:15:47 pm »
+3
I'm probably not in a position to correct your essay, but since I'm doing OTW as well I might as well give it a go:

Ignoring grammatical mistakes corrected by Brendinkles

Every story revolves around a single character that emerges as the hero, however none the less to say there is always only one Not really sure what you're trying to say here; this is demonstrated in Elia Kazan’s film ‘On the Waterfront’ where the protagonist Terry Malloy is not the sole hero Your opening sentence sounds a bit clumsy and lengthy. Heroism exists within: unnecessary use of colonEdie Doyle whom is the driving force in unveiling the truth of Joey’s death, and Father Barry who indirectly succeeds to break the waterfront culture. In contrast to the heroism displayed by Edie and Father Barry, Johnny Friendly is the antagonist simply stating Johnny Friendly is the antagonist is too vague and lacks complexity; however he is also a hero in his own story. It is the influences of these other heroes in which embark Terry on his adventureDoesn't really make sense to gain courage and heroism. "gaining" heroism doesn't really make sense.

From the first scenes in which Edie appears, Kazan utilizes her as the initial stimulus to uncover the truths of the corruption that exists on the waterfront. At first sight of Edie, the audience are persuaded to perceive her as the epitome of goodness and kindness. "epitome" is definitely a good word to use, but following it up with basic words such as "kindness" and "goodness" somewhat undermines your good workKazan achieves this visually through Edie’s fluorescent blonde hair in contrast to the dark backgrounds of the film in which she is present. The director also demonstrates Edie’s innocence verbally when she confirms that she has ‘never had a glass of beer’. Further, Kazan exhibits Edie’s kindness through Edie’s philosophy on life; ‘shouldn’t everyone care about everyone else’ in contrast to the longshoremen’s of ‘it’s every man for himself’. Kazan presents Edie in this particular light in order to encourage the audience to understand why Edie has great influence over Terry’s actions. Edie’s expectation of Terry speaking up and telling the truth lingers in Terry’s “conscience” which becomes a crucial factor in the result of Terry testifying against Johnny Friendly, exposing the corruption on the docks. Her contribution in exposing the truth of the deceptions of the waterfront brands her as one of Kazan’s heroes. You've talked about Edie's innocence, but does that really make her a hero? You should focus more on how Edie acts as Terry's moral compass, and how she was able to change Terry as a man

Father Barry is commended as a hero for his determination to eradicate the corrupt mob despite his hesitation at the beginning of the film. In order for Father Barry to begin intervening with the waterfront situation, Edie must accuse him of ‘hiding in his church’ for him to realise he must witness the shape-up for himself. Having observed why some get ‘picked’ and others ‘passed over’, he is forced by his duty as a priest, to foster the proposition to take down the mob alongside the longshoremen. The exchange of cigarettes between Father Barry and Dugan symbolizes the allegiance formed. After Father Barry assures Dugan that if he ‘stands up, [he] will stand up with [him]’, Dugan sacrifices his life to put ‘39 pages’ of Johnny Friendly’s ‘operation’ in the hands of the police. However the death of Dugan is proved to have no practical value once Johnny Friendly obtains possession of the documents, due to the dishonest system that extends further than the waterfron don't retell the story - analyse itt. In addition, Father Barry attempts to dissolve the ‘D and D’ culture on the docks by planting seeds of guilt in the longshoremen’s minds. He contends that ‘Jesus stands alongside [them]’ and that ‘keeping silent’ is a ‘crucifixion’, this speech largely impacts on Terry you need to watch your expression and flow. Consequently, Terry’s guilt consumes him and imposes him to admit his part in Joey’s death to Edie and Father Barry – a stepping stone in the dethroning of Friendly. Furthermore, the Father convinces Terry to ‘fight [Friendly] in the courtroom’ which, to an extent, defeats Johnny Friendly. You need to explain WHY Father Barry convinced Terry to fight Johnny Friendly in the coutroomFather Barry’s commitment to Dugan and the longshoremen is what deems him to be another hero in Kazan’s ‘On the Waterfront’. I just get the impression that you've just crammed everything into this paragraph, there aren't clear links between sentences, disrupting your flow

In contrast to the purpose of characters such as Edie and Father Barry, Johnny Friendly adopts the role of the villain in the film ; however he displays heroism in an omitted story of ‘On the Waterfront’ involving Friendly’s livelihood. Kazan paints Friendly as evil and aggressive in order to amplify the different values of morals moral values between the mob leader and Terry. The audience is given an insight into Friendly’s past where he of ‘ten kids’ were ‘raised on a watchmen’s pension’ and had to ‘beg for work’ when he was young. Naturally, the audience would sympathise for his past, however because the director has presented him as sinister, the audience forget that he is anything other than wicked. It is evident that Johnny Friendly has worked ‘[his] way up’ to wear ‘\$150 suits’ and ‘diamond rings’, but his work was not honest, but laced with corruption. Nevertheless, Friendly’s union is a segment of a fraudulent organisation where he is only an underling. This instils the fear of being cut off by his superior Mr. Upstairs. We acknowledge this fear when Mr. Upstairs calls and is ‘plenty hot’, and as a result Friendly requests to see Terry immediately. This is demonstrative of Friendly’s fear of his boss. When Mr. Upstairs states ‘I’m out’ of Friendly’s operation coupled with Friendly’s deprivation of the control over the longshoremen, the audience acknowledges Friendly’s defeat. Ultimately when the evil façade of Johnny Friendly is removed, the audience is able to perceive him as a hero in his own right. Evoking sympathy for Friendly doesn't make him a hero

Kazan, from the beginning of the film, depicts Terry as a man who is kind separating himself from the people he is associated with. I think you've jumped into the evidence too quickly. Expand a bit on what you mean by your topic sentenceThis is evident through the close ups of Terry’s face expressing unease after realising he has become an accessory to the murder of Joey Doyle, juxtaposed with Truck and Tullio’s reaction of pure laughter and no remorse. Consequently, the audience is positioned to adopt sympathy for him at times later in the film this reads more like a language analysis than a text response, which further reminds the audience of his affability. However there are also times where the audience overlooks his kind persona due to his upbringing, nature and remaining ‘deaf and dumb’. Due to the influences of Edie, Terry advances from not having ‘a spark of sentiment or romance’ to being in ‘love’; the presence of Father Barry paired with the consuming guilt, induces Terry to confess his and the mob’s responsibility of Joey and Dugan’s deaths. This shows the metamorphosis within Terry that needed to occur before he was able to testify against ‘people [he] may know’ and cleanse the waterfront of the mob. In addition, the instruction of Johnny Friendly to have Terry’s brother Charley killed is the trigger in which eventually eradicates the mob from the waterfront union. Ultimately Terry deserves the label of hero, but only if the other characters are worthy too due to their immense contribution towards the defeat of Friendly.  This paragraph sounds more like retelling the story/bibliography of Terry's life. I think you have overlooked the main point here: it's all about how Terry's morals/conscience/ethics drive him to take a stand against Friendly and his oppressive union.

In Elia Kazan’s film ‘On the Waterfront’ fairly cliche start, you need to do something 'different' to stand out, the director shows that the influences characters have on each other are what deems each of them as heroes. These influences consist of Edie’s perseverance and Father Barry’s commitment to the longshoremen. Kazan also demonstrates how the antagonist Johnny Friendly displays heroism despite his role in the corrupt waterfront. However, Terry’s journey depicts him as the most obvious hero you haven't really explained why Terry is the most "obvious" hero in your body paragraphs. You didn't explain to the audience the significance of his actions in the paragraph above.; don't use a semi colon just for the fun of it, I would put a fullstop hereconversely it is the influences of other characters that reject Terry as the sole hero I know what you're trying to say here, but expression needs work.

I find some parts of your essay to be quite hard to follow. You need to work on your expression and make sure your sentences flow. Another issue is the quality of ideas - make sure you cover the critical points. Also, don't just chuck random quotes in for no reason, make sure they're relevant and use them to make connections with your contention. Despite this, I'd say the quality of the essay is well above average.

#### brenden

• Honorary Moderator
• Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
• Posts: 7185
• Respect: +2590
##### Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2013, 10:20:57 pm »
+1
Damn, Brenden, you beat me to it
Hahaha, I'm quick off the mark! Are you doing OTW? I couldn't give feedback as well as I would have liked due to lack of knowledge.
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

#### Lolly

• Victorian
• Posts: 765
• Respect: +114
##### Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2013, 10:32:32 pm »
+1
No, I'm not doing OTW but maybe the OP would appreciate additional feedback

#### Dank_Lmoa

• Victorian
• Fresh Poster
• Posts: 2
• Respect: 0
• School: Caulfield Grammar School
##### Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2013, 08:32:09 pm »
0
Hey guys, I was wondering if anyone familiar with "Year of Wonders" by Geraldine Brooks is able to help me with my text response. Cheers - A

“Anna’s struggle to find a sense of identity is the real triumph of the novel.” Discuss

Geraldine Brooks’ “Year of Wonders,” is a novel depicting the destruction and degradation of the town of Eaym, through both a brutal disease and a disarray of judgement. Ms Brooks portrays the story and themes through Anna’s eyes, a maiden and servant of Mr Mompellion. The most aggressive of these themes would be change, represented through Anna’s desire and perception of an elusive identity. She, and characters around her, experience her growth from a meek and demure servant, to a character possessing true strength and motivation.

Anna is first described in this novel as a woman experienced in difficult times, whose character has been morphed from soft to hard, accepting to questioning, and obedient to defiant. She first speaks of how she “…used to love this season” and “…used to love to walking in the apple orchard at this time of year,” dictating that her strength of character at one stage eluded her. When initially speaking with her master, Mr Mompellion for example, Anna was in awe and amazement of the man who she described as “… a compassionate and caring leader,” and was more than happy to undertake in any action he desired without defiance. Furthermore, when addressing the rector’s gaze, Anna would often fall short in fear, once again reiterating her demureness. However, later that year, and after a significant amount of work with Elinor Mompellion, Anna gains a level of confidence unbeknown to her previous self. She no longer finds conversing with her rector frightful, but rather enjoyable and interesting. During discussion, there are stages when they speak at a level of almost unrivalled equality, and Anna’s confidence even compels her to speak out against Mr Mompellions stern words to Jane Martin. This is the first time she recognises her change of character, exclaiming she “… could scarce believe she had spoken so.” Another example affirming her change would be her final farewell to the rector. Anna slowly “raised her hand to him,” indicative of her new bravery in possessing the strength to address her former master so unceremoniously.

Another modification within Anna is her reappraisal of religion. Being the rector’s servant, she finds herself compelled to live on the ‘path of God,’ but finds it challenging following the ordeals she encounters during the devastation of England. She is in disbelief at whether the earth is “in the soil beneath us,” or “in His (God’s) word.” This denotes Anna’s love of nature, and resembles a new pragmatic view upon her previously mysterious world, further allowing her to pursue in essential activities surrounding her dwellings. This is particularly prominent in the acquisition of herbs and plant-matter with Elinor, in order to protect the citizens of Eyam to their best ability. Anna ceases to accept ‘God’s judgement,’ but rather attempts to take matters within her own boundaries. She becomes more involved in the translation and interpretation of knowledge and information. Examples of this are prevalent in her decoding of the late Gowdies’ books with Elinor. Anna’s change to a more scientific and technical lifestyle enables her to undertake in tasks that would be seen as excessive for others. She is able to assist in the birthing of young Kate Talbot’s son, and is still in a position to assist in the collection of valuable ores for the young orphaned Quaker, Merry Wickford. This translates directly to a rich experience in life, and acts as the foundation of her identity.

Likened to her attitude toward Mr Mompellion in her metamorphosis, so to does Anteros play an admirable part in denoting it. When, for example, Anna first interacts with Anteros, she is quite timid but compassionate. She offers him an apple, and briefly apologises for his inhumane conditions. Anteros then dismisses her from the stables with a violent gesture, and we are left to acknowledge a resigned Anna. However, only weeks later, and with a far greater level of confidence, she unleashes Anteros and rides him out of town, bareback and “barely decent.” This link with Mompellion’s horse expresses the shift in power within Anna’s internal hierarchical conception. Mr Mompellion is no longer considered a master, but rather a being at a level of equality. Whenever Anna is with Anteros, she displays some sense of courage, mostly prominent in language used during the mounting and departure of Eyam. As Anna rides off, the beating of her heart and hoofs of Anteros scream “We live, we live, we live… I am alive,” also representative of her dismissal of the “shackles” oppressing her free spirit.  Moreover, Anna could be likened to the growth of the sapling from the previously concrete road, with the town’s degradation symbolic of the walnut shell, and Anna the growth and hope, expelled from within.

The altercation Anna undergoes in “Year of Wonders” is both exceptional and extraordinary. Her ability to overcome doubtful scenarios is unparalleled to any other character. Moreover, her relationships within her tale, with both God, and Michael Mompellion, undergo an extensive reappraisal that uncovers her true sense of character and identity. As she transforms through the novel, she gains a sense of confidence, compelling her to leave the city of Eyam and pursue a new life beyond the rector’s servant. This forms the foundation of her identity, and is the most exhilarating obstacle overcame.

#### brenden

• Honorary Moderator
• Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
• Posts: 7185
• Respect: +2590
##### Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2013, 08:38:03 pm »
+1
I call shotgun ^.
Will be back soon. I'm marking one now and have another to go, then I'll come do this one.
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

#### Daenerys Targaryen

• Victorian
• Posts: 606
• Aka HatersGonnaHate
• Respect: +6
##### Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2013, 08:45:32 pm »
0
I call shotgun ^.
Will be back soon. I'm marking one now and have another to go, then I'll come do this one.
Out of curiosity, do you take pleasure in marking essays? Like what kind of gain do you achieve?
I am Daenerys Stormborn of House Targaryen, the Unburnt, Mother of Dragons, Khaleesi to Drogo's riders, and queen of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros
2012: Further | Biology
2013: Methods | Specialist | English | Chemistry | Japanese
ATAR: 97.20

#### Dank_Lmoa

• Victorian
• Fresh Poster
• Posts: 2
• Respect: 0
• School: Caulfield Grammar School
##### Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #11 on: February 11, 2013, 08:51:14 pm »
0
Thanks Brenny

#### brenden

• Honorary Moderator
• Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
• Posts: 7185
• Respect: +2590
##### Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #12 on: February 11, 2013, 09:18:31 pm »
+3
Out of curiosity, do you take pleasure in marking essays? Like what kind of gain do you achieve?
Uhm. I get pretty bored sometimes but for the most part it's okay. I dunno if I'd get a "gain" from it. I feel more like I'm fulfilling a responsibility, but I do like teaching (refer to sig). Like... I've got the time, I've got the ability, I don't mind doing it and sometimes I enjoy it (more so when I get bored and start giving my feedback in a hilarious way), it's really good for you guys to get some help, especially if you have a shitty as fuck teacher, so... why not?
I also used these boards once or twice, so I'm paying a debt forward a little bit as well

Thanks Brenny
All goodz in da hoodz brah.
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

#### brenden

• Honorary Moderator
• Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
• Posts: 7185
• Respect: +2590
##### Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2013, 01:06:43 am »
+3
“Anna’s struggle to find a sense of identity is the real triumph of the novel.” Discuss

Geraldine Brooks’ “Year of Wonders,” is a novel depicting the destruction and degradation of the town of Eaym, through both a brutal disease and a disarray of judgement. Ms Brooks Interesting. I've never heard someone use a gender title in an essay. It sounds nice, though. If it doesn't remain consistent through the essay however, you should get rid of it. portrays the story and themes through Anna’s eyes, a maiden and servant of Mr Mompellion. The most aggressive of these themes would be change, represented through Anna’s desire and perception of an elusive identity. She, and characters around her, experience her growth from a meek and demure servant, to a character possessing true strength and motivation.
Nice introduction. Writing is good. The structure of this intro is quite contrary to what I use through what I've been taught/what I've read etc. I hesitate to correct the structure because your writing is good enough, so perhaps this is just the way you're taught strictly. I'm not so arrogant as to say that my way is better than your way, but would you like me to outline my way? Perhaps you are hiding some confusion behind eloquent writing.
Anna is first described in this novel as a woman experienced in difficult times, whose character has been morphed from soft to hard, accepting to questioning, and obedient to defiant.The writing is nice but due to the nature of your introduction and the nature of this topic sentence, I still don't know 100% what  you will be discussing this paragraph. This is the aim of your topic sentence; to encompass your argument. You haven't given me an argument here, rather a recap of how Anna is described. She first speaks of how she “…used to love this season” and “…used to love to walking in the apple orchard at this time of year,” dictating that her strength of character at one stage eluded herHm? Interesting interpretation. I wouldn't take loving the season/orchard as a sign of weakness... Rather the memories have been tainted by the plague (and the symbolism of it the apples hold). I think you'd need to justify/explain it further if you wanted to call it weakness. Another option would be to take this evidence and say how the mystery hints at a conflict of identity and the theme therein.  . When initially speaking with her master, Mr Mompellion for exampledon't say for example. Work it into your essay with more sophistication, Anna was in awe and amazement of the man who she described as “… a compassionate and caring leader,” and was more than happy to undertake in any action he desired without defiance.At the moment it seems like you're story telling but I'm assuming you're going to juxtapose evidence and then analyse Furthermore, when addressing the rector’s gaze, Anna would often fall short in fear, once again reiterating her demureness. However, later that year, and after a significant amount of work with Elinor Mompellion, Anna gains a level of confidence unbeknownst to her previous self. She no longer finds conversing with her rector frightful, but rather enjoyable and interesting. During discussion, there are stages when they speak at a level of almost unrivalled equality, and Anna’s confidence even compels her to speak out against Mr Mompellions stern words to Jane Martin. Still story tellingThis is the first time she recognises her change of character, exclaiming she “… could scarce believe she had spoken so.” Another example yucky. This just demonstrates you want to throw evidence at the examiner.affirming her change would be her final farewell to the rector. Anna slowly “raised her hand to him,” indicative of her new bravery in possessing the strength to address her former master so unceremoniously.In this paragraph you essentially give an outline of how once upon a time, Anna was submissive, but now she is dominant. It neglects the second half of the prompt. You don't much discuss how this is the triumph of the novel at all. You've just taken "sense of identity" and written about how Anna has strengthened through the novel, there's not really any nitty gritty analysis here. (I always found it difficult with character prompts)

Another modification within Anna is her reappraisal of religion This TS reinforces the idea that you haven't fully addressed the prompt. You're discussing how her modifications are a triumph of the novel, now just her modifications. Being the rector’s servant, she finds herself compelled to live on the ‘path of God,’ but finds it challenging following the ordeals she encounters during the devastation of EnglandYou should probably mention the plague at some point lol. She is in disbelief at whether the earth is “in the soil beneath us,” or “in His (God’s)nooopppppe. Never bracket like this. The capital H is plenty. Only use parenthesis > [these]< if you want to substitute a word to better embed it. word.” This denotes Anna’s love of nature, and resembles a new pragmatic view upon her previously mysterious world, further allowing her to pursue in essential activities surrounding her dwellings. This is particularly prominent in the acquisition of herbs and plant-matter with Elinor, in order to protect the citizens of Eyam to their best ability. Anna ceases to accept ‘God’s judgement,’ but rather attempts to take matters within her own boundaries. She becomes more involved in the translation and interpretation of knowledge and information. Examples of this are prevalent in her decoding of the late Gowdies’ books with Elinor. Anna’s change to a more scientific and technical lifestyle enables her to undertake in tasks that would be seen as excessive for others. She is able to assist in the birthing of young Kate Talbot’s son, and is still in a position to assist in the collection of valuable ores for the young orphaned Quaker, Merry Wickford. This translates directly to a rich experience in life, and acts as the foundation of her identity.
I still found this lacking in analysis and not fully addressing the prompt. I think disagreeing with it would've allowed a better scope of discussion.
Likened to her attitude toward Mr Mompellion in her metamorphosis, so too does Anteros play an admirable part in denoting itI needed to read this three times. Probably a sign that you should change something around.. When, for exampleget rid of it., Anna first interacts with Anteros, she is quite timid but compassionate. She offers him an apple, and briefly apologises for his inhumane conditions. Anteros then dismisses her from the stables with a violent gesture, and we are left to acknowledge a resigned Anna.Retelling. However, only weeks later, and with a far greater level of confidence, she unleashes Anteros and rides him out of town, bareback and “barely decent.” This link with Mompellion’s horse expresses the shift in power within Anna’s internal hierarchical conception. Mr Mompellion is no longer considered a master, but rather a being at a level of equality. Whenever Anna is with Anteros, she displays some sense of courage, mostly prominent in language used during the mounting and departure of Eyam.You should google the meaning of Anteros' name. That'd give you some pretty solid analysis. As Anna rides off, the beating of her heart and hoofs of Anteros scream “We live, we live, we live… I am alive,” also representative of her dismissal of the “shackles” oppressing her free spirit.  Moreover, Anna could be likened to the growth of the sapling from the previously concrete road, with the town’s degradation symbolic of the walnut shell, and Anna the growth and hope, expelled from within.That last sentence was irrelevant to the rest of your paragaph/had nothing to do with your topic sentence and seems like a 'throwaway' line.

The altercation Anna undergoes in “Year of Wonders” is both exceptional and extraordinary. Her ability to overcome doubtful scenarios is unparalleled to any other character. Moreover, her relationships within her tale, with both God, and Michael Mompellion, undergo an extensive reappraisal that uncovers her true sense of character and identity. As she transforms through the novel, she gains a sense of confidence, compelling her to leave the city of Eyam and pursue a new life beyond the rector’s servant. This forms the foundation of her identity, and is the most exhilarating obstacle overcame.

You've quite nice writing (as can be seen by the lack of corrections)... However I just straight up don't think this has fully addressed the prompt. I think it lacks analysis. To rectorfy (okay that was terrible I'm so sorry) both of these things, I'd discuss the messages Brooks is trying to convey through Anna's metamorphosis and how having this as the real triumph of the novel serves to endorse/reinforce the messages Brooks is sending through Anna. Fixes both of your problems because a) you'll be discussing the author (which conspicuously wasn't done in your essay) and this will keep your analysis on track because you'll be using 'why' and 'how' automatically instead of just 'what'. Annnnd b) because you can't really go off track of the prompt when you're literally discussing why Brooks has made the prompt so. This is a pretty big call for me to make so I'm going to message VivaT and just give him the chance to disagree just in case I'm fucking you up. I'm entirely happy to be wrong. It'll look pretty funny if he disagrees.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2013, 01:16:14 am by Brendinkles »
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

#### brenden

• Honorary Moderator
• Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
• Posts: 7185
• Respect: +2590
##### Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2013, 07:21:39 pm »
+1
An anon submission

“Anna is not an objective observer, but this is not a problem. Her subjectivity enhances the impact of Stasiland.” Discuss the narrative point of view in Stasiland.

An intriguing introduction to a city where life will always be an emotional cabaret, Stasiland is fundamentally a personal exploration of the Stasi’s legacy. At the broadest level, Funder renders the foreign comprehensible from a fictitious perspective, where it is the subjectivity of the text that distinguishes the genre from historiography. Nevertheless, in order to effectively communicate the text’s central ideas, and explore and elucidate the consequences of events, a combination of fact and fiction is needed.  Funder’s manipulation of metalanguage observed in formatting and structure, tantamount to her unconventional narration enhances the effect of the text.
It is through the genre of the text that subjectivity is perceived. By appealing to literary journalism, Funder deviates from traditional modes of writing posthumous biographies, as this genre gives her more narrative space, leeway or freedom to stray from objectivity and facts. As a result, Funder is able to incorporate a complex narrative time-frame – depicted in present and past – in her writing. Primarily, this is observed when Funder implies that the ‘present’ is set in 1996 when she visits Berlin to research Miriam’s story, comprising of the concluding chapters set in the spring of 2000; whereas, the string of tales recounted by the interviewees occurred in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Accompanying this delicate oscillation in time, Funder’s distinct division of narration into a first-person active voice and third-person omniscient narration suggests a fiction-writing technique. In particular, Funder’s first-person active voice renders her a foreigner, or someone who is vulnerable in the German Democratic Republic because she is incapable of comprehending it. Such is evident when Funder says, “I want to ask, but I sit tight” or “Sometimes, I wonder what it would be like to be German”. Consequently, this technique enables Funder’s Australian nature, and thus subjectivity, to assert itself sporadically throughout the text. Instances of this include Funder’s sojourn to the local Berlin swimming pool where she internally expresses her disgust for the “bathing” practices of Europe, or when she uses the simile “like a fugitive” to illuminate the obsession with identification papers in East Germany. Additionally, because of first-person active voice, she is given freedom to make overt judgements or assumptions about things, as is evident when Funder asserts that Sigrid Paul “overestimated her own strength”.  This intricate change in narration distinguishes itself from objectivity for the better, since the reader must not endure a constant form of narration throughout the text and experiences differing stylistic features. Simultaneously, the leitmotif that the past is not yet over is also conveyed.
Funder’s implementation of objectivism into her writing is crucial to the balance between fact and fiction in the text. Specifically, the third person omniscient narration enables Funder to solely provide the facts in an impersonal manner, as is observed with her reference to the allies and arrival of Glasnost. By the same token, the precision of Funder’s language is such that her meticulous attention to detail also highlights the objectivity of the text and establishes a conceivable setting, as is noted when she describes the “beautiful cross-eyed mother” with the “pierced nose” aboard the train to Potsdam or focuses on the scarcity of Julia’s apartment in sharing her story. The use of this precise language helps to rebuild the lives of those who were victimised by the Stasi, predominantly because “the Firm” would falsify the lives of these people. The “internal army” did this by recording personal information in their unofficial biographies, putting residents in a very vulnerable position, as this information could be used as blackmail to inflict punitive measures or manipulate people to become informers, leading to the destruction of relationships. A particularly notable example of this was with Hagen Koch, who divorced with his wife on account of her believing the Stasi’s duplicitousness with regard to the “pornography” in which her husband was embroiled. Funder succeeds in replacing these deceitful notions into objectivity due to this precision of detail, such that the reader is able to grasp the true personality of the interviewee.
Arguably the metalanguage primarily underscores the creativity of the text, and thus, enhances the subjectivity of the text. This is firstly observed through the structure, where the anachronous composition of events deviates from the conventions of historiography to show that Funder is concerned with personal histories and the significance of facts instead of the bare facts themselves, catering as an effective and compelling structuring technique. In fact, this structure is underscored through the chapter-by-chapter analysis of characters, where the varying lengths of chapters are devoted to individual anecdotes and each story is self-contained. Such a structure conveys the sheer extent of damage inflicted by the Stasi, portrayed by the fact that the people have so many important and distinct stories to tell. This liberty of narrative space also confers enormous respect upon the story tellers, adopting a humanising strategy to contrast sharply with the degrading and demeaning tactics employed by the Stasi. Ultimately, it is the very vividness of this language that enables the reader to easily imagine the horror of Hohenschönhausen on reading Funder’s description of the smell of “damp and old urine and vomit and earth: the smell of misery”, or to conceive the fanatical celebration of communist heroes with Funder’s description of the “god-like busts” with “flowing hair” and the “long row of clenched plaster fists sticking up for international socialism” on display at Stasi Headquarters. The use of such graphic language is reinforced through Funder’s appeal to figurative language, as is evident in descriptions of Hohenschönhausen’s torture cells that liken contraptions to “an apparatus at a county fair” or “some Pythonesque sideshow of history”. The alien landscape these figurative devices help Funder to communicate is an emotional rather than a physical one. Similarly, by portraying Frau Paul as a “lonely, teary guilt-wracked wreck”, the writer aims to draw vibrant, identifiable and believable characters to communicate the enormity of the pain and loss these people have experienced.
Conversely, Stasiland is a text based on dates and historical evidence; its existence would deem farcical if the construction of the arbitrary Berlin Wall had not occurred.  In essence, such implies that the fiction or narrative viewpoint in Funder’s writing is reliant on the facts or solid evidence, where appeal to a more literary and fantastical means of exploring these facts merely makes for an interesting read. Whilst Funder’s main focus is on extrapolating and investigating the repercussions of actions by the Stasi and interviewees, it should be noted that the existence of bare facts is vital, such that readers are not constantly influenced by the narrator, and instead, can draw their own conclusions. For example, Funder may proclaim that the Wall was designed to “keep people separate from each other”. However, this assumption is contrary to the ideology of the USSR, who found the Wall a necessity to protect its people from the tyranny and corruption of the West. These conflicting ideologies greatly deviate from the real or “Insiderkommitees” reason for the construction of the Wall – to save Stalin’s communist regime from embarrassment, as the exodus into West Berlin from the East demonstrated the political and economic instability of Communism. In like fashion, Funder describes the wall as a “horror-romance”, whereas the perspectives of von-Schnitzler and Herr Winz on the Wall’s existence negate a different contention, which gives readers insight into the fact that individuals harbour differing opinions on undertakings in history. Because of this, the provision of factual evidence becomes obligatory for the reader to consider the historical event impartially.
Even though Funder places greater significance on elaborating the consequences of historical events, thus employing a tacit subjectivity by appealing to opinion, her objectivity is underscored through the rationale she demonstrates in her precise lexicon. This literal technique is further augmented through the detail provided in articulating the wholesomeness of an environment, where the journalistic genre gives her credibility to do so. The compilation of these linguistic elements enhances the narrative viewpoint of the text.
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️