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

January 29, 2022, 06:20:10 am

AuthorTopic: Compilation of Text Response Feedback  (Read 75752 times) Tweet Share

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

brenden

• Honorary Moderator
• Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
• Posts: 7185
• Respect: +2590
Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #45 on: April 12, 2013, 02:12:06 am »
+3
*Will get to the other essays when I have more time/energy. But two 12AM (my text in VCE) is easy to do for me/quick
*Sin, I have been brief with your feedback because I'm just going to write out an example and show you what to do, because I don't sense confidence in your writing.
Could someone please point out how I can may improve the following intros: Don't mind if I do.

‘Twelve Angry Men exposes the weaknesses of the jury system as well as its’ strengths.’  Discuss this statement.
Both the fragility and the beauty of the jury system are brought out in Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men. I will discuss this later., see below. Rose presents the jurors that allow certain preoccupations to influence their vote in the trial, in a negative light, when juxtaposed against the more open-minded members of the jury, the positive qualities of whom are more prominent.  These clauses don't work well together and it breaks your flow. You could also be clearer in your idea and more direct. Again, see below.[color=yellow] However, the weakness of the juridical system is shown more through the characters from the jury that refuse to fulfil their legal privileges legal privileges is an odd term. Also think you could be stronger and clearer. The idea is to give the assessor your 3 ideas in your intro, and then really flesh them out in the paragraphs. [/color]. More importantly, Rose depicts the strength of this legal system, through the jury’s is ability to deliver a reasonable verdict unanimously, regardless of the disputes that arise between some individual jurors. Okay. This is your clearest. Still could be clearer. Will you be talking about the disputes? The characters? The unanimous verdict in itself? You also need a thesis statement here. See below.

‘In Twelve Angry Men, Juror 3 seems at first sight to be a simple character, but is in fact the most complicated.’ Discuss this statement.’
good prompt. I like it.
‘I’m an excitable person’, Juror three’s justification for starting disputes against other jurors, initially presents his character to be simply aggressive and impatient. But as the intricacies of Reginald Rose’s play, ‘Twelve Angry Men’, unfold, the third juror’s troubled relationship with his son is made known to the jury and hence the ulterior motive behind juror three’s unfaltering vote of ‘guilty’  is slowly derived by the jury, hence hinting the complexities of his character. Way too much going on. Some punctuation slips Rose portrays the third juror to be a broken man, who at first, is able to initially deceive the other jurors into simply viewing him as an ‘excitable person’, but eventually deceives himself as he finally changing his vote and hence closing the jury Thesis statement here..

A good introduction is like good foreplay. Literally. I'm not kidding. Think of an essay like sex. If you just dive the fuck in, it's just not going to go down well. You need to be sensual. Beautiful. You need to caress the mind of the reader in a way that leaves them wanting to read essays over and over again. It should be an emotional journey with many skilful variations. (Okay I have no fucking idea what I just said but you get the point. The intro warms stuff up and provides and excellent base for the essay.) At the same time, it gives the first impression of your essay. For this reason, my intros are often long. I heard a lot of people say they wrote their intros in five minutes, but I wrote my intro in around twelve minutes, because I wanted to make sure it was a) beautiful writing b) beautiful ideas c) excellent foreplay for the assessor's mind.

-Contextualising sentence. 12AM has a rich history. You need to discuss this for full marks. (I'm really against saying 'you NEED to do this for full marks'... but really... if you ignored the history/society/values... well... it would be extremely, extremely difficult.)
-Clarifications on anything you want. You have a free second sentence here. Clarify the prompt, clarify the history, do what you want.
-Overall message Rose provides/contention of your essay.
-Second paragraph's idea
-Third Paragraph's idea
-First paragraph's idea
Thesis statement.

I do the first paragraph's idea last because it will flow well into P1. Third para second because this should be a 'however' paragraph, and introducing the 'however' as the first idea in the intro will flow funny, thus, put it second.

My recommendation to you is that you identify your ideas in your mind, clearly. Then think of them in terms of what paragraphs they will be.Then, articulate exactly what was in your head onto the paper (gosh, I make it sound so easy!)
Let's go through the process.
I was going to do it with your ideas, but I'll do it with mine just so you get some added benefits. MAKE SURE YOU ARE A FILTER OF MY IDEAS AND NOT A SPONGE. BE CRITICAL. DON'T ACCEPT EVERYTHING I SAY JUST BECAUSE I'M A 12AM MONSTER, QUESTION EVERYTHING!

‘Twelve Angry Men exposes the weaknesses of the jury system as well as its’ strengths.’  Discuss this statement.

This is quite similar to my prompt last year (concerned with abuse of power, so I largely discussed the jury system). (You will be able to see my laziness where I regurgitate some of what I wrote)
So. The ideas in my head are
-Rose condemns the adversary system of trial
-Rose uses 8th Juror to highlight strengths of justice system
-Rose uses the characterisation of some jurors to highlight further weaknesses of the jury system through weaknesses in society (10th, 3rd, 7th, more(?) )

Preceding the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the McCarthyist paranoia provoked much fallacious propaganda from the American Government. Subsequently, much of the Government's power was abused to promote xenophobia and prejudicial attitudes. Thus, as Twelve Angry Men acts as a social commentary, playwright Reginald Rose condemns the jury system, both as a cross-section of society and as a corrupted government structure. Rose utilises the dialogue of his characters to expose the ways in which features of the adversary system of trial can exacerbate injustices.  However, as the play's protagonist is used as an embodiment for Rose's idealistic view of an American man, Twelve Angry Men also features the strengths of the American justice system. Conversely, Rose characterises the antagonist and antagonistic jurors in a way that exposes the gross flaws of the jury system and society therein. Hence, Rose presents a dichotomous view of the jury system, illuminating both its weaknesses and its strengths.

Preceding the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the McCarthyist paranoia provoked much fallacious propaganda from the American Government. Subsequently, much of the Government's power was abused to promote xenophobia and prejudicial attitudes. Thus, as Twelve Angry Men acts as a social commentary, playwright Reginald Rose condemns the jury system, both as a cross-section of society and as a corrupted government structure. So there's my contextualisation and my 'extra' bit. The extra bit has also formed my contention. Hm. I didn't think this out well. Rose utilises the dialogue of his characters to expose the ways in which features of the adversary system of trial can exacerbate injustices. So there's my second paragraph. See the specification? I will be talking about the dialogue of the characters and how these highlight the weaknesses of the adversary system of trial. (I'm being cheeky here - I'm specific and direct, so you can see my main idea, however, when I get to this paragraph, I can literally talk about anything, because most of the play is dialogue. I could also work in stage directions as complex evidence and still have it relevant to my topic sentence if I were crafty enough. However, as the play's protagonist is used as an embodiment for Rose's idealistic view of an American man, Twelve Angry Men also features the strengths of the American justice system. Specific again. You know I'll be talking about 8th Juror, and you know I'll be saying the strengths are shown through him. There's stilll a whole bunch of shit to discuss in my paragraph though (objectivity, compassion, morality, whatever) - but you know exactly what my idea is. Conversely, Rose characterises the antagonist and antagonistic jurors in a way that exposes the gross flaws of the jury system and society therein. This third sentence could be better and I'd like to give it a semi-colon and another clause but we aren't aiming for perfection here, just a strong example). Hence, Rose presents a dichotomous view of the jury system, illuminating both its weaknesses and its strengths. Thesis statement sums your whole contention with some 'oomph'... In this case, my contention is exactly the prompt, so my thesis statement is quite similar to that prompt.

So I think you should be stronger in the structuring of your introduction and articulate your ideas with strength. Despite it not being mindblowing, the above is still a good example of a stronger intro, so you should be able to see the benefits. For the intros you already have, I think you should read them to yourself aloud, paying strict attention to the punctuation. It should sound strange to you. You know you have perfect expression if you can read your essay aloud and it will sound like you  are having a formal discussion with someone else and they do not need to ask questions because you've articulated so well. This is the difference between an essay and conversation... In a conversation, we can be like --
"Yeah but you know how 8th Juror is sort of good but he does bad stuff at the same time??"
"How do you mean?"
"Like when he gets the knife illegally?"
"Ohhhh yeah I getchya. Yeah, that sort of shows the difference between legality and morality."

Speakers can question, can start and stop their sentences, can jump from idea to idea. But in an essay, the reader does not get a chance to ask questions, so you need to leave everything confidently expressed so the reader has no questions. You'll get this from good punctuation and clear language.

✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

brenden

• Honorary Moderator
• Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
• Posts: 7185
• Respect: +2590
Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #46 on: April 15, 2013, 08:34:24 pm »
+1
‘Quit worrying about the truth all the time. Worry about yourself.’ To what extent is this the point of view of the film?

On the Waterfront depicts the development of the protagonist, Terry Molloy, from someone who is a selfish member of the mob and who lacks the strength to oppose their deceit, to a truly honest and considerate individual This seems like it jumped straight into the deep end. Warm it up with a contextualising sentence (refer to earlier essay's feedback on this thread). This change is perhaps mostly due to the influence of Edie Doyle, who is herself a likewise compassionate person. Through Elia Kazan’s endorsement of these two major characters, then, in addition to his disdain for the antagonist Johnny Friendly, the film presents how a commitment to consideration and to the ‘truth’ are crucial to a moral person. Refer to the post above this where I go through introductions, I think you could benefit. Nice writing, but I'd change the structure [see above]
Conversely, there are many more immoral characters in the film, most prominently those members of the Mob who maintain the ‘deaf and dumb’ principle. Conversely, there are many immoral characters in the film; specifically, the members of the Mob who maintain the 'deaf and dumb' principle. I really need to watch this movie, so many people write on it. "Maintain" the principle sounds off, also. Sounds like it should be 'practice', but it's hard to say when I don't know the principle lol. I also removed "more" from 'more immoral' because the 'more' could have been 'the quantity of immoral characters is great' or 'the immorality of some characters is greater than that of other characters' (it pays to be specific)Their absence of ethics an ethical code is portrayed from the very first scene evident from the film's onset, where two members are able to joke about Joey Doyle’s death without feeling guilty; ‘he was a canary, but he couldn’t fly’. The Mob’s overall selfish mentality is epitomised by Charley’s comment, ‘if we can get it, we’re entitled to it’, which Kazan undermines through the suffering the Mob causes. The director moreover lambastes Johnny Friendly, who ‘did it to Joey, did it to Dugan, and did it to Charley, who was one of [his] own’, as the leader of the Mob is therefore seen as lacking loyalty. Similarly, in the opening scene, the member of the Mob who is $50 short is immediately assaulted by Johnny Friendly, indicating his harsh, unforgiving nature. This is in stark contrast to even the initially flawed Terry of the early stages of the film – much less the mature, resilient Terry of the closing stages – as the protagonist only feels as though he should support the Mob because of his loyalty to his ‘Uncle Johnny’ and to his brother Charley. Indeed, Terry’s comment that Edie should ‘worry about [her]self’ has two dimensions, incorporating not only the surface view that Terry here lacks the moral strength to oppose the Mob’s corruption, but furthermore that he cares about Edie. As Terry is the eventual hero of the film towards whom the audience is always sympathetic, in contrast to the villainous Mob who are seen as the villains, Kazan promotes the quality of selfless loyalty whilst undercutting the opposing fault of only ‘worry[ing] about [one]self’. Fantastic - specifically the last half. Well done The epitome of these virtues is Edie Doyle, as exemplified by her belief ‘shouldn’t everybody [should care about everybody else?’ She is initially the only character who sees the positive side of Terry Molloy whereas others think him a ‘bum’. Edie is also initially the only person who is willing to investigate her brother’s death, whilst even her father believes that Joey should have merely remained silent. Another who is likewise able to worry about the welfare of others is Father Barry as he condemns those who ‘make the love of a buck more important than the love of your fellow man’. In addition, his willingness to be resilient in the face of the Mob’s oppression, convincing both Kayo Dugan and Terry Molloy to confess to the authorities, allows Kazan to highlight the importance of honesty. Without successfully informing the public of the Mob’s corruption, the workers would be subject to the unfairness of those who ‘do none of the work and take all of the gravy’, which is indeed the setting for the majority of the text. The willingness of Edie and Father Barry to be honest, moral people also sparks the change in Terry Molloy, exemplified in the scene involving the Father’s sermon where Terry hits a member of the Mob for throwing bananas at the priest. What is hence suggested by Kazan, then, is that one’s purity can not only directly benefit the community, but moreover inspire others to become likewise righteous. Again, nice writing. This paragraph felt a bit shallower... like there could have been some gold midway but lost it on the finish (keep in mind I don't know the text at all :/) Terry’s improvement over the course of the film thus sees Kazan emphasise endorse those vital qualities of honesty and empathy that constitutes the perspective of the film.constitute a perspective sounds strange The question of honesty versus deceit, of who is ‘ratting’ on who, is answered by Terry’s exchange with the priest: ‘If I spill, my life won’t be worth a nickel’ versus ‘How much is your soul worth if you don’t?’ This leads Terry to the realisation that ‘I’ve been ratting on myself all these years’, with the general duplicity pervading the film reflected in the fog that permeates all of the scenes except the final one. Here Terry’s willingness to suffer the assault of the Mob so that he can demonstrate their relative lack of power for his ‘fellow man’ also indicates Terry’s newfound consideration. The height of his self-sacrifice occurs when the lurching camera follows his staggering walk so that the other workers can go to work, as Terry’s moral fortitude allows him to overcome both his physical pain and the symbolic power of the Mob. However, Terry’s empathy is in addition seen in even the beginning of the film, as the protagonist is endorsed for his care for his pigeons. This of course foreshadows Terry’s eventual act to reveal the Mob’s ruthless schemes through the metaphor of the Mob to the workers as the hawks to his pigeons. Terry’s development, though, is not the solitary example of how honesty and empathy can spark a change; Charley’s love for his brother sees him sacrifice his own life in order to protect Terry, whilst Pop Doyle’s love for his son and daughter allows him to eventually throw Johnny Friendly into the water in the final scene. Therefore, Elia Kazan’s On the Waterfront underline the text title. presents a victory for those that worry about the truth and about others, over the disingenuousness and selfishness of the Mob. This is especially apparent as Terry’s comment towards Edie concerning this is partially made in fear for her safety, thus punctuating his own capacity for sympathy which is juxtaposed against his actual words. Indeed, all of the likeable characters of the film – Terry, Edie, Charley, Joey, and more – are willing to sacrifice their own comfort in order to reveal the truth, allowing Kazan to position the audience into believing these values essential to a moral person. This seems to be a great response ✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️ Iniquity • Victorian • Forum Regular • Posts: 66 • Respect: +4 • School Grad Year: 2013 Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback] « Reply #47 on: April 25, 2013, 12:38:45 am » +5 PI_3.14's comments were great, so I'll be focusing on the details of the film. Please take my advice (corrections in purple, comments in bold purple) with a grain of salt, since I haven't actually done a SAC for Waterfront yet! ‘Quit worrying about the truth all the time. Worry about yourself.’ To what extent is this the point of view of the film? On the Waterfront depicts the development of the protagonist, Terry Molloy Malloy, from someone who is a selfish member of the mob and who lacks the strength to oppose their deceit, to a truly honest and considerate individual This seems like it jumped straight into the deep end. Warm it up with a contextualising sentence (refer to earlier essay's feedback on this thread). This change is perhaps mostly due to the influence of Edie Doyle, who is herself a likewise compassionate person. Through Elia Kazan’s endorsement of these two major characters, then, in addition to his disdain for the antagonist Johnny Friendly, the film presents how a commitment to consideration and to the ‘truth’ are crucial to a moral person. Refer to the post above this where I go through introductions, I think you could benefit. Nice writing, but I'd change the structure [see above] Conversely, there are many more immoral characters in the film, most prominently those members of the Mob who maintain the ‘deaf and dumb’ principle adhere to the tacit and dubious principle of "D and D" (Deaf and Dumb). Conversely, there are many immoral characters in the film; specifically, the members of the Mob who maintain the 'deaf and dumb' principle. I really need to watch this movie, so many people write on it. "Maintain" the principle sounds off, also. Sounds like it should be 'practice', but it's hard to say when I don't know the principle lol. I also removed "more" from 'more immoral' because the 'more' could have been 'the quantity of immoral characters is great' or 'the immorality of some characters is greater than that of other characters' (it pays to be specific)Their absence of ethics an ethical code is portrayed from the very first scene evident from the film's onset, where two members in which the interchangeable Truck and Tillio are able to joke about Joey Doyle’s death without feeling guilty; ‘he was a canary, but he couldn’t fly’. Here, you could also mention something about how the mob's lack of an ethical code is reflected through the way they dehumanise their victims - Joey is objectified by the "canary" remark. The Mob’s overall selfish mentality is epitomised by Charley’s comment, ‘if we can get it, we’re entitled to it’, which Kazan undermines through the suffering the Mob causes. The director moreover lambastes Johnny Friendly, who ‘did it to Joey, did it to Dugan, and did it to Charley, who was one of [his] own’, as the leader of the Mob is therefore seen as lacking loyalty. Similarly, in the opening scene, the member of the Mob (Skins) who is$50 short is immediately assaulted by Johnny Friendly, indicating his harsh, unforgiving nature. This is in stark contrast to even the initially flawed Terry of the early stages of the film – much less the mature, resilient Terry of the closing stages – as the protagonist only feels as though he should support the Mob because of his loyalty to his ‘Uncle Johnny’ and to his brother Charley. Indeed, Terry’s comment that Edie should ‘worry about [her]self’ has two dimensions, incorporating not only the surface view that Terry here lacks the moral strength to oppose the Mob’s corruption, but furthermore that he cares about Edie.  As Terry is the eventual hero of the film towards whom the audience is always sympathetic, in contrast to the villainous Mob who are seen as the villains, Kazan promotes the quality of selfless loyalty whilst undercutting the opposing fault of only ‘worry[ing] about [one]self’. Fantastic - specifically the last half. Well done
The epitome of these virtues is Edie Doyle, as exemplified by her belief ‘shouldn’t everybody [should care about everybody else?’ She is initially the only character who sees the positive side of Terry Malloy whereas others think him a ‘bum’ even Mutt (the homeless guy who approaches Terry and Edie in the park) ironically dismisses Terry as a "bum". So basically, Kazan's asserting that (contrary to Terry's beliefs) being a bum = lacking morals and not worrying about anyone else, rather than lacking money. Edie is also initially the only person who is willing to investigate her brother’s death, whilst even her father believes that Joey should have merely remained silent. Hmm...I'd expand on this a little. Why does Pop believe that Joey should have remained silent? Also, you could maybe add something about how, right after Joey's fatal plunge, not all the lights in his building turn on (signifying that the inhabitants are too afraid to investigate others' problems, or that they've just been desensitised to the horrors on the waterfront. Alternatively, maybe something about how many of the workers don't want to face the harsh realities of life on the docks - note how Pop Doyle turns away from Joey's body.) Another who is likewise able to worry about the welfare of others is Father Barry as he condemns those who ‘make the I don't think that's part of the quote allow their "love of a lousy buck" to become more important than their "love of your fellow Also not part of that quote, if I recall correctly man’. In addition, his willingness to be resilient in the face of the Mob’s oppression, convincing both Kayo Dugan and Terry Molloy to confess to the authorities, allows Kazan to highlight the importance of honesty. Without successfully informing the public of the Mob’s corruption, the workers would be subject to the unfairness of those who ‘do none of the work and take all of the gravy’, which is indeed the setting for the majority of the text. The willingness of Edie and Father Barry to be honest, moral people also sparks the change in Terry Molloy, exemplified in the scene involving the Father’s sermon where Terry hits a member of the Mob his name's Truck for throwing bananas at the priest. What is hence suggested by Kazan, then, is that one’s purity can not only directly benefit the community, but moreover inspire others to become likewise righteous. Again, nice writing. This paragraph felt a bit shallower... like there could have been some gold midway but lost it on the finish (keep in mind I don't know the text at all :/)
Terry’s improvement over the course of the film thus sees Kazan emphasise endorse those vital qualities of honesty and empathy, which are integral to On the Waterfront. Yeah, I'm not too sure about the last bit of that sentence, or how to change it that constitutes the perspective of the film.constitute a perspective sounds strange The question of honesty versus deceit, of who is ‘ratting’ "stooling" (Since you've used a quote which contains "ratting" later on) on who, is answered by Terry’s exchange with the priest: ‘If I spill, my life won’t be ain't worth a nickel’ versus ‘How much is your soul worth if you don’t?’ This leads Terry to the realisation that ‘I’ve been ratting on myself all these years’, with the general duplicity pervading the film reflected in the fog that permeates all of the scenes except the final one. Here Terry’s willingness to suffer the assault of the Mob so that he can demonstrate their relative lack of power for his ‘fellow man’ also indicates Terry’s newfound consideration. The height of his self-sacrifice occurs when the lurching camera follows his staggering walk so that the other workers can go to work, as Terry’s moral fortitude allows him to overcome both his physical pain and the symbolic power of the Mob. However, Terry’s empathy is in addition seen in even the beginning of the film, as the protagonist is endorsed for his care for his pigeons. This of course foreshadows Terry’s eventual act to reveal the Mob’s ruthless schemes through the metaphor of the Mob to the workers as the hawks to his pigeons. Terry’s development, though, is not the solitary example of how honesty and empathy can spark a change; Charley’s love for his brother sees him sacrifice his own life in order to protect Terry, whilst Pop Doyle’s love for his son and daughter allows him to eventually throw Johnny Friendly into the water in the final scene.
Therefore, Elia Kazan’s On the Waterfront underline the text title. presents a victory for those that worry about the truth and about others, over the disingenuousness and selfishness of the Mob. This is especially apparent as Terry’s comment towards Edie concerning this is partially made in fear for her safety, thus punctuating his own capacity for sympathy which is juxtaposed against his actual words. Indeed, all of the likeable characters of the film – Terry, Edie, Charley, Joey, and more – are willing to sacrifice their own comfort in order to reveal the truth, allowing Kazan to position the audience into believing these values essential to a moral person.

This seems to be a great response

Nice

- Ensure your quotes are accurate! Don't hesitate to shorten them
- Maybe a bit more on what you see and what you hear; most of your discussion is centred around quotes (esp. towards the start)
- "Indeed, all of the likeable characters of the film – Terry, Edie, Charley, Joey, and more – are willing to sacrifice their own comfort in order to reveal the truth..." I don't know, actually...the others, yes, but towards the end of the film, Edie encourages Terry to run away from the waterfront with her and leave the longshoremen to their fate.
- Be careful with Edie in general. She does represent goodness, but she's also rather naive - especially at the beginning (she thinks that "patience and kindness" solves everything, etc). I think that, through Terry's refusal to accommodate Edie's desperate pleas to leave the waterfront, Kazan ultimately insists that although there are many risks involved with exposing the truth, you should do it anyway because it's the right thing to do.

Hope that helped

vashappenin

• Victorian
• Posts: 905
• Respect: +31
Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #48 on: April 25, 2013, 04:20:27 pm »
0
Hey this is an intro for a practice that was set.. I haven't written text responses in like 6 months, so be as critical as possible.

I'm not gonna post the topic, just incase one of my class members decides to google search it and then copy my intro, but I'll PM anybody who asks.. Hopefully that's okay!

Oh, and this is for Twelve Angry Men'

In the 1950’s play, ‘Twelve Angry men’, the playwright Reginald Rose acknowledges that each of the Jurors present their own, often subjective, opinions. The realist nature of the play unveils the personalities of each of the Jurors, which ultimately contributes to the facts that they each present. Jurors such as the 8th Juror and 9th Juror, who are portrayed as open-minded and patient, often present facts which support the defendant as being ‘not guilty’. Other jurors, such as the 7th Juror and 10th Juror, present opinions that reflect their prejudice towards the defendant, which often results in biased judgement. However, not all facts are “coloured by the personalities of the people who present them”; the viewpoints put forth by some jurors, such as the 3rd Juror and 11th Juror are influenced by their past experiences. These experiences influence their opinions to be either against or supportive of the defendant.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 04:25:13 pm by vashappenin »
2013: English, Maths Methods, Further Maths, Legal Studies, HHD, Psychology
2014-present: Bachelor of Laws @ Monash University

Tutoring VCE English, Psych, Legal Studies and HHD in 2016! Tutoring via Skype too. PM me if you're interested

Lolly

• Victorian
• Posts: 765
• Respect: +114
Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #49 on: April 25, 2013, 07:40:02 pm »
0
Just regarding IoM:

...discussion regarding collection as a whole - crucial considering this is a collection of short stories, no examiners do not expect students to write on the whole text (which is a great thing for students), but they do expect a compromise & that means discussing short story cycle, order, universal themes!!!

Could you please elaborate?   In particular, how do I incorporate the sequencing of stories, ( ie: mention of narrative structure) into my response? Would you be able to provide an example of this? Thank youuuuu
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 07:41:54 pm by lollymatron »

brenden

• Honorary Moderator
• Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
• Posts: 7185
• Respect: +2590
Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #50 on: April 26, 2013, 06:50:59 am »
+2
Fantastic, Iniquity! Thank you very much . People, please, go and shower her with upvotes.

Vas -- You should look a few posts above this one, I go through 12AM intros in detail

✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

sin0001

• Victorian
• Forum Obsessive
• Posts: 487
• Respect: +1
Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #51 on: April 29, 2013, 09:07:37 pm »
0
Twelve angry men shows that personal experience is the strongest factor influencing the human-decision making process. Discuss

Reginald Rose, in the play Twelve Angry Men, portrays the susceptibility of the judicial system to a variety of factors; in that the ‘decision-making process’ undertaken by the twelve jurors, which is the manner in which jurors deliberate their verdict, is shown to be largely affected by the personal experience- which is their background and the relationships they have formed in their personal lives, giving rise to the prejudices of the jury. While this is the case, the lack of responsibility, a factor that distracts the jury to a lesser extent, of some jurors disallows them to deliberate a reasonable and fair trial and hence, restrict them from fulfilling their legal obligation. In addition, Rose also presents the notion of the jury changing their stance on the case as they are swayed, by the inconsistencies covered in the evidence, to vote ‘not guilty’. Ultimately, the deliberation of the jury is shown to be influenced by elements such as personal investment in the case, the prejudice held against the accused and the lack of responsibility shown by some jurors.

Rose depicts the decision-making of the jury to be largely dominated by the influence of personal lives, of each individual juror. This is evidenced by the third juror’s desire to punish the subject of the trial, who he claims to be ‘a goddamn rotten kid’, as this allows him to relieve his own frustrations that are a result of his personal history with his son. Instead of attempting to attain reasonable doubt for the innocence of the boy, the 3rd juror simply assumes that the accused is at fault’; this is evidenced by juror 3’s claims regarding the accused: ‘I know him. What they’re like. What they do to you,’ leading him to believe that the case is ‘clear-cut’. The 3rd juror’s longing to punish the accused is highlighted when he is asked whether he is ‘the kid’s executioner’, and the man answers- ‘I’m one of em’.’ Moreover, the 10th juror is shown to be strongly affected by his background of living amongst slum-dwellers, and since the accused is from an underprivileged minority, this aspect causes the 10th juror to unfairly generalise that accused as ‘one of them’- that is, part of the group of people who are ‘don’t need any big excuse to kill someone’ and are ‘born to lie’. The bias, against the race of the accused, is uncovered to be the prominent reason behind the 10th juror choosing to initially deliver the verdict of ‘guilty.’ Through jurors three and ten, Rose presents the notion of how the personal lives, hence the developed prejudices, of individual jurors might interfere with the verdict that they deliver.

While the personal background of jurors, hence their formed prejudices, prominently impact the verdict they deliberate, the sense of responsibility of some jurors influences their ability to fairly try the accused. Rose presents the 7th juror as a lazy character who is unwilling to partake in the case or attain reasonable doubt throughout the play, as the ambiguities of the case are unravelled by the jury’s discussion. The traits of the seventh juror’s character are highlighted when he ‘offers chewing gum’ to other jurors, in a manner that typifies his lazy-minded behaviour and he is already shown to be distracted from the case. This is also evidenced in the initial stages of the play, where juror 7 ‘looks at his watch’ wanting to be free of jury obligation in time for a baseball game, as ‘baseball tickets are burning a hole in his pocket’. Even when the baseball game is rained out due to a storm, he still seeks to escape his social responsibility, so much so that he changes his vote to ‘not guilty’ just because he is ‘a little sick of this whole thing’. Therefore, his lack of participation in the case’s discussion can be mainly attributed to his character being void of any sense of responsibility. In contrast, it is through juror eight’s fulfilment of his social responsibility that causes his character to willingly make an effort to deliberate fairly; unlike the 7th juror, this character avidly partakes in the jury’s discussion in exposing the ambiguities of the case. Upon entering the jury room, juror 8 is shown to be in deep thought over the case; staring at the New York Skyline, which serves as a reminder of his responsibilities as a juror and a citizen of the society. Right from the start, juror 8 is shown to be focussed at the task of carrying out a fair trial and can be viewed as the most responsible man on the jury, this is evident as he makes the jurors realise the gravity of their roles as jurors of the law, through his reminder- ‘It’s not easy for me… to send a boy off to die without talking about it first’. The efforts that the eight juror goes to, in order to deliberate as fairly as possible, are highlighted when juror 8 reveals that he ‘paid a visit to the boy’s neighbourhood’ in order to prove that knife used in the murder is accessible; even going to the lengths of ‘[breaking] the law’ through the purchase of a knife that is similar to the weapon of murder.  The fulfilment of his social responsibility further enhances his ability to attain reasonable doubt, therefore ultimately influencing his decision-making regarding the case. Rose correlates the fulfilment or lack of responsibility shown by the jury, with how effectively the twelve jurors are able to carry out the decision-making process and hence fairly try the boy.

Although the personal lives of the jurors may be a strong factor in affecting the manner in which the jury deliberates, the discrepancies in evidence uncovered also persuade the jurors to change their stance on the case. The eight juror critically views the evidence, to which most jurors initially refer to as ‘facts’,  presented in court and highlights the inconsistencies in the testimonies delivered during the trial. This is shown when juror 8 is alleges that colloquialisms such as the ones heard from the fights between the accused  and the murdered, ‘I’ll kill you’, should not be taken literally most of the times, he highlights this idea to the jury through angering the third juror until he reaches his breaking point and exclaims- ‘I’ll kill you’. Furthermore, through the self-reflection of juror 9, the jury is given an insight over what may be psychologically motivating the old witness to falsely-testify against the accused- in that the 9th juror sees a similarity between himself and the witness, who is claimed to be a person who ‘needs to be recognised’. When juror 9’s claims are backed up by juror 8 challenging whether the witness would’ve been able to reach his apartment door in given time, the jury is positioned to discredit the old man’s testimony and hence, the verdict of five other jurors are influenced and changed to ‘not guilty’ during the third vote. Likewise, more jurors are progressively able to attain reasonable doubt as the inconsistencies in the evidence and testimonies are brought to the attention of the jury, hence influencing the verdict of individual jurors and making them collectively deliver a unanimous vote.

Rose presents the decision-making process undertaken by each juror, in order to reach their verdict, to be adjusted according to the factors influencing it. Out of these external influences, the strongest one is shown to be the bigoted views of jurors, arising from their personal lives. Although this might be the case, the varying sense of responsibility in each juror and the inconsistencies uncovered throughout the play, are also prominently shown to contribute to the manner in which the jurors arrive upon their final verdicts. Nonetheless, these influences are eventually negated upon the arrival of a just unanimous vote, highlighting the beauty of the American judicial system in the 1950s.

My first text response piece in a while, mark it as critically as you can, the more feedback the merrier!

« Last Edit: April 29, 2013, 09:10:00 pm by sin0001 »
ATAR: 99.00
Monash Commerce Scholars

Eugenet17

• Guest
Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #52 on: May 02, 2013, 02:54:25 pm »
0
I'm Not Scared Text Response

Prompt: Poverty affects many aspects of character's lives in Ammaniti's "I'm Not Scared". Discuss.

Niccolo Ammaniti's text "I'm Not Scared" illustrates the hardships that are endured by the residents of Acqua Traverse which ultimately transpires from the relentless issue of poverty. Through the depiction of the character's lives, Ammaniti explores the ways in which poverty can consequently affect the physical,emotional and moral aspects of the characters. Acqua Traverse is a small remote town in the South; the dichotomy between the underprivileged South and the distinguished North creates a sense of envy and deprivation within the residents of Acqua Traverse. The emotional relationships between characters if tested greatly due to the detrimented circumstances of poverty. As a result of the explicit contrast between the poor and the rich, the morality and conduct of the poor is presented in a negative light. Perceived as the products of an adverse environment, the characters of "I'm Not Scared" encapsulates the physical,emotional and moral ramifications of poverty.

Ammaniti presents the distinct dichotomy between rich and poor through the North and the South in order to explore the constant feeling of envy and detriment that the locals of Acqua Traverse go through. The author depicts Acqua Traverse as a miniscule town that is constrained by the "hottest summer of the century" in order to emphasise the difference between the South and the North, which is a life of comfort. The protagonist describes the extreme heat as a form of restraint "that took everything" and is shown to especially affect the adults who would "shut themselves" indoors with their "blinds down". The lack of comfort is clearly an extreme factor in the passive mentalities revolving around the lifestyles of the adults. Ammaniti exhibits the lack of general knowledge in the children of Acqua Traverse as compared to the wealthier children to highlight the ways in which poverty can cause a suppression in learning. Being the first person narrator, Michele is seen to not comprehend certain things Salvatore and Filippo speak about such as the "flying foxes" and the "wash-bears". Michele's lack of knowledge can be attributed to his state of poverty as he is deprived of suitable learning resources and a reputable form of education. The author uses the financial disadvantages of many families in Acqua Traverse as a primary reason for their appreciation and gratitude towards the simple things in life. Michele and Maria are regularly forced to eat the "tasteless bits of shoe leather", symbolising thier hatred for the cheap meat as they essentially had little choice but to eat it. Ammaniti presents the obvious envy the Acqua Traverse residents feel towards the people of the North in order to indicate that their life's goal was to move to the North. Michele's longing for life in the North is highlighted when he fabricates to Salvatore that he was moving to the North to "live in a Palazzo". The author explores the evident differences between the North and the South in order to prove that it is a fundamental element in the deprivation of many sufferers of poverty, additionally forming a feeling of envy towards the rich.

Ammaniti's outline of Pino's relationship with his family explores the ways in which the closest of bonds can be weakened due to the circumstances of poverty. Pino is described as "never being home" by his son, MIchele who would consider it a celebration if his father wasn't away working. Pino is forced to be isolated from his loved ones in order to make their aspirations of escaping poverty come true. While Michele's understanding is symbolised through him stating that his father was "doing it for us", it is clear that they severely lack time with one another. The author depicts the protagonist's lack of knowledge of the truth behind his father when he considers Pino as the "bogeyman" upon realising Pino's involvement in the kidnappings. Ammaniti exemplifies Pino's self-claimed responsibility to help his family escape the struggles of poverty throughout the text to explicate on why Pino allows the distancing of him and his family. Upon Michele's asks why he kidnapped Pino, PIno tries to reassure him by asking if he wanted to "go away from Acqua Traverse" proving that he simply wants the best for his family. The author uses Pino's self-claimed responsibility and desperation to be released from the confinements of poverty in order to highlight how poverty can extremely harm the emotional relationships between people, even within the family.

The author explores the concept of jealousy and it's effect on morality within the characters of the text, particularly through how the poor conceives the rich. Ammaniti features Michele's clear signs of jealousy towards his wealthy friend Salvatore, to represent the sense of jealousy the poor feels towards the rich. The protagonist is seen to be extremely grudging towards Salvatore after discovering that Salvatore obtained expensive gifts from his father, believing that he never got gifts like Salvatore did because his father "didn't love him". Jealousy within the poor is examined to be amplified towards a sense of despicableness. The author illustrates this through Michele and his family's malice towards Salvatore's parents. Michele describes Salvatore's father as someone who would "hardly come back", though when he did he couldn't wait to "get away again", which signifies Michele's longing to also have the luxury of leaving the difficulties of a life in poverty at will. The protagonist's mother states that he is to never "accept charity" especially from "those two", referring to Salvatore's relatives which signifies her detestfulness of the wealthy, refusing to accept their act of kindness. Through the characters of "I'm Not Scared", Ammaniti demonstrates how poverty can create a form of loathing in the poor towards the rich stemming originally from their jealousy, indicating their lack of morality towards others.

Ammaniti's portrayal of Sergio and his vicious treatment towards others exemplifies that the characters suffering from poverty are overpowered and submissive towards the rich, symbolising the loss of their individual moral values. The author depicts the desperation in his characters to improve their lives by exposing the ways in which the adults are willing to degrade themselves and succumb to Sergio's harsh treatment and diabolical agency over them, as they consider Sergio to be the key to their success. Ammaniti presents Sergio as an incredibly wealthy man with "gold-rimmed glasses" and "golden chains"  who treats the adults like vermin, in order to exert the concept of power in the rich over the poor. Pino, once thought of as "relentless" by the protagonist, disregards Sergio calling him "an imbecile" resulting in the protagonist deeming Sergio as the "emperor" and his father as a "mere servant". The author further demonstrates the power of the rich through Felice who is known as "the devil" amongst many characters when he does nothing about Sergio's humiliation of him when Sergio calls him "a poof" for an extensive period of time, but simply expresses his disdain behind Sergio's back. Ammaniti demonstrates the lack of self moral values in the characters of the text as a result of poverty in order to prove that the poor can be robbed of their individual moral values through succumbing to the agency of the wealthy.

The struggles of life in poverty undoubtedly affects the characters of "I'm Not scared" physically, emotionally and morally. The harsh climate and seclusion of Acqua Traverse is juxtaposed with the prestigious North where the locals of Acqua Traverse find themselves deprived of privileges and envious towards the rich. The emotional bonds between certain characters are confronted with many obstacles originating as a result of poverty. Morality of the lack of morality within the characters is induced due to the distinct contrast between the rich and the poor. Through the characters of "I'm Not Scared", Ammaniti conclusively proves that poverty can affect lives in more ways that one.

brenden

• Honorary Moderator
• Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
• Posts: 7185
• Respect: +2590
Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #53 on: May 06, 2013, 04:15:25 pm »
+2
Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]

Twelve angry men shows that personal experience is the strongest factor influencing the human-decision making process. Discuss

Reginald Rose, in the play Twelve Angry Men, portrays the susceptibility of the judicial system to a variety of factors; in that the ‘decision-making process’ undertaken by the twelve jurors, which is the manner in which jurors deliberate their verdict, is shown to be largely affected by the personal experience- which is their background and the relationships they have formed in their personal lives, giving rise to the prejudices of the jury. You could provide your interpretation of the key words in a more sophisticated manner (mostly the second part - thre are better ways to write than through the use of a dash in formal writing).  While this is the case, the lack of responsibility, a factor that distracts the jury to a lesser extent, of some jurors disallows them to deliberate a reasonable and fair trial and hence, restrict them from fulfilling their legal obligation The amount of clauses in this sentence wrecks your flow (and clarity). In addition, Rose also presents the notion of the jury changing their stance on the case as they are swayed, by the inconsistencies covered in the evidence, to vote ‘not guilty’ Same thing for clarity - what are you trying to say?. Ultimately, the deliberation of the jury is shown to be influenced by elements such as personal investment in the case, the prejudice held against the accused and the lack of responsibility shown by some jurors.This is a decent thesis statement, but I think you should try to shift more toward your interpretation of the prompt on a basic level (thus contention in relation to the prompt). That said, I also think your interpretation of the prompt could be a little more broad. I think you've narrowed the human decision making process down to the jury, however, perhaps Rose is commenting on the human decision making process as a whole, using the jury as a tool to inform his comments. Does that make sense?

You pick some really good evidence and hit the 'textual knowledge' criteria pretty well. The general expression of your writing could be improved. You have a solid grasp of the text but could demonstrate a more complex understanding or anlaysis.

The 'discussion' feel is really good in this paragraph, not as formulaic or robotic as many text response essays turn out, but the sophistication of the writing itself needs to be jacks up a bit. Pay really close attention to your grammar. Great use of evidence. Great ideas.
Although the personal lives of the jurors may be a strong factor in affecting the manner in which the jury deliberates, the discrepancies in evidence uncovered also persuade the jurors to change their stance on the case. The eight juror critically views the evidence, to which most jurors initially refer to as ‘facts’,  presented in court and highlights the inconsistencies in the testimonies delivered during the trial. This is shown when juror 8 is alleges proof read.that colloquialisms such as the ones heard from the fights between the accused  and the murdered, ‘I’ll kill you’, should not be taken literally most of the times, he highlights this idea to the jury through angering the third juror until he reaches his breaking point and exclaims- ‘I’ll kill you’. Green could be expressed with more sophisticationFurthermore, through the self-reflection of juror 9, the jury is given an insight over what may be psychologically motivating the old witness to falsely-testify against the accused-turn this dash into a comma. from now on, you try to avoid dashes. in that the 9th juror sees a similarity between himself and the has an empathetic understanding of the witness, who is claimed to be a person who ‘needs to be recognised’. When juror 9’s claims are backed up way informal, damaging your sophistication again. 'reinforced' 'strengthened' 'validated' by juror 8 challenging try to avoid words ending in 'ing' and structure your sentenced in a way that it would be 'challenges', instead. It makes your writing punchier. whether the witness would’ve would have. sophistication thing, againbeen able to reach his apartment door in given time, the jury is positioned to discredit the old man’s testimony and hence, the verdict of five other jurors are influenced and changed to ‘not guilty’ during the third vote. Likewise, more jurors are progressively able to attain reasonable doubt as the inconsistencies in the evidence and testimonies are brought to the attention of the jury, hence influencing the verdict of individual jurors and making them collectively deliver a unanimous vote. Very nice paragraph except for some sophistication and grammar things.

Rose presents the decision-making process undertaken by each juror, in order to reach their verdict, to be adjusted according to the factors influencing it. Out of these external influences, the strongest one is shown to be the bigoted views of jurors, arising from their personal lives. Although this might be the case, the varying sense of responsibility in each juror and the inconsistencies uncovered throughout the play, are also prominently shown to contribute to the manner in which the jurors arrive upon their final verdicts. Nonetheless, these influences are eventually negated upon the arrival of a just unanimous vote, highlighting the beauty of the American judicial system in the 1950s. Just a sophistication of expression thing in this conc. Decent conc.

Overall, your essay needs 'refining'. This is a better position to be in that to be trying to make formulaic paras sound like they're a discussion etc. You need to refine your grammar, refine your expression/clarity, and continue to delve into deeply analysing 12AM. Your textual knowledge is excellent, and I'd put you in the top range for the evidence that has been used, but you wouldn't make the top range for the way it has been written.
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

Lolly

• Victorian
• Posts: 765
• Respect: +114
Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #54 on: May 08, 2013, 05:55:49 pm »
0
Hey there. Here's an IoM essay which I got back from my teacher today.  I didn't get a whole lot of feedback for this one.( I am EXTREMELY SUSPICIOUS. )  I'm just wondering if there is  anything else I could improve on before the SAC next week. Cheers!!!

EDIT: pdf isn't working hooowww whhyyyyy
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 06:06:33 pm by lollymatron »

brenden

• Honorary Moderator
• Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
• Posts: 7185
• Respect: +2590
Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #55 on: May 09, 2013, 08:36:36 am »
+3
Prompt: Poverty affects many aspects of character's lives in Ammaniti's "I'm Not Scared". Discuss.
I've never marked an essay for this text before. I hope you make a crazy twist and start talking about the emotional and psychological poverty of some character. That'd be cool.

Niccolo Ammaniti's text "I'm Not Scared" illustrates the hardships that are endured by the residents of Acqua Traverse which ultimately transpires from the relentless issue of poverty Nice. For another way to open intros, scroll up and see my recommendations (particularly contextualising sentence). Through the depiction of the character's lives, Ammaniti explores the ways in which poverty can consequently affect the physical,emotional and moral aspects of the characters. Acqua Traverse is a small remote town in the South; the dichotomy between the underprivileged South and the distinguished North creates a sense of envy and deprivation within the residents of Acqua Traverse. The emotional relationships between characters if tested greatly due to the detrimented circumstances of poverty. As a result of the explicit contrast between the poor and the rich, the morality and conduct of the poor is presented in a negative light. Perceived as the products of an adverse environment, the characters of "I'm Not Scared" encapsulates the physical,emotional and moral ramifications of poverty. Decent intro, the only thing you could fix here is the slightly stuttered flow between the introduction of each of your key ideas. Integrating them better will result in a really smooth intro

Ammaniti presents the distinct dichotomy between rich and poor through the North and the South in order to explore the constant feeling of envy and detriment that the locals of Acqua Traverse go through 'experience'?, perhaps? 'go through' sounds casual. The author depicts Acqua Traverse as a miniscule town that is constrained by the "hottest summer of the century" in order to emphasise the difference between the South and the North, which is a life of comfort. The protagonist describes the extreme heat as a form of restraint "that took everything" and is shown to especially affect the adults who would "shut themselves" indoors with their "blinds down".  The lack of comfort is clearly an extreme factor in the passive mentalities revolving around the lifestyles of the adults. Ammaniti exhibits the lack of general knowledge in the children of Acqua Traverse as compared to the wealthier children to highlight the ways in which poverty can cause a suppression in learning. Being the first person narrator, Michele is seen to not comprehend certain things Salvatore and Filippo speak about such as the "flying foxes" and the "wash-bears". This is good, but you could perhaps switch this sentence tho one that talks about the narrative style as a tool, and you'd get big browny points/marks. I'm thinking instead of something like "Being the first person..." you could say something like "Ammaniti utilises the first person narrative style to demonstrate to the audience through their own experience the ignorance of the novel's protagonist" and so on. (i'm not sure if that makes much sense yet 'cause I just woke up, but  Ithink you get the idea Michele's lack of knowledge can be attributed to his state of poverty as he is deprived of suitable learning resources and a reputable form of education. The author uses the financial disadvantages of many families in Acqua Traverse as a primary reason for their appreciation and gratitude towards the simple things in life. Michele and Maria are regularly forced to eat the "tasteless bits of shoe leather", symbolising thier hatred for the cheap meat as they essentially had little choice but to eat it. Symbolising here I think is a bit out of context. I just shows they hate the shitty meat. It could symbolise the poverty, the characters' hate for poverty, the direness of their situation (as they're eating shoe leather.... figuratively.) If you wanted to hit more metalanague you could start talking about the effect of the metaphor on the symbol. But yeah, I think symbolising their hate uses the word a little too freely. Ammaniti presents the obvious envy the Acqua Traverse residents feel towards the people of the North in order to indicate that their life's goal was to move to the North. Michele's longing for life in the North is highlighted when he fabricates to Salvatore that he was moving to the North to "live in a Palazzo". The author explores the evident differences between the North and the South in order to prove that it is a fundamental element in the deprivation of many sufferers of poverty, additionally forming a feeling of envy towards the rich.
Seems like a pretty good para. Looks like you have good textual knowledge, and your integration of evidence is very good. It also 'feels' a bit like it could flow more. Idk, might be your transition between examples, but it might be because I don't know the text. Good para, either way, i'd need to know the text t give you more feedback on analysis etc etc
Ammaniti's outline of Pino's relationship with his family explores the ways in which the closest of bonds can be weakened due to the circumstances of poverty. Pino is described as "never being home" by his son, MIchele who would consider it a celebration if his father wasn't away working. Pino is forced to be isolated from his loved ones in order to make their aspirations of escaping poverty come true. While Michele's understanding is symbolised through him stating that his father was "doing it for us", it is clear that they severely lack time with one another. The author depicts the protagonist's lack of knowledge of the truth behind his father when he considers Pino as the "bogeyman" upon realising Pino's involvement in the kidnappings. Ammaniti exemplifies Pino's self-claimed responsibility to help his family escape the struggles of poverty throughout the text to explicate on why Pino allows the distancing of him and his family. Upon Michele's asks why he kidnapped Pino, PIno tries to reassure him by asking if he wanted to "go away from Acqua Traverse" proving that he simply wants the best for his family. The author uses Pino's self-claimed responsibility and desperation to be released from the confinements of poverty in order to highlight how poverty can extremely harm the emotional relationships between people, even within the family.
Same as last paragraph, except I have a feeling this one might be a bit standard/generic? It doesn't seem very DEEP on the analysis. But yeah, I would need to read the text.
The author explores the concept of jealousy and it's effect on morality within the characters of the text, particularly through how the poor conceives the rich good. Ammaniti features Michele's clear signs of jealousy towards his wealthy friend Salvatore, to represent this would be a better time to use symbolise the sense of jealousy the poor feels towards the rich. The protagonist is seen to be extremely grudging towards Salvatore after discovering that Salvatore obtained expensive gifts from his father, believing that he never got gifts like Salvatore did because his father "didn't love him". Jealousy within the poor is examined to be amplified towards a sense of despicableness what do you mean? explain this. Also not too sure despicableness is a word hahaha . The author illustrates this through Michele and his family's malice towards Salvatore's parents. Michele describes Salvatore's father as someone who would "hardly come back", though when he did he couldn't wait to "get away again", which signifies Michele's longing to also have the luxury of leaving the difficulties of a life in poverty at will. The protagonist's mother states that he is to never "accept charity" especially from "those two", referring to Salvatore's relatives which signifies her detestfulness of the wealthy, refusing to accept their act of kindness. Through the characters of "I'm Not Scared", Ammaniti demonstrates how poverty can create a form of loathing in the poor towards the rich stemming originally from their jealousy, indicating their lack of morality towards others.
Your grammar and langauge all checks out and stuff like that and you're still relevant on the prompt. That doesn't leave me much feedback to give having not read the text. I'M SORRY D:
Ammaniti's portrayal characterisation? of Sergio and his vicious treatment towards others exemplifies that the characters suffering from poverty are overpowered and submissive towards the rich, symbolising the loss of their individual moral values nice =]. The author depicts the desperation in his characters to improve their lives by exposing the ways in which the adults are willing to degrade themselves and succumb to Sergio's harsh treatment and diabolical agency over them, as they consider Sergio to be the key to their success. Ammaniti presents Sergio as an incredibly wealthy man with "gold-rimmed glasses" and "golden chains"  who treats the adults like vermin, in order to exert the concept of power in the rich over the poor. Pino, once thought of as "relentless" by the protagonist, disregards Sergio calling him "an imbecile" resulting in the protagonist deeming Sergio as the "emperor" and his father as a "mere servant". The author further demonstrates the power of the rich through Felice who is known as "the devil" amongst many characters when he does nothing about Sergio's humiliation of him when Sergio calls him "a poof" for an extensive period of time, but simply expresses his disdain behind Sergio's back. Ammaniti demonstrates the lack of self moral values in the characters of the text as a result of poverty in order to prove that the poor can be robbed of their individual moral values through succumbing to the agency of the wealthy.
This paragraph seems stand out.
The struggles of life in poverty undoubtedly affects the characters of "I'm Not scared" physically, emotionally and morally. The harsh climate and seclusion of Acqua Traverse is juxtaposed with the prestigious North where the locals of Acqua Traverse find themselves deprived of privileges and envious towards the rich. The emotional bonds between certain characters are confronted with many obstacles originating as a result of poverty. Morality of the lack of morality within the characters is induced due to the distinct contrast between the rich and the poor. Through the characters of "I'm Not Scared", Ammaniti conclusively proves that poverty can affect lives in more ways that one.

Seems like a pretty good essay . I like your topic sentences and integration of evidence. Your writing is also very sound. I have a suspicion you could go deeper or transition more seamlessly between ideas within each paragraph. I can't say much more without having read the text, unfortunately.
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

Eugenet17

• Guest
Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #56 on: May 09, 2013, 07:12:22 pm »
0
Prompt: Poverty affects many aspects of character's lives in Ammaniti's "I'm Not Scared". Discuss.
I've never marked an essay for this text before. I hope you make a crazy twist and start talking about the emotional and psychological poverty of some character. That'd be cool.

Niccolo Ammaniti's text "I'm Not Scared" illustrates the hardships that are endured by the residents of Acqua Traverse which ultimately transpires from the relentless issue of poverty Nice. For another way to open intros, scroll up and see my recommendations (particularly contextualising sentence). Through the depiction of the character's lives, Ammaniti explores the ways in which poverty can consequently affect the physical,emotional and moral aspects of the characters. Acqua Traverse is a small remote town in the South; the dichotomy between the underprivileged South and the distinguished North creates a sense of envy and deprivation within the residents of Acqua Traverse. The emotional relationships between characters if tested greatly due to the detrimented circumstances of poverty. As a result of the explicit contrast between the poor and the rich, the morality and conduct of the poor is presented in a negative light. Perceived as the products of an adverse environment, the characters of "I'm Not Scared" encapsulates the physical,emotional and moral ramifications of poverty. Decent intro, the only thing you could fix here is the slightly stuttered flow between the introduction of each of your key ideas. Integrating them better will result in a really smooth intro

Ammaniti presents the distinct dichotomy between rich and poor through the North and the South in order to explore the constant feeling of envy and detriment that the locals of Acqua Traverse go through 'experience'?, perhaps? 'go through' sounds casual. The author depicts Acqua Traverse as a miniscule town that is constrained by the "hottest summer of the century" in order to emphasise the difference between the South and the North, which is a life of comfort. The protagonist describes the extreme heat as a form of restraint "that took everything" and is shown to especially affect the adults who would "shut themselves" indoors with their "blinds down".  The lack of comfort is clearly an extreme factor in the passive mentalities revolving around the lifestyles of the adults. Ammaniti exhibits the lack of general knowledge in the children of Acqua Traverse as compared to the wealthier children to highlight the ways in which poverty can cause a suppression in learning. Being the first person narrator, Michele is seen to not comprehend certain things Salvatore and Filippo speak about such as the "flying foxes" and the "wash-bears". This is good, but you could perhaps switch this sentence tho one that talks about the narrative style as a tool, and you'd get big browny points/marks. I'm thinking instead of something like "Being the first person..." you could say something like "Ammaniti utilises the first person narrative style to demonstrate to the audience through their own experience the ignorance of the novel's protagonist" and so on. (i'm not sure if that makes much sense yet 'cause I just woke up, but  Ithink you get the idea Michele's lack of knowledge can be attributed to his state of poverty as he is deprived of suitable learning resources and a reputable form of education. The author uses the financial disadvantages of many families in Acqua Traverse as a primary reason for their appreciation and gratitude towards the simple things in life. Michele and Maria are regularly forced to eat the "tasteless bits of shoe leather", symbolising thier hatred for the cheap meat as they essentially had little choice but to eat it. Symbolising here I think is a bit out of context. I just shows they hate the shitty meat. It could symbolise the poverty, the characters' hate for poverty, the direness of their situation (as they're eating shoe leather.... figuratively.) If you wanted to hit more metalanague you could start talking about the effect of the metaphor on the symbol. But yeah, I think symbolising their hate uses the word a little too freely. Ammaniti presents the obvious envy the Acqua Traverse residents feel towards the people of the North in order to indicate that their life's goal was to move to the North. Michele's longing for life in the North is highlighted when he fabricates to Salvatore that he was moving to the North to "live in a Palazzo". The author explores the evident differences between the North and the South in order to prove that it is a fundamental element in the deprivation of many sufferers of poverty, additionally forming a feeling of envy towards the rich.
Seems like a pretty good para. Looks like you have good textual knowledge, and your integration of evidence is very good. It also 'feels' a bit like it could flow more. Idk, might be your transition between examples, but it might be because I don't know the text. Good para, either way, i'd need to know the text t give you more feedback on analysis etc etc
Ammaniti's outline of Pino's relationship with his family explores the ways in which the closest of bonds can be weakened due to the circumstances of poverty. Pino is described as "never being home" by his son, MIchele who would consider it a celebration if his father wasn't away working. Pino is forced to be isolated from his loved ones in order to make their aspirations of escaping poverty come true. While Michele's understanding is symbolised through him stating that his father was "doing it for us", it is clear that they severely lack time with one another. The author depicts the protagonist's lack of knowledge of the truth behind his father when he considers Pino as the "bogeyman" upon realising Pino's involvement in the kidnappings. Ammaniti exemplifies Pino's self-claimed responsibility to help his family escape the struggles of poverty throughout the text to explicate on why Pino allows the distancing of him and his family. Upon Michele's asks why he kidnapped Pino, PIno tries to reassure him by asking if he wanted to "go away from Acqua Traverse" proving that he simply wants the best for his family. The author uses Pino's self-claimed responsibility and desperation to be released from the confinements of poverty in order to highlight how poverty can extremely harm the emotional relationships between people, even within the family.
Same as last paragraph, except I have a feeling this one might be a bit standard/generic? It doesn't seem very DEEP on the analysis. But yeah, I would need to read the text.
The author explores the concept of jealousy and it's effect on morality within the characters of the text, particularly through how the poor conceives the rich good. Ammaniti features Michele's clear signs of jealousy towards his wealthy friend Salvatore, to represent this would be a better time to use symbolise the sense of jealousy the poor feels towards the rich. The protagonist is seen to be extremely grudging towards Salvatore after discovering that Salvatore obtained expensive gifts from his father, believing that he never got gifts like Salvatore did because his father "didn't love him". Jealousy within the poor is examined to be amplified towards a sense of despicableness what do you mean? explain this. Also not too sure despicableness is a word hahaha . The author illustrates this through Michele and his family's malice towards Salvatore's parents. Michele describes Salvatore's father as someone who would "hardly come back", though when he did he couldn't wait to "get away again", which signifies Michele's longing to also have the luxury of leaving the difficulties of a life in poverty at will. The protagonist's mother states that he is to never "accept charity" especially from "those two", referring to Salvatore's relatives which signifies her detestfulness of the wealthy, refusing to accept their act of kindness. Through the characters of "I'm Not Scared", Ammaniti demonstrates how poverty can create a form of loathing in the poor towards the rich stemming originally from their jealousy, indicating their lack of morality towards others.
Your grammar and langauge all checks out and stuff like that and you're still relevant on the prompt. That doesn't leave me much feedback to give having not read the text. I'M SORRY D:
Ammaniti's portrayal characterisation? of Sergio and his vicious treatment towards others exemplifies that the characters suffering from poverty are overpowered and submissive towards the rich, symbolising the loss of their individual moral values nice =]. The author depicts the desperation in his characters to improve their lives by exposing the ways in which the adults are willing to degrade themselves and succumb to Sergio's harsh treatment and diabolical agency over them, as they consider Sergio to be the key to their success. Ammaniti presents Sergio as an incredibly wealthy man with "gold-rimmed glasses" and "golden chains"  who treats the adults like vermin, in order to exert the concept of power in the rich over the poor. Pino, once thought of as "relentless" by the protagonist, disregards Sergio calling him "an imbecile" resulting in the protagonist deeming Sergio as the "emperor" and his father as a "mere servant". The author further demonstrates the power of the rich through Felice who is known as "the devil" amongst many characters when he does nothing about Sergio's humiliation of him when Sergio calls him "a poof" for an extensive period of time, but simply expresses his disdain behind Sergio's back. Ammaniti demonstrates the lack of self moral values in the characters of the text as a result of poverty in order to prove that the poor can be robbed of their individual moral values through succumbing to the agency of the wealthy.
This paragraph seems stand out.
The struggles of life in poverty undoubtedly affects the characters of "I'm Not scared" physically, emotionally and morally. The harsh climate and seclusion of Acqua Traverse is juxtaposed with the prestigious North where the locals of Acqua Traverse find themselves deprived of privileges and envious towards the rich. The emotional bonds between certain characters are confronted with many obstacles originating as a result of poverty. Morality of the lack of morality within the characters is induced due to the distinct contrast between the rich and the poor. Through the characters of "I'm Not Scared", Ammaniti conclusively proves that poverty can affect lives in more ways that one.

Seems like a pretty good essay . I like your topic sentences and integration of evidence. Your writing is also very sound. I have a suspicion you could go deeper or transition more seamlessly between ideas within each paragraph. I can't say much more without having read the text, unfortunately.

Thanks I feel that my biggest problem with the practice text reponses ive been doing is getting complex/deep arguments/ideas so i've been trying to work on that, maybe it's because the last time i read this book was like november last year and havent read it since, LOL.

Lolly

• Victorian
• Posts: 765
• Respect: +114
Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #57 on: May 12, 2013, 09:06:27 pm »
0
I wrote another one...go for your life.

“In Interpreter of Maladies, Lahiri explores the impact of acceptance and rejection on people. Discuss.”

Within her anthology, Interpreter of Maladies, Lahiri portrays the lives of Indian diasporic people and interwoven cultures. Throughout these narratives she highlights the importance of social belonging and the implications this has on an individual’s livelihood. Communication appears to be the key to mutual acceptance, with the ability to traverse social boundaries and cultural barriers allowed through human contact. Conversely, Lahiri conveys how people can experience alienation as a result of social rejection, thus revealing the value of community as a key source of human wellbeing.

Acceptance of those around us can result in unexpected connections. These relationships often circumvent traditional social and cultural boundaries as a common ground of humanity is revealed. This is evident within “ The Third and Final Continent” in which a relationship between the narrator and his landlady develops, in spite of a gulf of culture, language, and generations. Mrs Croft’s abrupt style of speech is characterised by imperative commands “Lock up!”, indicative of her rigid nature and social conservatism. The narrator’s associations with Mrs Croft's own era “ filled with...chaste conversations in parlours” further reflects the disparity between them both. Yet Lahiri communicates the inherent value of their unlikely relationship.The simple action of the narrator placing the envelope with the week’s rent directly into Mrs Croft’s hands is conveyed as a gesture of acceptance; indeed, in contrast to her usually lack of niceties, Mrs Croft’s response suggests a mutual appreciation. “ It was very kind of you”. Here Lahiri promulgates the genuine relationship established between the narrator and Mrs Croft, professing to the effect of empathy as a means of human connection.

Furthermore, Lahiri demonstrates the complexities of relationships. Through the interaction of her characters, she portrays the lasting implications of rejection in our closest ties. This is prominent within “A Temporary Matter” in Shoba’s words, “ I’ve been looking for an apartment and I’ve found one.” Laced within this statement of fact is an underlying rejection, allowing Lahiri to unveil the effects of such repudiation. The injury inflicted by such words is evident within the narration, “ It sickened Shukumar, knowing she had [been] preparing for a life without him.” Here Lahiri magnifies the ability of rejection to destroy relationships and change circumstances irrevocably. Moreover, in “ A Real Durwan”, Boori Ma is characterised as a social outcast, with the description of her “ observ[ing] gestures…in the same way a person tends to watch traffic in a foreign city” clearly highlighting her position as an outsider. As the narrative develops, it is made clear that her position is totally dependent on the support of her community, with the description of Mrs Dalal’s “ [giving] the old women ginger paste…to flavour her stews” evidence of Boori Ma’s reliance on collective kindness for her very survival.   Lahiri communicates the precariousness of such a position, “knowing not to sit on the furniture, she crouched instead” illustrating her subservience in a hierarchical caste based culture. Upon the resident’s “ toss[ing] out of Boori Ma , Lahiri communicates her utter destitution as a result, with the final image of her “ [shaking] the free end of her sari” evoking pathos from the audience. Thus, the author reveals the impact of social rejection can have on one’s prospects for security and contentment.

Contrastingly, Lahiri’s anthology also embodies a resonating sense of optimism in accepting unfamiliar circumstances. In “Mrs Sen’s”, Eliot embraces a completely foreign world without trepidation, “ He especially enjoyed watching Mrs Sen as she chopped things”. Eliot does not display apprehension before novelty, as Sanjeev does in “ This Blessed House” in encountering  garish Christian iconography. Rather, the exotic image of” a blade that curved like the prow of a viking ship” displays a sense of Eliot’s boyish fascination with the unknown. Here Lahiri establishes an atmosphere of warmth “ the radiators continuously hissed like a pressure cooker”, an indicator of Eliot’s ensconce into a new and welcoming world.  Similarly, in “The Third and Final Continent” the narrator encounters America with eagerness “ I read every article and advertisement so that I would grow familiar with things”. This leads to his successful integration into American life and culture, “we are now American citizens.” Hence, it seems apparent that those who accept new environments without inhibitions who learn the most from their experiences.

However,  Lahiri suggests that apathetic acceptance of one’s situation can result in unfavourable outcomes. Acquiescing to the desires of another person can degrade one’s personal integrity. This is evident within “ Sexy”, as Miranda’s illicit relationship with Dev is seen as one of subordination. Dev’s demand that Miranda remove her robe because she was “ depriving him of the sight of her long legs” is a clear indicator that the objectification of her body is paramount over any semblance of a mutually respectful relationship. Yet in the narrative description “ she walked across the room to get him a saucer for his cigarette ashes”, Lahiri conveys how Miranda has unwittingly allowed herself to be exploited in a futile relationship. This passive servility is also evident throughout “This Blessed House”, with the final image of Sanjeev holding the statue “ [follow]ing Twinkle", a representation of the nature of their relationship. Here Sanjeev is portrayed as compromised for the sake of his marriage, thus communicating how acceptance of a new social role can result in disempowerment. In this way, the writer is able to express how embracing new scenarios is not always beneficial for an individual’s prospects.

In the collection “ Interpreter of Maladies”, Lahiri examines both the negative and positive ramifications associated with human relationships.  She suggests that in confronting new situations boldly, individuals have potential for success, while implicitly warning against the dangers of subordination and social rejection. Ultimately, Lahiri reveals the enormous implications of one’s interactions with others, and the capability for social influences to completely alter one’s course in life.

« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 10:17:12 pm by lollymatron »

brenden

• Honorary Moderator
• Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
• Posts: 7185
• Respect: +2590
Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]
« Reply #58 on: May 14, 2013, 09:59:28 pm »
+3
“In Interpreter of Maladies, Lahiri explores the impact of acceptance and rejection on people. Discuss.”

Mmk let's be honest guys, Loz is a better writer than I am so be a filter as far as my feedback goes. This is all just my opinion.

Within her anthology, Interpreter of Maladies, Lahiri portrays the lives of Indian diasporic people and interwoven cultures 'interwoven cultures' tacked on at the end here I think damages the sentence just as far as clarity goes. Also, italicise the text title when typing. underline in handwriting. In my essays i'd also focus straight up on the culture/history for the first line... but I think that might be a  thing I only did with 12AM . Throughout these narratives she highlights the importance of social belonging and the implications this has on an individual’s livelihood. Communication appears to be the key to mutual acceptance, with the ability to traverse social boundaries and cultural barriers allowed through human contact. Conversely, Lahiri conveys how people can experience alienation as a result of social rejection, thus revealing the value of community as a key source of human wellbeing.Great

Acceptance of those around us can result in unexpected connections I structure topic sentences differently - one part idea, one part prompt. Your statement seems  to me more of an expository type statement or just a factual statement more than a statement that will be shaping your paragraph. . These relationships often circumvent traditional social and cultural boundaries as a common ground of humanity is revealed. This is evident within “ The Third and Final Continent” in which a relationship between the narrator and his landlady develops, in spite of a gulf of culture, language, and generations. Mrs Croft’s abrupt style of speech is characterised by imperative commands The way that's quoted kills your expression a little bit. adding a "such as" would fix it imo “Lock up!”, indicative of her rigid nature and social conservatism This seems great. The narrator’s associations with Mrs Croft's own era “ filled with...chaste conversations in parlours” further reflects the disparity between them both. Yet Lahiri communicates the inherent value of their unlikely relationship.The simple action of the narrator placing the envelope with the week’s rent directly into Mrs Croft’s hands is conveyed as a gesture of acceptance; indeed, in contrast to her usually usual? lack of niceties, Mrs Croft’s response suggests a mutual appreciation. Reads beautifully “ It was very kind of you”. I try to avoid quoting like this 'cause I think it kills the reader's rhythm. Here Lahiri promulgates the genuine relationship established between the narrator and Mrs Croft, professing to the effect of empathy as a means of human connection.

Furthermore, Lahiri demonstrates the complexities of relationships Again, I'd be more specific to my idea and the prompt in the TS, but you can make that decision. I won't mention it again. Through the interaction of her characters, she portrays the lasting implications of rejection in our closest ties. This is prominent within “A Temporary Matter” in Shoba’s words, “ I’ve been looking for an apartment and I’ve found one.” Laced within this statement of fact is an underlying rejection, allowing Lahiri to unveil the effects of such repudiation. The injury inflicted by such words is evident within the narration, “ It sickened Shukumar, knowing she had [been] preparing for a life without him.” Here Lahiri magnifies the ability of rejection to destroy relationships and change circumstances irrevocably. Moreover, in “ A Real Durwan”, Boori Ma is characterised as a social outcast, with the description of her “ observ[ing] gestures…in the same way a person tends to watch traffic in a foreign city” clearly highlighting her position as an outsider. As the narrative develops, it is made clear that her position is totally dependent on the support of her community, with the description of Mrs Dalal’s “ [giving] the old women ginger paste…to flavour her stews” evidence of Boori Ma’s reliance on collective kindness for her very survival.   Lahiri communicates the precariousness of such a position, “knowing not to sit on the furniture, she crouched instead” illustrating her subservience in a hierarchical caste based culture. Upon the resident’s “ toss[ing] out of Boori Ma , Lahiri communicates her utter destitution as a result, with the final image of her “ [shaking] the free end of her sari” evoking pathos from the audience. Thus, the author reveals the impact of social rejection can have on one’s prospects for security and contentment. I'd mentioned something more like this last line in my first line (as well as the last line). Nice writing but if I were writing the essay I would like to improve this paragraph structurally. It's very QuoteAnalysisQuoteAnalysisQuoteAnalysis and I  think it detracts from the flow a little bit. That's all I'd change. Great writing and seems like great analysis and use of quotes.

Contrastingly, Lahiri’s anthology also embodies a resonating sense of optimism in accepting unfamiliar circumstances This is a better topic sentence imo. In “Mrs Sen’s”, Eliot embraces a completely foreign world without trepidation, what would you think of a colon here instead? “ He especially enjoyed watching Mrs Sen as she chopped things”. Eliot does not display apprehension before novelty, as Sanjeev does in “ This Blessed House” in encountering  garish Christian iconography. Rather, the exotic image of” a blade that curved like the prow of a viking ship” displays a sense of Eliot’s boyish fascination with the unknown. Here "Here" I think is a habitual sentence-analysis starter for you? Lahiri establishes an atmosphere of warmth “ the radiators continuously hissed like a pressure cooker”, an indicator of Eliot’s ensconce into a new and welcoming world.  Similarly, in “The Third and Final Continent” the narrator encounters America with eagerness Again, the quoting sits unwell with me. However, it might be different writing on a collection of short-stories (i've never done it before) “ I read every article and advertisement so that I would grow familiar with things”. This leads to his successful integration into American life and culture, “we are now American citizens.” Hence, it seems apparent that those who accept new environments without inhibitions who learn the most from their experiences.
Good finishing line on that para, too.
You paragraphs feel very 'quick'. I might be bias because I teach and write three larger body paragraphs that are deep into it. I feel as if the speed you discuss each story could be detracting from the depth you lend each story in your analysis (keep in mind I haven't read the text). Potential solution is longer paragraphs (could come at the expense of a fourth paragraph but each to their own), or just less stories per paragraph.

However,  Lahiri suggests that apathetic acceptance of one’s situation can result in unfavourable outcomes Again, I like this topic sentene a bit more. . Acquiescing to the desires of another person can degrade one’s personal integrity. What does your teacher say about fact statements like this? It feels to me an inference of your own opinion (obviously it is), but I normally based all of my opinions strongly on the text and my analysis. Even, "Lahiri demonstrates that acquiescing..." would make me more comfortable with it. Then again, perhaps it's just unfamiliarity making me uncomfortable. This is evident within “ Sexy”, as Miranda’s illicit relationship with Dev lolololol Dev in "Sexy" is seen as one of subordination. Dev’s demand that Miranda remove her robe because she was “ depriving him of the sight of her long legs” is a clear indicator that the objectification of her body is paramount over any semblance of a mutually respectful relationship brill. Yet in the narrative description “ she walked across the room to get him a saucer for his cigarette ashes”, Lahiri conveys how Miranda has unwittingly allowed herself to be exploited in a futile relationship. This passive servility is also evident throughout “This Blessed House”, with the final image of Sanjeev holding the statue “ [follow]ing Twinkle", a representation of the nature of their relationship. Here Sanjeev is portrayed as compromised for the sake of his marriage, thus communicating how acceptance of a new social role can result in disempowerment. In this way, the writer is able to express how embracing new scenarios is not always beneficial for an individual’s prospects. Imo this is your best paragraph. (Or maybe it's just freshest in my mind).

In the collection “ Interpreter of Maladies”, Lahiri examines both the negative and positive ramifications associated with human relationships.  She suggests that in confronting new situations boldly, individuals have potential for success, while implicitly warning against the dangers of subordination and social rejection. Ultimately, Lahiri reveals the enormous implications of one’s interactions with others, and the capability for social influences to completely alter one’s course in life. Great conc.

Yeah, this is probably just a very personal stylistic preferences, but I would like more to read longer paragraphs, because  they feel sort of 'skimmed', even though the lines you have in the paragraph ARE deep, it feels like they're not deep for long enough if that makes any sense. Sometimes your quoting seems to stutter your flow. Brill expression and structural flow.
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

• Victorian