Compilation of Text Response Feedback

[ahat]

Thanks man, I'll be eagerly awaiting your piece because I'll really need the help.

[Alwin]

Hi guys, this is for David Malouf's "Ransom". It was not done to time but it's probably the length I'll be aiming for in the exam so I would like a mark to see where it would get me 
Comments and criticism greatly appreciated! Thanks heaps! 

          You know I'm not doing Ransom, but you wanted some feedback so here it is (mainly stylist suggestions since I can't comment on textual knowledge).
          Btw sorry I made you wait until the morning sah sah, or I would have made a bunch of errors in my suggestions You don't have to take them all on board btw, some are just stylistic.

Intro:

Example 1

          Whilst the novel “Ransom” is set in the midst of the ten-year long Trojan War, the author, David Malouf, demonstrates that it is still essential to maintain a sense of one’s place in the world and a connection with others. Malouf’s addition of the character Somax to the legend of Troy presents an everyday man’s ordinary wisdom, contrasting with the royal conventions of noble King Priam and the fierce warrior and hero Achilles.

Possible rewording cutting down on words and adjectives.
          Set against the backdrop of war and revenge that ultimately would span ten years, David Malouf explores the importance of one's position in the world and relations with others. Through Somax, Malouf's idea of a 'common man' during the time of Troy, Malouf is able to juxtapose and challenge different points of view underpinning society (?) awkward ending here sorry, since I don't know enough about the text

The rest of your intro is a bit too detailed for my liking, very strong signposting on the verge retelling the story.

         Varying sentence structure is something you might want to consider too. You begin with two long sentences with a few too many commas for my liking - although some you can remove easily but cutting down on unnecessary phases like: " , the author," and " , the character,". But, following these (carefully?) constructed sentences are a series of short more simple sentences. It almost feels like a list of dot points with conjunctions at the start of each idea to give it cohesion, but lends itself to a bit of a 'stop start' sounding structure.

         Typically short sentences are good for a clear introduction of a specific point, or reiteration of an important point. Complex sentences, often including quotes, are often for analysis or exploration of ideas. Note that this is a personal view and other people may disagree. Again, you do not have to take on all my suggestions.  anyways, an example:
The sky is such a vivid blue. It's on the verge, the very edge of the slim divide between a brilliant azure and the richest sapphire - that to anyone else would appear as a simple, continuous "sky blue". But it's more to me. Much more.
Clearly you can't overuse this is formal writing since that example is a much more creative twist, but that's my general impression of use sentence lengths. Only use very short ones (or even non-standard form if a creative piece) to make a strong point. Otherwise, you might consider combine two of your shorter sentences in your introduction with an appropriate conjunction. eg:

Example 2

          Achilles echoes Somax’s sentiment as he seeks comfort in a harmonious connection with nature. Ultimately, Achilles overcomes his grief by recognising his shared mortality and shared father-son relationship with Priam, as they are both human, unlike the gods.

Could become:
          Achilles echoes Somax’s sentiment as he seeks comfort in a harmonious connection with nature, yet ultimately he is overcome by his grief recognising his shared mortality and shared father-son relationship with Priam, (as they are both human, unlike the gods.) <-- put last bit in brackets since I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it. I'll assume it's because I haven't read the text

          Varying sentence lengths and structure is astylistic element only, and not everyone is comfortable with it. You can continue writing in the same style (I don't see much wrong with it, if at all anything) but just to make you aware that you can use different types of sentences too. I think you need to find a balance of short and long sentences that you are comfortable writing in and gives your essay good cohesion.

Punctuation (while I'm at it)

          I'd suggest that maybe you learn how to use all of the following punctuation so you can really vary up your sentences (I just included the basic ones too which you already know how to use judging from the essays your given me to read):

Some punctuation

,  comma     .  full stop     /  slash     :  colon     ;  semi colon     ( <clause or phrase> ) parenthesis aka brackets     - <clause or phrase> -  dashes     , <clause or phrase>,  paired commas     " " quotation marks   ' apostrophe    ? question mark    ! exclamation mark     ... ellipsis (always three of them! never more, never less)

BUT word of warning, do not abuse them especially the semi colon, and never use an exclamation mark in formal writing (unless in a quote perhaps). And don't spend too long on sentence structures and punctuation as your ability to express yourself and use of the English Language is assessed more in Section B. Section A is more focused on your analysis and ideas of the text.

          I notice you don't use any ellipsis at the beginning of quotations (please use the proper noun form of "quote". Quote is a verbs, so adding an 's' to make QUOTES doesn't really it a noun. The proper plural is quotations. A bit pedantic I know, but meh. Just a habit). Also I acknowledge how you've used square brackets when quoting from the text, but personally I prefer to avoid them at all costs even tho there's nothing wrong with it. Anyways, an example:

Example 3

          amazement that “if you stopped to listen, everything prattled”, reflective of his developing understanding of Somax’s view of himself as part of nature
Could become:
          amazement that “...if you stopped to listen, everything prattled...”, reflective of his developing understanding of Somax’s view of himself as part of nature

          Not really of much importance, just makes your writing look a bit cleaner, although I only use it on long quotes personally. Some people don't use them at so really it's another aesthetic thing.


Body Paragraphs (and back on track!):

          I think someone said something about this before, but occasionally you seem to be quoting for the sake of quoting. It's not that I'm harshly criticising your work, but 13 quotes in the first paragraph 9 of which are three words or less is just a bit excessive for my liking. You said you're known for your 'one word quotes' and yes it does add to your evidence in a typical TEEL structure, but I want you sah sah to consider this:

          Will you get marks by just repeating another person's words, even if it is the author of the text?         

          Looking at the criteria sheet, you will notice that it does mention knowledge of the text, and there's no better way to demonstrate knowledge other than memorising large sections of the text yeah?
          But then, look at all the other marking criteria, "...exploring complexities of its concepts and construction..." "...understanding of the implications of the topic ... and exploring its complexity from the basis of the text..." What examiners are mainly looking for is your analysis and ideas and understanding and explanations of the text. Depth and complexity is the key.

          So there's really, nothing technically wrong with quoting excessively from the text, so long as you can explain all your evidence and relate it back to the prompt. Rather than TEEL (Topic Sentence, Evidence, Explanation, Link), I tend to write in:
TEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL
(Topic Sentence, Evidence, Explanation, Explanation, Explanation, Explanation, Evidence, Explanation, Explanation, Explanation, Explanation, ... , Link)
Okay I was a bit excessive on the E's (at that rate one paragraph would be like 2 pages long haha) but hopefully you get the idea.

          When quoting, and again I'm not encouraging you to employ this structure too but merely want to show my structure, I tend to paraphrase and only sparingly use quotes to demonstrate understanding of text. To me, a quote is like the cherry on top, it looks pretty but only has limited use. What's much better (and more tasty!) is the filling, the explanation. I can't help you with analysis because I haven't read the text, but I would encourage you to go back to each quote and ask yourself the following questions:

• Why have I chosen this quote?
• What does it show?
• Could I have used a shorter quote or paraphrased? (remember in the exam you only have limited time, so you don't want to be just sitting there trying to remember that one quote you think will get you a 10 ><
• Have I made the reason of my choice of this quote clear?
• Is there an explanation of the quote and it's significance?
• What does the analysis of this quote reveal about the text
• How does my chosen quote relate to the prompt?
• Have I explained the implication of the quote in regards to the prompt?

Pretty much the tl;dr version is: Have I explained the quote and related it back to prompt by analysing it fully?

Example 4

"In the narrative The Three Little Pigs the wolf gives up too easily" Discuss

Possible evidence:
          Regardless of the fact he is unable to "blow away" the third house, the big bad wolf undoubtedly tries ("endeavours" could be used here, but I don't like the flow) his best straining to bring down ("demolished" could be used here too) the final house. Moreover, given his previous efforts blowing down the two houses, that he "...huffed and he puffed and he huffed and he puffed..." is indicative (a simpler word could be used here eg "indicates") the wolf's determination to succeed and gobble up the first little pig (explanation of quote). Though he does not appear to exert too much energy bringing down the first house, it demonstrates that the wolf did not meekly ("simply" could have been used here too) give up at the first sign of opposition symbolised by the straw house (more analysis of the quote, addressing the prompt that he 'gives up too easily')
etc etc, he climbs down the chimney of the third house, explain how it shows he didn't give up easily etc etc
          (note that I would use the phrase "give up" not "give in" because the later implies the wolf succumbed to some more power force rather than the wolf himself being the one in power. Sometimes it's just the little things, like one word's difference that is important) Also, I didn't use that many "big words" because I felt it would detract from what I'm trying to say. This I can't explain sorry, but more of a gut instinct thing for me, when to tone things up with big words and when to tone down with short words

          I could have excessively quoted, that the little pigs where defiant proclaiming "By the hair of my chinny chin chin, I will not let you come in." and the wolf replied "________" and then ___________ happened which demonstrated that __________ (clearly it's been awhile since I read this story haha!) But, that would be retelling more of the story and added maybe 3-4 lines to my paragraph, which might have mean less explanations.
          Hopefully you get the idea!

          Oh, and another thing (sorry for doing things out of order) but erm you might want to work on your topic sentences a little. In my cooked up example above, I used a LOT of definites in my opening line. "Why" you may ask? It demonstrates two things, 1) you are confident with your text and 2) you have a strong postilion and contention.
          If, for example you were concerned about your ambiguity hehe, then try using more definite words like "undoubtedly", "clearly", "ultimately" etc but I don't see this as a major issue in this essay

          I notice in almost all your essays, you try to link between paragraphs. There are two schools of though on this, both imho equally valid so I won't make this post any longer but trying to explain both. Just don't try to link between paragraphs if it feels unnatural!

          What I suggest for your body paragraphs is a bit less quoting and more analysis. Also, maybe a few less 'big' words and use simpler more direct wording to convey your ideas with greater ease. Again, just a suggestion, but I feel the explanation and analysis parts are quite important in Text Response.

Conclusion (of your essay, not my suggestions hehe):

          Not much to be said. Nice strong ending and no inclusion of "new evidence" that some people try to slip in to impress the examiners which should not be done... ever. However, some word choice are a bit unsual

Example 5, last one I promise!

In turn, Priam evokes Somax’s teachings in his appeal to Achilles, catalysing Achilles’ reattachment with his own sense of identity.

Could be:
In turn, Priam evokes Somax’s teachings in his appeal to Achilles, initiating (or "speeding up", I dunno since haven't read the text) the renewal Achilles’ connection with his own sense of identity.

Final comments (aka the tl;dr version ):

• Vary your sentence structures to give cohesion
• Find a good balance between big and small works. Vocab is good, knowing how to use it is better
• Cut down on quotations, and increase your explanations
• Read the criteria sheet and try marking all your essays using it by yourself first so you can identify strengths and weaknesses.
  http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/english/2009Eng-crit-descriptors-V2.pdf
• If you want ANY spare time to revise english and not spend all your time reading my suggestions (only some of which might be useful sah sah) lemme know and I'll make sure any future suggestions are less verbose and shorter HAHA

GOOD LUCKS

[9_7]

I just wrote a few paragraphs out of bordem.. could i get some feedback too please!! thanks a lot ^_^

However, one juror stands out not only by following the judge’s instructions “honestly and thoughtfully” with “grave responsibility” but by also acting as a shining light in the jury room. Utilized through the 8th Juror – the only character who initially submitted a “not guilty” verdict, illustrates how he wants to be sure that the jurors have given due consideration to the deliberations before condemning the defendant to death. Unlike the other characters, the 8th Juror is willing to question the “facts” given to them. His remarks of “I cannot send a boy off to die” without “talking about it first” demonstrates how he is taking full responsibility of his duty and is prepared to spend time discussing the case rather than deferring to an overwhelming majority of opinions. Symbolized by the stage direction of the “pauses” before the 8th Juror talks, reveals how he is thoughtful about the deliberations in a well-reasoned and objective manner. Hence, it is the 8th Juror who stands out in the jury because of his heroic, non-prejudicial and non-complacent acts.

As the intricacies of the plot unfold, Rose demonstrates the presence of complacency within the jury room. Despite the fact that the jurors are faced with “grave responsibility” of deliberating, some of the jurors could not care less and formed the “guilty” vote straight away demonstrating their lack of civic duty. Demonstrated through Juror 3 and Juror 12’s game of tic-tac-toe, this emphasizes how care-less the jurors were about the deliberations. Further symbolized by the “scarred table”, suggest that even past jurors have preferred to etch out the table out of sheer boredom rather than confront the seriousness of their roles as jurors. In addition, Juror 7’s remarks of “god damn waste of time” reflects his lack of civic duty as he “doesn’t care” whether the boy faces a guilty or not guilty verdict. Hence, we see that complacency and a lack of civic duty can seriously undermine justice and make the process of reaching a fair verdict more difficult.

Rose endeavors to highlight to the audience how ones prejudice may cloud up the ability to reach a fair verdict. When prejudice is present through the minds of the jurors, it has a direct impact on whether they view the case in a well-reasoned and objective manner. Through the plot device of the setting, Rose emphasizes the suffocation and oppression that stems from prejudice which is symbolized by the “stifling heat”. The stifling heat is severe to demonstrate the discrimination and subsequent tension that arises from some of the jurors. Prejudice has a major impact on the juror’s attitudes towards the defendant due to their unfavorable feelings and beliefs. This is demonstrated through Juror 10’s remarks of “You cannot believe a word they sat” as “they are born liars”. Here, it is evident to see his overwhelming hatred towards people from the “slums” meaning people from low-socio economic backgrounds. Not only this but Rose portrays how Juror 10 sees the boy as a representative of a “group” rather than an individual. Here, his remarks about the defendant clearly show his unwillingness to view the case in a well-reasoned and objective manner. To reinforce this, Juror 4, a character that is portrayed as a bigot has similar beliefs as to Juror 10. His remarks of “slums are breeding grounds for criminals” show that he also views the defendant as a group rather than an individual. Thus, through the actions of both Jurors 10 and 4, we can see how prejudice creates difficulty for the jury to reach a final verdict.

[brenden]

However, one juror stands out not only by following the judge’s instructions “honestly and thoughtfully” with “grave responsibility”, but by also acting as a shining light what does this mean?in the jury room.If this were a topic sentence, I probably wouldn't quote in it. It's hard to judge your topic sentence without seeing the corresponding prompt. Utilized through the 8th Juror – the only character who initially submitted a “not guilty” verdict if you wanted to do this but look a bit better, you could write "The only character who initially "raised his hand" to vote not guilty" -- stage direction looks better than dialogue., illustrates how he wants to be sure that the jurors have given due consideration to the deliberations before condemning the defendant to death. Unlike the other characters, the 8th Juror is willing to question the “facts” given to them. His remarks of “I cannot send a boy off to die” without “talking about it first” demonstrates how he is taking full responsibility of his duty and is prepared to spend time discussing the case rather than deferring to an overwhelming majority of opinions. Symbolized by the stage direction of the “pauses” before the 8th Juror talks, reveals how he is thoughtful about the deliberations in a well-reasoned and objective manner grammar - read that sentence out loud.. Hence, it is the 8th Juror who stands out in the jury because of his heroic, non-prejudicial and non-complacent acts. stick to two descriptors. "His heroic and non-prejudicial acts". If it takes you three descriptors, you're not using the best descriptors.

Yep, good integration of quotes and not bad quotes used. It's hard to judge an individual paragraph not in an essay because half of the criteria disappears. I don't think you're analysing as much as you could, rather, just quoting for the sake of showing your knowledge. (Which, sure, will get you marks, but not all of them. Quote to show your knowledge and to springboard your analysis)... I mean, it's all well and good to quote and say what that quote shows about the character. But what does that quote show about the text? About society? About the values of the author, or the potential ideas/concepts that arise from that quote?

As the intricacies of the plot unfold, Rose demonstrates the presence of complacency within the jury room. Seems a bit strange to say that Rose demonstrates something within in the jury room. Like. "Rose demonstrates that 8th Juror is objective".. It seems pretty odd, because he is creating the 8th Juror, not demonstrating him. Same for the complacency. I mean, what is Rose saying about the complacency in the jury room? "Rose condemns the complacency of the jury room, asserting that the structure of the justice system allows its most valuable principles to be lost in practice". The sentence I just wrote is substantial, and leads into something else. But your topic sentence above, it doesn't tell me the idea of your paragraph (well, I know it will be about complacency) and doesn't lend itself to analysis. If there were a prompt, the topic sentence would probably not quite connect to the prompt, because the TS is just "this is what's in the jury room".. There's no real comment about it if that makes sense. The way I structure TS is explained on previous pages (check the 12AM feedback links on the 1st page) Despite the fact that the jurors are faced with “grave responsibility” of deliberating, some of the jurors could not care less seems informal. The problem with informality is that it can damage the sexiness of your writing and the effectiveness of your writing (just so people know that we don't avoid informality just for the sake of it) and formed the “guilty” vote straight awaycomma demonstrating their lack of civic duty yeah but what about this? Needs more. (same as the last paragraph's feedback, values etc). Demonstrated through Juror 3 and Juror 12’s game of tic-tac-toe quote this to make it really obvious., this emphasizes how care-less careless the jurors were about the deliberations. Further symbolized by the “scarred table”, suggest that even past grammar again. I think what you want is "Further, the symbolism of the "scarred table" suggests that even past jurors preferred to etch the table out of boredom rather than confront the seriousness of their role."... moreover, good quote of scarred table, but you could get more out of it. Not bad analysis, don't get me wrong... but "out of boredom" seems like a bit of a reach. You coudl say the scarred tables symbolise the damage of the justice systemjurors have preferred to etch out the table out of sheer boredom rather than confront the seriousness of their roles as jurors. In addition, Juror 7’s remarks of “god damn waste of time” reflects his lack of civic duty as he “doesn’t care” whether the boy faces a guilty or not guilty verdict. Hence, we see that complacency and a lack of civic duty can seriously undermine justice and make the process of reaching a fair verdict more difficult.

Not bad. What's with the civic duty stuff? People seem to use that a lot. I think it's pretty boring, and no one reallly deconstructs it for analysis it? Nice finish here. This paragraph had good quotes used, and shifted more toward good analyssis than the last para. Your last sentence was nice.

Rose endeavors to highlight to the audience how onesneeds a possessive apostrophe prejudice may cloud up the ability to reach a fair verdict nicer topic sentence. When prejudice is present through the minds of the jurors, it has a direct impact on whether they view the case in a well-reasoned and objective manner. Through the plot device of the settingsounds slightly cumbersome , Rose emphasizes the suffocation and oppression that stems from prejudice which is symbolized by the “stifling heat”. nice quote and nice analysis but expression of the previous sentence needs some reworking. The stifling heat is severe to demonstrate the discrimination and subsequent tension that arises from some of the jurorsodd phrasing here. Prejudice has a major impact on the juror’s attitudes towards the defendant due to their unfavorable feelings and beliefs. This is demonstrated through Juror 10’s remarks of “You cannot believe a word they sat” as “they are born liars”. Here, it is evident to see his overwhelming hatred towards people from the “slums” meaning people from low-socio economic backgroundsagain, odd phrasing. Sentence starts off nice, I'm expectng something like "Here, it is evident that his overwhelming hatred towards people from the "slums" corrupts the proper functioning of the justice system", but then you just explain what it means to be from a slum. Doesn't hit any of hte criteria really. Analyse, don't just describe with quotes.. Not only this but Rose portrays how Juror 10 sees the boy as a representative of a “group” rather than as an individual. Here, his remarks about the defendant clearly show his unwillingness to view the case in a well-reasoned and objective mannernot bad. shift more of your writing toward this instead of description.. To reinforce this, Juror 4, a character that is portrayed as a bigot hmm, not quite. He is protrayed as a fiercely logical character, any bigotry is pretty subtle, so I think it's a stretch to say his whole portrayal is bigoted. (though, I do agree, he's a prick).. It works better if you say that he's meant to be a logical character, but is prejudiced anyway, and this shows the inescapable nature of prejudicehas similar beliefs as to Juror 10. His remarks of “slums are breeding grounds for criminals” show that he also views the defendant as a group rather than an individual yeah, but what about this? You just repeated what you said for Juror 10. Have a look at the VCAA criteria and see if you can match this sentence to any of the dot points.. Thus, through the actions of both Jurors 10 and 4, we can see how prejudice creates difficulty for the jury to reach a final verdict.

Not bad, not bad. I think it would be helpful for you to introduce discussion of Rose to your paragraphs. For example.

"Here, Rose condemns...." or "Here, Rose endorses...." or "Here, Rose asserts..." etc - to force you more toward good analysis.

[sin0001]

 Not bad, not bad. I think it would be helpful for you to introduce discussion of Rose to your paragraphs. For example.

"Here, Rose condemns...." or "Here, Rose endorses...." or "Here, Rose asserts..." etc - to force you more toward good analysis.

Will it be better to go into detail about the rich history of the text and show the 'bigger picture' of the idea presented in the body para? If so, how would one integrate this discussion without sounding completely irrelevant?
Thanks

[brenden]

Hm. It's always best to integrate the "bigger picture", I think. That's where good analysis comes from and where your scape character/plot summaries. So in terms of the history - keep it all relevant. I mean, discussing 10thJuror as an embodiment of McCarthyism was one of my favourite things, and sometimes (rarely) I  juxtaposed 3rd as an embodiment of undesirable capitalist traits and 8th as the polar desirable socialist traits (keeping with the history). It's fine to integrate and can work really great. But demonstrating knowledge and analysis is the croteria, so if you only demonstrate that you could be a great historian, you're going nowhere. Keep it balanced

As to how -- if you go on the English board (not submissions) and look back a week or two, I posted an example 12AM essay. There should be historical discussion. If there's notc let me know and I'll try find a good example. (Actually, I think the essay I uploaded might be one of the capitalism/sociali ones, but one of the shitty ones)

[ahat]

War Poems Feedback appreciated.

Owen describes a state of moral and physical disorder, using great control of poetic form and structure.
 
Owen’s poetry is relentless in its denunciation of war. The macabre imagery of his verse reveals the morphing of the soldier’s reality – of young men “ardent for some desperate glory” to a satanic scene where “death became absurd but life became absurder.”  Owen’s anthology is sentiment to his conviction that the poet must share the suffering – even the self sacrifice of the troops – so he too could bear witness to “man’s inhumanity to man.” By doing so, Owen aimed to expose the complacent civilian populations to the moral and physical disorder of war, not on a merely superficial level, but to the point where the reader could truly envisage the suffering of the soldiers. His precise intertwining between poetic device and bittersweet narrative accomplished this aim, so the reader could relive the tragic tale of the men of war. Despite his disturbing tale, Owen also exemplified the feelings of love and fellowship that existed sempiternally between the soldiers, even in the disorder of the battlefield.

 ‘Has your soul sipped’ and ‘Strange Meeting’ provide an antithetical interpretation for morality in war. Whereas ‘Strange Meeting’ boasts the deep felt empathy between the soldiers even in the derision of ‘Hell’, ‘Has your soul sipped’ tells of the carnal pleasures of murder and death.  The inclusion of ‘soul’ in the title has immediate connotations of death – the poem seems to be the description of an event that goes beyond flesh and blood and is almost other worldly. Owen’s use of sibilance in the title (‘soul sipped’) sets an appropriately sinister tone for the poem and foreshadows the shocking revelation at the end. The use of pararhyme (‘sweet’/’sweat’,’ meaning’/’mourning’) and anaphora (repetition of ‘sweeter’) speeds up the flow of the verse, reflecting the increasing excitement of the speaker as he describes his pleasure being even “sweeter than the nightingales” – the voices of the soldiers who sing of hope and glory . The story culminates in the murder of soldier, a boy, dead and no longer considered a ‘threat’. In this macabre scene as the boy’s ‘life tide’ slowly seeps into the ground is the violence of war seen as appalling rather than pleasing. After being exposed to such a horrendous tale does the reader finally begin to comprehend the attrition of war. Empathy is felt for these “doomed youth” who “die as cattle” and their deaths are considered all the more heinous and sacrilegious due to this twisted fate. 

This role of fate and God’s overruling power is a strong motif in Owen’s verse. He reveals his antipathy towards an almighty being who refused to “assuage the tears” or “fill these void veins full again with youth” of the lives He had knowingly shortened. Owen draws parallels between the biblical tale of Abraham and the genocide of Europe in ‘Parable of the old man and the young’ to highlight God’s blasphemous nonchalance. Metaphorically representing God as the ‘Old man’ Owen describes how God refused to accept the “Angel” who “called …out of heaven” which would have meant an end to the war. Rather, the decision to reject the offer had an impact that would be felt for generations, and as such, Owen consummates his poem in a couplet that hyperbolises this impact. This rejection had such a quick and unavoidable effect, (and hence the faster pace of the couplet) that the youth of Europe were left to perish “one by one”. Owen’s stringent use poetic convention serves to highlight his abhorrence of those who propagated war.

Owen’s poetry reveals that real enemies of the young men were not soldiers or Germans who were “scarcely thought of,” but in fact the army officials of their own country who were only too willing to help them “throw away their knees.” This was the most immoral act of all. Army officials, generals and leaders, people who were idolised for their “smart salutes” and “jewelled hilts”, role models for the naïve and innocent younger generations, were the ones only too willing to “smiling[ly], [write] the lie [of age]”. These were men who Owen described as having “famines of thought and feeling,” people who if they had been subject to the “smothering dreams” that they had forced upon the soldiers, would never have told “the Old lie” with such “high zest”. Owen denounces these men and aims to eternalise the story of the soldiers in verse so that the same mistakes never happen again.

War was far removed from the glorious “pleasure” that the soldier’s thought it was. Young, strong men were transformed into “old beggars” and “hags” due to the physical disorder of war. Rather, war was an ecstatic and adrenaline fuelled pit of terror that had no end, exemplified in the long, running sentences of “Dulce et decorum est”. The sudden change of meter of the poem reveals the grudging acceptance of the soldiers for the fate they were sealed to, of “blood-shod” feet and “drowning as if under a green sea”. 

Owen constantly talks of a world which seems on the verge of disintegration, and as such, makes use of pararhyme and half-rhyme that produce this sense of dissonance. The whole world of the poem is a cracked and damaged place to be, the rhymes are broken (and frequently irritating) to match the world of war that in no way resembled society which kept its remnants of morality.

[simba]

Okay, so this is the first relatively timed essay (I finished it in 68 minutes, every essay I've done thus far has been 90+). I also did a word count of this and it was only around 800 words... Would I need to write more in the exam? (ah!)

"It's very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this." How is this shown to be in this play

American society in the 1950's was established on a base of fear towards those endowing features of difference. Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men acts as a microcosm for society, demonstrating the ways in which personal prejudices can seek to hinder justice. 5th Juror and 3rd Juror struggle to differentiate their upbringing and relationships respectively from the deliberations at hand. Furthermore, several jurors find it difficult to part with prejudices held in this era, rather than their own personal feelings. Finally, Rose examines the features of the judicial system itself which leads to the difficulty in keeping personal prejudice out of the deliberations, ultimately enforcing his view that in the judicial system, the final verdict can often be skewed due to a range of factors, rather than merely the individual personal prejudices on the case.

Rose condemns the ways in which personal prejudice can alter ones view on the deliberations, utilising 5th and 3rd Jurors to demonstrate the difficulty in "not [making] this a personal thing." 5th Juror feels a connection to the defendant, due to their similar upbringing. Hence, he subconsciously becomes defensive as other jurors consider the defendants upbringing, arguing "I nurse that trash in Harlem six nights a week," convinced the comments "[are] something personal" towards him. This, in turn, positions 5th Juror against the contentions of of the other jurors, due to their generalisations which 5th Juror has taken personally. 5th Juror appears unaware to the ways in which the defendants guilt, indicating the difficulty in keeping his personal prejudice out of the case. Furthermore, Rose highlights how personal prejudice can be difficult to part with through 3rd Juror. At the commencement of the play, 3rd Juror notes "Now I have no personal feelings on the case," which is later contradicted by his statement "I know [the defendant]... what they do to you." Rose utilises this contradiction to imply 3rd Juror may not be actively aware of his personal prejudice affecting his judgement. This is reinforced at the denouement of the play, indicated by the stage direction "there is a long pause," as 3rd Juror considers his notion of the boys guilt. The use of the adjective "long" symbolises the strenuous amount of time required for 3rd Juror to part with his personal prejudice before voting "not guilty," connotating the difficulty of keeping personal misconceptions out of the deliberations.

Utilising several jurors throughout the play with prejudices specific to the time period, Rose asserts that prejudice which is not necessarily personal may contribute to the difficulty in remaining objective. Whilst 4th Juror is characterised by Rose as a fact based character, reflected in his stage direction of "reading a newspaper" at the commencement of the play, his misinformed statements such as "slums are breeding grounds for criminals" implies the difficulties in keeping the commonly held beliefs of social class from his objectivity. Furthermore, 10th Juror finds it difficult to differentiate the proceedings from the prejudices involved with the era of McCarthyism. These commonly held beliefs lead him to deduce "They're against us, the hate us, they want to destroy us." Whist 10th Juror has personally dealt with the defendants type before, Rose implies it is the misconceptions of the era in itself which leads him to deduce "he's guilty," as he even notes "I've met some who were okay," reinforcing it's not purely his personal interactions with others that make  it difficult to keep prejudice out of the deliberations

Rose examines the ways in which the judicial system positions the jurors to involve their personal prejudice on the issue, signifying the role the justice system plays in the difficulty of jurors differentiating their views from what should theoretically be objective deliberation. This is demonstrated as 11th Juror nots "we have nothing to gain or lose from our verdict." Whilst this factor is essential towards establishing a theoretically objective based discussion, in practice this would clearly not be the case. 4th Juror mentions "We can't help letting the only motive we know of enter our thoughts," signifying how the representation of the defence and prosecution create a significant difficulty for the jurors to view the defence's case as strongly as the prosecution.

Ultimately, Rose asserts that whilst personal prejudice may be difficult to keep out of the deliberations, a wider variety of factors also contribute towards the difficulty of purely objective discussion. Commonly held misinformed beliefs in the McCarthyist era prevent many jurors from objectively viewing the case, whilst the difficulty implementing the theories of the judicial system create a subconscious bias in the jurors, evidenced in their initial votes and certainty of guilt. Fundamentally Twelve Angry Men serves to demonstrate the difficulty of obtaining a purely objective verdict due to personal prejudice, the judicial system and the era of time itself.

[Henreezy]

Okay, so this is the first relatively timed essay (I finished it in 68 minutes, every essay I've done thus far has been 90+). I also did a word count of this and it was only around 800 words... Would I need to write more in the exam? (ah!)

"It's very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this." How is this shown to be in this play

American society in the 1950's was established on a base of fear towards those endowing features of difference. Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men acts as a microcosm for society, demonstrating the ways in which personal prejudices can seek to hinder justice [This could be worded better. "seeks to abc" or "personal prejudices hinder justice", I'm not quite sure what the correct terms are, but I don't think they should be used together like that. Play with grammar in your writing, find concise ways to express things without being superfluous]. 5th Juror and 3rd Juror struggle to differentiate their upbringing and relationships respectively from the deliberations at hand. [Again, this also could be worded more clearly. e.g. The (optional) 5th and 3rd Juror fail to dissociate (I think this is the word you're looking for, or a synonym) themselves from their upbringing and personal lives from xyz. Your use of language is excellent but making this sentence too wordy takes away from it, I had to read it a few times to actually get what you were trying to express. One of the criteria for a 9-10 is • Develops a cogent, controlled and well-substantiated discussion using precise and expressive language. Don't make it work for the reader to understand your points, try to be more concise and avoid being superfluous. Yes, you should be flashy with your writing but it should not be at the cost of the 'flow', you've got to ensure that it's clean and fluid like a river while being awe inducing and memorable.] Furthermore, several jurors find it difficult to part with prejudices held in this era, rather than their own personal feelings. Finally, Rose examines the features of the judicial system itself which leads to the difficulty in keeping personal prejudice out of the deliberations, ultimately enforcing his view that in the judicial system, the final verdict can often be skewed due to a range of factors, rather than merely [Same thing happening here, "rather than xyz" is adequate, merely seems out of place, re-read that and have a think about it.] the individual personal prejudices [You're doing the same thing here.]on the case.

Rose condemns the ways in which personal prejudice can alter ones view on the deliberations, utilising 5th and 3rd Jurors to demonstrate the difficulty in "not [making] this a personal thing." 5th Juror feels a connection to the defendant, due to their similar upbringing. Hence, he subconsciously becomes defensive as other jurors consider the defendants upbringing, arguing "I nurse that trash in Harlem six nights a week," convinced the comments "[are] something personal" towards him. [Excellent analysis and quote usage, avoids re-telling story to pad paragraph.]This, in turn, positions 5th Juror against the contentions of of the other jurors, due to their generalisations which 5th Juror has taken personally. 5th Juror appears unaware to the ways in which the defendants guilt, indicating the difficulty in keeping his personal prejudice out of the case. Furthermore, Rose highlights how personal prejudice can be difficult to part with through 3rd Juror. At the commencement of the play, 3rd Juror notes "Now I have no personal feelings on the case," which is later contradicted by his statement "I know [the defendant]... what they do to you." Rose utilises this contradiction to imply 3rd Juror may not be actively aware of his personal prejudice affecting his judgement. This is reinforced at the denouement of the play, indicated by the stage direction "there is a long pause," as 3rd Juror considers his notion of the boys guilt. The use of the adjective "long" symbolises the strenuous amount of time required for 3rd Juror to part with his personal prejudice before voting "not guilty," connotating the difficulty of keeping personal misconceptions out of the deliberations. [Excellent first paragraph, makes up for bumpy start, but would score higher if it was fluid throughout.]

Utilising several jurors throughout the play with prejudices specific to the time period, Rose asserts that prejudice which is not necessarily personal may contribute to the difficulty in remaining objective. Whilst 4th Juror is characterised by Rose as a fact based character, reflected in his stage direction of "reading a newspaper" at the commencement of the play, his misinformed statements such as "slums are breeding grounds for criminals" [I'm not sure I'd make such an absolute statement, I'd go down the path of explaining that his focus is placed on the stigma associated with statistics. Or that his interpretation of fact is resulting from biased interpretations. e.g. "charming and imaginative little fable."] implies the difficulties in keeping the commonly held beliefs of social class from his objectivity. Furthermore, 10th Juror finds it difficult to differentiate the proceedings from the prejudices involved with the era of McCarthyism. [Unlike in the introduction, the usage of differentiate is more well-placed imho.] These commonly held beliefs lead him to deduce "They're against us, the hate us, they want to destroy us." Whist 10th Juror has personally dealt with the defendants type before, Rose implies it is the misconceptions of the era in itself which leads him to deduce "he's guilty," as he even notes "I've met some who were okay," reinforcing it's not purely his personal interactions with others that make  it difficult to keep prejudice out of the deliberations
[I think this paragraph was a weak continuation of the first, it didn't complement it at all. If anything, it took away from the quality of the overall essay. This paragraph does seem to have a focus, but it falls into the trap of re-telling. There is some good analysis, it's just it doesn't work like a 'kite.' A kite is a network of ideas attached to the same string; while this paragraph did have a focus, the way you developed the ideas was kind of strange. You seemed to jump from one idea to the next, trying to fit it all in around 300 words and hope that the fancy wording covered it, or at least that's the impression I get.]

Rose examines the ways in which the judicial system positions the jurors to involve their personal prejudice on the issue [long sentence, be more concise e.g. "Rose examines the ways the judicial system enables each juror to xyz.."], signifying the role the justice system plays in the difficulty of jurors differentiating their views from what should theoretically be objective deliberation. This is demonstrated as 11th Juror nots "we have nothing to gain or lose from our verdict." Whilst this factor is essential towards establishing a theoretically objective based discussion, in practice this would clearly not be the case. 4th Juror mentions "We can't help letting the only motive we know of enter our thoughts," signifying how the representation of the defence and prosecution create a significant difficulty for the jurors to view the defence's case as strongly as the prosecution.
[Overall, your point of contention is not developed well. You seem to be throwing in the right things but you aren't doing more than skimming the surface. I was like, "yoo, this sounds pretty good!", but the storyline didn't develop so I lost interest. Another criteria is "Demonstrates a close and perceptive reading of the text, exploring complexities of its concepts", you're delving into the deep end but it's more like you're standing and looking at it instead of jumping right in and seeing what it holds. Sorry for my use of metaphors, I'm tired and that's just how I explain stuff. It almost feels formulaic when I read it, I mean yes you highlight the ways which people abuse the judicial system but you don't let your paragraphs have any 'feeling of progression.' It's like watching a movie set in a hospital and all of a sudden there's a helicopter scene which just interrupted the doctor talking about some serious things. It shouldn't be 'surprising' in the sense that it chops and changes focus, it should be surprising how fluid, concise, deep and well-structured it is. I can see you're throwing in the historical context and that is good, but I get the impression that you were 'just trying to get it done' given the flow of this paragraph.]

Ultimately, Rose asserts that whilst personal prejudice may be difficult to keep out of the deliberations, a wider variety of factors also contribute towards the difficulty of purely objective discussion. Commonly held misinformed beliefs [I'm not sure if this is correct or not, too many adjectives? Idk.]in the McCarthyist era prevent many jurors from objectively viewing the case, whilst the difficulty implementing the theories of the judicial system create a subconscious bias in the jurors, evidenced in their initial votes and certainty of guilt. Fundamentally Twelve Angry Men serves to demonstrate the difficulty of obtaining a purely objective verdict due to personal prejudice, the judicial system and the era of time itself. [Good closing sentence]

I'm not an expert on marking, but given the exam criteria I'd probably give this essay like a 6/10.
 • Demonstrates a close and perceptive reading of the text, exploring complexities of its concepts
and construction.
>From the first paragraph, you hit the nail on the head. The other two don't seem to follow suit.
• Demonstrates an understanding of the implications of the topic, using an appropriate strategy for
dealing with it, and exploring its complexity from the basis of the text.
The historical contexts and discussion of the ideologies of each jurors in relation to the time period was excellent. However their place in the paragraph seemed somewhat forced. You know how movies and games sometimes have a prologue before they dive right into the story? It seems like you slip in historical context just to hit the criteria, and I can assure you it might attriubte to be better mark but the way you did it might just drag it down.
• Develops a cogent, controlled and well-substantiated discussion using precise and expressive
language.
Some ways you express things are good but they could be worded better. Try to find concise ways to express things so it doesn't seem like you're just cramming a bunch of stuff into a sentence.

Sorry if I sound mean or anything the way I type is quite blunt. I think your problem isn't that you're making these mistakes, writing to time shifts the way we think and it gives us tunnel vision and makes it easy to forget some key things that we've heard over and over. I think as you write more and more you'll gain more confidence in writing and there won't be as many mistakes.

[lolipopper]

i have written a little bit. can someone please mark /10.

Mohsin Hamid actively involves the reader in his novel. How does he do this?

Suspense is a fundamental key to the success of many thriller novels along with an almost necessity of a setting to which the audience may relate to. Mohsin Hamid's, The Reluctant Fundamentalist, is a superbly engaging novel that appeals to the sense of curiosity of the audience through the use of empowering scenes and techniques. With a key character that may become the victim of an assassination or rather the assassin himself and the disappearance of his love that may one day return, the reader feels the drawn into the world of the novel with an urge to continue reading. And although the reader does tend to question the integrity of Changez's recital, this seems to further enhance the concept of suspense within the novel, rendering it highly reflective and influential for the audience.

Throughout the plot of the novel, a line of suspense seems to follow the impending murder of either Changez or the silent American.
With continual hints upon the physique of the American's "broad chest" and an alarmingly vibrant phone, the audience is given the impression that the American may in fact be on a "mission". This tends to accommodate the scenario of Changez promoting an anti-American agenda and the recent assassination of an American Official by his students, which leads to Changez being warned, America may be looking to "intimidate me or worse". However, the silent American seems to be in an equivalent amount of danger himself, as he is often suspicious of his surroundings, the waiter and the intentions of Changez. "This tea hasn't been poisoned" and "why do you jump as though you were under the shadow of a hawk" tends remind the audience of a relation between predator and prey, and that one must eventually die. Additionally, as Hamid doesn't provide a suffice ending to the story, the audience is left engaged in a guessing games as to who meets the fate of death.

Similarly, the death of the nostalgia struck Erica also tends to lay itself to the audience as a mystery beyond the conclusion of the novel. Fallen in the love of a "guy with long skinny fingers" leaves Erica in a miserable and fragile state of mind that is in fact catalysed by Changez's expression of love. This in turn tends to send her further into an unforgiving turmoil of "anti-depressents" and "numerous trips to the hospital". Eventually Erica is thought to have committed suicide, however the troubled personality of Changez is not ready to accept this and he waits for her return. This event creates a trail of suspense that lasts till the end of the novel, and suggests a familiar fate of her allegory, America, which after the attack of 9/11, throws itself into a deep alienation from the rest of the international community. By the end, the fate of both is unknown and is a source from which Hamid draws the attention of his readership.

Through the lack of the Silent American's speech, Hamid encounters the audience questioning the integrity of Changez's story. Although this format of a dramatic monologue is essential to developing the ideas of Changez and his thoughts, it often comes at a cost of not being able to reveal critical scenes of the plot. As Changez recites the words of the silent American, who is intended to portray the wider audience, "why shall I believe you", Hamid allows the readers to consider and revaluate their thoughts and belief in Changez's story. Thus although this seems to ward off the sense of trust of the audience in the narrator, it is useful in effectively engaging their thoughts.

Despite resulting in a seemingly deceptive story, Mohsin Hamid uses the character of Changez and the reality of suspense in The Reluctant Fundamentalist to creatively enthral and include the readership within its plot. Through incomplete endings about the fate of Changez, the silent American, Erica and even America itself, Hamid keeps the audience in a loop of suspense and continual guessing as to what may be the eventual outcome.     

[silverpixeli]

Hey guys, I'd love some feedback and clarification on where I'm retelling vs where I'm actually analysing, thanks a bunch

PS - where i have two words like this/that i am unsure of whether to use the second one rather than the first

On the Waterfront VCAA 2010
How important is family loyalty in the film?

Set against the backdrop of 1950’s Hoboken, New Jersey,  Elia Kazan’s On the Waterfront presents a claustrophobic underworld rife with betrayal. The notion of loyalty among the various families and also among members of the familial community of the docks is largely ignored in favour of self serving tendencies. As a result, the Waterfront is permeated by corruption. The few characters seen to value loyalty to others over self are also seen to take a stand against corruption, suggesting that the venomous culture of the docks is somehow linked to the prevalence of disloyalty. Kazan presents these loyal characters as triumphant towards the film’s denouement,  establishing their refusal to betray others as key to the waterfront’s liberation.

Kazan presents the waterfront as a corrupt world rules by disloyal mobsters and populated by individuals who undervalue their loyalty to each other. Through the  venal union leader Johnny Friendly, Kazan characterises/epitomises the hypocritical view on loyalty typical of each mobster. Friendly wears “one hundred and fifty dollar suits” at the expense of the longshoremen, but is quick to utilise the “best muscle on the waterfront” to silence anyone who would think to betray him by speaking to the cops. Kazan extends this theme of disloyalty to the rest of the mob as they exile Charley Malloy, once “Johnny Friendly’s right hand”, now faced with a harsh ultimatum while the rest of the mob look on in silence. Thier inaction demonstrates that they will turn on anyone, even “one of [their] own” at a moment’s notice. Additionally, community loyalty is undervalued by the disenfranchised longshoremen. By having the dockworkers abide religiously by their self-destructive/deleterious? paradigm “deaf and dumb”, Kazan highlights their misplaced loyalty in a union which they should arguably be uniting against. Thus, the characters of the waterfront struggle with the concept of loyalty, dramatically undervaluing it, supporting the ensnaring corruption.

Not all of Kazan’s characters undervalue loyalty, some refuse to act disloyally despite the various pressures urging them to do so. The angelic Edie Doyle refuses to be silenced by the waterfront, and will not back down until she “finds out who is guilty for Joey”, notwithstanding pressures from both Terry and Pop Doyle to “go back to the sisters” where she will not be put at risk. Terry himself is initially ambivalent towards the lifestyle of betrayal he is expected to accept as part of the mob, as exemplified by Marlon Brando’s hunched posture and awkward expression surrounding Joey Doyle’s murder. When given the choice between acting disloyally towards his fellow longshoremen, accepting “four hundred dollars a week … you don’t say nothing”, he instead resolves to stand up against the mob and put his life at risk by testifying against Johnny Friendly. Terry’s decision signifies his understanding of community loyalty as more important than self preservation. Additionally, Charley Malloy is put in a similar position, where he can have it “your way or his way, but you can’t have it both ways”. Clearly understanding the “ten to one” odds against his survival if he lets Terry go, Charley elects to remain loyal to his brother rather than saving himself by silencing the threat to Johnny’s power. Hence, Kazan articulates the importance of family and community loyalty to key characters in the film by having them refuse to act disloyally despite compelling reasons to yield to the harsh world of the waterfront.

The film’s conclusion establishes the loyal characters as triumphant over the corruption of the docks. Through Terry’s testimony, an act of loyalty to those on the docks, Kazan “breaks the Joey Doyle case” and begins the orchestration of Johnny Friendly’s fall from power. Friendly’s loss of power is accentuated by the courtroom scene itself, where we see him physically restrained for the first time in the film, foreshadowing his eventual impotence on the docks. By having Friendly’s empire of corruption demolished by acts of loyalty, namely Terry’s testimony and the aforementioned actions of Charley and Edie, Kazan establishes notions of loyalty as more powerful than disloyalty. Solidifying this notion, Kazan ends the film by having ll of the longshoremen fall in behind Terry, supporting his as the community proceeds to “go to work”. The victory is conducive to an improvement of the quality of life for those on the waterfront, as the longshoremen commit to “run [the union] on the up and up”, suggesting that they intend to install a system of loyalty and fairness rather than surreptitiousness and corruption. Hence, Kazan displays that it is only through a refusal to betray others that a culture of betrayal and corruption can be broken, emphasising the importance of loyalty to family and community in achieving lasting change for the better.

Kazan’s On the Waterfront deals extensively with the notion of loyalty to families and, by extension, loyalty to community. The corruption on the docks can arguably be traced to the prevalence of betrayal among the rulers of the underworld, and also to the misplaced loyalties of its inhabitants. By having a series of key characters make choices in favour of remaining loyal in spite of harsh personal sacrifice, Kazan emphasises the importance of loyalty to the characters, When these loyal actions facilitate the fall of Friendly’s surreptitious regime, the viewer begins to understand the importance of loyalty in relation to achieving any worthwhile cultural change.

888 words

[Limista]

Hi there  Would appreciate criticism on this essay. THANKS

Referring to Dulce et Decorum est pro Patria mori and any other two poems,
discuss Owen’s use of irony.
In his anthology, The War Poems, Wilfred Owen seeks to use war as a context, setting or medium to shape understanding of the human condition during the World War One period. The extent to which truth was dispelled or shirked is implied in his poetry, and it is this very implication that renders Owen’s outlook ironic, since he does not explicitly pinpoint the pain and suffering of reality in this era; instead, he leaves readers with the task of deriving the greater and holistic meaning of his poetry. Sensory imagery and figurative language then become vehicles, complementary devices or clues to provide readers with the idea that Owen’s subject is not war, but rather, “the pity of war”. By using an interchange between past and present, Owen attempts to compare and contrast the previously blissful lives of these men with the morbidity and wrath of war, where such nostalgia is essentially regression or “a trek from progress”: something he forbids of society at that time, particularly in the poem, “Strange Meeting”. Adopting a more psychological viewpoint, “S.I.W” also underscores the potency of the mind in yearning for a past period, from the perspective of a soldier. Whilst Owen’s intention is to arouse pity in readers by demonstrating the bitterness of war, as is observed through the realism evoked in “Dulce Et Decorum Est”, he does not realise that the obvious confusion evident in the verses of his poems renders him mentally incapable or lacking control, as opposed to the soldiers. His original intention – to leave readers dissatisfied and incomplete and insecure – then becomes inverted, as we are positioned to view the poet, himself, as being uncertain of what he is penning. The pity he attempts to evoke within us, as a result, lacks credibility, since the writer has identified himself as being ultimately dubious of what he is trying to achieve. The juxtaposition between the stanzas of “Insensibility” explores this notion.   

Owen attempts to engulf and embroil readers within the problems during the war time period in order to arouse pity for the soldiers, such that mistakes are learned from; however, it is the extent to which we are drowned within this emotive language that makes us incapable of moving henceforth to falsify these myths about war. In other words, readers are ironically suffocated by poetic devices, such as the personification “of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind”, which identifies gas shells as being tired. The fact that an inanimate object is weary, when readers are aware that such objects are incapable of feeling, demonstrates the exhausting nature and pointlessness of war: a combat that is portrayed as lacking purpose and meaning. The soldiers are ironically, then, juxtaposed as being unreal or stripped of their humanity, through being metaphorically depicted as “[marching] asleep”, indicating that the bodies of soldiers are no longer occupied by their souls; only by the organs necessary for functioning, synonymous to the workings of a robot. This dehumanising strategy is also touched upon in “Anthem for Doomed Youth”, where soldiers are likened to “cattle” and are not given a proper Christian burial. Consequently, Owen uses these vibes to suggest that everyone and everything is pitted against the soldiers. Because of this, they should always be the ones to be pitied, according to Owen. Astute readers may draw an element of bias here, considering that Owen may only feel this way because he was a soldier? Specifically, the civilians back home and world leaders are blamed for what the soldiers have to endure. Yet, higher powers like the devil and God are not held culpable. This is observed in “Dulce Et Decorum Est”, where even Satan is depicted as being “sick of sin”. Owen blames humans for the fate of other humans. Readers are encouraged to shame themselves and are made out to be remorseless, cold-hearted and cruel, particularly through the implication that “children” are being told an “old Lie” regarding the “glory” of war. As well as being an indicator of how myths about war are spread, readers are positioned to view themselves in a negative sense, because they are supposedly lying to “innocent” children. Owen is pointing the finger at others of his own species, which is quite ironic. By blaming other humans, he is essentially castigating himself, if looked at from the broadest level.

In the allegory, “Strange Meeting”, it seems ironic that the soldier who attempts to “[escape] battle” by entering a “profound dull tunnel”, finds himself in the more dangerous setting of “Hell”, which can be extended to suggest that conscience from a prior period can never be outrun. Even though Owen acknowledges that myths about war will still be reinforced in the future, as is observed through the verse, “truths that lie too deep to taint”, he focuses on using the bitter ruminations of the “enemy” to underscore how “discontent” war is, so that war is avoided in the future. In doing so, he challenges the premature maxim that war is the gateway to peace, or that it is “glorious” – romanticised notions harboured by people during this period. In spite of him doing so, a unique meaning can be derived from the last verse in this poem, “Let us sleep now…”, which innocuously purports that the “enemy” in this poem is attempting to murder the “innocent” soldier. In other words, war is taking place in this “sullen hall”, albeit on a smaller scale, in spite of Owen contending that war is a mistake. It is also the incompleteness of the identity of this “enemy” that renders him a farcical character. For instance, he is initially dehumanised by Owen, as he exudes numbness to his environment, being too immersed within his own internal and psychological conflicts, as is evident in him being “Too fast in thought or death to be bestirred”. However, he exhibits feeling, particularly in the form of grief, by emphasising the regret and despondency involved in “The hopelessness” of war or “the pity war distilled”. This man, as a result, is not completely soulless, as Owen would like readers to assume. Probing this idea from a broader perspective would deem it to be a means of augmenting instability and uncertainty within the reader, at a subconscious level. However, from a closer reading, we can observe that this underlying meaning on Owen’s part is ironic, since the “enemy” was not actually “killed”.

One the one hand, the poem “Insensibility”, proposes that the highest ideal of war and reality is to be unfeeling and completely numb to the surrounding environment; on the other hand, he attempts to elicit pity for the soldiers using a number of poetic nuances. As a result, he balances the ambivalence he creates through his poetry with the linkages or similarities between verses and stanzas, where the positives and negatives ultimately cancel to create a neutral or unfeeling persona, which this poem adulates at face-value. For instance, the verses “The tease and doubt of shelling” and “Chance’s strange arithmetic/ Comes simpler than the reckoning of their shilling” both allude to the importance of destiny and fate, which attempts to neutralise the angst readers may feel for the “brothers” who are collectively suffering; the verb “cobbled” in the verse, “Sore on the alleys cobbled with their brothers”, reinforcing the painful and stone-like setting of war. The irony, then, lies in the fact that Owen attempts to arouse pity within readers for the soldiers through implications in his poetry, despite seemingly contending that emotion is undesired. For example, the verse, “The front line withers/ But they are troops who fade, not flowers” likens soldiers to inanimate objects, such as flora, at the disposal of world leaders; thus, readers are inclined to feel piteous of the helplessness of the situation. Then again, the soldiers whom Owen attempts to contrive compassion for “fleers”, due to their “tearful fooling”, which suggests that they are crying – a sign of weakness. Stiff, unconcerned or insensitive readers are typically spiteful of criers, and instead of being sympathetic of soldiers as is desired by this verse, they are positioned to dislike these soldiers. Hence, “Insensibility” rings with irony.

Irony is not particularly explicit in Owen’s poetry, as the multiple meanings conveyed by ironic ideas was not Owen’s main aim in his poetry. Because of this, irony then has an unintended sarcastic effect that almost degrades the seriousness and predominant meaning of the poem. Conversely, the undercurrent of irony evident in a few of the war poems makes for lighter reading; something that is much desired by readers who do not wish to fully immerse themselves in the horrors of war, due to the cleverness, craftiness and wit required to derive ironic meaning from the greater concepts in Owen’s poetry.

[09Ti08]

Hi vce2013, I'm also doing "A Christmas Carol" I did my best to give some feedback, but I'm not an expert, so please feel free to disagree with me
The topic is: ‘A Christmas Carol is more than a story of one man’s redemption.’ Discuss

Charles Dickens constructed his Victorian novella, A Christmas Carol, as a critique against the very rationale of utilitarianism. He detested this Victorian worldview that valued a person based on their ability to contribute to society’s productivity Umm... Does this have anything to do with "rationale of utilitarianism"? As far as I understand, Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing "things" (happiness, benefits, etc.) , and A Christmas Carol was born from his observations of selfishness and avarice as being the dominant features of British society. In an acquisitive society, the form that selfishness predominantly takes is monetary greed, and this sole focus on financial gain can be seen to have far-reaching consequences. For instance, Malthusian thinking adopted by many at the time, viewed the poor as “idle” and as “surplus population”. Scrooge, and by extension the merchant class of which he is emblematic, view the impoverished as worthless, and it is this callous disdain, formed from society’s narcissistic focus, that Dickens seeks to attack. In depicting Scrooge’s personal metamorphosis as a microcosmic example for the change he desired in England, Dickens figures A Christmas Carol as a morality tale, highlighting his belief that Victorian society is in need of its own ethical conversion, through individual acts of redemption Very complex sentences, and impressive words... But to be honest, I have to re-read your introduction many times. I know you're trying to use those "big" words to impress the readers, but don't overuse them. Your sentences don't flow. With the speed at which the assessors mark our essays, I think they might not have time to re-read it... 

In order to highlight the allegorical nature of his tale, Dickens uses the heartlessness of Scrooge, to represent the averseness of the prosperous members of British society towards the less privileged members of that same society. Through his creation of the “boy and girl”, Ignorance and Want, Dickens frighteningly depicts the destitute Did you get this idea from Disney's cartoon? I think in the novella, we don't actually have this informationunderclass that has been created due to the forces of capitalism driving Britain’s industrial economy in the 1840s. In labelling them “Man’s”, Dickens attributes the existence of these “monsters” to the wealthy, like Scrooge, who have ignored their poverty-stricken life. From a metalinguistic I looked up this word on a dictionary, and I think you misused it, just be careful with those "linguistic" words I made the same mistake in one of my essays as well... Guess what, my teacher did linguistic at uni, so he knew that I didn't know what the big word means when I used it  standpoint, Dickens manipulates I have an impression that this word carries negative connotation...the adjectives “wretched, abject, frightful, hideous, miserable” and “yellow, meagre, ragged, scowling, wolfish” in describing Ignorance and Want, to juxtapose against his characterisation of Scrooge in Stave 1 as a “squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous old sinner”. By using long lists of adjectives to describe the two different groups, Dickens literalises the link between the dehumanising suffering experienced by the poor, and the obsession with wealth over charity amongst the merchant class that has caused this. Under the aegis of the Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge is taken to view the Cratchit’s Christmas dinner, and is aghast by the sight of Tiny Tim who “bore a little crutch and was supported by an iron frame”. Scrooge’s horror causes him to develop a genuine concern over “whether Tiny Tim will live”. Scrooge’s subsequent visit to the Cratchit’s house with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come allows him to see that “poor Tiny Tim” will die unless Scrooge himself lives an “altered life”. This troubling revelation challenges Scrooge to accept his responsibility as the “founder of the feast”; that is, to denounce his pursuit of “the master passion, Gain” and to try and ease Tiny Tim’s situation. Scrooge’s desire to be a “second father” to Tiny Tim allows him to understand the wrongs of his utilitarian philosophy, where he believed that those of no utility, such as Tiny Tim, should “die…and decrease the surplus population”. Through depicting the pitiful plight of the poor, and the apathetic behaviour of the merchant class towards them, Dickens espouses the importance for all privileged citizens to develop consideration and concern for the marginalised in society. Another thing that I notice, I think you shouldn't use too many quotes and/or quotation marks in one sentence, otherwise it would sound very unnatural, like you are borrowing words from someone to elaborate/express your ideas...

Furthermore, Dickens uses Scrooge’s insular existence to highlight that wealthier citizens were often administered by a hardheaded focus on “the pursuit of wealth”, which prevents them from truly experiencing the world around them. Thus, in Stave 3 write this number in word please, Dickens aims to enhance the celebratory nature of Christmas, a phenomenon that is in the process of being discovered by the once redoubtable miser, Scrooge. In this scene, the Ghost of Christmas Present takes Scrooge through the crowded Christmas marketplace of his area. Dickens’ use of present participles such as “shovelling … calling … exchanging … laughing” adds energy to the Christmas scene, suggesting that Christmas is a time of action, and thus is a message from Dickens that Christmas is not something to watch on passively, as Scrooge and the British merchant class have previously done through the doctrines of “out upon merry Christmas” and “Bah Humbug!”. Dickens furthers this festive idea by personifying chestnuts, that are “shaped like the waistcoats of jolly old gentlemen” and Spanish onions that are “winking from their shelves in wanton slyness”. The animation of these objects illustrates Dickens’ belief that Christmas is a time where everything is alive and to be enjoyed. Extolling the festive spirit of Christmas, Dickens uses the language of excess to describe the “apoplectic opulence” of the market place. The compound adjectives “pot-bellied” and “broad girthed” also carry connotations of abundance, suggesting that the Christmas season is a time when everyone can celebrate and live comfortably. By juxtaposing the cornucopian Christmas season against Scrooge’s usual surrounds, which are characterised by drab, insipid language such as “gloomy” and “dreary”, Dickens highlights the closed existence of the British merchant class. The bounteousness with which Dickens describes the outside world serves as a call to arms to those like Scrooge to transform their lives, so as to live enjoyably. Ok, somehow I think this paragraph sounds like a language analysis piece  I think you can discuss something like how Scrooge changes in the last stave, and how that makes him happier compared to the first stave.

Similarly, Dickens observes that Scrooge’s pursuit of a “golden” idol I don't really understand what you mean leaves him lacking qualities of warmth, generosity and compassion, and Dicken views this as symptomatic of the British moneyed classes. Thus, the Ghost of Christmas Past aims to draw Scrooge back to a time where he understood the humanistic values that should underpin a society. This sentence doesn't have a connection in idea with your topic sentence. Hence, the use of the word "thus" is not logical...In seeing the “power [that Fezziwig has] to render us happy”, Scrooge is transported back to a past before “the passion…had taken root”, as he “enjoyed everything” with his “heart and soul in the scene”. Here, Scrooge as “speaks unconsciously like his former…self”, Dickens highlights that the qualities of “forbearance and benevolence” exist within all men. However, Dickens demonstrates that as “nobler aspirations fall of one by one” in the pursuit of wealth, this charitable attitude is prone to being eclipsed. Thus, Dickens shows that it must take action for attitudes of empathy and understanding to regain control. With the “phantom” that is the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, Scrooge sees himself “unwept, uncared for” and alone at his grave, neglected and in dire fear of his own death. Confronting his own mortality, Scrooge’s own abject isolation catalyses his understanding that all human beings have a need for warmth and generous spirit. He even offers a “Merry Christmas” to others. Through his depiction of Scrooge’s rebirth as a caring philanthropist, Dickens uses A Christmas Carol to highlight the need for Victorian society to embrace values of magnanimity and beneficence.

Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol depicts a society that is controlled by an insatiable desire for profit. In charting the transformation of a character who is symbolic of the change he seeks in mankind, Dickens is able to widen his story from a simple redemption tale, to a novella that deals with a wider social agenda. In his novella, Dickens seeks to discourage such avarice, addressing those symbolised by Scrooge himself, as he calls for an end to indifference towards the suffering of others and for society to recognise the common humanity that we all share. good conclusion

Apart from some comments that I have annotated, I think this is a good essay as you have shown very complex ideas. Well done!

[brenden]

Okay, so this is the first relatively timed essay (I finished it in 68 minutes, every essay I've done thus far has been 90+). I also did a word count of this and it was only around 800 words... Would I need to write more in the exam? (ah!)WOO!  Well done Well, there's no 'rule' on word counts, but after reading your essay - you need more in the 2nd and 3rd

"It's very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this." How is this shown to be in this play

American society in the 1950's was established on a base of fear towards those endowing features of difference. Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men haha, good girlacts as a microcosm for society, demonstrating the ways in which personal prejudices can seek to hinder justice. 5th Juror and 3rd Juror struggle to differentiate their upbringing and relationships respectively from the deliberations at hand. Nice pointFurthermore, several jurors find it difficult to part with prejudices held in this 'this' is ambiguous say "find it difficult to part with the prejudices of the McCarthy era" era, rather than their own personal feelings. Finally, Rose examines the features of the judicial system itself which leads to the difficulty in keeping personal prejudice out of the deliberations, ultimately enforcing his view that in the judicial system, the final verdict can often be skewed due to a range of factors, rather than merely the individual personal prejudices on the case.Great introduction. (p.s include Henreezy's feedback, not mentioning things twice)

Rose condemns the ways in which personal prejudice can alter ones view on the deliberations, utilising 5th and 3rd Jurors to demonstrate the difficulty in "not [making] this a personal thing." Not bad not bad! Quoting in the topic sentence I'm a bit iffy with - people rarely go on to analyse the TS quotes, (and that's the point of quoting, other than to show your  textual knowedlge). It shows your knowledge nicely though, in this instance. 5th Juror feels a connection to the defendant, due to their similar upbringing. Hence, he subconsciously becomes defensive as other jurors consider the defendants upbringing, arguing "I nurse that trash in Harlem six nights a week," convinced the comments "[are] something personal" towards him. This, in turn, positions 5th Juror against the contentions of of the other jurors, due to their generalisations which 5th Juror has taken personally. 5th Juror appears unaware to the ways in which the defendantsyou need a possessive apostrophe here. I'll outline apostrophes at the bottom of the essay guilt, indicating the difficulty in keeping his personal prejudice out of the case. Furthermore, Rose highlights how personal prejudice can be difficult to part with through 3rd Juror. At the commencement of the play, 3rd Juror notes "Now I have no personal feelings on the case," which is later contradicted by his statement "I know [the defendant]... what they do to you." Rose utilises this contradiction to imply 3rd Juror may not be actively aware of his personal prejudice affecting his judgement. This is reinforced at the denouement of the play, indicated by the stage direction "there is a long pause," as 3rd Juror considers his notion of the boys guilt. The use of the adjective "long" symbolises the strenuous amount of time required for 3rd Juror to part with his personal prejudice before voting "not guilty," connotating connoting. connoting. NEVER CONNOTATINGthe difficulty of keeping personal misconceptions out of the deliberations.really great paragraph.

Utilising several jurors throughout the play with prejudices specific to the time period, Rose asserts that prejudice which is not necessarily personal may contribute to the difficulty in remaining objective. greatWhilst 4th Juror is characterised by Rose as a fact based character, reflected in his stage direction of "reading a newspaper" It might be best to use that stage direction as a quote that you go on to explain "The newspaper is used as a symbol of information and conscientiousness..." or something like that. It's not a super duper obvious one". (also, it's a symbol, so symbolised  at the commencement of the play, his misinformed statements such as "slums are breeding grounds for criminals" pay close attention to henreezy's feedback on this. It's not exactly a misinformed statement - it's the judgment connotations that are attached to that statement that makes him prejudicial. Statisically, slums probably are breeding grounds for criminals, so it's "informed", it's jus got an underlying prejudice/judgment there that wouldn't be there if there was true objectivityimplies the difficulties in keeping the commonly held beliefs of social class from his objectivity. Furthermore, 10th Juror finds it difficult to differentiate the proceedings from the prejudices involved with the era of McCarthyism. These commonly held beliefs lead him to deduce "They're against us, the hate us, they want to destroy us." Whist 10th Juror has personally dealt with the defendants type before, Rose implies it is the misconceptions of the era in itself which leads him to deduce "he's guilty," as he even notes "I've met some who were okay," reinforcing it's not purely his personal interactions with others that make  it difficult to keep prejudice out of the deliberationsThis is really rushed (i suppose you were rushing) but it detracts from the essay. There's a lot you can say about the tenth juror and you pretty much just tried putting it into a sentence and it takes your essay down a few notches. You also only give like one sentence for the 4th juror. Compare this paragraph to your first paragraph in terms of substance, quotes and analysis. THe point here is fine, but you need to ram it home. Even compare the length. Word count each of your three paragraphs.

Rose examines the ways in which the judicial system positions the jurors to involve their personal prejudice on the issue, signifying the role the justice system plays in the difficulty of jurors differentiating their views from what should theoretically be objective deliberation. This is demonstrated as 11th Juror nots "we have nothing to gain or lose from our verdict." Whilst this factor is essential towards establishing a theoretically objective based discussion, in practice this would clearly not be the case. 4th Juror mentions "We can't help letting the only motive we know of enter our thoughts," signifying how the representation of the defence and prosecution create a significant difficulty for the jurors to view the defence's case as strongly as the prosecution.This paragraph is legit 3 sentences. Same deal as my feedback for the last paragraph, you need ot work on extending this (you can do it, keep practicing your timing. After extending this paragraph and the last paragraph you'd probably be looking at close to 1000 words. You didn't even touch on the lawyers or the witnesses or even the symols such as scarred table/fan etc etc

Ultimately, Rose asserts that whilst personal prejudice may be difficult to keep out of the deliberations, a wider variety of factors also contribute towards the difficulty of purely objective discussion. Commonly held misinformed beliefs in the McCarthyist era prevent many jurors from objectively viewing the case, whilst the difficulty implementing the theories of the judicial system create a subconscious bias in the jurors, evidenced in their initial votes and certainty of guilt. Fundamentally Twelve Angry Men serves to demonstrate the difficulty of obtaining a purely objective verdict due to personal prejudice, the judicial system and the era of time itself.Great job. If you only took the 2nd and 3rd para ideas but turned them into the quality of the first para this would be like 9/10 or more. The flow of the first para could be slightly, slightly, slightly more fluid but it wouldn't really detract from your grades and it's something that you'll eliminate naturally through practice

http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/apostrophe

Basically, if something is showing ownership - put an apostrophe in there *most of the time*

So the defendant's guilt has one because the 'guilt' is pertaining to the defendant. The defendant's chair, the defendant's socio-economic background. If it is SOMEONE'S, then there's a possessive apostrophe there. """If it is SOMEONE'S""" -- here, I used a possessive apostrophe because "someone" owns "it" (in that sentence). >it< is owned by >someone< so, someone's.

What about words like "yours", "ours"? - NO. These words are possessive by nature. "ours" has the possession built into the meaning. You don't need the apostrophe to show the possession because it is already there. Whereas in "defendants chair" -- the meaning of the first word is "more than one defendant" and the meaning of the second is "sitting thinggy". The possession isn't built in, so to show that it is a possessive instead of a plural, you need the apostrophe.

And there's the one you would know - use an apostrophe where words are contracted. It's, there's, where'd, how'd, etc etc.

**** It's and its**** these are two different words. The first one is a contraction of "it is", but "its" is actually just a word the same as "ours". Totally different meanings. A lot of people go "Look at it's colour" thinking that the apostrophe denotes possession, but that is a mistaken use of the apostrophe. The word "its" already has the possession built in.

Think of words that already have possession built in like a constant in math: it will always be the same. It will always show possession. Whereas words that don't always show possession are variables. Variable words can either show possession or plurality. Eg. Defendant is a variable word. Because defendants = plural, defendant's = possessive.

[DoctorWho]

‘Although Dickens’ story is entertaining, even enthralling, it is mainly intended to educate.’ Discuss.

‘A Christmas Carol’ by Charles Dickens, serves an important educational purpose to its readers. Dickens presents many ideas intended to educate society on values and morals. Primarily, he signifies that one is capable of redeeming themselves of past errors in judgement which may have led to them making mistakes. In addition to this, the importance of sharing relationships with others is also highlighted throughout the novella. Dickens also emphasises that generosity and charity can have a significant impact on another’s life and could change an individual’s life. Furthermore, Dickens indicates the decline in values and morals in society and seeks to educate readers of its current appalling state. Whilst the novella is entertaining, Dickens mainly intends to educate through his captivating tale. 

Dickens indicates that one is capable of redemption regardless of mistakes they may have made in their past. The character of Ebenezer Scrooge is an embodiment of this idea as he demonstrates the ability to redeem oneself from past errors.  His change in character is clearly apparent towards the end of the novella from an ‘odious’ and ‘stingy’ man, to a man whose ‘own heart laughed’. Scrooge exemplifies that one can change the path that they are on and that it is never too late to redeem oneself. Moreover, Dickens indicates that one will be more fulfilled and happy if they choose to free themselves of a life of isolation and regret. Dickens uses the transformation of Scrooge to illustrate that anyone is capable of redemption and it is never too late to see the error of one’s ways.

In addition to this, Dickens illustrates the importance of human relationships to the wellbeing of an individual. This idea is demonstrated throughout the novella as Dickens contrasts his many characters to show how an individual may be impacted by the lack of relationships in their lives. The characters of Ebenezer Scrooge and his nephew, Fred, exemplify the need for true bonds in one’s life. Dickens uses the character of Fred to make evident that an individual can still experience happiness if they have loving relationships to enrich their lives. Contrasting Fred and Scrooge, he demonstrates that without loved ones and family to offer company, one can find themselves increasingly isolated and alone. Scrooge, who is described as ‘solitary as an oyster’ exemplifies the need for human connect throughout the novella. His dull and monotonous life serves as a lesson to the reader as to the importance of having relationships in one’s life. Fred illustrates the intense happiness one can experience as a result of putting loved ones ahead of superficial matters such as wealth and materialistic desires.

Furthermore, Dickens highlights the significance of being generous and charitable to others.  The importance of generosity is emphasised many times throughout the novella as one’s kindness can have a major impact on another individual’s life. Dickens demonstrates this idea through the character of Tiny Tim. Tiny Tim is foretold to have an early death by the Ghost of Christmas Present, ‘the child will die’, if the future remains unaltered. This is significant as it points out the power any individual has to change another’s fate. Dickens further highlights this idea towards the end of the novella, through the actions of Scrooge and his impact on Tiny Tim, ‘who did not die’. Dickens insinuates that if we change the path we are on and seek to help others, we may be able to better someone’s life or in fact, save them. Dickens stresses the importance of generosity and charity numerous times throughout the novella to educate his readers on the valuable outcome such acts may have.

Lastly, Dickens demonstrates that society needs to revaluate its values and morals. The character of Ebenezer Scrooge was, in essence, an attempt by Dickens to portray all the worst characteristics of society. Throughout the novella, it is clear that Scrooge is not a character that the audience is intended to like. This is because Scrooge is used as a representation of society and a clever ploy by Dickens to get his readers to revaluate the values and morals of society. Scrooge’s attitude towards to poor is simply appalling, as shows no empathy towards them and refers to them as the ‘surplus population’. This demonstrates the attitude the upper class had towards the poor. They saw them as worthless and hardly useful to society in anyway. Dickens uses Scrooge’s behaviour as a clear depiction of society and seeks to make his readers aware of the decline in values and morals within society. He further emphasises this idea through the two children, Want and Ignorance. Dickens indicates these as the dominant characteristics of Victorian society and seeks to warn readers of the ‘doom’ that accompanies such qualities in life.

In essence, ‘A Christmas Carol’ by Charles Dickens, is not only a tale of enlightenment for the protagonist, but for the reader too. Dickens highlights many ideas intended not simply to entertain his audience but to educate them.  The idea of redemption is highlighted throughout the novel to inform reader that there is always a chance to redeem one’s self.  Likewise, the importance of relationships is also emphasised by Dickens to demonstrate how they enrich our lives. Moreover, Dickens stresses the need for generosity and charity as it can play a key part in changing another’s life. Furthermore, the need for society to reform, in relation to morals and values, is also a key point that Dickens aims to get across to his readers. Essentially, ‘A Christmas Carol’ is an allegorical work and contains many important lessons that may enlighten the reader. 

- Sorry, my vocabulary is horrid. Definitely seen better than mine on this forum, but any feedback would be appreciated